Tag: Insurance

  • Medical Professionals Are Sharing Infuriating Stories Of Insurance Companies Failing Their Patients, And It’s Pretty Dystopian

    After the killing of the United Healthcare CEO, many people have shared stories of being denied coverage by medical insurance companies, highlighting an issue that working-class Americans are struggling with every day.

    "UnitedHealthcare building; investigators examining evidence markers behind yellow tape, indicating an ongoing investigation."

    Stephen Maturen / Getty Images / Spencer Platt / Getty Images

    After reading stories from the patients’ perspectives, we decided to ask medical professionals to share the times they have witnessed insurance companies fail their patients. One line from the responses we recieved stood out: “Until insurance companies are not-for-profit private organizations, the bottom line will always trump patient care.”

    A woman in a medical setting wearing blue scrubs and a white lab coat, looking thoughtfully in two different poses

    Here’s what 19 medical professionals had to say:

    1.There’s the surgeon whose diabetic patient’s insurance refused to pay for a prosthesis or wheelchair after his leg was amputated:

    “I’ve been an orthopedic surgeon for 32 years. I had a patient with diabetes and peripheral vascular disease who ended up needing an amputation of one of his legs to save his life. The insurance paid for the amputation but would not pay for a prosthesis or wheelchair! Really?!”—Anonymous

    2.There’s the nurse whose patient suffered a heart attack and died waiting for medical insurance approval:

    nurse taking patients blood pressure

    “As a nurse, I’ve seen plenty of situations where an easier test or procedure was denied, leading to the patient having more serious health issues that could have been prevented. One that I will never forget is a patient who’s insurance denied a cardiac catheterization. The hospital staff spent half the day trying to get it approved; the doctor even talked to another doctor at the insurance company. The patient had a heart attack and died before they could get the approval. It was heartbreaking.”—Anonymous

    MoMo Productions / Getty Images

    3.There’s the patient whose insurance company left him bedridden for five days after not sending a home health nurse:

    “I was a nurse discharge planner in a hospital and had an elderly diabetic patient who had a large, open wound on one of his legs. After he underwent surgery, he improved and was able to be discharged home, but he needed a nurse to come out daily to do his dressing changes as well as a physical therapist to help him with his mobility. He lived alone and had no one to help him. Normally, I would make a referral to a home health agency, but this patient’s insurance company required me to call them. They refused to let me make the referral and said they would do it and inform the patient. I wasn’t happy with this, but my hands were tied. I heard later the patient was not seen for five days and ended up being admitted to another hospital. So, they had to pay for two admissions, and the patient suffered. I wish the paper pushers would let the medical professionals do their job; we know what we’re doing.”—Anonymous

    4.There’s the hospital worker who is constantly writing medical insurance appeal letters:

    “I work in the hospital revenue cycle, and part of my job is to write appeal letters to the insurance companies because they denied a patient who had a diagnosis that was actually treated and monitored. Therefore, the hospital owes a ‘refund’ to the insurance company.”—Anonymous

    5.There’s the doctor’s office employee who witnessed a medical insurance company deny newborn babies procedures to allow them to eat properly:

    “I work in a doctor’s office. Periodically, we see newborn babies that are tongue-tied and cannot latch to feed. The baby cannot eat. The insurance company denied the simple procedure to correct the condition, saying it was ‘pre-existing’ because the baby was born that way.”—Anonymous

    6.There’s the doctor whose severely diabetic patient died from their insurance not covering insulin:

    Doctor with tablet talks to an older woman in a knitted sweater in a bright, window-lined room

    “I had a severe diabetic patient who worked but had bad insurance. They would not cover his insulin. His diabetes was very poorly controlled for years. I used to accept donations of unopened sterile insulin, and when I got a donation, I would drive it to his workplace and drop it off to him with instructions. It wasn’t enough and his glucose was usually very high. He died at the age of 62 of severe complications of poorly controlled diabetes.”—Anonymous

    Solksin / Getty Images

    7.There’s the ER doctor who witnessed a woman receive life-saving heart surgery that her insurance refused to cover:

    “We had a 27-year-old woman come to the ER having a heart attack. The on-call cardiologist performed a life-saving surgery and placed a stent. Her insurance denied covering the surgery over and over because of a recently published study stating a medication had been shown to be as effective for long-term care and deemed the surgery ‘medically unnecessary.’ The medication the insurance decided was a better solution is not recommended for women of childbearing years. The insurance company then said she was no longer considered to be in child-bearing years. They left her owing over $60k in medical bills. Until insurance companies are not-for-profit private organizations, the bottom line will always trump patient care.”—Anonymous

    8.There’s the resident who argued with a medical insurance agent for their patient’s breast cancer treatment:

    “So many stories, but this occurred during residency and made me realize what I was in for. A patient had biopsy-proven breast cancer. I had to get pre-authorization for a mastectomy and lymph node dissection. After a long argument with a guy who sounded ancient, he said, ‘I’ll approve the mastectomy but not the lymph node dissection since it’s just for staging and not a treatment!’ Of course, the treatment depends on the staging.”

    —modernduck79

    9.There’s the medical insurance company that only agreed to approve the claim if the patient needed emergency surgery but refused to approve the scan to evaluate the aneurysm:

    “I’m a nurse. I used to work at a primary care office. I was trying to get a surveillance CT scan approved for a patient with a known AAA (abdominal aortic aneurysm) to see if the aneurysm was stable or getting bigger. The insurance company told me they could only approve it if we thought it was dissecting. That would mean the aorta was splitting open, which is a surgical emergency. I literally said to the person on the phone, ‘If we thought it was dissecting, he’d be in the hospital dying, and we wouldn’t be having this conversation.’ Pretty sure if you’re having a dissecting aneurysm, you don’t stop and call the insurance first, but what do I know? I’m just a nurse.”

    —meaghank4a4638867

    10.There’s the British medical student who witnessed a homeless patient be escorted from the hospital because he didn’t have insurance:

    “I’m British. As a student I did a secondment in New York City. There was a patient who presented to the emergency department with rectal bleeding. He was 23 and homeless. Without insurance, funds, or anyone to cover his treatment, he was escorted by security from the hospital in December. I was furious! We have a tax-payer-funded, free point service still in the UK. He would have survived here but was left to die in the States.”—Anonymous

    11.There’s the medical insurance company that tried to deny a CAT scan to a man with kidney cancer:

    “A patient came to see me Monday afternoon late with left-sided abdominal pain. It was too late in the afternoon to get an emergency CAT scan because everything was closed, so I gave him medicine for a possible infection called diverticulitis and told him we would get a CAT scan in the morning; we got approval for a CAT scan. His insurance company said no. I called him and told him he had to go to the hospital to get a scan. He said I will call you right back, and he called and yelled at an insurance company, and they gave in. The following day, we ordered a CAT scan of his abdomen; he had the largest kidney cancer I’ve ever seen.”—Anonymous

    12.There’s the worker’s compensation denial that caused a patient to develop a disc hernia in his neck that needed surgery:

    “I was an NP for workers compensation program. I had a large, powerful, beautiful Black man with mental slowness who was crushed between a loading dock and a truck. He had severe nerve damage to his arms and pain in the neck area. I ordered an MRI of the neck and upper spine to evaluate disc bulges or herniations, which could permanently paralyze the patient from the neck down. The worker comp adjuster denied MRI until he had done weeks of physical therapy. I was concerned the PT could paralyze him as we did not know how bad his spine was. I had to essentially waste PT visits by consulting with the MD whom I worked for and the PT staff to only do gentle, safe therapy. He ended up with a big disc hernia in his neck that needed surgical repair or risk paralysis from the neck down. Worker comp denials are profound and so common.”

    —sweetcan648

    13.There’s the physical therapist assistant whose patient’s insurance denied her PT even though she couldn’t raise her arm above her head:

    patient holding onto physical therapy railing with nurse behind them

    “Physical Therapist Assistant. Just last week, we had insurance deny a patient who had shoulder manipulation under anesthesia to treat a frozen shoulder. These patients need intense PT afterward. After 15 visits, we submitted for approval for more visits because she still lacked the strength to raise her arm over her head. Her job is physical, and she did not have the range of motion, strength, or endurance to adequately do her work. Insurance denied because it wasn’t ‘medically necessary’ when she is literally unable to work.”

