Moore Catherine J, Shalowitz David I
Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, George Washington University, Washington, DC, USA.
Section on Gynecologic Oncology, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Wake Forest School of Medicine, Winston-Salem, NC, USA.
JNCI Cancer Spectr. 2021 Jan 6;5(1). doi: 10.1093/jncics/pkaa113. eCollection 2021 Feb.
As the market for health insurance plans expands, each state is responsible for setting standards to ensure that plans contain adequate coverage for cancer care. Little is currently known about what criteria states use for network adequacy of insurance plans. We contacted representatives of the Department of Insurance (or equivalent) for 50 states and the District of Columbia, as well as searched official state websites to compile data on network adequacy standards for cancer care nationwide. The standards of 16 (31.4%) states contained only qualitative elements for access to an oncologist (eg, "reasonable access"), 7 (13.7%) states included only quantitative elements (eg, travel distance and time restrictions), and 24 (47.1%) states included standards with both qualitative and quantitative elements. Standards from 4 states were not available. States should make certain that robust, transparent protections exist to ensure that patients are able to access high-quality cancer care without experiencing the financial toxicity associated with out-of-network billing.
随着健康保险计划市场的扩大,每个州都有责任制定标准,以确保这些计划包含足够的癌症护理保险范围。目前对于各州在保险计划网络充足性方面使用何种标准知之甚少。我们联系了50个州和哥伦比亚特区的保险部(或同等部门)代表,并搜索了各州官方网站,以汇编全国范围内癌症护理网络充足性标准的数据。16个州(31.4%)的标准仅包含获得肿瘤学家服务的定性要素(例如,“合理获得”),7个州(13.7%)仅包括定量要素(例如,旅行距离和时间限制),24个州(47.1%)的标准同时包含定性和定量要素。4个州的标准无法获取。各州应确保存在强有力的、透明的保护措施,以确保患者能够获得高质量的癌症护理,而不会遭遇与网络外计费相关的经济负担。