Private Health Insurance: Data on Application and Coverage Denials
Released: 2011-03-16T00:00:00

Letter

Background

In 2009, approximately 156 million nonelderly individuals obtained health insurance through their employer and another 16.7 million purchased health insurance in the individual market. Of those with employer- sponsored group health plans, in 2009, 43 percent were covered under a fully insured plan where the employer pays a per-employee premium to an insurance company. The remaining 57 percent were covered under self- funded plans where instead of purchasing health insurance from an insurance company the employer sets aside its own funds to pay for at least some of its employees’ health care.

Application Denials

Application denials result when an insurer determines that it will not offer coverage to an applicant either because the applicant does not meet eligibility requirements or because the insurer determines that the applicant is too high of a risk to insure. Underwriting is a process conducted by insurers to assess an applicant’s health status and other risk factors to determine whether and on what terms to offer coverage to an applicant.

Many consumers are protected from having their application for enrollment denied. Consumers who obtain health coverage through their employment by enrolling in a group health plan sponsored by their employer have certain protections against application denials. For example, under federal law, individuals enrolling in group health plan coverage are protected from being denied enrollment because of their health status. Under federal law, insurers also generally are prohibited from denying applications for individual health coverage for certain individuals leaving group health plan coverage and applying for coverage in the individual market.

Currently, some consumers who apply for private health insurance through the individual market can have their applications denied for eligibility reasons or as a result of underwriting. For example, applications filed by some consumers with preexisting health conditions can be denied, unless prohibited by state or federal law. Additionally, insurers may accept the application but offer coverage at a premium level that is higher than the standard rate or that excludes coverage for certain benefits. The options for appealing application denials in the individual market can be limited to filing a complaint with the state department of insurance. However, in 35 states, individuals who—due to a preexisting health condition—have been denied enrollment or charged higher premiums in the individual market are typically eligible for coverage through high-risk health insurance pools (HRP). Additionally, as required under PPACA, individuals who have preexisting health conditions and have been uninsured for 6 months are eligible for enrollment in a temporary national HRP program.

Coverage Denials

Coverage for medical services can be denied before or after the service has been provided, either through denial of preauthorization requests or denial of claims for payment. As a condition for coverage of some services, providers or consumers are required to request authorization prior to providing or receiving the service. Preauthorization denials occur when a determination is made that (1) the consumer is not eligible to receive the requested service, for example, because the service is not covered under the individual’s policy, or (2) the service is not appropriate, meaning that it is not medically necessary or is experimental or investigational. Denials of claims occur for various reasons. Claims may be denied for billing reasons, such as the provider failing to include a piece of required information on the claim, such as documentation that the provider received preauthorization for a service, or submitting a duplicate claim. Claims may also be denied because of eligibility issues. For example, a claim may be submitted for a service provided before an individual’s coverage began or after it was terminated, or a claim may be submitted for a service that has been excluded from coverage under an individual’s policy. Another reason for denials reported by some insurers is that the individual has not met the cost-sharing requirements of his or her policy, such as the required deductible. Finally, claim denials can occur when a determination is made that the service provided was not appropriate, specifically that the service was not medically necessary or was experimental or investigational. Depending on the reason for a claim denial, either the provider or the consumer may bear the financial responsibility for the denied coverage amount. Claims that are denied because of such billing errors as the provider not providing a required piece of information can be resubmitted and ultimately paid.

For claim denials, the full claim may be denied or, if the claim contained multiple lines, such as a surgery with charges for multiple procedures and supplies, only certain lines of the claim may be denied. How insurers and self-funded group health plans track claim denials and the reasons for denials may vary. For example, AMA officials noted that there is no guidebook for how reason codes should be assigned to claim denials. Officials noted that denials are often assigned the code for the most general reason even though the denial may be for a more specific reason.

