Today at 2:30 PM EDT: Beyond Acronyms in K-12 Education
RSVP NOW

Center for American Progress

Strengthening Federal Network Adequacy Requirements for ACA Marketplace Plans
Report

Strengthening Federal Network Adequacy Requirements for ACA Marketplace Plans

A Strategy To Improve Maternal Health Equity

In order to improve maternal health care access and outcomes for millions of pregnant and postpartum people in the United States, the federal government must ensure that health insurance plans available through the ACA marketplace offer robust maternity care provider networks.

In this article
A man holds his wife's hand after she returns from the hospital, where doctors performed an emergency cesarean section.
A woman is comforted by her husband after returning home from a hospital in Stamford, Connecticut, where doctors performed an emergency cesarean section to deliver her baby. (Getty/John Moore)

Introduction and summary

The United States is grappling with a maternal health crisis:1 Black and American Indian/Alaska Native women are around three times more likely than their white peers to die from pregnancy-related complications.2 As policymakers continue efforts to expand health insurance coverage under the Affordable Care Act (ACA), federal regulators must ensure that marketplace plans meet the needs of all enrollees—including the roughly 7.2 million women of reproductive age, generally defined as ages 15 to 493—particularly given that Black women have seen strong gains in coverage in recent months.4 It is imperative that regulators equip ACA marketplace plans to serve all enrollees and connect patients with high-quality maternity care.

Black and American Indian/Alaska Native women are around three times more likely than their white peers to die from pregnancy-related complications.

One way to do this is by strengthening network adequacy requirements for managed care plans—insurance plans that contract with a specified network of providers to offer care to their enrollees at lower costs. The ACA requires managed care plans to maintain networks with adequate mixes of providers who deliver care and services under ACA-compliant qualified health plans (QHPs). This requirement is known as “network adequacy,”5 and regulators set minimum criteria for adequacy at the federal level.

What are network adequacy requirements?

Network adequacy requirements, enacted as an original provision of the ACA, are standards—developed and enforced by federal and state administrators—that govern the network of providers with whom a health insurance plan may contract in order to provide services at lower rates to consumers.

Network adequacy requirements ensure that health plans offer people meaningful access to care—care that is timely, of high quality, and culturally competent and that provides access to a diverse array of specialties. In essence, these standards ensure that people who purchase an insurance plan that uses a provider network can count on that network to meet their needs. Without these standards, health plans can elect to contract with a provider network that does not provide meaningful care, forcing patients to seek out-of-network services at a higher cost or forgo care altogether.

Network adequacy standards were significantly weakened under the Trump administration, which issued guidance in 2017 that shifted oversight and enforcement of these standards to the states.6 The Biden administration recently signaled its interest in undoing some of this damage as well as further strengthening the standards.

In a proposed rule published December 28, 2021, as well as in a follow-up draft letter sent to issuers in the federally facilitated exchanges in early January 2022,7 the administration proposed several important changes that are likely to bolster maternal health care on ACA exchanges. Most notably, the administration proposed to evaluate QHPs’ compliance with network adequacy standards based on time and distance standards and appointment wait-time standards as well as to collect from QHPs information on whether providers participating in their network offer telehealth services.8

Regardless of the final rule, however, moving forward, federal regulators must set robust standards that take a comprehensive view of maternal health care, including the need for:

  1. Minimum quantitative standards, including geographic access standards, provider-to-enrollee ratios applicable to OB-GYNs, and maximum allowable wait times for maternity care. While the proposed rules and guidance address the need for such standards, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services should take care to ensure the proposed ratios are responsive to the needs of those seeking maternal health care.
  2. Additional provider and birthing support worker categories, which would compel plans to include midwives, doulas, lactation support consultants, and a range of essential community providers (ECPs), who play a critical role in the provision of maternity care.
  3. Increased access to alternative care modalities, facilitated by requiring that networks include providers with after-hours, 24/7, and telehealth availability. The administration’s proposal to collect some of this information signals an important step forward, but additional work in this space is needed.
  4. Comprehensive accessibility standards, including to ensure providers and birthing support workers are equipped to meet the needs of all patients.
  5. Improved provider directory guidance, which would ensure that directories are administered effectively and that they contain comprehensive provider information.

By adopting the standards outlined above, federal regulators will help to ensure that people are able to access a robust maternity care provider network and see improved maternal health outcomes. At a time when the United States is facing a maternal mortality crisis, strengthening managed care plans’ network adequacy requirements is needed more urgently than ever.

The proposed rule would address the current patchwork of plan standards

ACA statutes require only that plans have a sufficient provider network, and current regulatory guidance adopted during the Trump administration interpreting this requirement states simply that networks must be “sufficient in number and types of providers, including providers that specialize in mental health and substance abuse services, to assure that all services will be accessible without unreasonable delay.”9 The statute also requires that plan networks include “essential community providers,” which it defines as health centers—including federally qualified health centers, Ryan White clinics, and family planning providers—that primarily provide care to low-income individuals living in areas with a shortage of health professionals.10

A note about this report’s recommendations

This report primarily discusses network adequacy standards in the context of maternal health, but policymakers could apply many of its recommendations more broadly to improve access to care for all patients insured through QHPs. For example, minimum quantitative standards for provider-to-patient ratios and geographic access could also be developed for nonobstetric services, such as primary and mental health care. And alternative care modalities, such as telehealth and after-hours care, could be employed across the care continuum.

This report’s recommendations are also well positioned to positively affect care for patients who are part of marginalized communities or who have diverse social identities. Regardless of pregnancy or parenting status, comprehensive accessibility standards help mitigate barriers to care for patients with disabilities and limited English proficiency (LEP), and improved provider directory guidance can ensure that patients, such as those from the LGBTQI+ community and from diverse racial and ethnic backgrounds, are able to identify providers with whom they feel most comfortable.

Absent finalization of the administration’s proposed rule, states have the discretion to determine whether provider networks available within QHPs are truly sufficient for their residents. This is largely due to policies enacted under the Trump administration—and it means that the level of oversight and the quality of standards vary greatly across the nation.

In the current landscape of patchwork plan standards, there is the potential for pregnant and postpartum patients in certain states to face unnecessary barriers to care.

This issue highlights the need for the administration to reengage on network adequacy, both in general and for maternal health specifically. In the current landscape of patchwork plan standards, there is the potential for pregnant and postpartum patients in certain states to face unnecessary barriers to care, including shortages of in-network obstetric providers and other perinatal health professionals; excessive wait times for prenatal and postpartum appointments; and difficulty finding clinics with accessible hours, adequate physical infrastructure, and language accommodations. While in some areas, provider shortages can significantly hamper efforts to improve network quality, it is nonetheless crucial to begin the process of improving access to care by setting uniform standards informed by patient needs.

Recommendations

This section discusses steps that federal regulators can take to address the maternal care crisis in the United States, highlighting state examples of existing comprehensive network adequacy guidelines that can provide a model for strengthening QHP network standards.

1. Set minimum quantitative standards

The National Association of Insurance Commissioners, which provides guidance to state agencies tasked with regulating insurance,11 has encouraged states to adopt quantitative standards to assess network adequacy12—many of which also appear in the administration’s proposals. Such standards include, among other measures: 1) geographic access standards requiring that certain providers are available within a reasonable distance of enrollees’ homes and workplaces; 2) certain provider-to-patient ratios to ensure a sufficient number of providers are available within a plan network to serve enrollees; and 3) wait-time limits aimed at ensuring that enrollees are not required to wait longer than a given interval between when they request and receive various forms of care. These standards could lead to improved access to maternity care, given that commonly reported barriers include travel distance and availability of prompt appointments.13

Several states have adopted quantitative standards to enable provider networks to deliver adequate care. Nine states—Colorado, Delaware, Illinois, Maryland, Missouri, New Hampshire, New Jersey, South Carolina, and West Virginia—outline specific geographic access standards to ensure that enrollees are not required to travel long distances when seeking OB-GYN care.14 Many of these states further delineate between access requirements in highly populated areas such as large cities, where access may be required within as few as 5 miles of enrollees’ homes, and less-populated areas such as rural communities, where access standards may allow a travel distance of up to 60 miles or more from enrollees’ residences.15 In addition to geographic access standards, Colorado, Illinois, Maryland, and West Virginia set explicit provider-to-enrollee ratios for OB-GYNs, ranging from one provider per every 1,000 enrollees to one provider per every 2,500 enrollees.16 Finally, Colorado, Delaware, and Missouri limit allowable wait times for obstetric visits: Colorado requires care to be available within seven calendar days of a request, and Delaware and Missouri further differentiate wait times by trimester, with allowable wait times ranging from three to 21 calendar days post-request.17

While these state-specific quantitative standards work toward increasing the availability and accessibility of maternity care providers in QHPs, the Biden administration’s newly proposed standards governing geographic access and provider-to-patient ratios for OB-GYNs, as well as wait-time limits for maternity care, are a critical step forward.