    —aryren

    Anderson Ross Photography Inc / Getty Images

    14.There’s the medical insurance company that insisted a patient who recieved blood transfusions for postpartum hemorrhage go home that same day:

    “Years ago, a patient had a baby, then got treated and had blood transfusions for postpartum hemorrhage. The insurance person still insisted that the patient go home that day by midnight cause they weren’t going to pay another day. The doctor even called the insurance company. No change. We all told the patient and family that it was safer to stay at the hospital another day, and the hospital could work something out. They still left by midnight.”

    —fabprincess48

    15.There’s the medical insurance company that tried to deny a patient’s claim for the medication their doctor recommended:

    “I worked on the general medical floor in my hospital at the time. My former mother-in-law had small cell lung cancer and was admitted three separate times for low sodium levels, a common complication of small cell lung cancer. On her first admission, they had a kidney doctor come to see her, and he wanted to put her on a medication that would fix the low sodium for good. Her insurance company denied the claim for this medication, claiming it was too expensive. Her subsequent hospital admissions cost way more than that medication. The doctors and her husband had to fight tooth and nail to get the insurance company to finally approve the medication. Otherwise, she would have continued to be hospitalized for low sodium for the remainder of her last year of life.”

    —heather13700

    16.There’s the Residential Addiction Counselor who had to convince a medical insurance agent why their patient needed residential care, NOT meetings:

    “Residential Addiction Counselor here. We have battles CONSTANTLY with insurance companies who don’t think our clients need care. A few years ago, I had a client who was using meth, IV, daily, and her insurance company came back with, ‘We don’t see the need for residential. She can probably just go to a few meetings, and she’ll be fine!’ I had to do a peer-to-peer review with one of their representatives and practically plead my case. After almost an hour, they finally ‘graciously’ gave me seven days of residential care for her. Which does absolutely nothing. When those seven days were up, I had to go back through the whole process again to get her approved for another seven. Some insurances are better than others, but you definitely know the ones that getting days approved will be an uphill battle. I will say that one of those insurance companies that is nearly impossible to get approval for is UnitedHealthcare.”

    —tudorgirl21

    17.There’s the nurse whose patient died of infected bedsores because he couldn’t afford the copay:

    Nurse smiling while assisting a patient in a hospital bed, creating a supportive and caring environment

    “Patient dying of infected bedsore needs a hospital bed with a special mattress. He can’t afford the copay for the bed and the mattress so he elected to just go home and die.”—Anonymous

    Kobus Louw / Getty Images

    18.There’s the wound care nurse who is appalled at the lack of coverage for preventative care:

    “I work in wound care and it’s the lack of preventative coverage that blows my mind. To prevent venous leg ulcers (blood flow going back to heart is compromised) for people with venous insufficiency, or leg swelling we recommend compression stockings that are generally $60ish a pair. Insurance won’t cover them unless they have an active open wound. Another one is for patients with peripheral neuropathy (numbness, lack of protective sensation) in their feet. They won’t cover custom shoe orthotics and shoes which is around $300-$500 at all if they are not diabetic. Again, something that can prevent them from getting wounds, emergency amputations, loss of the ability to walk, and risk of life-threatening infections. Average cost to heal a venous leg ulcer with each occurrence $10,000 from 2021 data vs $60 preventative stocking. Average cost to heal a neuropathic ulcer $8,000 and if complications arise can easily reach $45,000 in 2021. Vs. $300-$500. It’s not just the curative treatments that are a problem with being denied. It is also the preventative ones.”

    —christinac4952235b1

    And finally…

    19.There’s the admissions worker who tried to explain to insurance that they needed stair training for their 80-year-old patient:

    “I work in admissions for a skilled nursing facility (inpatient rehab for seniors). I once submitted an authorization for a lady in her mid-80s who had a knee replacement for a week of rehab to get her back to her independence. She needed to be able to navigate five steps to get into her home. At the time she could not do any. Her insurance denied her because she could walk fifty feet (the average length of a house) with a walker. I tried to explain that she needed to be able to do stairs, and they basically said they don’t pay for stair training, and she could sit on her butt and scoot up the steps.”

    —patorciani

    Let us know your thoughts in the comments below.