Consumers have several avenues available to dispute coverage denials. First, consumers can file an appeal of a denial with the insurer or self- funded group health plan for review, referred to as an internal appeal. Internal appeals can result in the denial being upheld or reversed. In addition, consumers in most states can have their appeal reviewed by an external party, such as an independent medical review panel established by the state. These appeals, referred to as external appeals, can also result in denials being reversed and in states recovering funds for consumers for the cost of the denied service. State external appeal options may only be available once the consumer has exhausted the internal appeal process or for consumers with certain types of coverage. Historically, those with self-funded group health plans generally did not have access to an external appeal process, but consumers could file suit against a health plan in court to challenge a denial. PPACA, however, required that group health plans, including self-funded plans, provide access to an external appeal process that meets federal standards for plan years beginning on or after September 2010. Finally, consumers may file complaints regarding coverage denials with the state, generally the department of insurance, or, for those with group health plans, with DOL.

Filing a complaint can be a less formal mechanism for disputing a coverage denial than filing an appeal; however, complaints can result in reversals of denials and in financial recoveries for consumers.

State and Federal Oversight of Private Health Insurance

States have responsibility for regulating private health insurance, including insurers operating in the individual market and the fully insured group market. In overseeing insurer activity, states vary in the data they require insurers to submit on denials and internal appeals of denials. According to NAIC officials, few states require insurers to report data regularly on the frequency of denials and internal appeals, and NAIC has not issued any model laws or regulations that include requirements for insurers to report such data. States also may use data on complaints and external appeals to identify trends in the practices of insurers and target examinations of specific insurers’ practices. Nearly all states and the District of Columbia regularly report complaint data, which includes information on the numbers of, reasons for, and outcomes of complaints, to NAIC.

Historically, the federal government’s role in oversight of private health insurance has included establishing requirements for states to enforce. For example, the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 (HIPAA) established consumer protections on access, portability, and renewability of coverage. In addition, with respect to group health plans, the federal government enforces disclosure, reporting, fiduciary, and claims-filing requirements under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA). DOL conducts a number of efforts to enforce the ERISA requirements. For example, the department conducts civil investigations that can result in corrective actions, such as monetary recoveries for consumers who are enrolled in employment-based plans. In addition to these formal methods, DOL also works to resolve complaints filed with the department. These efforts are considered informal resolutions, although complaints can also serve as a trigger for formal enforcement actions.

PPACA expanded the federal oversight role by requiring HHS to begin collecting, monitoring, and publishing data from certain insurers. Specifically, PPACA required the establishment of an internet Web site through which individuals can identify affordable health insurance coverage options in their state. To implement this requirement, in May 2010, HHS issued an interim final rule requiring insurers in the individual and small group markets to submit data to HHS on their products, including data on the number of enrollees, geographic availability of the products, and customer service contact information, by May 21, 2010, and annually after that. In July 2010, HHS began publishing these data on the new Web site, which is designed for individuals and small businesses to obtain information on coverage options available in their state. In October 2010, HHS began posting additional data collected from insurers, including data on the percentage of applications denied for each product offered in the individual market. The interim final rule also required insurers to submit other data, such as data on the percentage of claims denied in the individual and small group markets, and the number and outcomes of appeals of denials to insure, pay claims, and provide preauthorization, in accordance with guidance to be issued by HHS. As of December 2010, HHS had not issued any guidance on reporting these additional data.

Federal, State, and Other Data Indicated Variation in Application Denial Rates and Provided Little Information on the Reasons for Denials

Nationwide data from HHS showed variation in application denial rates across insurers operating in the individual market. Specifically, data collected by HHS from 459 state-licensed insurers on the number of applications received and denied from January through March 2010 indicated that, while the aggregate rate of application denials was 19 percent nationally, the rate varied significantly across insurers. For example, just over a quarter of insurers had application denial rates from 0 percent to 15 percent while another quarter of insurers had rates of 40 percent or higher. However, the insurers with rates of 40 percent or higher reported fewer applications. See table 1 for additional information on the range in application denial rates across insurers.