2. Increase provider and birthing support worker categories

Traditional maternity and obstetric providers, such as OB-GYNs, family medicine physicians, and labor and delivery nurses, are critical partners in the effort to reduce maternal morbidity and mortality. However, a truly comprehensive approach to improving maternal health must also draw on more community-based and holistically oriented providers and support workers, including midwives, doulas, lactation support staff, and ECPs.

Research has long demonstrated that midwives … are an invaluable resource in the effort to reduce maternal mortality and morbidity.
Midwives

Research has long demonstrated that midwives—providers who, through a mix of training and experience, have developed expertise in delivering patient-centered pregnancy care18—are an invaluable resource in the effort to reduce maternal mortality and morbidity.19 In light of the strong evidence for the value of midwifery care, leading maternal health experts 20 have called for the expanded use of midwives as part of a multipronged approach to addressing disparities in maternal health outcomes.21 Several states, including Delaware, Maine, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, and West Virginia, either support or require network plans to include nurse midwives22 as available providers of prenatal and maternity care services.23 Moreover, plan networks should include community-based midwives in particular, given that they are expert maternal health providers and frequently come from the communities they serve, particularly Black and Indigenous communities.

Doulas

Doulas can work and function in myriad ways, but at their core, they are lay individuals who are equipped with the knowledge and skills to support pregnant people before, during, and after birth.24 Doula support is associated with significant improvements in maternal health outcomes, including higher breastfeeding initiation rates, fewer low birth weight babies, and lower rates of cesarean sections.25 What’s more, people who worked with doulas during their birthing process reported improved well-being, reduced stress, and increased confidence in parenting.26 In recognition of the potential for doulas to improve maternal health, some state Medicaid programs have begun providing reimbursement for doula care.27 Following this example, QHPs could be required to include doulas and other similar community-based birth support workers in their provider networks to ensure access for pregnant enrollees.

Lactation support

Lactation support can similarly help people who have recently given birth to feel more comfortable and confident when choosing to breastfeed their new baby.28 Indeed, lactation support is associated with increased breastfeeding for medically vulnerable infants29 for whom feeding is a critical concern. Several types of providers are equipped to provide lactation support, including lactation consultants, counselors, and educators.30 Network adequacy requirements could facilitate access to lactation support by, for example, including network requirements to contract with lactation support workers as well as timely access requirements, such as limits on wait times, to ensure parents can access guidance around lactation without delay after giving birth.

Essential community providers

ECPs,31 who furnish a significant proportion of the care they provide to low-income or otherwise underserved populations, can be a lifeline for patients who might otherwise struggle to access or afford care. To participate in a federally facilitated ACA marketplace, plans currently must contract with 20 percent or more of the available ECPs within the area they service, although the federal government updates this standard annually.32 Some states choose to exceed federally defined standards. Minnesota, for example, identifies as ECPs licensed birth centers,33 which research has suggested may be particularly well positioned to provide and advance equitable and culturally sensitive maternity care.34 Arkansas, Georgia, Louisiana, Minnesota, South Carolina, and Washington state35 also go beyond the federal requirements to explicitly mandate inclusion of rural clinics and hospitals as ECPs, which has the potential to combat disparate maternity outcomes for pregnant people living in rural areas.36 Finally, several states, including Colorado, Maryland, Montana, and Washington, require plans to include some or all available ECP types in QHPs at a higher percentage than the current federal threshold.37

Federal network adequacy standards should require that QHPs include the full range of holistic and community-based maternity care providers within their network.

While some states have taken steps toward ensuring that provider networks include the full complement of maternal health providers, there is more work to do. Despite the extensive body of research demonstrating the efficacy38 of birth workers such as midwives, doulas, and lactation support workers, most states have not acted to ensure QHP networks include these groups. In addition to birth workers, certain providers such as birthing centers and rural clinics are uniquely positioned to reach people in their communities. Federal network adequacy standards should require that QHPs include the full range of holistic and community-based maternity care providers within their network.

Figure 1

3. Increase access to alternative care modalities

Including the right number, distribution, and types of providers in a network is necessary but insufficient to ensure true, equitable access to care. Comprehensive access is achieved only when care is available to patients at times and in modalities that fit their needs.39 States currently take several approaches to ensure that care is available to patients at times that fit their schedules and that plans account for unexpected or emergent maternity care needs. California sets high standards for after-hours access to nonemergent care, requiring that plans make such care available either during evening hours, until 10:00 p.m., and/or on weekends, for at least four hours on Saturdays.40 Illinois and Virginia require plans to ensure patients can access in-network telephonic or in-person clinical support 24/7.41 And in acknowledgment of constraints on patients’ time, Florida requires that in-network providers begin consultation with patients no later than one hour after the patient’s scheduled appointment time.42

Offering flexible hours and keeping appointments on time can help ensure access for patients who may otherwise struggle to make it to, and stay for, appointments due to barriers such as lack of child care or paid time off from work. The administration’s proposal to collect this information is a step in the right direction.

In order to ensure patients can access a truly adequate network of maternity care, providers must accommodate the scheduling and logistical needs and constraints of patients who want and need to see medical professionals in person.

Similarly, encouraging or requiring provider networks to offer telehealth services—as Arizona, Delaware, Hawaii, Illinois, Maryland, Michigan and New Hampshire do43—can make care easier to access for patients who lack structural supports such as paid time off or reliable transportation. However, states should not use telehealth options to supplant the requirements for availability of in-person care. In order to ensure patients can access a truly adequate network of maternity care, providers must accommodate the scheduling and logistical needs and constraints of patients who want and need to see medical professionals in person. To that end, federal network adequacy standards ought to require, or at least encourage, that QHPs include maternity care providers with both after-hours and telehealth availability.

4. Set comprehensive accessibility standards

Health care providers and facilities must also be equipped to meet the needs of diverse patient populations. Studies have shown that pregnant people with physical and intellectual disabilities44 and with limited English proficiency45 experience disparities in maternal health care—increasing the need for providers equipped to meet their unique needs. Similarly, pregnant people who are part of the LGBTQ community—12 percent of whom have had to teach their doctor how to provide their care, according to a CAP study from June 202046—and from diverse cultural and racial/ethnic backgrounds deserve the opportunity to connect with network providers who are comfortable and competent in providing care to the full range of pregnant and parenting people.

States vary widely in their provisions to ensure that networks can adequately care for patients with diverse needs. Pennsylvania requires that providers are “physically accessible to people with disabilities … [and] can communicate with individuals with sensory disabilities,”47 while Virginia stipulates that plans must employ strategies to ensure providers are accessible to people with “physical [or] mental” disabilities,48 and California requires that providers are “reasonably accessible” to patients with disabilities.49 Providers in New Mexico must afford patients who are deaf access to interpreter services,50 and Montana requires that providers have “appropriate and sufficient personnel, physical resources and equipment” to care for patients with disabilities.51 Moving forward, it is critical that network adequacy standards incorporate such provisions to facilitate the development of networks that are equipped to meet the needs of people at all levels of ability.

To account for the needs of patients with LEP, California, Montana, New Mexico, and New York explicitly require that plans and providers make interpreter services readily available for patients who speak languages other than English.52 Several states also hold providers accountable for their care of patients from different backgrounds: New York providers must dispense “culturally and linguistically competent care,”53 and New Mexico provider networks must share any guidelines or trainings used to educate providers regarding the “cultural and linguistic needs” of plan enrollees.54

To ensure that patients with disabilities, with LEP, and with diverse cultural backgrounds and identities can connect with providers positioned to meet their needs, federal network adequacy standards should articulate concrete guidance for network provider accessibility.

To ensure that patients with disabilities, with LEP, and with diverse cultural backgrounds and identities can connect with providers positioned to meet their needs, federal network adequacy standards should articulate concrete guidance for network provider accessibility, such as those developed by the U.S. Access Board specifying accessibility standards for medical equipment.55 Such standards could include those governing the physical accessibility of provider offices, provider collaboration with interpreter services, and requirements for cultural competency trainings that would equip providers with the tools to appropriately engage with patients from all racial, ethnic, and linguistic backgrounds and who identify as LGBTQI+, disabled, or as otherwise part of historically marginalized communities, among others.