    Responses have been edited for length/clarity. 

  • CEO-ul Murdered Insurance a implementat o IA pentru a refuza automat beneficiile persoanelor bolnave

    Cu puțin mai mult de un an înainte ca CEO-ul United Healthcare, Brian Thompson, să fie ucis săptămâna aceasta în Midtown Manhattan, un proces intentat împotriva gigantului asigurărilor pe care îl conducea a dezvăluit cât de draconic a devenit procesul său de respingere a revendicărilor.

    În noiembrie anul trecut, moșiile a doi foști pacienți cu UHC au intentat o acțiune în Minnesota, susținând că asigurătorul a folosit un algoritm de inteligență artificială pentru a respinge și a anula cererile adresate pacienților vârstnici care au fost aprobate de medicii lor.

    Algoritmul în cauză, cunoscut sub numele de nH Predict, ar fi avut o rată de eroare de 90 la sută – și potrivit familiilor celor doi bărbați decedați care au intentat procesul, UHC știa asta.

    Pe măsură ce acel proces și-a făcut drum prin instanțe, furia față de predilecția masivă a asigurătorului de a nege pretențiile a crescut, iar speculațiile cu privire la motivele asasinului sugerează că el ar fi putut fi printre cei supărați de acoperirea UHC.

    Deși nu știm încă identitatea persoanei care l-a împușcat pe Thompson și nici raționamentul acestuia, rapoartele susțin că el a scris cuvintele „nega”, „apără” și „destituie” pe carcasa gloanțelor folosite la împușcarea CEO-ului. — un mesaj care face să sune foarte mult ca ucigașul a fost jignit împotriva refuzurilor agresive ale industriei asigurărilor de acoperire a pacienților bolnavi.

    Dincolo de propriile motive ale împușatorului, reiese clar din reacția șocantă de sărbătoare online la uciderea lui Thompson că furia față de sistemul american de asigurări și sănătate a atins punctul de poftă de sânge literală.

    Ca Perspectiva americană Așa de bine spus, „doar aproximativ 50 de milioane de clienți ai monopolului medical dominant al Americii ar putea avea un motiv să se răzbune pe CEO-ul UnitedHealthcare”.

    Iar cruzimea alarmantă a afirmațiilor cu privire la algoritmul AI al companiei – am întrebat compania dacă îl folosește în continuare, dar nu a primit un răspuns imediat – ilustrează perfect de ce sunt atât de supărați.

    Mai multe despre relele asigurărilor: Firmă de capital privat acuzată că a cumpărat polițe de asigurare de viață pentru bătrâni pentru a profita de pe urma morții lor

  • Why Health Insurance Regulators Have Failed to Curb Ghost Networks — ProPublica

    Reporting Highlights

    • Extensive Errors: Many states have sought to make insurers clean up their health plans’ provider directories over the past decade. But the errors are still widespread.
    • Paltry Penalties: Most state insurance agencies haven’t issued a fine for provider directory errors since 2019. When companies have been penalized, the fines have been small and sporadic.
    • Ghostbusters: Experts said that stricter regulations and stronger fines are needed to protect insurance customers from these errors, which are at the heart of so-called ghost networks.

    These highlights were written by the reporters and editors who worked on this story.

    To uncover the truth about a pernicious insurance industry practice, staffers with the New York state attorney general’s office decided to tell a series of lies.

    So, over the course of 2022 and 2023, they dialed hundreds of mental health providers in the directories of more than a dozen insurance plans. Some staffers pretended to call on behalf of a depressed relative. Others posed as parents asking about their struggling teenager.

    They wanted to know two key things about the supposedly in-network providers: Do you accept insurance? And are you accepting new patients?

    The more the staffers called, the more they realized that the providers listed either no longer accepted insurance or had stopped seeing new patients. That is, if they heard back from the providers at all.

    In a report published last December, the office described rampant evidence of these “ghost networks,” where health plans list providers who supposedly accept that insurance but who are not actually available to patients. The report found that 86% of the listed mental health providers who staffers had called were “unreachable, not in-network, or not accepting new patients.” Even though insurers are required to publish accurate directories, New York Attorney General Letitia James’ office didn’t find evidence that the state’s own insurance regulators had fined any insurers for their errors.

