NOTE TO READERS: When this project lost substantial funding at the end of 2018, I lost the ability to continue publishing criteria-driven news story reviews and PR news release reviews - once the bread-and-butter of the site going back to 2006. The 3,200 archived reviews, while still educational, are getting old and difficult for me to technically maintain on the back end of the website. So I am announcing that I plan to remove these reviews from the site by April 1, 2021. The blog and the toolkit - two of the most popular features on the site - will remain. If you wish to peruse the reviews before they disappear, please do so by the end of March 2021. After that date you may still be able to access them via the Internet Archive Wayback Machine - https://archive.org/web/.

Why is it called “medical LOSS ratio” when it defines what insurance is supposed to cover?

Kaiser Health News columnist Michelle Andrews was interviewed in this video, explaining what “medical loss ratio” means to consumers.

Medical loss ratio is that intriguing term used for what insurers actually have to spend to cover health care – not what goes to administrative costs, marketing, salaries, profits, etc.

You might also like

Comments

Please note, comments are no longer published through this website. All previously made comments are still archived and available for viewing through select posts.

Gregory D. Pawelski

July 15, 2011 at 10:44 am

Is there something wrong with making private insurance companies spend at least 80% of the revenues they receive in premiums from individual and small group customers (large group customers at least 85%) on medical claims and activities that improve the quality of care?

Susan Fitzgerald

July 28, 2011 at 11:12 am

“Medical loss ratio” is a clumsy accounting term that obscures what it really is: “medical claims ratio.”
The reason that MLR is usually lower for individuals and small groups is just because you don’t get the price break on volume. It will cost more to administer policies and claims for 20,000 individuals than one employer group with 20,000 workers.