2016 is poised to be a major year in network adequacy developments across public and private insurance markets. Changes are ahead in the Medicare and Medicaid managed care programs, the Exchange markets and the state-regulated group and individual markets, including state-run Exchanges. The developing standards and enforcement will vary significantly across these markets.
Through 2014 and 2015, major news stories discussed concerns over the growing use of narrow provider networks by issuers on the Affordable Care Act's insurance exchanges ("Exchanges"). Others reported on enrollees' frustration with receipt of unexpected charges from out-of-network practitioners when receiving treatment at in-network facilities (often referred to as "surprise bills"). As a result, calls for improved network adequacy and transparency mounted. A September 2014 HHS Office of Inspector General (OIG) report was critical of variation in state oversight of the Medicaid managed care market. An August 2015 Government Accountability Office (GAO) report called for greater CMS network oversight in the Medicare Advantage market. In response, a series of proposed rules and other changes have accumulated –
Medicare Advantage (MA) – In April 2015, CMS announced in a Call Letter that it will impose more stringent network adequacy requirements in the application process for MA plans. To address surprise provider terminations, CMS will require 90 days notice of any significant mid-year changes. Additionally, plans must establish and maintain a process to keep provider directories current in real-time. CMS intends to monitor compliance and is considering a CY2017 requirement for standardized electronic submission for inclusion in a nationwide provider database. CMS has also expressed its intent to review network adequacy as part of its regular program audits, as a pilot in 2016 and as a standard feature in 2017.
Medicaid Managed Care – In May 2015, CMS released the first proposed rule to make comprehensive changes to its Medicaid managed care rules in 12 years, including new quantitative network adequacy standards. Once finalized, states would be required to establish time and distance standards for specific provider types, including primary care (adult and pediatric), OB/GYN, behavioral health, specialists (adult and pediatric), hospital, pharmacy, pediatric dental, and any "additional provider types when it promotes the objectives of the Medicaid program for the provider type to be subject to such time and distance standards." Interestingly, CMS suggested in its proposed rule that states look to MA and state commercial standards as models.
Federal Exchanges – In December 2015, CMS, through its Center for Consumer Information and Insurance Oversight (CCIIO), released a proposed rule that featured more prescriptive network adequacy standards for Qualified Health Plans (QHPs) offered on the federal Exchange. Where CCIIO is satisfied that a state uses "an acceptable quantifiable metric," it will defer to their review of QHPs. In other states, a default federal standard would apply. Starting in 2017, CMS expects to take a similar approach as to MA and apply time and distance standards, with an emphasis on high-utilization specialties. While CMS says it will not "prohibit certification of plans with narrow networks or otherwise impede innovation in plan design," it intends to set a floor with the federal Exchange default standards and it seeks greater network transparency. Toward that end, ratings on QHP network coverage may be a future feature of HealthCare.gov.
State Regulated Group and Individual Markets – In November 2015, the National Association of Insurance Commissioners (NAIC) released a long-awaited network adequacy model act with more detailed requirements than federal and many state standards. While the act would not impose quantitative standards such as provider number and type requirements, it does include reimbursement parity provisions for emergency and out-of-network facility-based providers.
With legislative sessions underway in all but four states this year, there are several important developments to watch for in 2016. Some states will adopt the NAIC model act, in whole or in part, or use the act as a baseline from which to tailor its own standards. Other states will decline to adopt it, leaving existing standards intact that range from minimal to highly detailed and prescriptive. With increasing pressure from CMS across markets, some states may seek to aggressively increase the specificity of their network adequacy standards, adding number and type requirements or legislating that their insurance commissioners do so through an administrative process. Some states may consider aligning standards across markets to ensure regulatory uniformity. While there is nothing in the model act that suggests states increase oversight and enforcement activities, CMS is clearly increasing its own oversight and is pushing states to set a floor for state level access standards. Changes to the landscape will come better into focus as CMS releases its final rules for all of the above proposed changes.
 80 Fed. Reg. at 31145.
 80 Fed. Reg. at 75550.
- Member of the Firm
- Member of the Firm