    Shortly after taking office in 2021, Gov. Kathy Hochul vowed to combat provider directory misinformation, so there seemed to be a clear path to confronting ghost networks.

    Yet nearly a year after the publication of James’ report, nothing has changed. Regulators can’t point to a single penalty levied for ghost networks. And while a spokesperson for New York state’s Department of Financial Services has said that “nation-leading consumer protections” are in the works, provider directories in the state are still rife with errors.

    A similar pattern of errors and lax enforcement is happening in other states as well.

    In Arizona, regulators called hundreds of mental health providers listed in the networks of the state’s most popular individual health plans. They couldn’t schedule visits with nearly 2 out of every 5 providers they called. None of those companies have been fined for their errors.

    In Massachusetts, the state attorney general investigated alleged efforts by insurers to restrict their customers’ mental health benefits. The insurers agreed to audit their mental health provider listings but were largely allowed to police themselves. Insurance regulators have not fined the companies for their errors.

    In California, regulators received hundreds of complaints about provider listings after one of the nation’s first ghost network regulations took effect in 2016. But under the new law, they have actually scaled back on fining insurers. Since 2016, just one plan was fined — a $7,500 penalty — for posting inaccurate listings for mental health providers.

    ProPublica reached out to every state insurance commission to see what they have done to curb rampant directory errors. As part of the country’s complex patchwork of regulations, these agencies oversee plans that employers purchase from an insurer and that individuals buy on exchanges. (Federal agencies typically oversee plans that employers self-fund or that are funded by Medicare.)

    Spokespeople for the state agencies told ProPublica that their “many actions” resulted in “significant accountability.” But ProPublica found that the actual actions taken so far do not match the regulators’ rhetoric.

    “One of the primary reasons insurance commissions exist is to hold companies accountable for what they are advertising in their contracts,” said Dr. Robert Trestman, a leading American Psychiatric Association expert who has testified about ghost networks to the U.S. Senate Committee on Finance. “They’re not doing their job. If they were, we would not have an ongoing problem.”

    Most states haven’t fined a single company for publishing directory errors since 2019. When they do, the penalties have been small and sporadic. In an average year, fewer than a dozen fines are issued by insurance regulators for directory errors, according to information obtained by ProPublica from almost every one of those agencies. All those fines together represent a fraction of 1% of the billions of dollars in profits made by the industry’s largest companies. Health insurance experts told ProPublica that the companies treat the fines as a “cost of doing business.”

    They’re not doing their job. If they were, we would not have an ongoing problem.

    —Dr. Robert Trestman, an American Psychiatric Association expert, speaking about insurance regulators

    Insurers acknowledge that errors happen. Providers move. They retire. Their open appointments get booked by other patients. The industry’s top trade group, AHIP, has told lawmakers that companies contact providers to verify that their listings are accurate. The trade group also has stated that errors could be corrected faster if the providers did a better job updating their listings.

    But providers have told us that’s bogus. Even when they formally drop out of a network, they’re not always removed from the insurer’s lists.

    The harms from ghost networks are real. ProPublica reported on how Ravi Coutinho, a 36-year-old entrepreneur from Arizona, had struggled for months to access the mental health and addiction treatment that was covered by his health plan. After nearly two dozen calls to the insurer and multiple hospitalizations, he couldn’t find a therapist. Last spring, he died, likely due to complications from excessive drinking.

    Health insurance experts said that, unless agencies can crack down and issue bigger fines, insurers will keep selling error-ridden plans.

    “You can have all the strong laws on the books,” said David Lloyd, chief policy officer with the mental health advocacy group Inseparable. “But if they’re not being enforced, then it’s kind of all for nothing.”


    The problem with ghost networks isn’t one of awareness. States, federal agencies, researchers and advocates have documented them time and again for years. But regulators have resisted penalizing insurers for not fixing them.

    Two years ago, the Arizona Department of Insurance and Financial Institutions began to probe the directories used by five large insurers for plans that they sold on the individual market. Regulators wanted to find out if they could schedule an appointment with mental health providers listed as accepting new patients, so their staff called 580 providers in those companies’ directories.

    Thirty-seven percent of the calls did not lead to an appointment getting scheduled.