Figure 2

5. Improve provider directory guidance

Provider directories, which often serve as the access point for patients seeking in-network care, also have an important role to play in ensuring that patients can locate and engage with providers equipped to meet their needs. Broadly speaking, directories should 1) be updated regularly, as at least 31 states require;56 2) indicate whether providers are accepting new patients, as at least 29 states require;57 and 3) be equipped with functionality to search and/or filter results, as at least 20 states require.58 Moreover, all enrollees would benefit from increased implementation of network breadth ratings, which assess the proportion of available providers included in a plan’s network across three specialty areas: primary care physician adult, primary care physician pediatric, and general acute care hospital.59 Plans could require these ratings as a component of their provider directories, and all states, not just those with previous rating pilots, could expand their plans to include ratings requirements and OB-GYNs and/or other obstetric providers as assessed specialties.

A handful of states have adopted additional specific standards to ensure that directories account for patients’ differing preferences, abilities, and linguistic backgrounds. Illinois and Washington state require directories to include information about whether providers are accessible via telemedicine.60 Fourteen states have standards with stipulations to attend to the needs of patients with disabilities, including by requiring that directories be available using adaptive technology and/or that the physical accessibility of providers’ offices be indicated in their directory listing.61 Twenty states incorporate provisions to support patients with LEP, such as offering directories in multiple languages and/or requiring providers to indicate spoken language(s) in their directory listing.62

Moreover, several states have taken steps to ensure that QHP enrollees can locate providers who are equipped to care for patients with diverse social identities and cultural backgrounds. Twelve states require that a provider’s gender is included in their directory listing;63 this, among other things, allows women who are pregnant to seek out female providers if they choose. Women may prefer to be seen by providers who are also women for many reasons: Evidence suggests that, in some cases, female providers are linked to better outcomes than male providers for female patients,64 and some women may prefer to be seen by women due to previous experiences with trauma or sexual assault.65 Massachusetts’ Provider Directory Task Force published recommendations in 202066 that suggest including providers’ race and ethnicity in directories on at least an optional basis, as race concordance is associated with improvements in clinical communication67 and patient satisfaction.68 The task force also suggested including specific populations served in directories—such as patients from certain racial/ethnic backgrounds, the LGBTQ+ community, or service veterans—to help patients identify providers who are well positioned to meet their specific needs. Making these recommendations requirements would undoubtedly improve patient-provider relationships—and as a result, improve patients’ engagement with care and clinical outcomes.

Requiring QHPs to produce provider directories that allow patients to connect with providers who can meet their needs is a key component of network adequacy standards that can address and reduce inequities in health care. As such, federal standards for provider directories should lay out concrete quality expectations, both for directory administration—including update frequency and filtering capacity—and for provider information included in directories, such as gender, race/ethnicity, and communities served.

Conclusion

The Biden administration’s new proposed standards are an important step forward in the effort to address the United States’ maternal health crisis. As federal regulators continue to strive to address this crisis, they can use state examples of creative and comprehensive network adequacy guidelines as a road map for strengthening the QHP network standards they set and enforce. While network adequacy is only one piece of what must be a multipronged approach to improving health equity, ensuring that patients and pregnant people can access the right provider, in the right place, at the right time, and in the right way, would go a long way toward ensuring that all people receive high-quality care that meets their needs.