HHS officials noted that the data the department collected on application denials, which represent a single calendar quarter of applications, are only a starting point. They told us that as insurers report additional quarters of data, the value and usefulness of the data will increase. In addition, officials said that they have taken steps to ensure the accuracy of the data and noted that the accuracy of these data is critical to HHS, because no other source of information on private health insurance has a complete catalog of insurers operating in the individual market and what products those insurers are selling.

Data reported by Maryland—the only state we identified as collecting data on the incidence of application denials—indicated that variation in application denial rates across insurers operating in the state’s individual market has occurred in that state for several years. Maryland data showed that the range of application denial rates across insurers was 26 percentage points or more in each of three reporting periods, 2008, 2009, and the first half of 2010. (See table 2 for the range in denial rates in the data reported by Maryland.)

Data reported in studies by AHIP also showed variation in application denial rates. The AHIP data illustrated that application denial rates varied across age groups, with denial rates increasing as the age of the primary applicant increased. In 2008, when AHIP data showed that 13 percent of all medically underwritten applications were denied, in general the denial rate progressively increased as the applicant’s age increased, from a low of 5 percent for applicants under 18 years of age to a high of 29 percent for applicants from 60 to 64 years of age. Similar variation in AHIP application denial rates was seen in data from 2006. (See fig. 1.)

The available data on application denial rates provided little information on the reasons that applications were denied. For instance, the HHS and Maryland data did not include any information on the reasons for application denials. The AHIP data, however, provided limited information. Specifically, AHIP’s data showed that a higher percentage of applications were denied because of the applicant’s health status than for nonmedical reasons, such as the plan not being offered in the applicant’s geographic area. AHIP data showed that in 2008, of the 1.8 million applications for enrollment that insurers either denied or made offers of coverage, 1 percent were denied for nonmedical reasons and 12 percent were denied after underwriting when the applicant’s health status and other risk factors were assessed. According to an AHIP official, applications that were denied after underwriting were presumably denied because the applicant’s medical questionnaire responses were beyond the insurer’s threshold for issuing a policy.

There are several issues to consider when interpreting application denial rates. First, application denial rates may not provide a clear estimate of the number of individuals that were ultimately able to secure health coverage, because individuals may submit applications with more than one insurer and be denied by one insurer but offered enrollment by another. Second, denial rates also do not reflect applications that have been withdrawn. For example, AHIP data for 2008 indicated that 8 percent of applicants withdrew their applications before underwriting occurred. Experts also noted that some individuals may not submit applications for health coverage because they believe or have been advised, for example by an insurance agent, that their application would likely be denied. Third, an insurer’s denial rates may be affected by requirements of the states in which the insurer operates. For example, officials from one insurance company explained that for applicants in the state for which they are the insurer of last resort, state law prohibits them from denying applications for enrollment based on the health status of the applicant. Officials told us that a denial can occur only for nonmedical eligibility reasons, which the AHIP data indicate are far less frequent.

Another consideration when interpreting application denial rates is that the rates do not reflect applications that have been accepted by an insurer but for coverage with a premium that is higher than the standard rate or with exclusions for coverage of specified services. Data from HHS, Maryland, and AHIP all indicated that some portion of applicants received offers at a premium that was higher than the standard rate. For example, the HHS data demonstrated that from January through March of 2010, about 20 percent of individual market applicants were offered coverage with premiums higher than the standard rate. Maryland data also indicated that for the first half of 2010, 8 percent of applicants were offered either coverage with premiums higher than the standard rate or coverage that excluded specified health conditions. Finally, AHIP data from 2008 showed that 34 percent of offers for coverage were for coverage at a higher premium rate. The AHIP data also showed that 6 percent of offers for coverage were for coverage that excluded specified health conditions.

