FRINK Linked Data Fragments server

Matches in SemOpenAlex for { <https://semopenalex.org/work/W4294124185> ?p ?o ?g. }

• W4294124185 endingPage "961" @default.
• W4294124185 startingPage "961" @default.
• W4294124185 abstract "Back to table of contents Next article Taking IssueFull AccessParity and Provider NetworksAlison Evans Cuellar, Ph.D.Alison Evans CuellarSearch for more papers by this author, Ph.D.Published Online:1 Sep 2022https://doi.org/10.1176/appi.ps.22073009AboutSectionsPDF/EPUB ToolsAdd to favoritesDownload CitationsTrack Citations ShareShare onFacebookTwitterLinked InEmail The 2008 Mental Health Parity and Addiction Equity Act marked a significant policy development that focused on specific insurance features—cost-sharing, treatment days, and elements such as utilization review—in order to reduce financial burdens and improve access to care through equalizing coverage with medical or surgical benefits. More recently, policy has focused on narrow networks (oig.hhs.gov/oei/reports/oei-02-17-00490.pdf), which, despite coverage parity, could undermine access to behavioral health care (U.S. Office of Inspector General OEI-02-17-00490, Sept. 2019). When providers do not participate in health plan networks, patients’ care is not covered or is covered at a reduced rate. Moreover, if patients must wait for in-network providers to become available, care may be delayed.In this issue, Friedman and colleagues (1) examine how much families pay for out-of-network behavioral health. Their focus on balance billing, not just copayments and deductibles, is particularly novel. The study finds that the balance-billing costs for families that went out of network were relatively high—the equivalent of $1,067 per family in 2022, with adjustment for medical inflation and accounting for 33% of total out-of-pocket costs. Thus, the article highlights the importance of examining networks and out-of-pocket spending simultaneously and underscores the need to understand networks and parity more clearly.Given the fragmentation of the U.S. health care system, perhaps having no uniform standard for network adequacy across types of coverage is not surprising. Medicare Advantage plans must abide by specific standards for 27 provider and 11 facility types, among them individual psychiatrists and inpatient psychiatric facilities. The time and distance standards for psychiatry are not as stringent as for primary care. In contrast, states determine the network adequacy standards for Medicaid managed plans within broad federal legal guidelines. In practice, states use metrics (www.commonwealthfund.org/medicaid-managed-care-database) ranging from travel time and distance, to minimum provider-to-enrollee ratios, to maximum appointment wait times. States set their own minimum standards, which can vary widely.In May, the federal government released final regulations (45 CFR, RIN 0938-AU65) for network adequacy of private plans offered through the 30 federally run health exchange marketplaces. These rules, far more extensive than Medicare Advantage rules, include individual providers in 34 specialties, including psychiatry and, separately, outpatient clinical behavioral health. The accompanying standards (www.cms.gov/CCIIO/Resources/Regulations-and-Guidance) for the latter are the same as for primary care, but psychiatry standards are looser, with roughly double the time and distance to meet adequacy. Separate standards also exist for 11 types of facility services, including inpatient and residential behavioral health facilities, which are combined into one category. Appointment wait time standards will begin in 2024, with details pending.Notably, the final regulations did not require that the minimum standards apply to every tier in a health plan. For example, when Preferred Provider Organizations offer participating providers in one tier and other providers in another, plans can meet the adequacy requirements with out-of-network providers, even though they cost more to patients.This brings us back to the Friedman et al. analysis. To assess network parity, we will need estimates such as this study provides to examine out-of-network spending across specialties. We need more study of access to psychiatrists, who can treat individuals with the most severe conditions, including psychotic disorders, as well as to other types of behavioral health clinicians. We also need more analyses of parity in provider choice and wait times. Fortunately, more data should become available to help monitor these factors.Ultimately, we need to pursue several policy avenues to achieve network adequacy. With greater provider shortages, requiring broader networks means expanding scope of practice, integrating delivery models with primary care, and adding supervised trainees to networks. Higher reimbursement rates are also likely, which would translate into higher insurance premiums and potentially greater premium subsidies. In addition, we need to understand how health plans can entice cash-only mental health providers into their networks more easily. What supports can plans offer to make this a sensible business decision for behavioral health providers? In the face of skyrocketing behavioral health demand, the network parity questions have become even more pressing.Department of Psychiatry, George Mason University, Fairfax, Virginia.Send correspondence to Dr. Cuellar ([email protected]).Reference1. Friedman SA, Xu H, Azocar F, et al.: Quantifying balance billing for out-of-network behavioral health care in employer-sponsored insurance. Psychiatr Serv 2022; 73:1019–1026Abstract, Google Scholar FiguresReferencesCited byDetailsCited ByNone Volume 73Issue 9 September 01, 2022Pages 961-961 Metrics PDF download History Published online 1 September 2022 Published in print 1 September 2022" @default.