Endnotes

  1. Kathleen Sebelius and Tommy G. Thompson, “Reversing the U.S. Maternal Mortality Crisis: A Report of the Aspen Health Strategy Group” (Washington: Aspen Institute, 2021), available at https://www.aspeninstitute.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/04/Maternal-Morality-Report.pdf; J. Phillip Gingrey, “Maternal Mortality: A US Public Health Crisis,” American Journal of Public Health 110 (4) (2020): 462–464, available at https://doi.org/10.2105/AJPH.2019.305552; Alex Friedman Peahl, Katy Backes Kozhimannil, and Lindsay K. Admon, “Addressing The US Maternal Health Crisis: Policies Of 2020 Presidential Candidates,” Health Affairs, June 26, 2019, available at https://www.healthaffairs.org/do/10.1377/hblog20190625.583781/full/.
  2. Emily E. Petersen and others, “Racial/Ethnic Disparities in Pregnancy-Related Deaths — United States, 2007–2016,” Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report 68 (35) (2019): 762–765, available at https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/68/wr/mm6835a3.htm?s_cid=mm6835a3; https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/hestat/maternal-mortality/2020/maternal-mortality-rates-2020.htm.
  3. Kaiser Family Foundation, “Women’s Health Insurance Coverage,” November 8, 2021, available at https://www.kff.org/other/fact-sheet/womens-health-insurance-coverage/.
  4. Katie Keith, “HealthCare.gov Enrollment Continues To Rise During Special Enrollment Period,” Health Affairs, April 7, 2021, available at https://www.healthaffairs.org/do/10.1377/hblog20210407.344843/full/.
  5. U.S. Code of Federal Regulations, “156.230 Network adequacy standards.”
  6. Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, “Guidance to States on Review of Qualified Health Plan Certification Standards in Federally-facilitated Marketplaces for Plan Year 2018 and Later” (Washington: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, 2017), available at https://www.cms.gov/CCIIO/Resources/Regulations-and-Guidance/Downloads/QHP-Certifcation-Reviews-Guidance-41317.pdf.
  7. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, “Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act; HHS Notice of Benefit and Payment Parameters for 2023,” Federal Register 87 (3) (2021): 584–728, available at https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2022/01/05/2021-28317/patient-protection-and-affordable-care-act-hhs-notice-of-benefit-and-payment-parameters-for-2023; Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, “2023 Letter to Issuers in the Federally-facilitated Exchanges,” January 7, 2022, available at https://www.cms.gov/files/document/2023-draft-letter-issuers-508.pdf.
  8. Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, “HHS Notice of Benefit and Payment Parameters for 2023 Proposed Rule Fact Sheet,” December 28, 2021, available at https://www.cms.gov/newsroom/fact-sheets/hhs-notice-benefit-and-payment-parameters-2023-proposed-rule-fact-sheet.
  9. See U.S. Code of Federal Regulations, “156.230 Network adequacy standards,” available at https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-45/subtitle-A/subchapter-B/part-156/subpart-C/section-156.230 (last accessed March 2022).
  10. Ibid.
  11. National Association of Insurance Commissioners, “Our Story,” available at https://content.naic.org/about (last accessed March 2022).
  12. National Association of Insurance Commissioners and Center for Insurance Policy and Research, “The NAIC Network Adequacy Model Act” (Kansas City, MO: National Association of Insurance Commissioners, 2019), available at https://content.naic.org/sites/default/files/government-affairs-brief-network-adequacy-model-act.pdf.
  13. Maureen I. Heaman and others, “Barriers and facilitators related to use of prenatal care by inner-city women: perceptions of health care providers,” BMC Pregnancy and Childbirth 15 (1) (2015), available at https://doi.org/10.1186/s12884-015-0431-5; Julia C. Phillippi “Women’s Perceptions of Access to Prenatal Care in the United States: A Literature Review,” Journal of Midwifery and Women’s Health 54 (3) (2010): 219–225, available at https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmwh.2009.01.002; Institute of Medicine, “Chapter 3 Women’s Perceptions of Barriers to Care,” in Prenatal Care: Reaching Mothers, Reaching Infants (Washington: National Academies Press, 1988), available at https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK217696/; National Association of Insurance Commissioners, “Ensuring Consumers’ Access to Care: Network Adequacy State Insurance Survey Findings and Recommendations for Regulatory Reforms in a Changing Insurance Market” (Kansas City, MO: 2014), available at https://www.naic.org/documents/committees_conliaison_network_adequacy_report.pdf.
  14. Colorado: Casetext, “2 Colo. Code Regs. 702-4-2-53-8,” available at https://casetext.com/regulation/colorado-administrative-code/department-700-department-of-regulatory-agencies/division-702-division-of-insurance/rule-3-ccr-702-4-life-accident-and-health/section-3-ccr-702-4-2-life-accident-and-health-series-4-2/regulation-3-ccr-702-4-2-53-network-adequacy-standards-and-reporting-requirements-for-aca-compliant-health-benefit-plans/section-3-ccr-702-4-2-53-8-geographic-access-standards (last accessed March 2022); Delaware: Insurance Commissioner of the State of Delaware, “2020 Medical Issuer QHP Submission Guide” (Dover, DE: 2019), p. 24, available at https://insurance.delaware.gov/wp-content/uploads/sites/15/2019/04/DE-Issuer-QHP-Submission-Guide-2020.pdf; Illinois: Illinois Department of Insurance, “Network Adequacy Checklist, 1.B.2” (Springfield, IL: 2019), available at https://www2.illinois.gov/sites/Insurance/Consumers/Documents/NetworkAdequacyTransparencyChecklist.pdf; Maryland: Maryland Insurance Administration, “Title 31 Maryland Insurance Administration Subtitle 10 Health Insurance — General,” available at https://insurance.maryland.gov/Consumer/Documents/agencyhearings/31.10.44.NetworkAdequacy-DraftRegs.pdf (last accessed March 2022); Missouri: Missouri Department of Commerce and Insurance, “20 CSR 400-7.095: HMO Access Plans (Jefferson City, MO: 2019), p. 5 and Exhibit A, available at https://www.sos.mo.gov/cmsimages/adrules/csr/current/20csr/20c400-7.pdf; New Hampshire: Legal Information Institute, “New Hampshire Administrative Code: Part Ins 2701 – Health and Dental Benefit Plan Network Adequacy: Ins 2701.06 and 2701.07,” available at https://www.law.cornell.edu/regulations/new-hampshire/title-Ins/chapter-Ins-2700/part-Ins-2701 (last accessed March 2022); New Jersey: Casetext, “N.J. Admin. Code 11:24A-4.10,” available at https://casetext.com/regulation/new-jersey-administrative-code/title-11-insurance/chapter-24a-health-care-quality-act-application-to-insurance-companies-health-service-corporations-hospital-service-corporations-and-medical-service-corporations/subchapter-4-provisions-applicable-to-carriers-offering-one-or-more-health-benefits-plans-that-are-managed-care-plans/section-1124a-410-network-adequacy (last accessed March 2022); South Carolina (Note: Bulletin confirmed in use as of 2020): South Carolina Department of Insurance, “Bulletin Number 2013-04: Appendix C, 8.14” (Columbia, SC: 2013), available at https://doi.sc.gov/DocumentCenter/View/3040/2013-04-Process-for-Filing-Amendments-to-Forms-to-Comply-with-ACA; West Virginia: Casetext, “W. Va.Code R 114-100-3,” available at https://casetext.com/regulation/west-virginia-administrative-code/agency-114-insurance-commission/title-114-legislative-rule-insurance-commissioner/series-114-100-health-benefit-plan-network-access-and-adequacy/section-114-100-3-network-adequacy-standards (last accessed March 2022).
  15. Casetext, “2 Colo. Code Regs. 702-4-2-53-8.”
  16. Colorado: Casetext, “2 Colo. Code Regs. 702-4-2-53-7,” available at https://casetext.com/regulation/colorado-administrative-code/department-700-department-of-regulatory-agencies/division-702-division-of-insurance/rule-3-ccr-702-4-life-accident-and-health/section-3-ccr-702-4-2-life-accident-and-health-series-4-2/regulation-3-ccr-702-4-2-53-network-adequacy-standards-and-reporting-requirements-for-aca-compliant-health-benefit-plans/section-3-ccr-702-4-2-53-7-availability-standards (last accessed March 2022); Illinois: Illinois Department of Insurance, “Network Adequacy Checklist, Item 1.B.3”; Maryland: Maryland Insurance Administration, “Title 31 Maryland Insurance Administration Subtitle 10 Health Insurance — General”; West Virginia: Casetext, “W. Va.Code R 114-100-3.”
  17. Colorado: Casetext, “2 Colo. Code Regs. 702-4-2-53-8”; Delaware: Delaware Health and Social Services, “Quality Management Strategy” (New Castle, DE: 2015), p. 38, Table 3, available at https://dhss.delaware.gov/dhss/dmma/files/delaware_qms.pdf; Missouri: Missouri Department of Commerce and Insurance, “20 CSR 400-7.095: HMO Access Plans,” p. 8.
  18. Midwives Alliance of North American “What is a Midwife?”, available at https://mana.org/about-midwives/what-is-a-midwife (last accessed March 2022); Midwives Alliance of North America, “Types of Midwives,” available at https://mana.org/about-midwives/types-of-midwife (last accessed March 2022).
