Skip to content
  • About
  • Contact
  • Contribute
  • Book
  • Careers
  • Podcast
  • Recommended
  • Speaking
  • All
  • Physician
  • Practice
  • Policy
  • Finance
  • Conditions
  • .edu
  • Patient
  • Meds
  • Tech
  • Social
  • Video
    • All
    • Physician
    • Practice
    • Policy
    • Finance
    • Conditions
    • .edu
    • Patient
    • Meds
    • Tech
    • Social
    • Video
    • About
    • Contact
    • Contribute
    • Book
    • Careers
    • Podcast
    • Recommended
    • Speaking

Narrow networks have no connection to quality or value

Deborah L. Benzil, MD and Clemens M. Schirmer, MD
Policy
April 28, 2017
Share
Tweet
Share

We are neurosurgeons, albeit not rocket scientists, but with our insider knowledge, it should be easy for us to understand “narrow networks.” Unfortunately, this is not the case so we can imagine how difficult it is for our patients. Consider the following scenario:

A 52-year-old woman is receiving long-term care for multiple myeloma primarily involving the spine. Well-coordinated neurosurgical and oncological care is provided through a large multispecialty group; however, if she has her weekly blood tests performed in the group, she will pay $200! Thus, her blood tests are done across the street and sent to her doctors. Further, when she regularly needs advanced imaging (MRI or CT), her cost if done within the group is over $500.  Instead, she travels 20 miles and must obtain a copy to bring to her physician visits.

This scenario is the result of a narrow network. What is a narrow network, why did they evolve and what is the impact on our patients?

Traditionally, insurance coverage offered both depth and latitude of choice for patients. In an effort to contain costs — cynics might argue control physicians and increase profits) — health insurance companies developed plans that allowed access only to a small group of providers or health care facilities. These are then defined as “in-network” providers. This network is not chosen on the basis of quality or value; rather it is an array of providers with whom a health insurance company has negotiated a steep discount. Within such plans, patients pay less when using an in-network provider, because those networks provide services at lower cost to the insurance companies. Such a network’s adequacy is the ability to deliver the benefits promised, with reasonable access to a sufficient number of primary care and specialty physicians, as well as all other health care services included under the terms of the contract.

Unfortunately for patients, adequacy has become an increasing problem as plans have ever narrowed in-network providers. Narrow-network plans have grown in popularity since the inception of the insurance exchanges in the Affordable Care Act (ACA) because their cheaper premiums appeal to price-sensitive consumers. Roughly 70 percent of plans sold on the exchanges in 2014 featured a limited network, with premiums up to 17 percent cheaper than plans with broader networks.

Both providers and the patients have expressed dissatisfaction about these networks. Critics claim that insurers have failed to build or maintain adequate networks, provide up-to-date information about their provider networks and imposed additional travel burdens on insurance subscribers — particularly in rural areas where there is a sparsity of providers that are considered in-network for a given plan.

By limiting access to specialists, some plans perhaps find that they can bend the “cost” curve by manipulating the “care” curve. When looking specifically at neurosurgical care and assessing all available plans in 2015, there seems to be no prevailing approach regarding a network size.

While the current administration has promised repeal of the ACA, narrow-network plans are likely to continue proliferating because of the price advantages, even though the provider panels resemble the most limited found in Medicaid networks.

When providers are excluded from plans, many of our sickest patients suffer. And while the travel burdens may be most acute for those patients in rural areas, patient in urban and suburban locations also face difficulties in gaining access to the specialist of their choice due to network restrictions. While some may argue that Medicaid level access is preferable to no access, for many patients, Medicaid or other insurance coverage that reimburses providers at near Medicaid rates, may, in fact, prevent these patients from access to all but emergency care. The neurosurgical community is, therefore, concerned that this trend means patients are not getting the level of care that they deserve.

Insurance companies seem to have difficulty assessing the risk associated with caring for their subscriber population, as evidenced by double-digit premium rises over the last couple of years and insurance company withdrawals from the ACA-exchange marketplace. Continuing the trend towards narrow networks may be a way that insurance companies are holding down costs, but this cost-containment is resulting in a lack of access to care for many of the sickest patients. Compounding this issue are the mandated, yearly out of pocket maximums making access to expensive care difficult or impractical for most patients.

There may be no easy solution to controlling cost while maintaining coverage and choice. Ever narrow networks are an increasing ploy by insurance companies that are difficult for our patients to understand and too often have no connection to quality or value — the factors that should drive decisions for our patients.

Deborah L. Benzil and Clemens M. Schirmer are neurosurgeons. This article originally appeared on Neurosurgery Blog which is a publication of The American Association of Neurological Surgeons (AANS) and the Congress of Neurological Surgeons (CNS).

Image credit: Shutterstock.com

ADVERTISEMENT

Prev

I doubt this patient's other doctors listen

April 28, 2017 Kevin 1
…
Next

Doctors have First Amendment rights too

April 28, 2017 Kevin 34
…

Tagged as: Surgery

Post navigation

< Previous Post
I doubt this patient's other doctors listen
Next Post >
Doctors have First Amendment rights too

ADVERTISEMENT

Related Posts

  • Quality measures have gotten ahead of the science of quality measurement

    Peter Ubel, MD
  • Should doctors take more responsibility for quality metrics?