    Even though this secret-shopper survey found errors at a lower rate than what had been found in New York, health insurance experts who reviewed Arizona’s published findings said that the results were still concerning.

    Ghost network regulations are intended to keep provider listings as close to error-free as possible. While the experts don’t expect any insurer to have a perfect directory, they said that double-digit error rates can be harmful to customers.

    Arizona’s regulators seemed to agree. In a January 2023 report, they wrote that a patient could be clinging to the “last few threads of hope, which could erode if they receive no response from a provider (or cannot easily make an appointment).”

    Secret-shopper surveys are considered one of the best ways to unmask errors. But states have limited funding, which restricts how often they can conduct that sort of investigation. Michigan, for its part, mostly searches for inaccuracies as part of an annual review of a health plan. Nevada investigates errors primarily if someone files a complaint. Christine Khaikin, a senior health policy attorney for the nonprofit advocacy group Legal Action Center, said fewer surveys means higher odds that errors go undetected.

    Some regulators, upon learning that insurers may not be following the law, still take a hands-off approach with their enforcement. Oregon’s Department of Consumer and Business Services, for instance, conducts spot checks of provider networks to see if those listings are accurate. If they find errors, insurers are asked to fix the problem. The department hasn’t issued a fine for directory errors since 2019. A spokesperson said the agency doesn’t keep track of how frequently it finds network directory errors.

    Dave Jones, a former insurance commissioner in California, said some commissioners fear that stricter enforcement could drive companies out of their states, leaving their constituents with fewer plans to choose from.

    Even so, staffers at the Arizona Department of Insurance and Financial Institutions wrote in the report that there “needs to be accountability from insurers” for the errors in their directories. That never happened, and the agency concealed the identities of the companies in the report. A department spokesperson declined to provide the insurers’ names to ProPublica and did not answer questions about the report.

    Since January 2023, Arizonans have submitted dozens of complaints to the department that were related to provider networks. The spokesperson would not say how many were found to be substantiated, but the department was able to get insurers to address some of the problems, documents obtained through an open records request show.

    According to the department’s online database of enforcement actions, not a single one of those companies has been fined.


    Credit:
    Anson Chan, special to ProPublica


    Sometimes, when state insurance regulators fail to act, attorneys general or federal regulators intervene in their stead. But even then, the extra enforcers haven’t addressed the underlying problem.

    For years, the Massachusetts Division of Insurance didn’t fine any company for ghost networks, so the state attorney general’s office began to investigate whether insurers had deceived consumers by publishing inaccurate directories. Among the errors identified: One plan had providers listed as accepting new patients but no actual appointments were available for months; another listed a single provider more than 10 times at different offices.

    In February 2020, Maura Healey, who was then the Massachusetts attorney general, announced settlements with some of the state’s largest health plans. No insurer admitted wrongdoing. The companies, which together collect billions in premiums each year, paid a total of $910,000. They promised to remove providers who left their networks within 30 days of learning about that decision. Healey declared that the settlements would lead to “unprecedented changes to help ensure patients don’t have to struggle to find behavioral health services.”

    But experts who reviewed the settlements for ProPublica identified a critical shortcoming. While the insurers had promised to audit directories multiple times a year, the companies did not have to report those findings to the attorney general’s office. Spokespeople for Healey and the attorney general’s office declined to answer questions about the experts’ assessments of the settlements.

    After the settlements were finalized, Healey became the governor of Massachusetts and has been responsible for overseeing the state’s insurance division since she took office in January 2023. Her administration’s regulators haven’t brought any fines over ghost networks.

    The industry doesn’t take the regulatory penalties seriously because they’re so low.

    —Mara Elliott, San Diego’s city attorney

    Healey’s spokesperson declined to answer questions and referred ProPublica to responses from the state’s insurance division. A division spokesperson said the state has taken steps to strengthen its provider directory regulations and streamline how information about in-network providers gets collected. Starting next year, the spokesperson said that the division “will consider penalties” against any insurer whose “provider directory is found to be materially noncompliant.”

    States that don’t have ghost network laws have seen federal regulators step in to monitor directory errors.