State and Other Data Indicated That Coverage Denial Rates and the Reasons for Denials Vary and That Denials, If Appealed, Are Often Reversed

Data from selected states and others indicated that the rates of coverage denials, including denials for preauthorizations and claims, varied significantly, and a number of factors may have contributed to that variation. The data also indicated that coverage denials occurred for a variety of reasons, frequently for billing errors and eligibility issues and less often for judgments about the appropriateness of a service. Further, the data we reviewed indicated that coverage denials, if appealed, were frequently reversed in the consumer’s favor and that appeals and complaints related to coverage denials sometimes resulted in financial recoveries for consumers.

State and Other Data Indicated Wide-Ranging Coverage Denial Rates, and a Number of Factors May Have Contributed to This Variation

State data that we reviewed showed that rates of coverage denials by insurers operating in the group and individual markets varied significantly across states. Specifically, aggregate claim denial rates for the three states that we identified as collecting such data ranged from 11 percent in Ohio in 2009 to 24 percent in California in the same year. Data reported by the remaining state, Maryland, indicated a claim denial rate of 16 percent in 2007. A fourth state, Connecticut, collected data on a different measure, preauthorization denials, and these data indicated a denial rate of 14 percent in 2009. In addition, claim denial rates indicated by AMA data—3 percent during 2 months of 2010—varied from coverage denial rates in the four states.

Several factors may have contributed to the variation in rates across the four states and the AMA data. For example, Ohio and AMA data were based on denials of electronic claims. AMA officials told us that providers with electronic billing systems and insurers that accept electronic claims are more sophisticated in terms of billing management, and therefore the denial rates calculated by AMA may be lower than rates of denials for all claims, including both electronic and paper-based. In another example, Maryland’s rate was calculated using data for categories of denials that accounted for about 90 percent of all claims denied. In contrast, according to California officials, California’s data represented all claim denials. Differences in the time frames for the data may have also contributed to the variation. AMA officials noted that their data were from a 2-month period of the year (February through March) when there was less contractual activity, such as open enrollment periods, and when denials related to meeting deductible requirements—which according to officials from one insurance company can be significant—have already been resolved. In contrast, data from the four states, except Ohio, covered a full year and therefore reflect all denials for the year, including those related to enrollment and deductible issues. See table 3 for the rates of coverage denials indicated by state data and a description of the characteristics of the data, some of which may have contributed to the variation in rates.

In addition to variation across states in aggregated rates, state and other data also indicated that coverage denial rates varied significantly across insurers. For example, the California data indicated that in 2009 claim denial rates ranged from 6 percent to 40 percent across six of the largest managed care organizations operating in the state. Similarly, preauthorization denial rates in Connecticut varied across 21 insurers, with rates among the seven largest insurers ranging from 4 percent to 29 percent in 2009. Somewhat narrower variation across insurers was also evident in the AMA data, with claim denial rates in 2010 that ranged from less than 1 percent to over 4 percent across the seven insurers represented in those data.

State and other officials told us about several factors that may have contributed to the variation across insurers and make it difficult to compare data across insurers. First, California officials told us that insurers may interpret a state’s reporting requirements differently and noted that some insurers may count certain claims transactions as denials that the state would not consider a denial. This was evidenced by discussions with one insurer who told us that if asked to report the number of claims denied, some insurers might include claims where the service was approved but the insurer paid nothing because the member was liable for the charge, which California officials would not characterize as a denial. Officials from the insurer said that their current overall denial rate is 27 percent, but it would be 18 percent if member liability denials were excluded. Officials from California and AMA also indicated that circumstances unique to an insurer may affect their denial rate. For example, California officials told us one insurer’s denials rose sharply in a month because providers were submitting claims to the insurer’s HMO when they should have gone to the preferred provider organization (PPO). Rather than transferring the claims, the HMO denied all of them, and then the PPO paid the claims shortly after that.

