Does Primary Care Fill the Gap in Access to Specialty Mental Health Care? A Mixed Methods Study.

BACKGROUND: Broad consensus supports the use of primary care to address unmet need for mental health treatment. OBJECTIVE: To better understand whether primary care filled the gap when individuals were unable to access specialty mental health care. DESIGN: 2018 mixed methods study with a national US internet survey (completion rate 66%) and follow-up interviews. PARTICIPANTS: Privately insured English-speaking adults ages 18-64 reporting serious psychological distress that used an outpatient mental health provider in the last year or attempted to use a mental health provider but did not ultimately use specialty services (N = 428). Follow-up interviews were conducted with 30 survey respondents. MAIN MEASURES: Whether survey respondents obtained mental health care from their primary care provider (PCP), and if so, the rating of that care on a 1 to 10 scale, with ratings of 9 or 10 considered highly rated. Interviews explored patient-reported barriers and facilitators to engagement and satisfaction with care provided by PCPs. KEY RESULTS: Of the 22% that reported they tried to but did not access specialty mental health care, 53% reported receiving mental health care from a PCP. Respondents receiving care only from their PCP were less likely to rate their PCP care highly (21% versus 48%; p = 0.01). Interviewees reported experiences with PCP-provided mental health care related to three major themes: PCP engagement, relationship with the PCP, and PCP role. CONCLUSIONS: Primary care is partially filling the gap for mental health treatment when specialty care is not available. Patient experiences reinforce the need for screening and follow-up in primary care, clinician training, and referral to a trusted specialty consultant when needed.

National Health Policy Leadership Program for General Internists.

INTRODUCTION: Early or mid-career physicians have few opportunities to participate in career development programs in health policy and advocacy with experiential and mentored training that can be incorporated into their busy lives. AIM: The Society of General Internal Medicine (SGIM) created the Leadership in Health Policy (LEAHP) program, a year-long career development program, to prepare participants with a sufficient depth of knowledge, skills, attitudes, and behaviors to continue to build mastery and effectiveness as leaders, advocates, and educators in health policy. We sought to evaluate the program's impact on participants' self-efficacy in the core skills targeted in the curriculum. SETTING/PARTICIPANTS: Fifty-five junior faculty and trainees across three scholar cohorts from 2017 to 2021. PROGRAM DESCRIPTION: Activities included workshops and exercises at an annual meeting, one-on-one mentorship, monthly webinars and journal clubs, interaction with policy makers, and completion of capstone projects. PROGRAM EVALUATION: Self-administered, electronic surveys conducted before and following the year-long program showed a significant improvement in mean self-efficacy scores for the total score and for each of the six domains in general knowledge, teaching, research, and advocacy in health policy. Compared to the baseline scores, after the program the total mean score increased from 3.1 to 4.1, an increase of 1.1 points on a 5-point Likert scale (95% CI: 0.9-1.3; Cohen's D: 1.7), with 61.4% of respondents increasing their mean score by at least 1 point. Responses to open-ended questions indicated that the program met scholars' stated needs to improve their knowledge base in health policy and advocacy skills. DISCUSSION: The LEAHP program provides an opportunity for mentored, experiential training in health policy and advocacy, can build the knowledge and amplify the scale of physicians engaged in health policy, and help move physicians from individual patient advocacy in the clinic to that of populations.

Comparative Effectiveness of Digital Breast Tomosynthesis and Mammography in Older Women.

BACKGROUND: Digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) has become a prevalent mode of breast cancer screening in recent years. Although older women are commonly screened for breast cancer, little is known about screening outcomes using DBT among older women. OBJECTIVE: To assess proximal screening outcomes with DBT compared to traditional two-dimensional(2-D) mammography among women 67-74 and women 75 and older. DESIGN: Cohort study. PARTICIPANTS: Medicare fee-for-service beneficiaries aged 67 years and older with no history of prior cancer who received a screening mammogram in 2015. MAIN MEASURES: Use of subsequent imaging (ultrasound and diagnostic mammography) as an indication of recall, breast cancer detection, and characteristics of breast cancer at the time of diagnosis. Analyses used weighted logistic regression to adjust for potential confounders. KEY RESULTS: Our study included 26,406 women aged 67-74 and 17,001 women 75 and older who were screened for breast cancer. Among women 75 and older, the rate of subsequent imaging among women screened with DBT did not differ significantly from 2-D mammography (91.8 versus 97.0 per 1,000 screening mammograms, p=0.37). In this age group, DBT was associated with 2.1 additional cancers detected per 1,000 screening mammograms compared to 2D (11.5 versus 9.4, p=0.003), though these additional cancers were almost exclusively in situ and stage I invasive cancers. For women 67-74 years old, DBT was associated with a higher rate of subsequent imaging than 2-D mammography (113.9 versus 100.3, p=0.004) and a higher rate of stage I invasive cancer detection (4.7 versus 3.7, p=0.002), but not other stages. CONCLUSIONS: Breast cancer screening with DBT was not associated with lower rates of subsequent imaging among older women. Most additional cancers detected with DBT were early stage. Whether detecting these additional early-stage cancers among older women improves health outcomes remains uncertain.