• W4294124185 created "2022-09-02" @default.
• W4294124185 creator A5040077796 @default.
• W4294124185 date "2022-09-01" @default.
• W4294124185 modified "2023-09-29" @default.
• W4294124185 title "Parity and Provider Networks" @default.
• W4294124185 cites W4221128177 @default.
• W4294124185 doi "https://doi.org/10.1176/appi.ps.22073009" @default.
• W4294124185 hasPubMedId "https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/36047040" @default.
• W4294124185 hasPublicationYear "2022" @default.
• W4294124185 type Work @default.
• W4294124185 citedByCount "0" @default.
• W4294124185 crossrefType "journal-article" @default.
• W4294124185 hasAuthorship W4294124185A5040077796 @default.
• W4294124185 hasConcept C118552586 @default.
• W4294124185 hasConcept C134362201 @default.
• W4294124185 hasConcept C144133560 @default.
• W4294124185 hasConcept C15744967 @default.
• W4294124185 hasConcept C159110408 @default.
• W4294124185 hasConcept C160735492 @default.
• W4294124185 hasConcept C162118730 @default.
• W4294124185 hasConcept C17744445 @default.
• W4294124185 hasConcept C199539241 @default.
• W4294124185 hasConcept C199728807 @default.
• W4294124185 hasConcept C2776643233 @default.
• W4294124185 hasConcept C2776680279 @default.
• W4294124185 hasConcept C2983635472 @default.
• W4294124185 hasConcept C2992755240 @default.
• W4294124185 hasConcept C71924100 @default.
• W4294124185 hasConceptScore W4294124185C118552586 @default.
• W4294124185 hasConceptScore W4294124185C134362201 @default.
• W4294124185 hasConceptScore W4294124185C144133560 @default.
• W4294124185 hasConceptScore W4294124185C15744967 @default.
• W4294124185 hasConceptScore W4294124185C159110408 @default.
• W4294124185 hasConceptScore W4294124185C160735492 @default.
• W4294124185 hasConceptScore W4294124185C162118730 @default.
• W4294124185 hasConceptScore W4294124185C17744445 @default.
• W4294124185 hasConceptScore W4294124185C199539241 @default.
• W4294124185 hasConceptScore W4294124185C199728807 @default.
• W4294124185 hasConceptScore W4294124185C2776643233 @default.
• W4294124185 hasConceptScore W4294124185C2776680279 @default.
• W4294124185 hasConceptScore W4294124185C2983635472 @default.
• W4294124185 hasConceptScore W4294124185C2992755240 @default.
• W4294124185 hasConceptScore W4294124185C71924100 @default.
• W4294124185 hasIssue "9" @default.
• W4294124185 hasLocation W42941241851 @default.
• W4294124185 hasLocation W42941241852 @default.
• W4294124185 hasOpenAccess W4294124185 @default.
• W4294124185 hasPrimaryLocation W42941241851 @default.
• W4294124185 hasRelatedWork W1514669944 @default.
• W4294124185 hasRelatedWork W1917075871 @default.
• W4294124185 hasRelatedWork W2086256759 @default.
• W4294124185 hasRelatedWork W2227327119 @default.
• W4294124185 hasRelatedWork W2334487285 @default.
• W4294124185 hasRelatedWork W2340266693 @default.
• W4294124185 hasRelatedWork W2408495661 @default.
• W4294124185 hasRelatedWork W2536087702 @default.
• W4294124185 hasRelatedWork W2587263659 @default.
• W4294124185 hasRelatedWork W2910202236 @default.
• W4294124185 hasVolume "73" @default.
• W4294124185 isParatext "false" @default.
• W4294124185 isRetracted "false" @default.
• W4294124185 workType "article" @default.