Last week, The New York Times ran an article announcing a significant healthcare provision in the budget deal reached by Gov. Andrew Cuomo and the state legislature a few days earlier. The story, by Anemona Hartocollis, noted that the deal requires that patients be notified in advance when an out-of-network doctor will be involved in their care. And when patients do get stuck with a surprise bill for out-of-network care, they’ll only have to pay their standard in-network co-payment, with the provider and insurance company going to arbitration to determine how much more the insurer will pay. Benjamin Lawsky, head of the state’s Financial Services Department, explained to Times readers that “the heart of the bill came out of the fact that the No. 1 complaint on health insurance issues we receive year after year is people who get stuck with surprise balance bills.”

So—problem solved, right? These surprise out-of-network bills, which are a driver of personal bankruptcy, are a thing of the past? Well… maybe. The agreement is important, and it’s good that the Times, and a few other New York papers, covered either the deal or the campaign that led up to it. But coverage that framed the rules as a case of well-intentioned public servants and consumer advocates winning a victory for patients told only part of the story. There’s another story here about how interest groups and industry blocs are fighting for leverage, in a battle that has real implications for consumers. And that fight is only going to continue as the budget agreement gets turned into policy during the rulemaking process over the coming months—which means this story is one to keep an eye on.

The backstory is the fight between providers and insurers about how healthcare networks should be defined, which is even more pitched in New York than in the rest of the country. Most private insurance plans offered through the state’s new healthcare exchange offer no coverage at all for out-of-network benefits. Insurers say they can hold premiums down that way—but they also want to gain leverage to force doctors in-network, where insurers can bargain for lower rates. Providers, meanwhile, would like insurers to have to pay something close to the sticker price for out-of-network care, since patients are often unable to pay. And it’s hard for patients with serious medical needs not to get stuck in the middle, because specialists within the same hospital likely won’t all take the same insurance, and neither insurers nor providers want to take responsibility for providing accurate, timely information. “It’s implausible to think that someone can navigate the health system without getting some care from an out-of-network doctor,” says Chuck Bell, the programs director at Consumers Union, which supported the provision.

Coverage like the Times piece and a Gannett article pegged off a Lawsky press conference during the push for the deal, as well as a Newsday editorial arguing in favor of the agreement, all explain why the current system means trouble for consumers. But they don’t really get into the legislative pull and tug between doctors and insurance companies over this measure, and how it maps onto the larger fight about networks. Readers did get a bit of that from the Albany Times Union, in a story by reporter Jordan Carleo-Evangelist. There was even more in the reporting from Laura Nahmias of Capital New York. Her detailed March 25 article outlining the debate before the deal was reached is behind a paywall, but here’s a taste:

Insurance companies say the governor’s plan unfairly benefits doctors, leaving insurers to pay higher rates for anesthesiologists or radiologists, who frequently operate outside of insurance network and can typically bill whatever the market will bear for their services. The insurers argue the state should do more to force specialists into health networks, to help lower the costs of care.

Nahmias and I talked last week about statehouse coverage. Editors sometimes want writers to make an “issue more readable by making it more simplistic than it actually is,” she said.

Trudy Lieberman is a fellow at the Center for Advancing Health and a longtime contributing editor to the Columbia Journalism Review. She is the lead writer for The Second Opinion, CJR’s healthcare desk, which is part of our United States Project on the coverage of politics and policy. Follow her on Twitter @Trudy_Lieberman.