    Sarah Gebauer, MD
  • Redefining quality through a patient-centered approach

    Anne Zink, MD
  • When quality measures interfere with good care

    Michael McCutchen, MD, MBA
  • Race to the bottom: The myth of low-quality care in America

    Eric W. Toth, DO
  • Why quality reports for hospitals and doctors are interesting but flawed

    Mark Kelley, MD

More in Policy

  • U.S. health care leadership must prepare for policy-driven change

    Lee Scheinbart, MD
  • How locum tenens work helps physicians and APPs reclaim control

    Brian Sutter
  • Why Medicaid cuts should alarm every doctor

    Ilan Shapiro, MD
  • Why physician voices matter in the fight against anti-LGBTQ+ laws

    BJ Ferguson
  • The silent toll of ICE raids on U.S. patient care

    Carlin Lockwood
  • What Adam Smith would say about America’s for-profit health care

    M. Bennet Broner, PhD
  • Most Popular

  • Past Week

    • Why are medical students turning away from primary care? [PODCAST]

      The Podcast by KevinMD | Podcast
    • Here’s what providers really need in a modern EHR

      Laura Kohlhagen, MD, MBA | Tech
    • Why “do no harm” might be harming modern medicine

      Sabooh S. Mubbashar, MD | Physician
    • How community paramedicine impacts Indigenous elders

      Noah Weinberg | Conditions
    • Addressing U.S. vaccine inequities in vulnerable communities [PODCAST]

      The Podcast by KevinMD | Podcast
    • When credibility is your only asset: the cautionary tale of DrKoop.com [PODCAST]

      The Podcast by KevinMD | Podcast
  • Past 6 Months

    • Why tracking cognitive load could save doctors and patients

      Hiba Fatima Hamid | Education
    • Why are medical students turning away from primary care? [PODCAST]

      The Podcast by KevinMD | Podcast
    • Why “do no harm” might be harming modern medicine

      Sabooh S. Mubbashar, MD | Physician
    • Here’s what providers really need in a modern EHR

      Laura Kohlhagen, MD, MBA | Tech
    • What the world must learn from the life and death of Hind Rajab

      Saba Qaiser, RN | Conditions
    • How medical culture hides burnout in plain sight

      Marco Benítez | Conditions
  • Recent Posts

    • Addressing U.S. vaccine inequities in vulnerable communities [PODCAST]

      The Podcast by KevinMD | Podcast
    • Why Canada is losing its skilled immigrant doctors

      Olumuyiwa Bamgbade, MD | Physician
    • Why doctors are reclaiming control from burnout culture

      Maureen Gibbons, MD | Physician
    • Would The Pitts’ Dr. Robby Robinavitch welcome a new colleague? Yes. Especially if their initials were AI.

      Gabe Jones, MBA | Tech
    • Why medicine must stop worshipping burnout and start valuing humanity

      Sarah White, APRN | Conditions
    • Why screening for diseases you might have can backfire

      Andy Lazris, MD and Alan Roth, DO | Physician

Subscribe to KevinMD and never miss a story!

Get free updates delivered free to your inbox.


Find jobs at
Careers by KevinMD.com

Search thousands of physician, PA, NP, and CRNA jobs now.

Learn more

View 5 Comments >

Founded in 2004 by Kevin Pho, MD, KevinMD.com is the web’s leading platform where physicians, advanced practitioners, nurses, medical students, and patients share their insight and tell their stories.

Social

  • Like on Facebook
  • Follow on Twitter
  • Connect on Linkedin
  • Subscribe on Youtube
  • Instagram

ADVERTISEMENT

  • Most Popular

  • Past Week

    • Why are medical students turning away from primary care? [PODCAST]

      The Podcast by KevinMD | Podcast
    • Here’s what providers really need in a modern EHR

      Laura Kohlhagen, MD, MBA | Tech
    • Why “do no harm” might be harming modern medicine

      Sabooh S. Mubbashar, MD | Physician
    • How community paramedicine impacts Indigenous elders

      Noah Weinberg | Conditions
    • Addressing U.S. vaccine inequities in vulnerable communities [PODCAST]

      The Podcast by KevinMD | Podcast
    • When credibility is your only asset: the cautionary tale of DrKoop.com [PODCAST]

      The Podcast by KevinMD | Podcast
  • Past 6 Months

    • Why tracking cognitive load could save doctors and patients

      Hiba Fatima Hamid | Education
    • Why are medical students turning away from primary care? [PODCAST]

      The Podcast by KevinMD | Podcast
    • Why “do no harm” might be harming modern medicine

      Sabooh S. Mubbashar, MD | Physician
    • Here’s what providers really need in a modern EHR

      Laura Kohlhagen, MD, MBA | Tech
    • What the world must learn from the life and death of Hind Rajab

      Saba Qaiser, RN | Conditions
    • How medical culture hides burnout in plain sight

      Marco Benítez | Conditions
  • Recent Posts

    • Addressing U.S. vaccine inequities in vulnerable communities [PODCAST]

      The Podcast by KevinMD | Podcast
    • Why Canada is losing its skilled immigrant doctors

      Olumuyiwa Bamgbade, MD | Physician
    • Why doctors are reclaiming control from burnout culture

      Maureen Gibbons, MD | Physician
    • Would The Pitts’ Dr. Robby Robinavitch welcome a new colleague? Yes. Especially if their initials were AI.

      Gabe Jones, MBA | Tech
    • Why medicine must stop worshipping burnout and start valuing humanity

      Sarah White, APRN | Conditions
    • Why screening for diseases you might have can backfire

      Andy Lazris, MD and Alan Roth, DO | Physician

MedPage Today Professional

An Everyday Health Property Medpage Today
  • Terms of Use | Disclaimer
  • Privacy Policy
  • DMCA Policy
All Content © KevinMD, LLC
Site by Outthink Group

Narrow networks have no connection to quality or value
5 comments

Comments are moderated before they are published. Please read the comment policy.

Loading Comments...