  19. Saraswathi Vedam and others, “Mapping integration of midwives across the United States: Impact on access, equity, and outcomes,” PLOS One 13 (2) (2018): e0192523, available at https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0192523; Petra ten Hoope-Bender and others, “Improvement of maternal and newborn health through midwifery,” The Lancet 384 (9949) (2014): 1226–1235, available at https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(14)60930-2.
  20. Carol Sakala and others, “Improving Our Maternity Care Now: Four Care Models Decisionmakers Must Implement for Healthier Moms and Babies” (Washington: National Partnership for Women and Families, 2020), p. 84, available at https://www.nationalpartnership.org/our-work/resources/health-care/maternity/improving-our-maternity-care-now.pdf; April Simpson, “Rural America Has a Maternal Mortality Problem. Midwives Might Help Solve It,” The Pew Charitable Trusts, August 16, 2019, available at https://www.pewtrusts.org/en/research-and-analysis/blogs/stateline/2019/08/16/rural-america-has-a-maternal-mortality-problem-midwives-might-help-solve-it.
  21. See Laurie Zephyrin and others, “Community-Based Models to Improve Maternal Health Outcomes and Promote Health Equity” (New York: The Commonwealth Fund, 2021), available at https://www.commonwealthfund.org/publications/issue-briefs/2021/mar/community-models-improve-maternal-outcomes-equity#:~:text=An%20extensive%20literature%20review%20shows,compared%20with%20other%20maternity%20models.
  22. American College of Nurse-Midwives, “Definition of Midwifery and Scope of Practice of Certified Nurse-Midwives and Certified Midwives (Silver Spring, MD: 2012), available at https://www.midwife.org/acnm/files/ACNMLibraryData/UPLOADFILENAME/000000000266/Definition%20of%20Midwifery%20and%20Scope%20of%20Practice%20of%20CNMs%20and%20CMs%20Feb%202012.pdf.
  23. Delaware: Insurance Commissioner of the State of Delaware, “2020 Medical Issuer QHP Submission Guide,” p. 23; Maine: Maine Legislature, “Title 24-A: Maine Insurance Code Chapter 56-A: Health Plan Improvement Act Subchapter 1: Health Plan Requirements, 4303. Plan requirements,” available at https://legislature.maine.gov/statutes/24-A/title24-Asec4303.html (last accessed March 2022); New Hampshire: Casetext, “N.H. Code Admin. R. Ins 2701.05,” available at https://casetext.com/regulation/new-hampshire-administrative-code/title-ins-commissioner-insurance-department/chapter-ins-2700-managed-care/part-ins-2701-health-and-dental-benefit-plan-network-adequacy/section-ins-270105-reasonable-access-to-health-care-services (last accessed March 2022); New Jersey: Casetext, “N.J. Admin. Code 11:24A-4.10”; New Mexico: New Mexico Commission of Public Records, “Title 13 Insurance, Chapter 10 Health Insurance, Part 22 Managed Health Care Plan Compliance,” available at https://www.srca.nm.gov/parts/title13/13.010.0022.html (last accessed March 2022); New York: New York State Department of Health, “Data Dictionary” (2016), p. 57, available at https://pnds.health.ny.gov/referencedata/dictionary.pdf; West Virginia: Casetext, “W. Va.Code R 114-100-3.”
  24. DONA International, “What is a doula?”, available at https://www.dona.org/what-is-a-doula/ (last accessed March 2022).
  25. Kenneth J. Gruber, Susan H. Cupito, and Christina F. Dobson, “Impact of Doulas on Healthy Birth Outcomes,” The Journal of Perinatal Education 22 (1) (2013), 49–58, available at https://doi.org/10.1891/1058-1243.22.1.49; Mary-Powel Thomas and others, “Doula Services Within a Healthy Start Program: Increasing Access for an Underserved Population,” Maternal and Child Health Journal 21 (1) (2017): 59–64, available at https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5736765/.
  26. Jenny McLeish and Maggie Redshaw, “‘Being the best person that they can be and the best mum’: A qualitative study of community volunteer doula support for disadvantaged mothers before and after birth in England,” BMC Pregnancy and Childbirth 19 (1) (2019): 21, available at https://doi.org/10.1186/s12884-018-2170-x.
  27. Ashley Nguyen, “Behind the growing movements to include doulas under Medicaid,” The Washington Post, March 1, 2021, available at https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/2021/the-lily/covering-doulas-medicaid/.
  28. Magdalena Chrzan-Dętkoś and others, “Improvement of the breastfeeding self-efficacy and postpartum mental health after lactation consultations – Observational study,” Midwifery 94 (2021): 102905, available at https://doi.org/10.1016/j.midw.2020.102905.
  29. Sharareh Gharib and others, “Effect of Dedicated Lactation Support Services on Breastfeeding Outcomes in Extremely-Low-Birth-Weight Neonates,” Journal of Human Lactation 34 (4) (2017): 728–736, available at https://doi.org/10.1177/0890334417741304.
  30. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Office on Women’s Health, “Finding breastfeeding support and information,” available at https://www.womenshealth.gov/breastfeeding/learning-breastfeed/finding-breastfeeding-support-and-information (last accessed March 2022).
  31. See Cristina Jade Peña, Laurie Sobel, and Alina Salganicoff, “Federal and State Standards for ‘Essential Community Providers’ under the ACA and Implications for Women’s Health” (San Francisco: Kaiser Family Foundation, 2015), available at https://files.kff.org/attachment/issue-brief-federal-and-state-standards-for-essential-community-providers-under-the-aca-and-implications-for-womens-health.
  32. Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, “2019 Letter to Issuers in the Federally-facilitated Exchanges” (Washington: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, 2018), available at https://www.cms.gov/CCIIO/Resources/Regulations-and-Guidance/Downloads/2019-Letter-to-Issuers.pdf. Note: Guidance unchanged in 2020, 2021, and 2022.
  33. Minnesota Legislature, “2021 Minnesota Statutes: 62Q.19: Essential Community Providers,” available at https://www.revisor.mn.gov/statutes/cite/62Q.19 (last accessed March 2022).
  34. Zephyrin and others, “Community-Based Models to Improve Maternal Health Outcomes and Promote Health Equity.”
  35. Arkansas: Arkansas Insurance Department, “Rule 106: Network Adequacy Requirements for Health Benefit Plans: Section 5-H-1,” available at https://insurance.arkansas.gov/uploads/pages/final_-_rule_106.pdf (last accessed March 2022); Georgia: Casetext, “Ga. Code 33-20B-3.1,” available at https://casetext.com/statute/code-of-georgia/title-33-insurance/chapter-20b-essential-rural-health-care-provider-access/section-33-20b-31-health-maintenance-organizations-expansion-into-rural-areas (last accessed March 2022); Louisiana: Casetext, “La. Stat. tit. 40 2251,” available at https://casetext.com/statute/louisiana-revised-statutes/revised-statutes/title-40-public-health-and-safety/chapter-12-health-care-cost-control/part-vi-utilization-of-essential-community-providers/section-402251-definitions (last accessed March 2022); Minnesota: Minnesota Legislature, “2021 Minnesota Statutes: 62Q.19: Essential Community Providers”; South Carolina: South Carolina Legislature, “South Carolina Code of Laws Unannotated Title 44 – Health, Chapter 6, Department of Health and Human Services, Article 1 General Provision,” available at https://www.scstatehouse.gov/code/t44c006.php (last accessed March 2022); Washington: Washington State Legislature, “WAC 284-170-310,” available at https://apps.leg.wa.gov/wac/default.aspx?cite=284-170-310 (last accessed March 2022).
  36. Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, “Improving Access to Maternal Health Care in Rural Communities” (Washington: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, 2019), available at https://www.cms.gov/About-CMS/Agency-Information/OMH/equity-initiatives/rural-health/09032019-Maternal-Health-Care-in-Rural-Communities.pdf.
  37. Colorado: Casetext, “2 Colo. Code Regs. 702-4-2-53-9,” available at https://casetext.com/regulation/colorado-administrative-code/department-700-department-of-regulatory-agencies/division-702-division-of-insurance/rule-3-ccr-702-4-life-accident-and-health/section-3-ccr-702-4-2-life-accident-and-health-series-4-2/regulation-3-ccr-702-4-2-53-network-adequacy-standards-and-reporting-requirements-for-aca-compliant-health-benefit-plans/section-3-ccr-702-4-2-53-9-essential-community-provider-standards (last accessed March 2022); Maryland: Maryland Insurance Administration, “Title 31 Maryland Insurance Administration Subtitle 10 Health Insurance — General”; Montana: Montana Commissioner of Securities and Insurance, “2021 Form, Rate, and Network Adequacy Filing Requirements Including Qualified Health Plan Certification” (Helena, MT: 2020), p. 9, available at https://csimt.gov/wp-content/uploads/2021-Health-Rates-Memo.pdf; Washington: Washington State Legislature, “WAC 284-170-310.”
