In other words: Some doctors may be hurting from a pay cut, but that doesn’t seem to be hurting patients.

“It is possible that there are cases where they are receiving less money for in-network and out-of-network services,” said Erin Duffy, an adjunct policy researcher at the RAND Corporation and a research fellow at the U.S.C. Schaeffer Center for Health Policy and Economics, who has studied California’s surprise billing law. “They may be experiencing marginal losses and, while loss aversion is real, I don’t think providers are going to be exiting the practice of medicine over this.”

A new analysis, from researchers at the U.S.C.-Brookings Schaeffer Initiative for Health Policy, examined a large sample of insurance claims data from the company FAIR Health to see whether the law had caused insurers to drop doctors from their networks. In contrast with the claims from the California Medical Association, that study found the opposite had occurred: Compared with the period before the law was enacted, the percentage of anesthesiologists, pathologists, assistant surgeons, radiologists and neonatologists whose work was covered by insurance increased by an average of 17 percent. The research team included Ms. Duffy.

A study published by the insurance industry last month in the American Journal of Managed Care also found that the number of California doctors in their networks had increased, not declined, since the law kicked in.

Consumer complaints to the state’s Department of Managed Health Care have been largely flat. A report ordered by the state legislature found that between zero and 20 percent of patients who were treated at an in-network hospital were still receiving out-of-network care, depending on the insurer. Those numbers, which could not be compared with previous rates, were published in March to little fanfare. Only a tiny fraction of doctors have used an appeals process to dispute their benchmark payments. Those state indicators were highlighted in a new white paper from Health Access published Thursday.

“We have not seen evidence indicating negative impacts for consumers’ access to care as a result of this new law,” said Rachel Arrezola, a spokeswoman for the department, in an email.

The California Medical Association noted that the state agency hadn’t examined the full universe of health plans that might have been affected by the law. Around 10 percent of health plans in the state are regulated by a different agency.