Understanding Regional Variation in the Cost of Breast Cancer Screening Among Privately Insured Women in the United States.

BACKGROUND: Breast cancer screening for women aged 40-49 years is prevalent and costly, with costs varying substantially across US regions. Newer approaches to mammography may improve cancer detection but also increase screening costs. We assessed factors associated with regional variation in screening costs. METHODS: We used Blue Cross Blue Shield Axis, a large US commercial claims database accessed through secure portal, to assess regional variation in screening utilization and costs. We included screening mammography±digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT), screening ultrasound, diagnostic mammography±DBT, diagnostic ultrasound, magnetic resonance imaging and biopsy, and evaluated their utilization and costs. We assessed regional variation in annual per-screened-beneficiary costs and examined potential savings from reducing regional variation. RESULTS: Of the 2,257,393 privately insured women, 41.2% received screening mammography in 2017 (range: 26.6%-54.2% across regions). Wide regional variation was found in the DBT proportion (0.7%-91.1%) and mean costs of DBT ($299; range: $113-714) and 2-dimensional (D) mammograms ($213; range: $107-471). In one-fourth of the regions, the mean DBT cost was lower than the mean 2D mammography cost in the full sample. Regional variation in the per-screened-beneficiary cost (mean: $353; range: $151-751) was mainly attributable to variation in the cost of DBT (accounting for 23.4% of regional variation) and 2D mammography (23.0%). Reducing regional variation by decreasing the highest values to the national mean was projected to save $79-335 million annually. CONCLUSIONS: The mean mammogram cost for privately insured women ages 40-49 varies 7-fold across regions, driving substantial variation in breast cancer screening costs. Reducing this regional variation would substantially decrease the screening costs.

Dense Breast Notification Laws, Education, and Women's Awareness and Knowledge of Breast Density: a Nationally Representative Survey.

BACKGROUND: To date, 38 states have enacted dense breast notification (DBN) laws mandating that mammogram reports include language informing women of risks related to dense breast tissue. OBJECTIVE: Nationally representative survey to assess the association between residing in a state with a DBN law and women's awareness and knowledge about breast density, and breast cancer anxiety. DESIGN: Internet survey conducted in 2018 with participants in KnowledgePanel®, an online research panel. PARTICIPANTS: English-speaking US women ages 40-59 years without a personal history of breast cancer who had received at least one screening mammogram (N = 1928; survey completion rate 68.2%). MAIN MEASURES: (1) Reported history of increased breast density, (2) knowledge of the increased risk of breast cancer with dense breasts, (3) knowledge of the masking effect of dense breasts on mammography, and (4) breast cancer anxiety. KEY RESULTS: Women residing in DBN states were more likely to report increased breast density (43.6%) compared with women residing in non-DBN states (32.7%, p < 0.01, adjusted odds ratio, 1.70, 95% CI,1.34-2.17). Interaction effect between DBN states and education status showed that the impact of DBN on women's reporting of dense breasts was significant for women with greater than high school education, but not among women with a high school education or less (p value = 0.01 for interaction). Only 23.0% of women overall knew that increased breast density was associated with a higher risk of breast cancer, and 68.0% of women understood that dense breasts decreased the sensitivity of mammography. There were no significant differences between women in DBN states and non-DBN states for these outcomes, or for breast cancer-related anxiety. CONCLUSIONS: State DBN laws were not associated with increased understanding of the clinical implications of breast density. DBN laws were associated with a higher likelihood of women reporting increased breast density, though not among women with lower education.

Association of State Dense Breast Notification Laws With Supplemental Testing and Cancer Detection After Screening Mammography.

OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the association of state dense breast notification (DBN) laws with use of supplemental tests and cancer diagnosis after screening mammography. METHODS: We examined screening mammograms (n = 1 441 544) performed in 2014 and 2015 among privately insured women aged 40 to 59 years living in 9 US states that enacted DBN laws in 2014 to 2015 and 25 US states with no DBN law in effect. DBN status at screening mammography was categorized as no DBN, generic DBN, and DBN that mandates notification of possible benefits of supplemental screening (DBN+SS). We used logistic regression to examine the change in rate of supplemental ultrasound, magnetic resonance imaging, breast biopsy, and breast cancer detection. RESULTS: DBN+SS laws were associated with 10.5 more ultrasounds per 1000 mammograms (95% CI = 3.0, 17.6 per 1000; P = .006) and 0.37 more breast cancers detected per 1000 mammograms (95% CI = 0.05, 0.69 per 1000; P = .02) compared with no DBN law. No significant differences were found for generic DBN laws in either ultrasound or cancer detection. CONCLUSIONS: DBN legislation is associated with increased use of ultrasound and cancer detection after implementation only when notification of the possible benefits of supplemental screening is required.

Processing and validation of inpatient Medicare Advantage data for use in hospital outcome measures.

OBJECTIVE: To determine the feasibility of integrating Medicare Advantage (MA) admissions into the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) hospital outcome measures through combining Medicare Advantage Organization (MAO) encounter- and hospital-submitted inpatient claims. DATA SOURCES AND STUDY SETTING: Beneficiary enrollment data and inpatient claims from the Integrated Data Repository for 2018 Medicare discharges. STUDY DESIGN: We examined timeliness of MA claims, compared diagnosis and procedure codes for admissions with claims submitted both by the hospital and the MAO (overlapping claims), and compared demographic characteristics and principal diagnosis codes for admissions with overlapping claims versus admissions with a single claim. DATA COLLECTION/EXTRACTION METHODS: We combined hospital- and MAO-submitted claims to capture MA admissions from all hospitals and identified overlapping claims. For admissions with only an MAO-submitted claim, we used provider history data to match the National Provider Identifier on the claim to the CMS Certification Number used for reporting purposes in CMS outcome measures. PRINCIPAL FINDINGS: After removing void and duplicate claims, identifying overlapped claims between the hospital- and MAO-submitted datasets, restricting claims to acute care and critical access hospitals, and bundling same admission claims, we identified 5,078,611 MA admissions. Of these, 76.1% were submitted by both the hospital and MAO, 14.2% were submitted only by MAOs, and 9.7% were submitted only by hospitals. Nearly all (96.6%) hospital-submitted claims were submitted within 3 months after a one-year performance period, versus 85.2% of MAO-submitted claims. Among the 3,864,524 admissions with overlapping claims, 98.9% shared the same principal diagnosis code between the two datasets, and 97.5% shared the same first procedure code. CONCLUSIONS: Inpatient MA data are feasible for use in CMS claims-based hospital outcome measures. We recommend prioritizing hospital-submitted over MAO-submitted claims for analyses. Monitoring, data audits, and ongoing policies to improve the quality of MA data are important approaches to address potential missing data and errors.

Out-of-network provider use more likely in mental health than general health care among privately insured.

OBJECTIVE: Previous research has shown relatively high use of out-of-network mental health providers, although direct comparisons with rates among general health providers are not available. We aimed to (1) estimate the proportion of privately insured adults using an out-of-network mental health provider in the past 12 months; (2) compare rates of out-of-network mental health provider use with out-of-network general medical use; (3) determine reasons for out-of-network mental health care use. METHODS: A nationally representative sample of privately insured US adults was surveyed using the internet in February 2011. Screener questions identified if the participant had used either a general medical physician or a mental health professional within the past 12 months. Respondents using either type of out-of-network provider completed a 10-minute survey on details of their out-of-network care experiences. RESULTS: Eighteen percent of individuals who used a mental health provider reported at least 1 contact with an out-of-network mental health provider, compared to 6.8% who used a general health provider (P<0.01). The most common reasons for choosing an out-of-network mental health provider were the physician was recommended (26.1%), continuity with a previously known provider (23.7%), and the perceived skill of the provider (19.3%). CONCLUSIONS: Out-of-network provider use is more likely in mental health care than general health care. Most respondents chose an out-of-network mental health provider based on perceived provider quality or continuing care with a previously known provider rather than issues related to the availability of an in-network provider, convenient location, or appointment wait time.

