2026 Federal and State Policy Roundup: Where Network Adequacy Is Heading Next

For years, network adequacy oversight has focused primarily on Time & Distance standards. Increasingly, regulators are asking a broader question: does a network that appears adequate on paper translate into meaningful access to care?

Recent federal and state policy activity suggests a growing emphasis on validating access, not simply measuring it. Across programs and markets, regulators are placing greater scrutiny on provider directory accuracy, provider participation status, appointment availability, and the methodologies used to evaluate network performance.

A provider may be located within required geographic thresholds yet remain effectively inaccessible if directory information is inaccurate, the provider is no longer participating in the network, or appointments are unavailable. As a result, oversight is increasingly moving beyond provider counts and geographic access measures toward a more comprehensive assessment of whether consumers can identify, access, and receive care from participating providers.

Federal Oversight Is Becoming More Operational

Several major federal developments finalized this year reflect this shift.

1. QHP Certification: Focus on Validation, Not Just Submission: The 2027 Qualified Health Plan (QHP) certification cycle placed increased emphasis on provider file accuracy, network adequacy validation, Essential Community Provider (ECP) compliance, and supporting documentation. While network adequacy standards themselves remain largely unchanged, certification reviews are increasingly examining whether submitted provider data accurately reflects provider participation and consumer access. For issuers, the implication is clear: demonstrating compliance increasingly requires more than submitting a provider file. Regulators are placing greater emphasis on the quality, accuracy, and defensibility of the data underlying certification submissions.

2. NBPP 2027: Operational Readiness Takes Center Stage: The final 2027 Notice of Benefit and Payment Parameters (NBPP) may ultimately be remembered less for introducing new network adequacy standards and more for how it reshapes oversight. Through the Effective Provider Access Review Program (EPARP), CMS established a pathway for states to assume responsibility for provider access reviews in Federally Facilitated Exchange markets. While much attention has focused on increased state flexibility, the more significant trend may be the growing emphasis on operational readiness. Provider data accuracy, appointment availability validation, review methodologies, documentation standards, and audit readiness all play a central role in the new framework. The message is clear: regulators are increasingly focused on how access is evaluated and verified, not simply whether standards exist.
3. Medicare Advantage and No Surprises Act Oversight: Similar themes are emerging across other federal programs. In Medicare Advantage, CMS continues to increase scrutiny of provider directory accuracy, network monitoring, and provider data validation. Ongoing implementation of the No Surprises Act has likewise reinforced expectations around accurate provider information and consumer transparency. Although these initiatives operate under different authorities, they share a common objective: ensuring that provider network information accurately reflects the experience consumers encounter when seeking care.

‍

States Are Focusing on Data Accuracy and Availability

State legislative and regulatory activity reflects many of the same priorities. Across legislative sessions, regulatory initiatives, and enforcement actions, policymakers continue to focus on:

• Provider directory accuracy
• "Ghost networks"
• Provider participation validation
• Appointment availability
• Consumer transparency
• Network reporting and oversight requirements

Notably, most of these efforts do not fundamentally alter traditional network adequacy standards. Instead, they seek to verify that existing standards translate into meaningful access.

This represents an important shift in regulatory thinking. Historically, oversight asked: “Does the network meet adequacy requirements?” Increasingly, regulators are asking: “Can consumers actually use the network?”

That distinction is driving policy activity across markets. States are paying closer attention to whether listed providers are actively participating in networks, whether provider information is current, whether consumers can schedule appointments within reasonable timeframes, and whether plans can demonstrate the accuracy of the data supporting network submissions.

At the same time, states are increasingly focused on broader access challenges that traditional network adequacy reviews may not fully capture. Recent implementation of Rural Health Transformation Programs reflects growing investment in provider sustainability, healthcare infrastructure, workforce capacity, and access in underserved communities. These efforts acknowledge that provider availability is often just as important as provider proximity.

‍

The Emerging Definition of Access

At J2 Health, we view access through three interconnected elements:

1. Time & Distance: Can consumers reasonably reach a provider?
2. Data Accuracy: Can consumers identify participating providers using accurate information?
3. Availability: Can consumers obtain a timely appointment once they identify a provider?

Regulation has traditionally focused most heavily on the first element. Much of the federal and state activity emerging in 2026 suggests growing attention to the second and third.

This does not mean Time & Distance standards are becoming less important. Rather, regulators appear to be recognizing that geographic access alone does not guarantee care. A provider who cannot be found, cannot be verified, or cannot offer appointments does little to improve access, regardless of how close they are to a consumer.

‍

What This Means for Plans

The implications extend well beyond compliance. Provider directory accuracy, provider outreach, appointment availability monitoring, and data validation increasingly sit at the intersection of network management, credentialing, compliance, operations, and technology functions. As oversight evolves, demonstrating access may become just as important as demonstrating adequacy.

Plans should expect continued scrutiny of:

• Provider data quality
• Directory maintenance processes
• Provider participation validation
• Appointment availability methodologies
• Documentation supporting network submissions
• Audit readiness

Organizations that invest early in provider data governance, validation capabilities, and network monitoring processes will be better positioned as oversight expectations continue to evolve.

The broader direction is becoming increasingly clear. Regulators are moving beyond a one-dimensional view of access based primarily on geography and provider counts. Future oversight will increasingly depend on whether plans can demonstrate performance across all three dimensions of access: Time & Distance, Data Accuracy, and Availability.

The most important network adequacy trend of 2026 may not be a new standard at all. It may be a growing consensus that access cannot be measured solely by where providers are located, but by whether consumers can find them, verify them, and receive care when they need it.