Payer Overview
EDUCATORS MUT GRP Market Analysis: Market Share and Coverage by State
Educators Mut Grp is a specialist group benefits carrier with a concentrated regional footprint. It operates through a small set of affiliated subsidiaries and focuses membership and premium in a handful of western and southern states.
Payer Overview
Educators Mut Grp operates as a specialized group benefits carrier with a focused national footprint and a concentrated state presence. The organization ranks as the #176 largest US A&H payer and writes $164.03M in US premium, capturing a 0.01% US market share across 13 states. The company reports an Estimated Total Members population of 35.9K and operates through 4 affiliated subsidiaries, reflecting a compact but regionally concentrated operation.
The payer's most significant state concentration is in Utah, where it holds its largest market position; the payer does not hold a #1 position in any other state. This concentrated premium and membership base—focused largely in a single state and a small set of additional states—shapes its provider contracting dynamics and network leverage compared with broader national carriers.
4 rows
| Subsidiary | Domicile |
|---|---|
| Educators Health Plans Life Accident & | UT |
| Educators Mutual Insurance Assoc | UT |
| Total Dental Administrators Health Pla | AZ |
| Total Dental Administrators of Utah | UT |
National Market Presence
National Market Footprint
| State | Market Share | Premium Written | Estimated Members |
|---|---|---|---|
| AL | <0.01% | $636K | 109 |
| AZ | 0.11% | $23.9M | 5.34K |
| FL | 0.03% | $1.62M | 183 |
| GA | 0.01% | $3.15M | 524 |
| ID | 0.03% | $2.06M | 443 |
| MI | <0.01% | $838K | 120 |
| NC | <0.01% | $936K | 141 |
| NV | <0.01% | $219K | 36 |
| PA | <0.01% | $726K | 83 |
| TN | <0.01% | $843K | 127 |
| TX | 0.02% | $26.9M | 3.68K |
| UT | 0.88% | $101M | 24.8K |
| WY | 0.05% | $793K | 229 |
| National Total | — | $164.03M | 35.9K |
Educators Mut Grp shows a highly concentrated premium footprint, with the vast majority of premium written in UT and TX and a meaningful secondary position in AZ. Total premium across the reported states is $164.03M, and membership totals 35.9K. This concentration means national provider networks will encounter uneven exposure: large opportunity and negotiating leverage in Utah, with modest pockets of volume in Arizona and Texas, and small enrollment in the remaining states.
From a contracting perspective, national health systems and multi-state physician groups should prioritize building relationships and negotiating terms in Utah first, as network access there will affect the payer's largest membership cohort. Secondary discussions in Arizona and Texas are warranted to capture regional volume, while smaller states represent localized, lower-impact contracting opportunities.
State-by-State Market Position
Educators Mut Grp's strongest presence is in the West and Southwest, anchored by a dominant position in Utah where it writes $101M in premium and serves the largest share of its members. Arizona and Texas represent the next-largest markets at $23.9M and $26.9M respectively, giving the carrier meaningful regional strength across the Mountain West and parts of the Southwest/South.
The Midwest and Northeast show minimal exposure, with each state contributing less than $1M in premium and very small membership counts. For multi-state provider groups, this geographic distribution implies that negotiating a statewide agreement in Utah provides the greatest return on contracting effort, while multi-state agreements covering Arizona and Texas should be evaluated for incremental volume. Smaller states can be managed via localized arrangements or included opportunistically in regional contracts.
Estimated Member Demographics
| Age Band | Utah | Arizona | Texas | Georgia | Idaho | Wyoming | North Carolina | Florida | Alabama | Michigan | Tennessee | Pennsylvania | Nevada | National Total |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Under 6 | 2099 | 318 | 239 | 31 | 28 | 14 | 8 | 9 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 5 | 2 | 2772 |
| 6–18 | 5401 | 841 | 621 | 83 | 82 | 40 | 20 | 25 | 16 | 18 | 19 | 12 | 6 | 7185 |
| 19–25 | 3019 | 513 | 354 | 50 | 44 | 20 | 13 | 16 | 11 | 11 | 12 | 8 | 3 | 4075 |
| 26–34 | 3332 | 678 | 498 | 67 | 52 | 26 | 18 | 22 | 13 | 14 | 16 | 10 | 5 | 4751 |
| 35–44 | 3609 | 740 | 578 | 78 | 63 | 33 | 20 | 26 | 15 | 15 | 18 | 11 | 5 | 5212 |
| 45–54 | 2905 | 708 | 529 | 79 | 57 | 29 | 21 | 27 | 15 | 16 | 18 | 11 | 5 | 4421 |
| 55–64 | 2418 | 732 | 476 | 74 | 58 | 32 | 21 | 29 | 16 | 18 | 18 | 13 | 5 | 3910 |
| 65–74 | 1224 | 444 | 233 | 37 | 35 | 21 | 12 | 15 | 10 | 12 | 10 | 8 | 3 | 2064 |
| 75+ | 839 | 367 | 153 | 25 | 25 | 13 | 8 | 13 | 7 | 9 | 7 | 6 | 2 | 1475 |
Nationally, the largest age bands are 6–18 (7,185 members) and Under 6 (2,772 members), followed by the young adult and middle-aged bands. Utah, the payer's dominant state, mirrors this trend with a particularly high concentration of children and adolescents. States like Arizona and Texas also show substantial numbers in these younger age bands, reinforcing the payer's focus on families and school-aged populations.
Some states, such as Pennsylvania and Nevada, have very small member counts across all age bands, reflecting limited market presence. The senior population (65+) is relatively small in all states, indicating that EDUCATORS MUT GRP is not a major player in Medicare or senior-focused insurance. Overall, the demographic profile is youthful, with a strong emphasis on pediatric and family care.
Estimated Members by State
EDUCATORS MUT GRP's estimated member distribution is highly concentrated in Utah, with 24,845 members, representing the vast majority of its national membership. Arizona and Texas follow with 5,341 and 3,681 members respectively, while all other states have fewer than 1,000 members each. This aligns closely with the payer's market share and premium volume, as Utah is the only state where EDUCATORS MUT GRP holds a significant market share (0.88, rank 9).
The geographic concentration in Utah, Arizona, and Texas means that providers in these states are most likely to encounter EDUCATORS MUT GRP members. In contrast, states like Pennsylvania, Nevada, and Alabama have minimal member counts, reflecting negligible market share and limited provider contracting impact. For providers, this means that contracting strategies and care delivery models should be tailored to the needs of Utah, Arizona, and Texas populations, with less emphasis on other regions unless local market conditions change in the future.