  38. Katy B. Kozhimannil, Laura Attanasio, and Fernando Alarid-Ascudero, “More Midwife-Led Care Could Generate Cost Savings and Health Improvements” (Minneapolis: University of Minnesota School of Public Health, 2019), p. 4, available at https://www.sph.umn.edu/sph-2018/wp-content/uploads/docs/policy-brief-midwife-led-care-nov-2019.pdf; Embry Howell and others, “Potential Medicaid Cost Savings from Maternity Care Based at a Freestanding Birth Center” (Baltimore: Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Research, 2014), p. 13, available at https://www.cms.gov/mmrr/Downloads/MMRR2014_004_03_a06.pdf; Karen S. Greiner and others, “The Cost‐Effectiveness of Professional Doula Care for a Woman’s First Two Births: A Decision Analysis Model,” Journal of Midwifery and Women’s Health 64 (4) (2019): 410–420, available https://doi.org/10.1111/jmwh.12972; Katy B. Kozhimannil, “Modeling the Cost-Effectiveness of Doula Care Associated with Reductions in Preterm Birth and Cesarean Delivery,” Birth 43 (1) (2016): 20–27, available at https://doi.org/10.1111/birt.12218.
  39. Catherine G. McLaughlin and Leon Wyszewianski, “Access to Care: Remembering Old Lessons,” Health Services Research 37 (6) (2002): 1441–1443, available at https://doi.org/10.1111/1475-6773.12171; Roy Penchansky and William J. Thomas, “The Concept of Access: Definition and Relationship to Consumer Satisfaction,” Medical Care 19 (2) (1981): 127–140, available at https://doi.org/10.1097/00005650-198102000-00001.
  40. Casetext, “Cal. Code Regs. tit. 10 2240.1.b.4,” available at https://casetext.com/regulation/california-code-of-regulations/title-10-investment/chapter-5-insurance-commissioner/subchapter-2-policy-forms-and-other-documents/article-6-provider-network-access-standards-for-disability-policies-and-agreements/section-22401-adequacy-and-accessibility-of-provider-services (last accessed March 2022).
  41. Illinois: Illinois General Assembly, “Illinois Compiled Statutes: Insurance: 215 ILCS 124/10.a.3,” available at https://www.ilga.gov/legislation/ilcs/ilcs3.asp?ActID=3824&ChapterID=22 (last accessed March 2022); Virginia: Code of Virginia, “12VAC5-408-260-B. Network Adequacy,” available at https://law.lis.virginia.gov/admincode/title12/agency5/chapter408/section260/ (last accessed March 2022).
  42. Casetext, “Fla. Admin. Code R. 59A-12.006 Quality of Care,” available at https://casetext.com/regulation/florida-administrative-code/department-59-agency-for-health-care-administration/division-59a-health-facility-and-agency-licensing/chapter-59a-12-health-maintenance-organizations-and-prepaid-health-clinics/section-59a-12006-quality-of-care (last accessed March 2022).
  43. Arizona: Arizona Administrative Code, “Title 20. Commerce, Financial Institutions, and Insurance, Chapter 6. Department of Insurance,” p. 130, available at https://apps.azsos.gov/public_services/Title_20/20-06.pdf (last accessed March 2022); Delaware: Insurance Commissioner of the State of Delaware, “2020 Medical Issuer QHP Submission Guide,” p. 25; Hawaii: Justia, “2020 Hawaii Revised Statutes Title 24. Insurance 431. Insurance Code 431:26-103 Network adequacy,” available at https://law.justia.com/codes/hawaii/2020/title-24/chapter-431/section-431-26-103/; Illinois: Illinois General Assembly, “Illinois Compiled Statutes: Insurance: 215 ILCS 124/10.a.3”; Maryland: Casetext, “MD. Code, Ins. 15-112,” available at https://casetext.com/statute/code-of-maryland/article-insurance/title-15-health-insurance/subtitle-1-general-provisions/section-15-112-provider-panels (last accessed March 2022); Michigan: Michigan Department of Insurance and Financial Services, “Michigan Network Adequacy Guidance: IV-A-9” (Lansing, MI: 2018), p. 4, available at https://d2l2jhoszs7d12.cloudfront.net/state/Michigan/Michigan%20Insurance%20and%20Financial%20Services/httpswww.michigan.govdifs0,5269,7-303-13044—,00.html/Insurance/HMOAFDS%20-%20Application%20for%20Licensure%20and%20Forms/Network_Adequacy_Guidelines_415418_7.pdf; New Hampshire: Casetext, “N.H. Code Admin. R. Ins 2701.05.”
  44. Michelle Shapiro, “Pregnancy and Motherhood in Women with Disabilities: Information and Opportunities for Local Health Departments,” National Association of County and City Health Officials, March 20, 2019, available at https://www.naccho.org/blog/articles/pregnancy-and-motherhood-in-women-with-disabilities-information-and-opportunities-for-local-health-departments.
  45. Tetine Sentell and others, “Maternal language and adverse birth outcomes in a statewide analysis,” Women and Health 56 (3) (2015): 257–280, available at https://doi.org/10.1080/03630242.2015.1088114.
  46. Sharita Gruberg, Lindsay Mahowald, and John Halpin, “The State of the LGBTQ Community in 2020: A National Public Opinion Study” (Washington: Center for American Progress, 2020), available at https://americanprogress.org/article/state-lgbtq-community-2020/.
  47. Pennsylvania Code, “28 Pa. Code 9.680. Access for persons with disabilities,” available at https://www.pacodeandbulletin.gov/Display/pacode?file=/secure/pacode/data/028/chapter9/s9.680.html&d=reduce (last accessed March 2022).
  48. Code of Virginia, “12VAC5-408-260-C, Network adequacy.”
  49. Casetext, “Cal. Code Regs. tit. 10 2240.1.b.3.”
  50. New Mexico Commission of Public Records, “Title 13 Insurance, Chapter 10 Health Insurance, Part 22 Managed Health Care Plan Compliance.”
  51. Casetext, “Mont. Admin. R. 37.108.236,” available at https://casetext.com/regulation/montana-administrative-code/department-37-public-health-and-human-services/chapter-37108-managed-care-quality-assurance/subchapter-371082-network-adequacy-for-managed-care/rule-37108236-removal-of-barriers-to-access (last accessed March 2022).
  52. California: Casetext, “Cal. Code Regs. Tit. 101 2240.15,” available at https://casetext.com/regulation/california-code-of-regulations/title-10-investment/chapter-5-insurance-commissioner/subchapter-2-policy-forms-and-other-documents/article-6-provider-network-access-standards-for-disability-policies-and-agreements/section-224015-network-access-appointment-waiting-time-standards-quality-assurance-disclosure-and-education (last accessed March 2022); Montana: Casetext, “Mont. Admin. R. 37.108.236”; New Mexico: New Mexico Commission of Public Records, “Title 13 Insurance, Chapter 10 Health Insurance, Part 22 Managed Health Care Plan Compliance”; New York: New York State of Health, “Invitation and Requirements for Insurer Certification and Recertification for Participation in 2021: Qualified Health Plans, Stand-alone Dental Plans and Essential Plans” (2020), Section IV, A-f-iv, available at https://info.nystateofhealth.ny.gov/sites/default/files/2021 NY State of Health Plan Invitation%2C revised 5-8-20.pdf.
  53. New York State Senate, “Legislation: N.Y. Pub. Health Law 4403.5.b,” available at https://www.nysenate.gov/legislation/laws/PBH/4403 (last accessed March 2022).
  54. New Mexico Commission of Public Records, “Title 13 Insurance, Chapter 10 Health Insurance, Part 22 Managed Health Care Plan Compliance.”       
  55. U.S. Access Board, “Medical Diagnostic Equipment: Accessibility Standards,” available at https://www.access-board.gov/mde/ (last accessed March 2022).
  56. American Medical Association and Council for Affordable Quality Healthcare, “Improving Health Plan Provider Directories,” available at https://www.ama-assn.org/system/files/improving-health-plan-provider-directories.pdf (last accessed March 2022); Arizona: Arizona Administrative Code, “Title 20. Commerce, Financial Institutions, and Insurance, Chapter 6. Department of Insurance”; Arkansas: Arkansas Insurance Department, “Rule 106: Network Adequacy Requirements for Health Benefit Plans: Section 5-J-1”; California: California Legislative Information, “Insurance Code – Ins Division 2. Classes of Insurance, Part 2. Life and Disability Insurance, Chapter 1. The Contract,” available at https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySection.xhtml?lawCode=INS&sectionNum=10133.15 (last accessed March 2022); Colorado: Casetext, “3 Colo. Code Regs. 702-4-2-55-5,” available at https://casetext.com/regulation/colorado-administrative-code/department-700-department-of-regulatory-agencies/division-702-division-of-insurance/rule-3-ccr-702-4-life-accident-and-health/section-3-ccr-702-4-2-life-accident-and-health-series-4-2/regulation-3-ccr-702-4-2-55-standards-and-reporting-requirements-for-aca-compliant-health-benefit-plan-provider-directories/section-3-ccr-702-4-2-55-5-provider-directories (last accessed March 2022); Connecticut: Connecticut General Assembly, “CAR § 38a-477-h-b-1,” available at https://www.cga.ct.gov/current/pub/chap_700c.htm#sec_38a-477h (last accessed March 2022); Delaware: Insurance Commissioner of the State of Delaware, “2020 Medical Issuer QHP Submission Guide,” p. 30; Georgia: Casetext, “Ga. Code 33-20C-3.a,” available at https://casetext.com/statute/code-of-georgia/title-33-insurance/chapter-20c-health-care-network-provider-information/section-33-20c-3-required-and-accurate-information-in-directories-reporting-reimbursement-for-reliance (last accessed March 2022); Hawaii: Justia, “2020 Hawaii Revised Statutes Title 24. Insurance 431. Insurance Code 431:26-105 Provider directories,” available at https://law.justia.com/codes/hawaii/2020/title-24/chapter-431/section-431-26-105/ (last accessed March 2022); Illinois: Illinois General Assembly, “Illinois Compiled Statutes: Insurance: 215 ILCS 124/25.a.2”; Maine: Maine Legislature, “Title 24-A: Maine Insurance Code Chapter 56-A: Health Plan