Network Restrictions Are Nothing New For American Health Care Consumers


Megan McArdle writes today about the fact that in some states, health coverage purchased via Obamacare allows you access to only a limited number of doctors and hospitals:

Come January, when some number of Americans have bought insurance on the new health exchanges and are starting to use the services, you can expect another controversy to arise when many of them find out just how few doctors and hospitals they have access to. Call it “doc shock,” though the biggest outcry will not come when people try to schedule an appointment with their physician, but when someone gets sick and they learn they cannot go to whatever top-notch hospital they want, only to the hospital that is included in their plan

….Even if it were true that we could get better treatment at a lower cost by restricting peoples’ choices, people would still hate having their choices restricted….If narrow networks could give everyone in the country access to health-care outcomes no worse than 90 percent as good as the folks with the best doctors at 75 percent of the price we’d pay for broader networks, the health-care wonks would jump on that deal as an unbelievable bargain. But I think it’s pretty clear that average folks don’t think like health-care wonks.

I’ve been referring to this as “network shock,” and I think it’s a real issue. Depending on just how narrow some of these networks are, there’s a potential for some substantial dissatisfaction from consumers.

At the same time, I want to push back against this notion that everyone hates restrictions and won’t tolerate them even if it saves them money. For many decades, companies offered employees a choice of health care plans. Unrestricted plans cost more and had higher copays. PPOs limited your choices, but had lower copays.

So how have people responded to this? They voted with their wallets and chose restricted plans. Since 1998, the number of people covered by PPOs has risen from 11 percent to 57 percent. If you combine every type of restricted plan—PPO, HMO, POS, etc.—their combined market share is 99 percent. Old-school plans that allow you to choose any doctor you want were already dying a decade ago, and today they’re all but extinct.

It’s possible that in some states, plan restrictions are going to be tight enough to cause some serious pushback. But the truth is that consumers do think like health care wonks—if by that you mean that they expect to make tradeoffs between price and service. If you go on the exchange and choose a low-cost plan, you’ll probably end up with a narrow network. If you pay more, you’ll get a wider network. American consumers are well accustomed to this. Most of us have been making decisions like this for a very long time.

IT'S NOT THAT WE'RE SCREWED WITHOUT TRUMP:

"It's that we're screwed with or without him if we can't show the public that what we do matters for the long term," writes Mother Jones CEO Monika Bauerlein as she kicks off our drive to raise $350,000 in donations from readers by July 17.

This is a big one for us. It's our first time asking for an outpouring of support since screams of FAKE NEWS and so much of what Trump stood for made everything we do so visceral. Like most newsrooms, we face incredibly hard budget realities, and it's unnerving needing to raise big money when traffic is down.

So, as we ask you to consider supporting our team's journalism, we thought we'd slow down and check in about where Mother Jones is and where we're going after the chaotic last several years. This comparatively slow moment is also an urgent one for Mother Jones: You can read more in "Slow News Is Good News," and if you're able to, please support our team's hard-hitting journalism and help us reach our big $350,000 goal with a donation today.

payment methods

IT'S NOT THAT WE'RE SCREWED WITHOUT TRUMP:

"It's that we're screwed with or without him if we can't show the public that what we do matters for the long term," writes Mother Jones CEO Monika Bauerlein as she kicks off our drive to raise $350,000 in donations from readers by July 17.

This is a big one for us. So, as we ask you to consider supporting our team's journalism, we thought we'd slow down and check in about where Mother Jones is and where we're going after the chaotic last several years. This comparatively slow moment is also an urgent one for Mother Jones: You can read more in "Slow News Is Good News," and if you're able to, please support our team's hard-hitting journalism and help us reach our big $350,000 goal with a donation today.

payment methods

We Recommend

Latest

Sign up for our free newsletter

Subscribe to the Mother Jones Daily to have our top stories delivered directly to your inbox.

Get our award-winning magazine

Save big on a full year of investigations, ideas, and insights.

Subscribe

Support our journalism

Help Mother Jones' reporters dig deep with a tax-deductible donation.

Donate