State and Other Data Indicated That Coverage Denials Occurred for Various Reasons and That Denials, If Appealed, Were Frequently Reversed

According to state and other data, coverage denials occurred for various reasons. For example: Claim denials were often made for billing errors such as duplicate claims and missing information on the claim. For example, data from Maryland showed that the most prevalent reason for claim denials in 2007 was duplicate claim submissions, accounting for 32 percent of all denials. Among six of the largest managed care organizations in California, the four that reported on the most prevalent reasons for claim denials in 2009 all reported duplicate claims as one of those reasons. With regard to claims missing required information, the 2010 AMA data indicated that five of the seven insurers represented in the data made 15 percent or more of denials on the basis that the claim was missing information, such as documentation of preauthorization. Data from Maryland showed that 74 percent of denied claims did not meet the state’s criteria for “clean” claims, those claims that include all of the required information needed for processing.

Denials of claims also frequently resulted from eligibility issues. For example, for six of the seven insurers in the 2010 AMA data, over 20 percent of claim denials occurred as a result of eligibility issues such as services being provided before coverage was initiated or after coverage was terminated.

Insurers also denied preauthorizations and claims as a result of judgments about the appropriateness of the service, such as that the service was not medically necessary or was experimental or investigational, although less frequently than for billing errors and eligibility issues. Data from Maryland showed that in 2007 insurers denied nearly 40,000 preauthorizations or claims because they determined the services were not medically necessary. This was a relatively small number compared to the 6.3 million claim denials reported in the same year. The 2010 AMA data showed that only one of the seven insurers denied claims on the basis that services were not appropriate, specifically that the service was experimental or investigational, with about 9 percent of denials made for that reason. NAIC data on complaints filed with states in 2009 also provided some information on coverage denials related to the appropriateness of services. Specifically, the data showed that of the approximately 14,000 complaints related to coverage denials, at least 8 percent were related to the insurer’s determination that the service was not medically necessary and 2 percent were related to the determination that the service was experimental.

Agency Comments and Our Evaluation

HHS provided us with written comments on a draft version of this report. These comments are reprinted in appendix III. HHS agreed with our findings, noting in particular the need to improve the quality and scope of existing data, and suggested clarifications, which we incorporated. HHS and DOL also provided technical comments to the draft report, which we incorporated as appropriate.

In its written comments, HHS emphasized the importance—for policymakers, regulators, and consumers—of data on health insurance application and coverage denials. HHS noted that data on application and coverage denials can help increase transparency in the private health insurance market and that these data can also provide an important baseline measure for evaluating the impact of changes resulting from PPACA. In its comments, HHS also noted that data collection on application and coverage denials has been uneven across insurers, plans, and states and that very little information is available to help analysts understand the causes or sources of variation in the data that are available. According to HHS, more effort is needed to improve the quality and scope of existing data collection to give policymakers and regulators better and richer data to evaluate health insurance plan practices and market changes and to produce measures that may be useful to consumers when they are shopping for insurance.

In its written comments, HHS also identified a limitation to our data that needed some clarification. Specifically, HHS pointed out—correctly—that while our draft report provided information on the percentage of claims that were denied, as well as data on the outcomes of internal appeals and external reviews of denied claims, our draft report did not provide data on the frequency with which claim denials are appealed by consumers. These data were not included in the report because the data we reviewed did not allow for a systematic calculation of an “appeal rate”—the number of coverage denials for which an appeal was initiated—for several reasons, including different sources or years of denials and appeals data we reviewed. In response to HHS’ comments, we added language to the report clarifying this limitation. For context, we also added information on the appeal rate from one quarter for one state—the only information we identified on internal claims appeal rates. HHS also noted that the statement in our draft report that “denials are frequently reversed” upon appeal may be confusing, because readers may assume a large number of claim denials are ultimately overturned. We revised the language in our draft report to prevent this misinterpretation of our data, by stating that coverage denials, if appealed, were frequently reversed in the consumer’s favor.

We are sending copies of this report to the Secretaries of HHS and DOL, the congressional committees of jurisdiction, and other interested parties. In addition, the report is available at no charge on the GAO Web site at http://www.gao.gov.

If you or your staff have any questions about this report, please contact me at (202) 512-7114 or dickenj@gao.gov. Contact points for our Offices of Congressional Relations and Public Affairs may be found on the last page of this report. GAO staff who made major contributions to this report are listed in appendix IV.