Improvement Act Subchapter 1: Health Plan Requirements, 4303-D. Provider directories,” available at https://legislature.maine.gov/statutes/24-A/title24-Asec4303-D.html (last accessed March 2022); Maryland: Casetext, “MD. Code, Ins. 15-112”; Michigan:  Michigan Department of Insurance and Financial Services, “Michigan Network Adequacy Guidance: IV-A-i-b,” p. 4; Minnesota: Minnesota Legislature, “2021 Minnesota Statutes: 62K.075: Provider Network Notifications,” available at https://www.revisor.mn.gov/statutes/cite/62K.075; Montana: Administrative Rules of Montana, “Rule: 6.6.5906,” available at https://rules.mt.gov/gateway/ruleno.asp?RN=6%2E6%2E5906 (last accessed March 2022); Nevada: Casetext, “Nev. Admin. Code 687B.778,” available at https://casetext.com/regulation/nevada-administrative-code/chapter-687b-contracts-of-insurance/adequacy-of-network-plans/section-687b778-update-of-directory-of-providers-of-health-care-public-availability-of-directory (last accessed March 2022); New Hampshire: Casetext, “N.H. Code Admin. R. Ins 2701.12,” available at https://casetext.com/regulation/new-hampshire-administrative-code/title-ins-commissioner-insurance-department/chapter-ins-2700-managed-care/part-ins-2701-health-and-dental-benefit-plan-network-adequacy/section-ins-270112-provider-directories (last accessed March 2022); New Jersey: Casetext, “N.J. Admin. Code 11:24C-4.6,” available at https://casetext.com/regulation/new-jersey-administrative-code/title-11-insurance/chapter-24c-managed-care-plans/subchapter-4-provider-networks/section-1124c-46-standards-for-accuracy-of-provider-directory-information (last accessed March 2022); New York: New York State of Health, “Invitation and Requirements for Insurer Certification and Recertification for Participation in 2021,” p. 47; North Carolina: Justia, “2020 North Carolina General Statutes, Chapter 58 – Insurance, Article 3- General Regulation for Insurance, 58-3-245 – Provider directories; cost tools for insured,” available at https://law.justia.com/codes/north-carolina/2020/chapter-58/article-3/section-58-3-245/ (last accessed March 2022); North Dakota: North Dakota Legislature, “Chapter 45-06-07: Model Regulation to Implement Rules Regarding Contracts and Services of Health Maintenance Organizations,” available at https://www.legis.nd.gov/information/acdata/pdf/45-06-07.pdf (last accessed March 2022); Ohio: Ohio Laws and Administrative Rules, “Rule 2901-8-16: Required provider network disclosures for consumers,” available at https://codes.ohio.gov/ohio-administrative-code/rule-3901-8-16 (last accessed March 2022); Oregon: Oregon Department of Consumer and Business Services, “Insurance Regulation – Chapter 836, Division 53: Health Benefit Plans,” available at https://secure.sos.state.or.us/oard/viewSingleRule.action;JSESSIONID_OARD=iKt7MV70jcn9BhXoX0G7FLSsUn6sIRSJLzYvXoQ9Q52JlLTCt–m!849948759?ruleVrsnRsn=204353 (last accessed March 2022); Rhode Island: Rhode Island Department of State, “Network Plans: 230-RICR-20-30-9.7.D.R,” available at https://rules.sos.ri.gov/regulations/part/230-20-30-9 (last accessed March 2022); South Dakota: South Dakota Legislature, “Codified Laws: 58-17F-4.5,” available at https://sdlegislature.gov/Statutes/Codified_Laws/2075206 (last accessed March 2022); Tennessee: Justia, “2020 Tennessee Code Title 56 – Insurance Chapter 7 – Policies and Policyholders Part 23 – Mandated Insurer or Plan Coverage § 56-7-2356. Sufficient Network of Providers — Determining Compliance — Timeliness,” available at https://law.justia.com/codes/tennessee/2020/title-56/chapter-7/part-23/section-56-7-2356/ (last accessed March 2022); Texas: Texas Administrative Code, “Rule 11.1612-a-5 (HMO only),” available at https://texreg.sos.state.tx.us/public/readtac$ext.TacPage?sl=R&app=9&p_dir=&p_rloc=&p_tloc=&p_ploc=&pg=1&p_tac=&ti=28&pt=1&ch=11&rl=1612 (last accessed March 2022); Vermont: Casetext, “21-010 Code Vt. R. 21-040-010-X,” available at https://casetext.com/regulation/vermont-administrative-code/agency-21-department-of-financial-regulation/subagency-040-division-of-health-care-administration/chapter-010-rule-h-2009-03-consumer-protection-and-quality-requirements-for-managed-care-organizations/section-21-040-010-rule-h-2009-03-consumer-protection-and-quality-requirements-for-managed-care-organizations (last accessed March 2022); Virginia: Code of Virginia, 38.2-3407.10.G-2 Health care provider panels,” available at https://law.lis.virginia.gov/vacode/title38.2/chapter34/section38.2-3407.10/ (last accessed March 2022); Washington: Washington State Legislature, “WAC 284-170-260.4,” available at https://apps.leg.wa.gov/wac/default.aspx?cite=284-170-260 (last accessed March 2022); West Virginia: West Virginia Legislature, “33-55-2.a,” available at https://www.wvlegislature.gov/wvcode/code.cfm?chap=33&art=55#01 (last accessed March 2022); Wisconsin: Wisconsin State Legislature, “W.A.C Ins. 9.37.2,” available at https://docs.legis.wisconsin.gov/code/admin_code/ins/9/III/32 (last accessed March 2022).
  57. Arkansas: Arkansas Insurance Department, “Rule 106: Network Adequacy Requirements for Health Benefit Plans: Section 5-J, ECP-only”; California: California Legislative Information, “Insurance Code – Ins Division 2. Classes of Insurance, Part 2. Life and Disability Insurance, Chapter 1. The Contract”; Colorado: Casetext, “3 Colo. Code Regs. 702-4-2-60 app 3 CCR 702-4-2-60-D.1.A.9,” available at https://casetext.com/regulation/colorado-administrative-code/department-700-department-of-regulatory-agencies/division-702-division-of-insurance/rule-3-ccr-702-4-life-accident-and-health/section-3-ccr-702-4-2-life-accident-and-health-series-4-2/regulation-3-ccr-702-4-2-60-concerning-network-adequacy-filings-for-dental-plans-vision-plans-pharmacy-plans-short-term-limited-duration-health-insurance-policies-and-other-non-affordable-care-act-managed-care-plans/appendix-3-ccr-702-4-2-60-d-provider-directory-contents (last accessed March 2022); Connecticut: Connecticut General Assembly, “CAR § 38a-477-h-c-4-d-1-A-iii”; Delaware: Insurance Commissioner of the State of Delaware, “2020 Medical Issuer QHP Submission Guide,” p. 30; Georgia: Casetext, “Ga. Code 33-20C-4.a.1.K,” available at https://casetext.com/statute/code-of-georgia/title-33-insurance/chapter-20c-health-care-network-provider-information/section-33-20c-4-information-and-searchable-format-for-directories-exclusion-for-dental-plans (last accessed March 2022); Hawaii: Justia, “2020 Hawaii Revised Statutes Title 24. Insurance 431. Insurance Code 431:26-105 Provider directories”; Illinois: Illinois General Assembly, “Illinois Compiled Statutes: Insurance: 215 ILCS 124/25.b.1.; Maine: Maine Legislature, “Title 24-A: Maine Insurance Code Chapter 56-A: Health Plan Improvement Act Subchapter 1: Health Plan Requirements, 4303-D. Provider directories”; Maryland: Casetext, “MD. Code, Ins. 15-112”; Michigan: Michigan Department of Insurance and Financial Services, “Michigan Network Adequacy Guidance: IV-A-i-c-i,” p. 4; Montana: Administrative Rules of Montana, “Rule: 6.6.5906”; Nebraska: Nebraska Department of Insurance, “Form Review Checklist,” p. 1, available at https://doi.nebraska.gov/sites/doi.nebraska.gov/files/doc/Indiv%20%20SG%20Major%20Med%20Checklist%20%202019.pdf (last accessed March 2022); Nevada: Casetext, “Nev. Admin. Code 687B.778”; New Hampshire: Casetext, “N.H. Code Admin. R. Ins 2701.12”; New Jersey: Casetext, “N.J. Admin. Code 11:24C-4.5.b,” available at https://casetext.com/regulation/new-jersey-administrative-code/title-11-insurance/chapter-24c-managed-care-plans/subchapter-4-provider-networks/section-1124c-45-content-and-availability-of-provider-network-directories (last accessed March 2022); New Mexico: New Mexico Commission of Public Records, “Title 13 Insurance, Chapter 10 Health Insurance, Part 22 Managed Health Care Plan Compliance”; New York: New York State of Health, “Invitation and Requirements for Insurer Certification and Recertification for Participation in 2021,” p. 47; North Carolina: Justia, “2020 North Carolina General Statutes, Chapter 58 – Insurance, Article 3- General Regulation for Insurance, 58-3-245 – Provider directories; cost tools for insured”; Ohio: Ohio Laws and Administrative Rules, “Rule 2901-8-16: Required provider network disclosures for consumers”; Oregon: Oregon Department of Consumer and Business Services, “Insurance Regulation – Chapter 836, Division 53: Health Benefit Plans”; Rhode Island: Rhode Island Department of State, “Network Plans: 230-RICR-20-30-9.7.D.2.c.2”; South Dakota: South Dakota Legislature, “Codified Laws: 58-17F-4.5”; Texas: Texas Administrative Code, “Rule 3.3705-b-12 (PPO/EPO),” available at https://texreg.sos.state.tx.us/public/readtac$ext.TacPage?sl=R&app=9&p_dir=&p_rloc=&p_tloc=&p_ploc=&pg=1&p_tac=&ti=28&pt=1&ch=3&rl=3705 (last accessed March 2022); Texas Administrative Code, “Rule 11.1612-h-2 (HMO),” available at https://texreg.sos.state.tx.us/public/readtac$ext.TacPage?sl=R&app=9&p_dir=&p_rloc=&p_tloc=&p_ploc=&pg=1&p_tac=&ti=28&pt=1&ch=11&rl=1612 (last accessed March 2022); Vermont: Casetext, “21-010 Code Vt. R. 21-040-010-X”; Virginia: Code of Virginia, 38.2-3407.10.G-2 Health care provider panels”; Washington: Washington State Legislature, “WAC 284-170-260.6”; West Virginia: West Virginia Legislature, “33-55-4, b.1.i, d.1.vi”; Wyoming: Wyoming Administrative Rules, “Chapter 65: Regulation Governing the Sale of Out-of-State Health Insurance Policies,” available at https://rules.wyo.gov/DownloadFile.aspx?source_id=9687&source_type_id=81&doc_type_id=110&include_meta_data=Y&file_type=pdf&filename=9687.pdf&token=146180182052092014218194025253071102173091062047 (last accessed March 2022).
