# How we research ICHRA and review administrators

Canonical reader page: https://ichrareport.com/methodology/

Publisher: ICHRA Report

Originally published: 2026-09-12

Substantively updated: 2026-09-12

Sources checked: Not recorded

Data period: Not recorded

[Home](https://ichrareport.com/) Methodology

How our reviews work

Use this page to understand what we checked before making a claim. We distinguish government rules, company descriptions, calculations and editorial judgments, and explain what readers should confirm before making a benefits decision.

At a glance

Rules  **Primary sources first**

Provider reviews  **Same buyer questions**

Corrections  **Open**

Our standard

A useful ICHRA article should help a reader make a better decision, not simply repeat a regulation or a company’s marketing page. We link to the material we used and explain where the public information stops.

## What we cover

ICHRA Report covers Individual Coverage HRAs, employee affordability and Marketplace interaction, plan design, implementation, provider reviews, market developments, and the practical questions employers, brokers, and employees face.

The publication is informational. It does not replace legal, tax, insurance, accounting, or benefits advice for a specific employer or employee.

## Which sources carry the most weight

Federal rules and administrative facts begin with statutes, regulations, IRS guidance, HealthCare.gov, and CMS. When a provider page describes a feature, price, integration, or service, we use that page to report what the company publicly offers. When a company makes a claim about savings, satisfaction, scale, or performance, we look for a clear method or independent support before treating the claim as more than company-reported information.

| Source type | What we use it for | What it cannot prove by itself |
| --- | --- | --- |
| **Government rule or dataset** | Legal requirements, affordability percentages, enrollment totals, and administrative guidance | Which private provider will deliver the best experience |
| **Provider product page or documentation** | How the company describes its product, audience, pricing, and workflow | Average service quality or comparative performance |
| **Independent or transparent research** | Market behavior and outcomes when the method matches the question | Results outside the study population |
| **Testimonial or case study** | A concrete example of one customer’s experience | What the typical customer should expect |

## How we review a provider

Every provider review starts with the same practical questions:

**Who is it for?**  Employer size, workforce geography, broker involvement, and service expectations.

**What does it help people do?**  Plan design, enrollment, administration, payments, compliance, reporting, and employee support.

**What will it cost?**  Public pricing, platform minimums, implementation fees, and which employees are billed.

**How does it operate?**  HRIS, payroll, premium payments, reimbursements, data movement, and exception handling.

**What is still unclear?**  Service levels, contract scope, customer results, integration depth, and claims that need verification.

We do not assume that a longer feature list makes a provider better. A small employer may prefer simplicity and visible pricing. A large employer may need deep integrations and a managed rollout. The review explains the tradeoff rather than forcing every company into one universal score.

## How comparisons and shortlists are written

A head-to-head article compares the same buyer questions across both companies. A shortlist identifies the clearest reason each provider deserves consideration for a particular type of employer. We do not call one provider the best overall unless the available information can support that conclusion under common criteria.

Public pages rarely reveal complete contract pricing, implementation results, payment exception rates, or matched customer outcomes. Those questions stay in the article so a buyer can carry them into the sales process.

## Updates and corrections

Pages include a review date because rules, products, pricing, ownership, and market conditions change. Use the editorial contact form for corrections and updated source material. Submissions are not open yet. We review the source, update the page when warranted, and preserve the distinction between a factual correction and a disagreement with the editorial conclusion.

## Limits of the current reviews

- Most provider reviews rely on public documentation rather than a standardized live product audit.
- Contracts, service levels, security materials, complete pricing, and customer-outcome data are not public for every company.
- The ICHRA market does not yet have a comprehensive national provider-performance database.
- A provider that looks strong on paper still has to fit the employer’s local insurance market, workforce, and operating capacity.

## Publisher accountability

ICHRA Report is self-funded and currently earns no revenue.

We currently receive no sponsorship revenue, affiliate commissions, referral payments or provider funding. Providers cannot purchase a ranking or an editorial conclusion.

[Editorial process and AI assistance](https://ichrareport.com/standards/) · [Contact and corrections](https://ichrareport.com/contact/)