• 文献检索
  • 文档翻译
  • 深度研究
  • 学术资讯
  • Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件
  • 邀请有礼
  • 套餐&价格
  • 历史记录
应用&插件
Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件浏览器插件Mac 客户端Windows 客户端微信小程序
定价
高级版会员购买积分包购买API积分包
服务
文献检索文档翻译深度研究API 文档MCP 服务
关于我们
关于 Suppr公司介绍联系我们用户协议隐私条款
关注我们

Suppr 超能文献

核心技术专利:CN118964589B侵权必究
粤ICP备2023148730 号-1Suppr @ 2026

文献检索

告别复杂PubMed语法,用中文像聊天一样搜索,搜遍4000万医学文献。AI智能推荐,让科研检索更轻松。

立即免费搜索

文件翻译

保留排版,准确专业,支持PDF/Word/PPT等文件格式,支持 12+语言互译。

免费翻译文档

深度研究

AI帮你快速写综述,25分钟生成高质量综述,智能提取关键信息,辅助科研写作。

立即免费体验

《平价医疗法案》与医疗损失率:头三年无影响

THE AFFORDABLE CARE ACT AND MEDICAL LOSS RATIOS: NO IMPACT IN FIRST THREE YEARS.

作者信息

Day Benjamin, Himmelstein David U, Broder Michael, Woolhandler Steffie

出版信息

Int J Health Serv. 2015;45(1):127-31. doi: 10.2190/HS.45.1.i.

DOI:10.2190/HS.45.1.i
PMID:26460451
Abstract

The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (ACA) set limits on insurers' overhead, mandating a medical loss ratio (MLR) of at least 80 percent in the individual and small-group markets and 85 percent in the large-group market starting in 2011. In implementing the law, the Obama administration introduced new rules that changed (and inflated) how insurers calculate MLRs, distorting time trends. We used insurers' filings with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission to calculate the largest insurers' MLRs before and after the ACA regulations took effect, using a constant definition of MLR. MLRs averaged 83.04 percent in the three years before reform and 83.05 percent in the three years after reform. We conclude that the ACA had no impact on insurance industry overhead spending.

摘要

《患者保护与平价医疗法案》(ACA)对保险公司的管理费用设定了限制,规定自2011年起,个人和小团体市场的医疗损失率(MLR)至少为80%,大团体市场为85%。在实施该法律时,奥巴马政府引入了新规则,改变(并夸大了)保险公司计算MLR的方式,扭曲了时间趋势。我们利用保险公司向美国证券交易委员会提交的文件,采用恒定的MLR定义,计算了ACA法规生效前后最大保险公司的MLR。改革前三年的MLR平均为83.04%,改革后三年为83.05%。我们得出结论,ACA对保险业的管理费用支出没有影响。

相似文献

1
THE AFFORDABLE CARE ACT AND MEDICAL LOSS RATIOS: NO IMPACT IN FIRST THREE YEARS.《平价医疗法案》与医疗损失率:头三年无影响
Int J Health Serv. 2015;45(1):127-31. doi: 10.2190/HS.45.1.i.
2
Is the medical loss ratio a good target measure for regulation in the individual market for health insurance?医疗损失率是否是医疗保险个人市场监管的一个良好目标衡量指标?
Health Econ. 2015 Jan;24(1):55-74. doi: 10.1002/hec.3002. Epub 2013 Oct 4.
3
The federal medical loss ratio rule: implications for consumers in year 3.联邦医疗损失率规则:对第三年消费者的影响。
Issue Brief (Commonw Fund). 2015 Mar;6:1-11.
4
How has the Affordable Care Act's medical loss ratio regulation affected insurer behavior?平价医疗法案的医疗损失率规定如何影响保险公司的行为?
Med Care. 2014 Apr;52(4):370-7. doi: 10.1097/MLR.0000000000000091.
5
Impact of medical loss regulation on the financial performance of health insurers.医疗损失调节对健康保险公司财务绩效的影响。
Health Aff (Millwood). 2013 Sep;32(9):1546-51. doi: 10.1377/hlthaff.2012.1316.
6
Medical loss ratio regulation under the Affordable Care Act.《平价医疗法案》下的医疗损失率监管。
Inquiry. 2013 Spring;50(1):9-26. doi: 10.5034/inquiryjrnl_50.01.05.
7
Medical Loss Ratios For California's Dental Insurance Plans: Assessing Consumer Value And Policy Solutions.加州牙科保险计划的医疗损失率:评估消费者价值和政策解决方案。
Health Aff (Millwood). 2018 Sep;37(9):1517-1523. doi: 10.1377/hlthaff.2018.0441.
8
Risk Adjustment, Reinsurance Improved Financial Outcomes For Individual Market Insurers With The Highest Claims.风险调整、再保险提高了高索赔个体市场保险公司的财务业绩。
Health Aff (Millwood). 2017 Apr 1;36(4):755-763. doi: 10.1377/hlthaff.2016.1456.
9
Insurers' medical loss ratios and quality improvement spending in 2011.2011年保险公司的医疗损失率及质量改进支出。
Issue Brief (Commonw Fund). 2013 Mar;14:1-9.
10
What's behind health insurance rate increases? an examination of what insurers reported to the federal government in 2013-2014.健康保险费率上涨的背后是什么?对保险公司在2013 - 2014年向联邦政府报告内容的调查。
Issue Brief (Commonw Fund). 2015 Jan;3:1-5.