Medicaid managed care organizations' experiences with network adequacy.

Health affairs scholar Pub Date : 2025-03-13 eCollection Date: 2025-04-01 DOI:10.1093/haschl/qxaf049
Jane M Zhu, Ruth Rowland, Daniel Polsky, Inga Suneson, Simon F Haeder, Deborah J Cohen, K John McConnell
{"title":"Medicaid managed care organizations' experiences with network adequacy.","authors":"Jane M Zhu, Ruth Rowland, Daniel Polsky, Inga Suneson, Simon F Haeder, Deborah J Cohen, K John McConnell","doi":"10.1093/haschl/qxaf049","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Access to behavioral health care continues to be a challenge in Medicaid, where most enrollees are restricted to networks of providers and facilities contracted with managed care organizations (MCOs). While state and federal regulations have sought to ensure access to care, little is known about how health plans perceive and respond to these network adequacy standards. We interviewed 27 administrators and executives across 19 local, regional, and national Medicaid MCOs to assess their behavioral health networks and perceived barriers and facilitators in these efforts. We purposively sampled MCOs for maximum heterogeneity, with early findings used to refine subsequent recruitment targets until thematic saturation. We used an iterative inductive coding approach with code discrepancies analyzed and reconciled until consensus was reached. Five major themes arose: existing regulations often failed to capture true access gaps; MCOs used supplementary approaches to monitor network adequacy; limited corrective actions were available; access measures were more meaningful when grounded in enrollee experiences; and provider directory accuracy was challenged by logistical barriers. In this first study to examine MCOs' experiences with network adequacy monitoring, our findings suggest key deficiencies with current regulations and opportunities to support MCOs more broadly as policymakers seek to strengthen network adequacy regulations.</p>","PeriodicalId":94025,"journal":{"name":"Health affairs scholar","volume":"3 4","pages":"qxaf049"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2025-03-13","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11970020/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Health affairs scholar","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1093/haschl/qxaf049","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2025/4/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Access to behavioral health care continues to be a challenge in Medicaid, where most enrollees are restricted to networks of providers and facilities contracted with managed care organizations (MCOs). While state and federal regulations have sought to ensure access to care, little is known about how health plans perceive and respond to these network adequacy standards. We interviewed 27 administrators and executives across 19 local, regional, and national Medicaid MCOs to assess their behavioral health networks and perceived barriers and facilitators in these efforts. We purposively sampled MCOs for maximum heterogeneity, with early findings used to refine subsequent recruitment targets until thematic saturation. We used an iterative inductive coding approach with code discrepancies analyzed and reconciled until consensus was reached. Five major themes arose: existing regulations often failed to capture true access gaps; MCOs used supplementary approaches to monitor network adequacy; limited corrective actions were available; access measures were more meaningful when grounded in enrollee experiences; and provider directory accuracy was challenged by logistical barriers. In this first study to examine MCOs' experiences with network adequacy monitoring, our findings suggest key deficiencies with current regulations and opportunities to support MCOs more broadly as policymakers seek to strengthen network adequacy regulations.

医疗补助管理医疗机构的网络充分性经验。
在医疗补助计划中,获得行为医疗保健仍然是一个挑战,因为大多数参保人都被限制在与管理医疗组织(MCOs)签约的供应商和设施网络中。虽然州和联邦法规试图确保获得医疗服务,但人们对健康计划如何感知和应对这些网络充分性标准知之甚少。我们采访了19个地方、地区和国家医疗补助组织的27名行政人员和行政人员,以评估他们的行为健康网络以及在这些努力中感知到的障碍和促进因素。我们有目的地对mco进行抽样,以获得最大的异质性,并将早期发现用于改进后续招聘目标,直到主题饱和。我们使用了一种迭代的归纳编码方法,对代码差异进行分析和协调,直到达成一致。由此产生了五大主题:现有法规往往未能捕捉到真正的获取差距;移动运营商使用补充方法监测网络是否充足;可采取的纠正措施有限;以登记者的经历为基础的准入措施更有意义;供应商目录的准确性受到物流障碍的挑战。在这第一项研究中,我们考察了mco在网络充足性监测方面的经验,我们的发现表明了当前法规的主要缺陷,以及随着政策制定者寻求加强网络充足性监管,更广泛地支持mco的机会。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信