The investigation, led by Simon Haeder and Wendy Xu of Ohio State’s College of Public Health and published in JAMA Health Forum, employed a secret-shopper methodology that has become a gold standard for testing whether healthcare access claims survive real-world contact. The research team placed 5,822 calls to mental health providers listed in commercial insurance networks in Delaware, Montana, New Jersey, Rhode Island and Virginia. Callers presented scenarios involving common concerns such as anxiety and grief, then documented whether they could actually reach a human being and, ultimately, book an appointment with an in-network clinician.

The headline numbers are stark. A successful call, defined simply as one in which a live person answered the phone, resulted in an appointment with the listed provider only 24 percent of the time. When callers expressed willingness to see any clinician in the practice rather than the specific one listed, the success rate rose only modestly, to 31 percent. In other words, roughly seven in ten attempts to use an insurance directory for mental health care ended without an appointment, even after the caller had already demonstrated persistence by getting someone on the line.

Compounding the problem, the researchers could not analyze more than six in ten of all calls because those attempts never reached a person at all. Automated phone systems and answering machines absorbed the majority of contact attempts, a barrier that is particularly punishing for people already hesitant to seek mental health treatment. Among the 2,252 calls that could be fully analyzed, 56 percent revealed inaccurate information in the provider directory, meaning the listed phone numbers, locations or practice affiliations did not match reality. Another 22 percent of calls failed to produce an appointment because of capacity constraints, most commonly providers who were not accepting new patients at all.

Even when callers managed to navigate the obstacles and reach a practice with room in its schedule, time itself became a barrier. The average wait for care was 20.5 days, with appointments for psychiatry taking longer to secure than appointments for psychology. For someone in acute distress, a three-week delay can mean the difference between a manageable episode and a crisis, and the researchers noted that such waits compound the difficulty of an already daunting decision to seek help.

Haeder attributed the directory failures to the churn of clinical practice colliding with static databases. Providers move, change phone numbers, leave practices or otherwise become unavailable, but those changes are not always reflected in insurance directories. The study also describes a phenomenon the researchers call ghost providers or ghost networks: clinicians who appear to exist on paper because insurers list them as part of a contracted group, even when those individual clinicians are not actually available to patients. The listings inflate the apparent size of a network while doing nothing to expand real access, creating what the authors characterize as networks that exist in documentation but not in practice.

Xu, a professor of health services management and policy, framed the findings as evidence of a broader disconnect at the heart of American healthcare: the gap between having insurance and being able to use it. Inaccurate provider directories, she argued, are not merely an administrative inconvenience. They can create substantial barriers to care, leaving people effectively underinsured despite carrying coverage. The finding is especially worrisome in the mental health context, where the act of seeking help can already be difficult for someone experiencing anxiety, grief or another concern, and where encountering answering machines, unavailable providers and in-network psychologists who have moved to another state can extinguish a person’s motivation to keep trying.

The researchers emphasized that directory inaccuracy is a longstanding, systemic problem across medical specialties, not a quirk of mental health networks, and that its roots lie in several structural challenges. Regulation and enforcement are inconsistent from state to state and across plan types, and insurers face incentives to present large provider lists to regulators, employers and consumers, since a longer list suggests stronger access regardless of whether the listed clinicians are reachable. There is little penalty for listings that turn out to be wrong, and verifying thousands of individual entries is costly, so the burden of accuracy falls on no one in particular while the consequences fall on patients.

Potential remedies, according to the study team, include rethinking how directory data is created and maintained. Haeder proposed a centralized provider directory that clinicians themselves maintain and that insurers can access, rather than every insurer separately trying to keep its own database current. Such a system would shift the responsibility for accuracy to the people who know their own availability best and would eliminate the duplicated, divergent records that currently populate insurance networks. The researchers also suggested that stronger verification requirements and more consistent enforcement of existing network-adequacy rules could pressure insurers to prune ghost listings and confirm that the clinicians they advertise are genuinely accepting patients.

The study, which included contributions from Ohio State doctoral student Yuqin Lou and Benjamin Miller of Stanford University, received funding from Inseparable, a national mental health advocacy organization. Its publication in JAMA Health Forum, under the title Mental Health Ghost Networks in Commercial Insurance Plans, adds rigorous secret-shopper evidence to a growing body of documentation showing that provider directories across American healthcare often fail the patients who depend on them. For the millions of insured Americans who assume that a long list of in-network therapists means help is a phone call away, the message of the research is sobering: the card in the wallet guarantees coverage, but the directory that is supposed to translate coverage into care frequently does not, and the people most in need of appointments are the least equipped to fight through the answering machines, ghost listings and weeks-long waits that stand in their way.

Subject of Research: Having insurance doesn’t mean you can get a mental health appointment

Article Title: Having insurance doesn’t mean you can get a mental health appointment

Article References: Having insurance doesn’t mean you can get a mental health appointment. Original publication (Bibliographic details unavailable.)

Image Credits: AI Generated

DOI: Not provided

Keywords: mental health, health insurance, provider directories, healthcare access, JAMA Health Forum, Ohio State University, ghost networks, Having, insurance, doesn, mean, mental