ArticleJAMA health forum2026
Mental Health Ghost Networks in Commercial Insurance Plans.
Article in JAMA health forum, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Importance: Whether network directories in commercial insurance plans, which cover the majority of insured US residents, reliably connect patients to mental health care has only seen limited testing. Objective: To assess network directory accuracy, appointment availability, wait times, and travel burden for mental health clinicians listed in commercial insurance online plan directories. Design, Setting, and Participants: A cross-sectional study with a secret shopper design of 5822 calls to psychiatrists and psychologists listed in the online network directories of the largest commercial carrier in 5 diverse states (Delaware, Montana, New Jersey, Rhode Island, and Virginia), conducted between October 2025 and March 2026. Callers contacted the geographically closest listed clinician on behalf of a simulated patient assigned a standard preferred provider organization plan and a nonemergency mental health condition. Calls in which the caller could not obtain a definitive outcome were classified as nonevaluable. Main Outcomes and Measures: Appointment availability with the listed clinician and with alternate clinicians, network directory inaccuracy by error type (contact information, specialty, network status), capacity limitations, wait time to appointment, and travel time to appointment. Reported percentages and means are adjusted (predicted) values with 95% CIs. Results: Of 5822 calls, 3570 (61.3%) were nonevaluable, most commonly because callers reached only an answering machine or automated system. Among the 2252 evaluable calls, 23.6% (95% CI, 21.9%-25.4%) resulted in a scheduled appointment with the listed clinician, increasing to 32.1% (95% CI, 30.2%-34.1%) when alternate clinicians were included. Network directory inaccuracies affected 55.6% (95% CI, 53.6%-57.7%) of evaluable calls, with contact information errors (31.0%; 95% CI, 29.1%-32.9%) and specialty errors (22.2%; 95% CI, 20.6%-23.9%) being most prevalent. Capacity limitations prevented scheduling in 21.6% (95% CI, 19.9%-23.3%) of evaluable calls. Mean wait time was 20.5 days (95% CI, 18.0-23.0 days), with longer waits for psychiatry than psychology (22.5 vs 17.3 days). Mean travel time was 17.1 minutes (95% CI, 14.6-19.6 minutes) overall but 41.8 minutes (95% CI, 27.5-56.0 minutes) in Montana and 30.8 minutes (95% CI, 19.8-41.7 minutes) for rural residents. Across all initial call attempts, only 12.4% resulted in an appointment. Conclusions and Relevance: In this study, access barriers previously documented in public insurance programs extend to the privately insured population, undermining the assumption that commercial coverage automatically translates into meaningful access to mental health care.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.