When “Covered” Becomes a Lie: The Role of Ghost Networks in Insurance Denials

Imagine purchasing health insurance with the belief that mental health services are within reach—only to discover that in-network providers are unreachable, unresponsive, or simply don’t exist. This happened to Arizona resident Ravi Coutinho, whose tragic story exposes the dark reality of so-called “ghost networks.”

Ravi’s case is a stark example of how insurers can hide behind provider directories while failing to deliver care, but it’s only one way in which insurance companies fail to deliver on their promises. At Gianelli & Morris, we represent policyholders confronting wrongful denials and other bad faith insurance practices. Learn about this latest example of unfair treatment below, and if you’ve been harmed by a bad faith denial or other conduct, contact our office to speak with an experienced and dedicated California insurance bad faith lawyer.

What Is a Ghost Network?

A ghost network is a provider list that gives the illusion of access. In reality, many listed professionals are unavailable, unreachable, or not accepting patients. In Ravi’s case, he chose a marketplace plan from Ambetter (a Centene subsidiary) in early 2023, confident his insurance would cover mental health treatment. But after 21 calls to his insurer and countless hours searching provider listings, he couldn’t find a single accessible in-network therapist. Eventually, he died, with his death classified as an accident involving complications from excessive alcohol consumption.

Ravi’s mother, Barbara Webber, filed a lawsuit in Maricopa County in May 2025, asserting that Centene and Health Net of Arizona violated Arizona law and federal requirements by disseminating inaccurate provider information.

Why Ghost Networks Are More Than Just a Frustration

At first glance, ghost networks may seem like a technical glitch. But they can have devastating consequences. Insurers are legally obligated to maintain accurate provider directories under the Affordable Care Act, the Mental Health Parity and Addiction Equity Act, the No Surprises Act, and state law. When they list providers who don’t accept new patients, those providers aren’t just unavailable—they effectively disappear from the policyholder’s treatment options.

Ravi’s experience illustrates this perfectly. Despite repeated outreach, he was unable to secure a therapist to refill his antidepressants or address his mental health concerns. Instead, he encountered dead ends: unresponsive offices, busy signals, and administrative errors. Sadly, his case isn’t unique; studies show that 80% of provider listings have inaccuracies, and one Senate subcommittee found only one-third of mental health listings were accurate.

When these failures lead to untreated mental illness, insurers may be exposing themselves to liability—and more importantly, causing avoidable suffering.

What the Lawsuit Alleges

The lawsuit filed by Barbara Webber charges Centene and Health Net with:

1. Publishing misleading provider directories, creating the false expectation that mental health care was readily available;

2. Violating federal and state laws mandating provider network accuracy; and

3. Committing negligence and consumer fraud, resulting in heartbreaking consequences for Ravi.

According to the complaint, Arizona regulators had previously warned Health Net of inaccurate listings, but no corrective action was taken.

Centene has faced similar allegations before, including lawsuits in California, Illinois, and Washington, where it paid fines for directory inaccuracies. Despite these prior incidents, the problem persists and the human cost continues to mount.

The Human Toll Behind the Data

This is where Gianelli & Morris draws a line. We don’t just help clients navigate denial letters; we pursue justice when insurers fail in their most basic duties.

Ravi’s story shines a harsh light on the difference between theoretical coverage and actual access to care. It is one thing to see a therapist listed in a directory. It is quite another to actually reach them, receive an appointment, and get help.

Policyholders rely on their insurers, but insurers rely on profit. In a bad faith context, insurers may prioritize the appearance of compliance over actual service delivery. Ghost networks are one vehicle for this illusion, and tragic outcomes reveal the deception.

How Gianelli & Morris Can Help

If your insurer has denied your claim or blocked access to care, such as by listing providers you’re unable to reach, you may have grounds for a bad faith lawsuit. Our team possesses years of experience and legal expertise in insurance bad faith cases. We know the complex web of federal and state insurance laws and how to hold insurers accountable, including what evidence to collect and how to get it. Through aggressive advocacy in or out of court, we pursue damages not only for denied coverage, but also for emotional distress and any preventable harm suffered, as well as punitive damages in appropriate cases.

If you can’t find therapists or doctors listed as in-network, you’ve reached out to multiple providers without success, and your insurer assured you they would connect you but failed to deliver, or if your coverage was denied based on lack of provider availability or directory errors, these are signs you might need to talk to a bad faith insurance attorney.

At Gianelli & Morris, we stand with policyholders in California who have been misled, obstructed, or ignored. Your health—and your life—matters. If you or someone you love has been denied care due to ghost networks or inaccurate provider directories, we urge you to contact us for a free consultation. Let us help you fight for access to the care you deserve.