Appendix I: Methodology for Selecting States and State Data Reviewed by GAO

In order to describe the data on denials of applications for enrollment and coverage of medical services, we contacted six states to interview officials and to obtain data the states collect and track on denials and appeals related to denials. The six states we selected included states identified in the literature, through searches of state insurance department Web sites, or in interviews with experts as a state collecting data on the incidence of application or coverage denials. These also included states that collect or track data on appeals related to coverage denials reviewed by insurers (internal appeals) or reviewed by external parties (external appeals). The six states accounted for at least 20 percent of national enrollment in private health insurance.

Once we selected the states, we asked officials from each state whether they collected the following types of data: (1) incidence of application denials; (2) incidence of coverage denials, including incidence of denials of preauthorizations and claims; (3) incidence and outcomes of appeals reviewed by insurers (that is, internal appeals); and (4) incidence and outcomes of appeals reviewed by external parties (that is, external appeals). If state officials reported collecting the data, we reviewed at least the most recent year of data available. We reviewed data from one state on the incidence of application denials, from four states on the incidence of coverage denials, from four states on the number and outcomes of internal appeals, and from all six states on the number and outcomes of external appeals. (See table 6.)

Appendix II: Methodology for and Studies Identified by Structured Literature Review

To identify research that examined private health insurance denials, including the incidence of denials of applications for enrollment and of coverage for medical services (i.e., “coverage denials”) and the incidence and outcomes of appeal related to coverage denials, we conducted a structured literature review. This review resulted in 24 studies that we determined to be relevant to our objectives. To conduct this review, we searched 23 reference databases for articles or studies published from January 2000 through July 2010, using a combination of search terms, such as “denial” and “insurer.” We determined that a study was directly relevant to our objectives if it: (1) included empirical analysis related to the incidence of application denials, the incidence of coverage denials, or the incidence and outcomes of appeals related to such denials; and (2) analyzed, at minimum, denial or appeal data from an entire state or two or more insurers. In addition to searching the reference databases, we checked the bibliographies of the relevant studies to identify other potentially relevant research and interviewed several private health insurance experts about research done on denials.

We identified 24 studies in the literature that included empirical analyses examining (1) the frequency of denials of applications for enrollment or (2) the frequency of or reasons for denials of coverage for medical services and outcomes of appeals related to such denials. Table 7 identifies the number of studies that address these topics, with some studies addressing more than one topic.