    In late 2020, Congress passed the No Surprises Act, which aimed to cut down on the prevalence of surprise medical bills from providers outside of a patient’s insurance network. Since then, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, which oversees the two large public health insurance programs, has reached out to every state to see which ones could handle enforcement of the federal ghost network regulations.

    At least 15 states responded that they lacked the ability to enforce the new regulation. So CMS is now tasked with watching out for errors in directories used by millions of insurance customers in those states.

    Julie Brookhart, a spokesperson for CMS, told ProPublica that the agency takes enforcement of the directory error regulations “very seriously.” She said CMS has received a “small number” of provider directory complaints, which the agency is in the process of investigating. If it finds a violation, Brookhart said regulators “will take appropriate enforcement action.”

    But since the requirement went into effect in January 2022, CMS hasn’t fined any insurer for errors. Brookhart said that CMS intends to develop further guidelines with other federal agencies. Until that happens, Brookhart said that insurers are expected to make “good-faith” attempts to follow the federal provider directory rules.


    Last year, five California lawmakers proposed a bill that sought to get rid of ghost networks around the state. If it passed, AB 236 would limit the number of errors allowed in a directory — creating a cap of 5% of all providers listed — and raise penalties for violations. California would become home to one of the nation’s toughest ghost network regulations.

    The state had already passed one of America’s first such regulations in 2015, requiring insurers to post directories online and correct inaccuracies on a weekly basis.

    Since the law went into effect in 2016, insurance customers have filed hundreds of complaints with the California Department of Managed Health Care, which oversees health plans for nearly 30 million enrollees statewide.

    Lawyers also have uncovered extensive evidence of directory errors. When San Diego’s city attorney, Mara Elliott, sued several insurers over publishing inaccurate directories in 2021, she based the claims on directory error data collected by the companies themselves. Citing that data, the lawsuits noted that error rates for the insurers’ psychiatrist listings were between 26% and 83% in 2018 and 2019. The insurers denied the accusations and convinced a judge to dismiss the suits on technical grounds. A panel of California appeals court judges recently reversed those decisions; the cases are pending.

    The companies have continued to send that data to the DMHC each year — but the state has not used it to examine ghost networks. California is among the states that typically waits for a complaint to be filed before it investigates errors.

    “The industry doesn’t take the regulatory penalties seriously because they’re so low,” Elliott told ProPublica. “It’s probably worth it to take the risk and see if they get caught.”

    California’s limited enforcement has resulted in limited fines. Over the past eight years, the DMHC has issued just $82,500 in fines for directory errors involving providers of any kind. That’s less than one-fifth of the fines issued in the two years before the regulation went into effect.

    A spokesperson for the DMHC said its regulators continue “to hold health plans accountable” for violating ghost network regulations. Since 2018, the DMHC has discovered scores of problems with provider directories and pushed health plans to correct the errors. The spokesperson said that the department’s oversight has also helped some customers get reimbursed for out-of-network costs incurred due to directory errors.

    “A lower fine total does not equate to a scaling back on enforcement,” the spokesperson said.

    Dr. Joaquin Arambula, one of the state Assembly members who co-sponsored AB 236, disagreed. He told ProPublica that California’s current ghost network regulation is “not effectively being enforced.” After clearing the state Assembly this past winter, his bill, along with several others that address mental health issues, was suddenly tabled this summer. The roadblock came from a surprising source: the administration of the state’s Democratic governor.

    Officials with the DMHC, whose director was appointed by Gov. Gavin Newsom, estimated that more than $15 million in extra funding would be needed to carry out the bill’s requirements over the next five years. State lawmakers accused officials of inflating the costs. The DMHC’s spokesperson said that the estimate was accurate and based on the department’s “real experience” overseeing health plans.

    Arambula and his co-sponsors hope that their colleagues will reconsider the measure during next year’s session. Sitting before state lawmakers in Sacramento this year, a therapist named Sarah Soroken told the story of a patient who had called 50 mental health providers in her insurer’s directory. None of them could see her. Only after the patient attempted suicide did she get the care she’d sought.

    “We would be negligent,” Soroken told the lawmakers, “if we didn’t do everything in our power to ensure patients get the health care they need.”

    Paige Pfleger of WPLN/Nashville Public Radio contributed reporting.