What This Means for Payers and Providers

The report findings point to a consistent gap between what payers publish and what a closer check reveals. That gap has practical consequences.

For payers, an excluded provider listed as in-network carries direct compliance exposure. Federal and state exclusion checks are foundational, and this data shows that federal checks alone are not enough. A credentialing program built around a single annual or biennial check is, by design, going to miss issues that arise between cycles. Licenses lapse, registrations expire, and certifications go stale in the months between credentialing cycles.

The report also illustrates the critical role of continuous monitoring. Checking provider records against primary sources like exclusion lists, license boards, DEA, and state-controlled substance registries, and certification bodies on an ongoing basis, rather than only at hire and again on a fixed two-to-three-year cycle, is no longer optional.

A license that lapses in month four of a three-year cycle, or an exclusion added to a state list next month, doesn't wait for the next renewal to matter to a member or a compliance team. Closing that gap doesn't require replacing existing credentialing processes; it means adding an ongoing layer of primary-source verification between them, so that changes are caught within days or weeks rather than years.

For providers and care delivery organizations, the takeaway is similar in spirit. Directory accuracy is not solely a payer responsibility. A provider whose license status changes and who does not update their credentialing information contributes directly to the gaps this report documents.

None of this requires payers to rebuild their credentialing process from scratch. However, it suggests that the gap between periodic, point-in-time checks and continuous monitoring is where most of the risk documented in these findings actually lives.

Conclusion

Learn more