ArticleHealth affairs scholar2026
Provider-sponsored insurers, medical loss ratios, and quality ratings in ACA marketplaces.
Article in Health affairs scholar, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
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.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.