In October 2026, Ohio State University published research showing substantial obstacles to obtaining mental health appointments through commercial insurance directories. Released on 16 October, the study tests an operational question for benefits buyers: can someone use the network that appears in the contract? Its findings support closer scrutiny of access, while leaving important limits on what can be inferred about individual insurers or the wider market.

What the calls established

Researchers contacted 5,822 listed psychiatrists and psychologists in Delaware, Montana, New Jersey, Rhode Island and Virginia. They could analyse 2,252 calls involving a conversation with a person. Within that group, 56% revealed inaccurate directory information, and 24% resulted in an appointment with the listed provider. More than six in ten calls could not be analysed because the researchers reached an automated system or answering machine. Those unanswered calls cannot simply be classified as inaccurate listings.

These denominators should remain attached to the results. The exercise does not establish that 56% of every commercial insurer’s directory is wrong, or that everyone who initially fails to reach a practice will ultimately be unable to obtain care. It does show why a purchaser needs to examine the steps between finding a name and receiving a usable appointment offer.

Build an access test around the employee journey

An employer reviewing its mental health benefits could ask its insurer or administrator to demonstrate a small, repeatable access test. The specification should identify the service sought, location, network, new-patient status and acceptable appointment window. It should also define whether the test concerns the named practitioner or any suitable clinician in the practice. Changing that definition midway would make the results difficult to compare.

The reporting should distinguish a wrong telephone number, an unanswered call, a practitioner outside the network, a closed patient list and an appointment offered beyond the agreed window. Each problem suggests a different response. Updating a directory entry will not create clinical capacity; adding nominal providers will not repair a failed contact route. A useful review therefore links each observed obstacle to a responsible organisation and a documented remedy.

Give members a route beyond a failed search

Benefits communication could explain what employees should do when the directory does not lead to an appointment. A named navigation channel, an escalation process and a clear explanation of any plan-specific alternatives would make that guidance actionable. The employer should confirm what assistance is actually available before describing it in enrolment materials. Employees should not be promised an exception to network or reimbursement rules that the plan has not authorised.

An insurer can support the process with aggregated evidence about requests resolved, cases still open and time to resolution. For an employer, the objective would be to identify barriers without collecting unnecessary information about an employee’s diagnosis or personal treatment. Access reporting should be designed with the appropriate privacy and confidentiality safeguards from the outset, with individual support separated from management reporting.

Translate the lesson without exporting the statistics

For multinational benefits teams, the transferable issue is the difference between contractual availability and usable access. The five-state results should not be applied as numerical estimates for other US locations or other countries. Local systems may use different referral routes, provider relationships and financing arrangements. A common oversight framework can still ask consistent questions while allowing each market to define a realistic route into care.

A board or benefits committee could request a baseline, a remediation owner and a review date for material access problems. Procurement teams could also ask bidders to explain how they verify directory information and help members when a listing fails. These are proposed purchasing and governance responses to the study, rather than outcomes demonstrated by the researchers. The practical next step is a measured access review that produces evidence of resolved cases, rather than another count of names on a network list.

Sources

Ohio State University research release | Study and university release: 16 October 2026.

A secret-shopper study finds major gaps in commercial mental-health networks