Suppr超能文献

美国保险市场中医院和医生网络的广度和独特性。

Breadth and Exclusivity of Hospital and Physician Networks in US Insurance Markets.

机构信息

Department of Medicine, Vanderbilt University School of Medicine and Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, Tennessee.

Department of Health Policy, Vanderbilt University School of Medicine and Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, Tennessee.

出版信息

JAMA Netw Open. 2020 Dec 1;3(12):e2029419. doi: 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2020.29419.

Abstract

IMPORTANCE

Little is known about the breadth of health care networks or the degree to which different insurers' networks overlap.

OBJECTIVE

To quantify network breadth and exclusivity (ie, overlap) among primary care physician (PCP), cardiology, and general acute care hospital networks for employer-based (large group and small group), individually purchased (marketplace), Medicare Advantage (MA), and Medicaid managed care (MMC) plans.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: This cross-sectional study included 1192 networks from Vericred. The analytic unit was the network-zip code-clinician type-market, which captured attributes of networks from the perspective of a hypothetical patient seeking access to in-network clinicians or hospitals within a 60-minute drive.

EXPOSURES

Enrollment in a private insurance plan.

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES

Percentage of in-network physicians and/or hospitals within a 60-minute drive from a hypothetical patient in a given zip code (breadth). Number of physicians and/or hospitals within each network that overlapped with other insurers' networks, expressed as a percentage of the total possible number of shared connections (exclusivity). Descriptive statistics (mean, quantiles) were produced overall and by network breadth category, as follows: extra-small (<10%), small (10%-25%), medium (25%-40%), large (40%-60%), and extra-large (>60%). Networks were analyzed by insurance type, state, and insurance, physician, and/or hospital market concentration level, as measured by the Hirschman-Herfindahl index.

RESULTS

Across all US zip code-network observations, 415 549 of 511 143 large-group PCP networks (81%) were large or extra-large compared with 138 485 of 202 702 MA (68%), 191 918 of 318 082 small-group (60%), 60 425 of 149 841 marketplace (40%), and 21 781 of 66 370 MMC (40%) networks. Large-group employer networks had broader coverage than all other network plans (mean [SD] PCP breadth: large-group employer-based plans, 57.3% [20.1]; small-group employer-based plans, 45.7% [21.4]; marketplace, 36,4% [21.2]; MMC, 32.3% [19.3]; MA, 47.4% [18.3]). MMC networks were the least exclusive (a mean [SD] overlap of 61.3% [10.5] for PCPs, 66.5% [9.8] for cardiology, and 60.2% [12.3] for hospitals). Networks were narrowest (mean [SD] breadth 42.4% [16.9]) and most exclusive (mean [SD] overlap 47.7% [23.0]) in California and broadest (79.9% [16.6]) and least exclusive (71.1% [14.6]) in Nebraska. Rising levels of insurer and market concentration were associated with broader and less exclusive networks. Markets with concentrated primary care and insurance markets had the broadest (median [interquartile range {IQR}], 75.0% [60.0%-83.1%]) and least exclusive (median [IQR], 63.7% [52.4%-73.7%]) primary care networks among large-group commercial plans, while markets with least concentration had the narrowest (median [IQR], 54.6% [46.8%-67.6%]) and most exclusive (median [IQR], 49.4% [41.9%-56.9%]) networks.

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

In this study, narrower health care networks had a relatively large degree of overlap with other networks in the same geographic area, while broader networks were associated with physician, hospital, and insurance market concentration. These results suggest that many patients could switch to a lower-cost, narrow network plan without losing in-network access to their PCP, although future research is needed to assess the implications for care quality and clinical integration across in-network health care professionals and facilities in narrow network plans.

摘要

重要性:关于医疗保健网络的广度或不同保险公司网络的重叠程度,人们知之甚少。

目的:定量衡量雇主(大型团体和小型团体)、个人购买(市场)、医疗保险优势(MA)和医疗补助管理式护理(MMC)计划中初级保健医生(PCP)、心脏病学和一般急症护理医院网络的广度和排他性(即重叠)。

设计、地点和参与者:本横断面研究包括来自 Vericred 的 1192 个网络。分析单位是网络-邮政编码-临床医生类型-市场,从假设的患者在 60 分钟车程内访问网络内临床医生或医院的角度捕获网络属性。

暴露:参加私人保险计划。

主要结果和措施:给定邮政编码内假设患者在 60 分钟车程内的网络内医生和/或医院的百分比(广度)。每个网络中与其他保险公司网络重叠的医生和/或医院的数量,用共享连接的总可能数量表示(排他性)。总体和按网络广度类别分别生成描述性统计数据(平均值、分位数):超小(<10%)、小(10%-25%)、中(25%-40%)、大(40%-60%)和超大(>60%)。根据保险类型、州和保险、医生和/或医院市场集中水平分析网络,用赫希曼-赫芬达尔指数衡量。

结果:在所有美国邮政编码-网络观察中,与 MA(68%)相比,138485 个大型团体 PCP 网络中的 415549 个(81%)为大或超大网络,191918 个 MA(60%),191918 个小型团体(60%),60425 个市场(40%)和 21781 个 MMC(40%)网络。大型雇主网络的覆盖范围比其他所有网络计划都广泛(平均[SD]PCP 广度:大型雇主基础计划,57.3%[20.1];小型雇主基础计划,45.7%[21.4];市场,364%[21.2];MMC,32.3%[19.3];MA,47.4%[18.3])。MMC 网络的排他性最低(PCP 的平均[SD]重叠为 61.3%[10.5],心脏病学为 66.5%[9.8],医院为 60.2%[12.3])。网络最狭窄(平均[SD]广度 42.4%[16.9])和最排他(平均[SD]重叠 47.7%[23.0])在加利福尼亚州,最广泛(79.9%[16.6])和最不排他(71.1%[14.6])在内布拉斯加州。保险公司和市场集中程度的上升与更广泛和排他性较低的网络相关。具有集中初级保健和保险市场的市场拥有最广泛(中位数[四分位数范围 {IQR}],75.0%[60.0%-83.1%])和最不排他(中位数[IQR],63.7%[52.4%-73.7%])的大型商业计划初级保健网络,而集中程度最低的市场拥有最狭窄(中位数[IQR],54.6%[46.8%-67.6%])和最排他(中位数[IQR],49.4%[41.9%-56.9%])的网络。

结论和相关性:在这项研究中,较窄的医疗保健网络与同一地理区域内其他网络具有相对较大的重叠程度,而更广泛的网络与医生、医院和保险市场集中程度相关。这些结果表明,许多患者可以切换到成本较低、网络较窄的计划,而不会失去网络内对其 PCP 的访问权限,尽管需要进一步研究来评估对网络内医疗保健专业人员和设施的护理质量和临床整合的影响。

https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/19ba/7747020/a8f268d1742f/jamanetwopen-e2029419-g001.jpg

文献AI研究员

20分钟写一篇综述,助力文献阅读效率提升50倍。

立即体验

用中文搜PubMed

大模型驱动的PubMed中文搜索引擎

马上搜索

文档翻译

学术文献翻译模型,支持多种主流文档格式。

立即体验