Adherence to chronic disease medications among New York City Medicaid participants.

Medication adherence is critical for cardiovascular disease prevention and control. Local health departments are well positioned to address adherence issues, however relevant baseline data and a mechanism for monitoring impact of interventions are lacking. We performed a retrospective analysis using New York State Medicaid claims from 2008 to 2009 to describe rates and predictors of adherence among New York City Medicaid participants with dyslipidemia, diabetes, or hypertension. Adherence was measured using the medication possession ratio, and multivariable logistic regression was used to assess factors related to adherence. Medication regimen adherence was 63%. Greater adherence was observed in those who were older, male, and taking medications from ≥3 drug classes. Compared with whites, blacks and Hispanics were less likely to be adherent (adjusted odds ratio [OR]=0.67, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.65-0.70 and adjusted OR=0.76, 95% CI: 0.73-0.78, respectively), while Asians were as likely. Medication adherence was inadequate and racial disparities were identified in NYC Medicaid participants on stable medication regimens for chronic disease. This study demonstrates a claims-based model that may be used by local health departments to monitor and evaluate efforts to improve adherence and reduce disparities.

The out-of-network benefit: problems and policy solutions.

Health insurance plans that include coverage for out-of-network providers are common and have the potential to reduce health care costs and even improve quality. Yet, consumers may be exposed to significant unexpected and unreasonable out-of-pocket costs due to lack of accurate information on network participation, nontransparent out-of-pocket costs, inadequate provider networks, involuntary use of out-of-network emergency care, and use of out-of-network providers at in-network hospitals. Although the Affordable Care Act and some states provide some consumer protections, these may not be adequate.

Insurance Coverage Mandates and the Adoption of Digital Breast Tomosynthesis.

Importance: Digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) is a breast cancer screening modality that has gained popularity in recent years. Although insurance coverage for DBT is not mandated under the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, several states have required coverage without cost sharing for private insurers. Objective: To evaluate the association between state-level insurance coverage mandates for DBT and changes in DBT use, price, and out-of-pocket payments. Design, Setting, and Participants: This cohort study used an event-study design with repeated cross-sectional observations of US states. Data were obtained from the Blue Cross Blue Shield Axis database for commercially insured women aged 40 to 64 years who underwent screening mammography between January 1, 2015, and June 30, 2019. Data were analyzed between January 14, 2021, and January 20, 2022. Interventions: Passage of state-level legislation requiring insurance coverage of DBT. Main Outcomes and Measures: Change in DBT use among women screened for breast cancer, overall DBT price, and out-of-pocket payments for DBT in states with mandates for coverage of DBT compared with states that did not pass legislation. Results: This study included 9 604 084 screening mammograms from 5 754 123 women (mean [SD] age, of 53 [6.7] years). During the study period, 15 states enacted DBT coverage mandates and 34 states did not. In states with coverage mandates, DBT use increased by 9.0 percentage points (95% CI, 1.8-16.3 percentage points; P = .02) 2 years after the mandate compared with states without coverage mandates. Coverage mandates were also associated with a net $38.7 (95% CI, $13.4-$63.9; P = .003) decrease in the mean price of DBT compared with no coverage mandates. There was no association between coverage mandates and out-of-pocket payments 2 years after mandate passage ($-2.1; 95% CI, $-5.3 to $1.0; P = .18). Conclusions and Relevance: In this cohort study, DBT coverage mandates were associated with an increase in DBT use but not with any change in out-of-pocket payments. The findings suggest that coverage mandates for DBT may have been associated with broader use but were not associated with changes in direct costs to patients.

Comparative Effectiveness of Digital Breast Tomosynthesis for Breast Cancer Screening Among Women 40-64 Years Old.

