Navigating New Paths in Healthcare: Understanding Kentucky’s ‘Any Willing Provider’ Statutes

In an ambitious move to reshape healthcare access, Kentucky has enacted the ‘Any Willing Provider’ (AWP) statutes, challenging the traditional exclusivity of health maintenance organizations (HMOs) and their provider networks. At the heart of these statutes lies a simple yet powerful principle: preventing discrimination against healthcare providers ready to adhere to an insurer’s terms and conditions.

Introduction

In many areas of the U.S., health maintenance organizations (HMOs) have established exclusive relationships with certain doctors, hospitals, and other health-care providers. These collaborations form what is known as “provider networks”. For patients within an HMO, seeking services outside these networks often means higher out-of-pocket expenses or no coverage at all. Kentucky, however, has made strides in challenging this exclusivity through the enactment of two “Any Willing Provider” (AWP) statutes.

What Are the “Any Willing Provider” Statutes?

The essence of Kentucky’s AWP laws is clear: prohibit discrimination by health insurers against providers who are ready and willing to meet the terms and conditions set by the insurer. Specifically, these laws dictate:

  1. A health insurer cannot discriminate against any provider who is willing to comply with the insurer’s terms and conditions for participation.
  2. Any health benefit plan offering chiropractic benefits must permit any licensed chiropractor who agrees to the plan’s terms and conditions to serve as a primary chiropractic provider.

Implications for HMOs

  1. Increased Provider Options for Patients: AWP laws may lead to a broader range of healthcare providers for patients. This can particularly be beneficial in rural areas where there might be a limited number of providers within an exclusive network.
  2. Potential for Increased Costs: While the AWP statutes may increase accessibility, they could also potentially increase costs. If a larger number of providers participate in the HMO networks, the negotiated rates may rise, leading to higher premiums or out-of-pocket expenses.
  3. Quality Control Concerns: One of the reasons HMOs create exclusive networks is to ensure a standard of care. With the introduction of AWP laws, there might be concerns about maintaining consistent care quality if any provider willing to meet the basic terms can join.
  4. Administrative Burdens: Managing a larger pool of providers might introduce administrative challenges for HMOs. Ensuring that all providers adhere to the same regulations, billing practices, and standards might require additional resources.
  5. Empowerment of Chiropractors: The specific mention of chiropractors in the AWP statutes underscores the growing recognition of chiropractic care in the medical community. This provision ensures that chiropractors are not left out of HMO networks, further integrating them into mainstream healthcare.

Conclusion

Kentucky’s “Any Willing Provider” statutes represent an effort to democratize the healthcare landscape, ensuring that patients have access to a wide range of providers and that providers are not unjustly excluded from networks. While the intent is commendable, it remains to be seen how these laws will play out in the broader context of healthcare economics and quality control.

As with any major change in the healthcare system, there will be a period of adjustment and recalibration. Stakeholders, from patients to providers to insurers, will need to collaborate to ensure that the benefits of these laws are realized without compromising on the quality and affordability of care.

State Policies on Provider Market Power

The Source is a comprehensive platform that monitors and documents various state-level activities related to healthcare prices and competition. It provides valuable resources in the form of legislation and litigation databases, which are searchable and easily accessible.

The Source is a comprehensive platform that monitors and documents various state-level activities related to healthcare prices and competition. It provides valuable resources in the form of legislation and litigation databases, which are searchable and easily accessible.

The Database of State Laws Impacting Healthcare Cost and Quality focuses on legislative measures that have an impact on the cost and quality of healthcare. This database allows stakeholders at the state level to gain insights into their legal and regulatory environment. By understanding the laws in place, these stakeholders can make informed decisions and take necessary actions to enhance access, quality, and efficiency in healthcare while also striving to reduce costs.

Additionally, The Source includes a collection of maps that offer a visual representation of notable legislation and initiatives in health policy and reform across all 50 states. These maps provide a convenient way to explore the different approaches taken by each state and the progress made in addressing healthcare challenges.

If users have specific laws or cases they are interested in, they can utilize the search functionality within the database. This feature enables targeted exploration of laws and cases pertaining to a particular state, making it easier to find relevant information.

Overall, The Source serves as a valuable tool for stakeholders involved in healthcare, providing them with the necessary information to navigate the complex landscape of healthcare legislation and policy across the United States.

Through a review of state laws, CPR found a short list of states – California, Massachusetts, Montana, New Hampshire, North Carolina, Oregon, and Rhode Island – that are particularly active in their policy efforts regarding healthcare provider consolidation and market power.

State Policies on Provider Market Power Report

The Database of State Laws Impacting Healthcare Cost and Quality (SLIHCQ)

The Source on Healthcare Price & Competition

The Source tracks state activities impacting healthcare price and competition in both legislation (The Database of State Laws Impacting Healthcare Cost and Quality) and litigation in a searchable database to help stakeholders at the state level understand their legal and regulatory environment as they make efforts to improve access, quality, and efficiency, and reduce costs in healthcare.

Browse through the maps below to find out more about notable legislation and initiatives in health policy and reform across 50 states or search the database for specific laws and cases of a particular state.

ARTICLES & REPORT

  • by Anna Chau
    On March 6, 2026, New Mexico enacted HB306, the “Fair Pricing for Routine Medical Care Act”, to prohibit charging of healthcare facility fees for certain services, to require the disclosure of facility fees to patients, and to require the reporting of facility fees to the all-payer claims database.  The bill prohibits hospitals and clinics from […]
  • by Leelah Klauber
    Antitrust and Market Competition Playing Favorites — State Protection of Academic Medical Centers from Antitrust Oversight New England Journal of Medicine Jaime S. King, Katherine L. Gudiksen, Anna D. Sinaiko The authors explore a new trend with U.S. academic medical centers (AMCs) merging with nonacademic hospitals and health care systems.  These mergers pose risks of […]
  • by Bruce Allain, Managing Editor
    On March 26, 2026, the Department of Justice (DOJ) sued New York-Presbyterian Hospital (NYP), claiming NYP used illegal anticompetitive terms in their contracts with payors.  In the related press release, the DOJ stated that “New York-Presbyterian uses its market power to protect its margins, impede competition from rival hospitals, and prevent employers and unions from […]
  • by Bruce Allain, Managing Editor
    The Source’s founder Jaime S. King, and executive editor Katherine L. Gudiksen, working with Harvard’s Anna D. Sinaiko, have authored a report on state antitrust exemptions for academic medical centers (AMCs) published recently by the New England Journal of Medicine.  There is a recent history of AMCs merging with nonacademic systems, with states creating "carve-outs" to exempt AMCs from antitrust oversight.  The research […]
  • by Kassie Williams
    Background In August of last year, The Source shared information about the California Law Revision Committee's (CLRC) antitrust study, spurred by the 2022 Assembly Concurrent Resolution No. 95. At its outset, the study aimed to address the U.S. monopoly problem and the "threat of market concentration" in California.  The legislature tasked the CLRC with determining […]
  • by Bruce Allain, Managing Editor
    Antitrust scrutiny of anticompetitive healthcare contract terms is on the rise, and the use of anticompetitive contract terms are increasingly in the crosshairs of both regulators and courts. When healthcare systems acquire a dominant market share, one method of capitalizing on this dominance is to impose anticompetitive terms on entities they contract with for financial […]