  58. Arkansas: Arkansas Insurance Department, “Rule 106: Network Adequacy Requirements for Health Benefit Plans: Section 5-J-4”; California: California Legislative Information, “Insurance Code – Ins Division 2. Classes of Insurance, Part 2. Life and Disability Insurance, Chapter 1. The Contract”; Colorado: Casetext, “3 Colo. Code Regs. 702-4-2-55-5.B.1”; Connecticut: Connecticut General Assembly, “CAR § 38a-477-h-4-d”; Georgia: Casetext, “Ga. Code 33-20C-4.a”; Hawaii: Justia, “2020 Hawaii Revised Statutes Title 24. Insurance 431. Insurance Code 431:26-105 Provider directories”; Illinois: Illinois General Assembly, “Illinois Compiled Statutes: Insurance: 215 ILCS 124/25.a”; Maine: Maine Legislature, “Title 24-A: Maine Insurance Code Chapter 56-A: Health Plan Improvement Act Subchapter 1: Health Plan Requirements, 4303-D. Provider directories”; Maryland: Casetext, “Md. Code, Ins. 15-112.n.2.ii”; Minnesota: Minnesota Legislature, “2021 Minnesota Statutes: 62K.075: Provider Network Notifications”; Montana: Administrative Rules of Montana, “Rule: 6.6.5906”; New Hampshire: Casetext, “N.H. Code Admin. R. Ins 2701.12.a”; New Jersey: Casetext, “N.J. Admin. Code 11:24C-4.5.d”; Ohio: Ohio Laws and Administrative Rules, “Rule 2901-8-16: Required provider network disclosures for consumers”; Oregon: Oregon Department of Consumer and Business Services, “Insurance Regulation – Chapter 836, Division 53: Health Benefit Plans”; Rhode Island: Rhode Island Department of State, “Network Plans: 230-RICR-20-30-9.7.D.3.a”; Texas: “T.A.C 11.1612-a-3 (HMO only)”; Vermont: Casetext, “21-010 Code Vt. R. 21-040-010-X”; Washington: Washington State Legislature, “WAC 284-170-260.1”; West Virginia: West Virginia Legislature, “33-55-4.a.1.A.”
  59. Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, “Network Adequacy (NA), Essential Community Providers (ECPs), and Stand-Alone Dental Plans (SADPs)” (Washington: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, 2020), available at https://www.hhs.gov/guidance/sites/default/files/hhs-guidance-documents/QHP_Slides_051420_V1_5CR_051420_4.pdf.
  60. Illinois: Illinois General Assembly, “Illinois Compiled Statutes: Insurance: 215 ILCS 124/25.b.1.k,” available at https://www.ilga.gov/legislation/ilcs/ilcs3.asp?ActID=3824&ChapterID=22 Virginia: Code of Virginia, “12VAC5-408-260-B. Network Adequacy,” available at https://law.lis.virginia.gov/admincode/title12/agency5/chapter408/section260/ (last accessed November 2021); Washington: Washington State Legislature, “WAC 284-170-260-5.7,” available at https://apps.leg.wa.gov/wac/default.aspx?cite=284-170-260 (last accessed November 2021).
  61. Colorado: Casetext, “3 Colo. Code Regs. 702-4-2-55-5.B.9”; Connecticut: Connecticut General Assembly, “Sec. 38a-477g. Contracts between health carriers and participating providers”; Delaware: Insurance Commissioner of the State of Delaware, “2020 Medical Issuer QHP Submission Guide,” p. 24; Hawaii: Justia, “2020 Hawaii Revised Statutes Title 24. Insurance 431. Insurance Code 431:26-105 Provider directories”; Maine: Maine Legislature, “Title 24-A: Maine Insurance Code Chapter 56-A: Health Plan Improvement Act Subchapter 1: Health Plan Requirements, 4303-D. Provider directories”; Michigan: Michigan Department of Insurance and Financial Services, “Michigan Network Adequacy Guidance: IV-A-i-c-vi,” p. 4; New York: New York State of Health, “Invitation and Requirements for Insurer Certification and Recertification for Participation in 2021,” p. 47; Ohio: Ohio Laws and Administrative Rules, “Rule 3901-8-16 Required provider network disclosures for consumers”; Oregon: Oregon Department of Consumer and Business Services, “Insurance Regulation – Chapter 836, Division 53: Health Benefit Plans”; Rhode Island: Rhode Island Department of State, “Network Plans: 230-RICR-20-30-9.7.D.R”; Vermont: Casetext, “21-010 Code Vt. R. 21-040-010-X”; Washington: Washington State Legislature, “WAC 284-170-260.4”; West Virginia: West Virginia Legislature, “33-55-4.a.7.”
  62. Arkansas: Arkansas Insurance Department, “Rule 106: Network Adequacy Requirements for Health Benefit Plans: Section 5-J-3”; California: California Legislative Information, “Insurance Code – Ins Division 2. Classes of Insurance, Part 2. Life and Disability Insurance, Chapter 1. The Contract (c.2 & h.10)”; Colorado: Casetext, “3 Colo. Code Regs. 702-4-2-55-5.B.9”; Connecticut: Connecticut General Assembly, “Sec. 38a-477h. Participating provider directories, Contracts between health carriers and participating providers”; Delaware: Insurance Commissioner of the State of Delaware, “2020 Medical Issuer QHP Submission Guide,” p. 24; Georgia: Casetext, “Ga. Code 33-20C-4.a.1.I”; Hawaii: Justia, “2020 Hawaii Revised Statutes Title 24. Insurance 431. Insurance Code 431:26-105 Provider directories”; Illinois: Illinois General Assembly, “Illinois Compiled Statutes: Insurance: 215 ILCS 124/25.a.7, b.1.H, c.1.B”; Maine: Maine Legislature, “Title 24-A: Maine Insurance Code Chapter 56-A: Health Plan Improvement Act Subchapter 1: Health Plan Requirements, 4303-D. Provider directories, 1.G, 2.A.8, 3.A.3”; Maryland: Casetext, “Md. Code, Ins. 15-112”; Michigan: Michigan Department of Insurance and Financial Services, “Michigan Network Adequacy Guidance: IV-A-i-c-vi,” p. 4; New York: New York State of Health, “Invitation and Requirements for Insurer Certification and Recertification for Participation in 2021,” p. 4; Ohio: Ohio Laws and Administrative Rules, “Rule 3901-8-16 Required provider network disclosures for consumers”; Oregon: Oregon Department of Consumer and Business Services, “Insurance Regulation – Chapter 836, Division 53: Health Benefit Plans”; Rhode Island: Rhode Island Department of State, “Network Plans: 230-RICR-20-30-9.7.D.R.c.2”; Vermont: Casetext, “21-010 Code Vt. R. 21-040-010-X”; Washington: Washington State Legislature, “WAC 284-170-260.3,5.e, 8”; West Virginia: West Virginia Legislature, “33-55-4.a.7, b.1.h, c.1.c, d.1.v.”
  63. Colorado: Casetext, “3 Colo. Code Regs. 702-4-2-60”; Georgia: Casetext, “Ga. Code 33-20C-4.a.1.B”; Hawaii: Justia, “2020 Hawaii Revised Statutes Title 24. Insurance 431. Insurance Code 431:26-105 Provider directories”; Illinois: Illinois General Assembly, “Illinois Compiled Statutes: Insurance: 215 ILCS 124/25.a”; Maine: Maine Legislature, “Title 24-A: Maine Insurance Code Chapter 56-A: Health Plan Improvement Act Subchapter 1: Health Plan Requirements, 4303-D. Provider directories”; Maryland: Casetext, “Md. Code, Ins. 15-112.n.3.i.5”; New Hampshire: Casetext, “N.H. Code Admin. R. Ins 2701.12.b.1.b”; Ohio: Ohio Laws and Administrative Rules, “Rule 3901-8-16: Required provider network disclosures for consumers”; Oregon: Oregon Department of Consumer and Business Services, “Insurance Regulation – Chapter 836, Division 53: Health Benefit Plans”; Vermont: Casetext, “21-010 Code Vt. R. 21-040-010-X”; West Virginia: West Virginia Legislature, “33-55-4..1.A.”
  64. Brad N. Greenwood, Seth Carnahan, and Laura Huang, “Patient–physician gender concordance and increased mortality among female heart attack patients,” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 115 (34) (2018): 8569, available at https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1800097115.
  65. Kerry L. Gagnon and others, “Survivors’ Advice to Service Providers: How to Best Serve Survivors of Sexual Assault,” Journal of Aggression, Maltreatment & Trauma 27 (10) (2018): 1125–1144, available at https://doi.org/10.1080/10926771.2018.1426069.
  66. Gary Anderson, “Provider Directory Task Force” (Bostno: Massachusetts State Legislature, 2020), available at https://www.mass.gov/doc/provider-directory-task-force-report-2020/download.
  67. Megan Johnson Shen and others, “The Effects of Race and Racial Concordance on Patient-Physician Communication: A Systematic Review of the Literature,” Journal of Racial and Ethnic Health Disparities 5 (1) (2018): 117–140, available at https://doi.org/10.1007/s40615-017-0350-4.
  68. Junko Takeshita and others, “Association of Racial/Ethnic and Gender Concordance Between Patients and Physicians With Patient Experience Ratings,” JAMA Network Open 3 (11) (2020): e2024583–e2024583, available at https://doi.org/10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2020.24583.

The positions of American Progress, and our policy experts, are independent, and the findings and conclusions presented are those of American Progress alone. A full list of supporters is available here. American Progress would like to acknowledge the many generous supporters who make our work possible.

Authors

Carolyn Sabini

Elyssa Spitzer

Policy Analyst

Osub Ahmed

Associate Director, Women's Health and Rights

You Might Also Like