When is a network adequate? consumer perspectives on network adequacy definitions.

Abstract

Objectives: Most Americans have insurance that uses managed care arrangements. Regulators have long sought to ensure access to care through network adequacy regulations. However, consumers have largely been excluded from conversations about network adequacy. To our knowledge, our study is the first to assess consumer preferences for various definitions of network adequacy including those aimed at supporting health equity and reducing disparities.

Study design: We fielded a large and demographically diverse survey of US adults (N = 4008) from June 30 to July 2, 2023. The survey queried respondents about their perceptions of what adequate provider networks look like in the abstract.

Methods: Analyses were conducted using ordinary least squares regression with survey weights as well as t tests.

Results: Consumers were overwhelmingly supportive of standard definitions of adequacy focused on the number of providers and travel distance. Majorities also favored more expansive, health equity-focused definitions such as public transportation access, cultural competency, and lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT+)-inclusive care. Being a woman; having higher levels of education, worse health, and recent experiences with the medical system; and ease of completing administrative tasks were relatively consistent positive predictors of supporting more expansive definitions. More controversial definitions saw effects of partisanship and LGBT+ identification. Rurality, insurance status, education, and recent experiences with the medical system affected perceptions of reasonable appointment wait times and travel distances.

Conclusions: Our findings indicate that consumers have broad conceptions of network adequacy. Future work should assess consumer trade-offs in resource-constrained settings as well as perceptions of providers and carriers.