Health affairs scholar · 2026
Provider-sponsored insurers, medical loss ratios, and quality ratings in ACA marketplaces.
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Hua Lynn M, Cho Hyein
Аннотация
INTRODUCTION: The Affordable Care Act's (ACA) medical loss ratio (MLR) regulation requires individual market insurers to spend at least 80% of premium revenue on medical care and quality improvement, but evidence is limited on whether MLRs correspond to measured quality and how this differs by insurer organizational structure.
METHODS: Using CMS MLR financial reports for ACA marketplace insurers (2015-2023) linked to Quality Rating System ratings (2020-2023), we compared provider-sponsored insurers owned by or operating as part of integrated delivery systems with traditional insurers on MLRs, spending components, and quality, using adjusted regressions.
RESULTS: Among 2751 issuer-state-years, 581 (21.1%) were provider-sponsored. Provider-sponsored insurers had MLRs 5.8 percentage points higher than traditional insurers (95% CI, 2.0 to 9.7). Provider-sponsored insurers had higher overall quality ratings (0.65 stars; 95% CI, 0.36 to 0.94), despite reporting $5.5 lower quality improvement expenses per member per month (95% CI, -8.9 to -2.2). A 10 percentage point higher MLR was associated with 0.15 higher stars (95% CI, 0.09 to 0.21). Prior-year, but not current-year, quality improvement expenses were associated with higher subsequent ratings (0.04 stars per $10 per member per month; 95% CI, 0.02 to 0.07).
CONCLUSION: Organizational structure may shape MLR interpretation; direct quality measures may complement MLR regulation.
METHODS: Using CMS MLR financial reports for ACA marketplace insurers (2015-2023) linked to Quality Rating System ratings (2020-2023), we compared provider-sponsored insurers owned by or operating as part of integrated delivery systems with traditional insurers on MLRs, spending components, and quality, using adjusted regressions.
RESULTS: Among 2751 issuer-state-years, 581 (21.1%) were provider-sponsored. Provider-sponsored insurers had MLRs 5.8 percentage points higher than traditional insurers (95% CI, 2.0 to 9.7). Provider-sponsored insurers had higher overall quality ratings (0.65 stars; 95% CI, 0.36 to 0.94), despite reporting $5.5 lower quality improvement expenses per member per month (95% CI, -8.9 to -2.2). A 10 percentage point higher MLR was associated with 0.15 higher stars (95% CI, 0.09 to 0.21). Prior-year, but not current-year, quality improvement expenses were associated with higher subsequent ratings (0.04 stars per $10 per member per month; 95% CI, 0.02 to 0.07).
CONCLUSION: Organizational structure may shape MLR interpretation; direct quality measures may complement MLR regulation.