BACKGROUND: Digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) may have a higher cancer detection rate and lower recall compared with 2-dimensional (2 D) mammography for breast cancer screening. The goal of this study was to evaluate screening outcomes with DBT in a real-world cohort and to characterize the population health impact of DBT as it is widely adopted. METHODS: This observational study evaluated breast cancer screening outcomes among women screened with 2 D mammography vs DBT. We used deidentified administrative data from a large private health insurer and included women aged 40-64 years screened between January 2015 and December 2017. Outcomes included recall, biopsy, and incident cancers detected. We used 2 complementary techniques: a patient-level analysis using multivariable logistic regression and an area-level analysis evaluating the relationship between population-level adoption of DBT use and outcomes. All statistical tests were 2-sided. RESULTS: Our sample included 7 602 869 mammograms in 4 580 698 women, 27.5% of whom received DBT. DBT was associated with modestly lower recall compared with 2 D mammography (113.6 recalls per 1000 screens, 99% confidence interval [CI] = 113.0 to 114.2 vs 115.4, 99% CI = 115.0 to 115.8, P < .001), although younger women aged 40-44 years had a larger reduction in recall (153 recalls per 1000 screens, 99% CI = 151 to 155 vs 164 recalls per 1000 screens, 99% CI = 163 to 166, P < .001). DBT was associated with higher biopsy rates than 2 D mammography (19.6 biopsies per 1000 screens, 99% CI = 19.3 to 19.8 vs 15.2, 99% CI = 15.1 to 15.4, P < .001) and a higher cancer detection rate (4.9 incident cancers per 1000 screens, 99% CI = 4.7 to 5.0 vs 3.8, 99% CI = 3.7 to 3.9, P < .001). Point estimates from the area-level analysis generally supported these findings. CONCLUSIONS: In a large population of privately insured women, DBT was associated with a slightly lower recall rate than 2 D mammography and a higher cancer detection rate. Whether this increased cancer detection improves clinical outcomes remains unknown.

Incorrect Provider Directories Associated With Out-Of-Network Mental Health Care And Outpatient Surprise Bills.

Mental health services are up to six times more likely than general medical services to be delivered by an out-of-network provider, in part because many psychiatrists do not accept commercial insurance. Provider directories help patients identify in-network providers, although directory information is often not accurate. We conducted a national survey of privately insured patients who received specialty mental health treatment. We found that 44 percent had used a mental health provider directory and that 53 percent of these patients had encountered directory inaccuracies. Those who encountered inaccuracies were more likely (40 percent versus 20 percent) to be treated by an out-of-network provider and four times more likely (16 percent versus 4 percent) to receive a surprise outpatient out-of-network bill (that is, they did not initially know that a provider was out of network). A federal standard for directory accuracy, stronger enforcement of existing laws with insurers liable for directory errors, and additional monitoring by regulators may be needed.

Breast cancer supplemental screening: Women's knowledge and utilization in the era of dense breast legislation.

BACKGROUND: Given the growth in dense breast notification (DBN) legislation in the United States, we examined the association between different types of DBN laws and supplemental screening behaviors among women. METHODS: We surveyed in March-April 2018 a nationally representative sample of women aged 40-59 years who received a routine screening mammogram in the past 18 months. Survey items included the following topics regarding supplemental screening: discussing risks or benefits with a provider, knowledge about the risk of false positives, and utilization. We grouped women by state DBN into non-DBN, generic DBN (mentions breast density but not supplemental screening), DBN that mentions supplemental screening (DBN-SS), and DBN with mandated insurance coverage for supplemental screening (DBN-coverage), and estimated adjusted predicted probabilities for supplemental screening behaviors. RESULTS: Of 1641 women surveyed, 21.3% resided in non-DBN, 41.2% in generic DBN, 25.8% in DBN-SS, and 12.5% in DBN-coverage states. Overall, 23.0% of respondents had discussed supplemental screening with a provider, 11.3% of whom discussed the risks, and 49.5% discussed the benefits. In adjusted analysis, women living in DBN-coverage states were more likely to discuss supplemental screening (27.5%) than women in non-DBN states (13.6%); pairwise contrast 13.8% (95% CI, 2.1% to 25.6%; P = .01). They were also more likely to have received supplemental screening for increased breast density (19.3%) compared to women living in non-DBN (9.9%); contrast 9.4% (95% CI, 1.6% to 17.3%; P = .01), Generic DBN (7.3%); difference 12.0% (95% CI, 4.6% to 19.4%; P =< .001), and DBN-SS (8.8%); contrast 10.5% (95% CI, 2.6% to 18.5%; P < .01) states. CONCLUSIONS: Women in DBN-coverage states were more likely to discuss supplemental screening with their providers, and to undergo supplemental screening, compared to women in states with other types of DBN laws, or without DBN laws.

Patient Characteristics and Treatment Patterns Among Psychiatrists Who Do Not Accept Private Insurance.