The 24 studies that GAO identified in the literature are as follows: 1. American Association of Health Plans. Independent Medical Review of Health Plan Coverage Decisions: Empowering Consumers with Solutions. Washington, D.C., 2001. 2. America’s Health Insurance Plans. Individual Health Insurance 2009: A Comprehensive Survey of Premiums, Availability, and Benefits. Washington, D.C., 2009. 3. ——-. Individual Health Insurance 2006–2007: A Comprehensive Survey of Premiums, Availability, and Benefits. Washington, D.C., 2007. 4. ——-. Update on State External Review Programs. Washington, D.C., 2006. 5. American Medical Association. 2010 National Health Insurer Report Card. Chicago, Ill., 2010. 6. ——-. 2009 National Health Insurer Report Card. Chicago, Ill., 2009. 7. ——-. 2008 National Health Insurer Report Card. Chicago, Ill., 2008. 8. California Healthcare Foundation. Independent Medical Review Experiences in California, Phase I: Cases of Investigational/Experimental Treatments. Prepared by the Institute for Medical Quality for the California Healthcare Foundation, Oakland, Calif., 2002. 9. Chuang, K. H., W. M. Aubry, and R. A. Dudley. “Independent Medical Review of Health Plan Coverage Denials: Early Trends.” Health Affairs, vol. 23, no. 6 (November/December 2004), 163-169. 10. Collins, S. R., J. L. Kriss, M. M. Doty, and S. D. Rustgi. Losing Ground: How the Loss of Adequate Health Insurance is Burdening Working Families: Findings from the Commonwealth Fund Biennial Health Insurance Surveys, 2001–2007. New York, N.Y., 2008. 11. Doty, M. M., S. R. Collins, J. L. Nicholson, and S. D. Rustgi. Failure to Protect: Why the Individual Insurance Market is not a Viable Option for Most U.S. Families. Findings from the Commonwealth Fund Biennial Health Insurance Survey, 2007. New York, N.Y., 2009. 12. Foote, S. B., B. A. Virnig, L. Bockstedt, and Z. Lomax. “External Review of Health Plan Denials of Mental Health Services: Lessons from Minnesota.” Administration and Policy in Mental Health and Mental Health Services Research, vol. 34 (2007), 38-44. 13. Gresenz, C. R., and D. M. Studdert. External Review of Coverage Denials by Managed Care Organizations in California. Working Paper No. WR-264-ICJ, RAND Institute for Civil Justice, Santa Monica, Calif., 2005. 14. Gresenz, C. R., D. M. Studdert, N. Campbell, and D. R. Hensler. “Patients In Conflict With Managed Care: A Profile of Appeals in Two HMOs.” Health Affairs, vol. 21, no. 4 (July/August 2002), 189-196. 15. Gresenz, C. R., and D. M. Studdert. “Disputes over Coverage of Emergency Department Services: A Study of Two Health Maintenance Organizations.” Annals of Emergency Medicine, vol. 43, no. 2 (February 2004), 155-162. 16. Kaiser Family Foundation / Harvard School of Public Health. National Survey on Consumer Experiences With and Attitudes Toward Health Plans: Key Findings. Washington, D.C., 2001. 17. Kapur, K., C. R. Gresenz, and D. M. Studdert. “Managed Care: Utilization Review in Action at Two Capitated Medical Groups.” Health Affairs, Web exclusive (2003), W3-275-282. 18. Karp, N., and E. Wood. Understanding Health Plan Dispute Resolution Practices, Washington. D.C., 2000. 19. Pearson, S. D. “Patient Reports of Coverage Denial: Association with Ratings of Health Plan Quality and Trust in Physician.” The American Journal of Managed Care (March 2003), 238-244. 20. Pollitz, K., R. Sorian, and K. Thomas. How Accessible is Individual Health Insurance for consumers in less-than-perfect health? Prepared for the Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation, Menlo Park, Calif., 2001. 21. Pollitz, K., J. Crowley, K. Lucia, and E. Bangit. Assessing State External Review Programs and the Effects of Pending Federal Patients’ Rights Legislation. Prepared for the Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation, Menlo Park, Calif., 2002. 22. Schauffler, H. H., S. McMenamin, J. Cubanski, and H. S. Hanley. “Differences in the Kinds of Problems Consumers Report in Staff/Group Health Maintenance Organizations, Independent Practice Association/Network Health Maintenance Organizations, and Preferred Provider Organizations in California.” Medical Care, vol. 39, no. 1 (2001), 15-25. 23. Studdert, D. M., and C. R. Gresenz. “Enrollee Appeals of Preservice Coverage Denials at 2 Health Maintenance Organizations.” The Journal of the American Medical Association, vol. 289, no. 7 (Feb. 19, 2003), 864-870. 24. Young, G. P., J. Ellis, J. Becher, C. Yeh, J. Kovar, and M. A. Levitt. “Managed Care Gatekeeping, Emergency Medicine Coding, and Insurance Reimbursement Outcomes for 980 Emergency Department Visits from Four States Nationwide.” Annals of Emergency Medicine, vol. 39, no. 1 (January 2002), 24-30.

Appendix III: Comments from the Department of Health and Human Services

Appendix IV: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments

Staff Acknowledgments

In addition to the contact named above, Kristi Peterson, Assistant Director; Susan Barnidge; Krister Friday; Jawaria Gilani; Teresa Tam; and Hemi Tewarson made key contributions to this report.