OBJECTIVE: Privately insured individuals frequently use out-of-network psychiatrists. Yet, whether treatment provided by psychiatrists who do not accept private insurance differs from treatment provided by those who do has not been studied. The investigators described provider characteristics, patient characteristics, and treatment patterns among psychiatrists who do not accept new patients with private insurance. METHODS: Data for this study came from the National Ambulatory Medical Care Survey (2011-2014), a nationally representative annual cross-sectional survey of physicians providing ambulatory care. Responses of psychiatrists who report accepting any new patients (N=440) were examined, representing 7,634 visits. RESULTS: Compared with psychiatrists accepting privately insured patients, those not accepting privately insured patients had fewer visits with patients with serious mental illness (42% versus 53%; p=0.016). These psychiatrists had a higher proportion of visits lasting longer than 30 minutes (48% versus 34%; p=0.026), and their patients were more likely to have had 10 or more visits in the past 12 months (41% versus 28%; p=0.013). There were no differences in the proportion of visits in which treatment included psychotherapy (48% versus 44%). CONCLUSIONS: Although psychiatrists not accepting patients with private insurance were less likely than other psychiatrists to treat patients with serious mental illness, their patients were more likely to have longer visits and a relatively high number of visits in the past year. The low rate of acceptance of insurance among psychiatrists may have the greatest effect among those most in need of services.

Patients' success in negotiating out-of-network bills.

OBJECTIVES: Out-of-network (OON) care is one area where patients might be more likely to challenge their healthcare bills due to the high out-of-pocket costs and unexpected charges related to emergency care or hospital-affiliated providers. We aimed to determine whether, and under what circumstances, patients negotiate with either insurers or providers when services are billed OON and how often patients that do engage in negotiation are successful. STUDY DESIGN: Internet-based survey. METHODS: We conducted a 2011 Internet survey on OON care on a nationally representative sample of privately insured adults (n = 721). We considered whether patients would be more likely to negotiate OON charges by demographic characteristics and under several scenarios: emergency visits, bills from hospital-affiliated OON providers at in-network hospitals, and balance bills. RESULTS: We found patients negotiated 19% of OON bills, were successful in lowering their costs 56% of the time, and were more likely to be successful negotiating with providers compared with insurers (63% vs 37%; P <.01). Men were more likely than women to be successful in lowering their costs (76% vs 50%; P <.05). OON bills for emergencies, providers at in-network hospitals, and with a balance bill were more likely to be negotiated, although bills from providers at in-network hospitals and with balance bills were less likely to be successfully negotiated. CONCLUSIONS: Patients had low rates of success in negotiating OON bills for emergency care and for OON providers at in-network hospitals. Policy makers aiming to protect patients under these scenarios should consider policies that allow for an easily accessible, formal, and unbiased mediation process.

Out-of-network physicians: how prevalent are involuntary use and cost transparency?

OBJECTIVE: To determine the proportion of privately insured adults using an out-of-network physician, the prevalence of involuntary out-of-network use, and whether patients experienced problems with cost transparency using out-of-network physicians. DATA SOURCES: Nationally representative internet panel survey conducted in February 2011. STUDY DESIGN: Screener questions identified a sample of 7,812 individuals in private health insurance plans with provider networks who utilized health services within the prior 12 months. Participants reported details of their inpatient and outpatient contacts with out-of-network physicians. An inpatient out-of-network contact was defined as involuntary if: (1) it was due to a medical emergency; (2) the physician's out-of-network status was unknown at the time of the contact; or (3) an attempt was made to find an in-network physician in the hospital but none was available. Outpatient contacts were only defined as involuntary if the physician's out-of-network status was unknown at the time of the contact. PRINCIPAL FINDINGS: Eight percent of respondents used an out-of-network physician. Approximately 40 percent of individuals using out-of-network physicians experienced involuntary out-of-network care. Among out-of-network physician contacts, 58 percent of inpatient contacts and 15 percent of outpatient contacts were involuntary. The majority of inpatient involuntary contacts were due to medical emergencies (68 percent). In an additional 31 percent, the physician's out-of-network status was unknown at the time of the contact. Half (52 percent) of individuals using out-of-network services experienced at least one contact with an out-of-network physician where cost was not transparent at the time of care. CONCLUSIONS: The frequency of involuntary out-of-network care is not inconsequential. Policy interventions can increase receipt of cost information prior to using out-of-network physician services, but they may be less helpful when patients have constrained physician choice due to emergent problems or limited in-hospital physician networks.