Payer Overview

Innovative Long Term Care Mgmt Grp ranks as the #204 payer nationally and writes $61.8M in the US A&H market, reflecting a US market share of 0% across 3 states. The organization reports an estimated membership base of 8.8K and operates through 4 affiliated subsidiaries, positioning it as a niche regional player rather than a national incumbent.

The payer's concentration is focused in a small number of states, and it does not hold a #1 position in any state. This concentrated footprint suggests negotiation leverage is localized: contracting and reimbursement strategies will be most effective when tailored to specific state markets where it has meaningful premium and membership, rather than pursued as a broad national initiative.

Premium by Scope

Innovative Long Term Care Mgmt Grp's premium is exclusively within the US states and DC scope, with $61.8M written domestically and 100.00% of its reported premium in that scope. There is no reported premium in US territories or foreign jurisdictions. For providers, this concentration means contracting and revenue forecasting should focus on the domestic state markets where the payer operates rather than on territories or international exposure.

Innovative Long Term Care Mgmt Grp's premium and membership are heavily concentrated in the Midwest and a pair of Eastern states. With $42.1M written in Michigan alone, the payer's negotiating footprint will be most influential in that state where scale is meaningful relative to its overall size. The combined estimated membership of 8.8K is small on a national scale, so provider contracting teams should prioritize bespoke arrangements in Michigan while maintaining presence in Virginia and Florida.

Because the majority of premium is clustered in a single state, national contracting leverage is limited. Provider groups that operate in Michigan stand to gain the most from targeted commercial discussions, while multi-state groups should calibrate expectations: the payer offers strong regional access but limited national volume.

State-by-State Market Position

Innovative Long Term Care Mgmt Grp shows its strongest presence in the Midwest through Michigan, with secondary positions in the Southeast and Mid-Atlantic via Florida and Virginia. Michigan is the clear top state by premium and membership, indicating Midwest strength. The Southeast presence is modest, with Florida and Virginia contributing smaller but material premiums.

For multi-state provider groups, this distribution means focused negotiation in Michigan will yield the highest return given the payer's scale there. Regional health systems seeking broader network agreements should treat this payer as a regional counterparty rather than a national partner, concentrating operational and contracting resources where the payer's membership and premium are concentrated.

Estimated Member Demographics

Nationally, the largest age bands are 6–18 (1,346 members), 55–64 (1,291 members), and 45–54 (1,196 members). The distribution is relatively even across adult age bands, with a moderate pediatric and adolescent presence and a smaller, but still significant, senior population (65+).

Michigan, the payer's largest state, mirrors the national pattern, with the 6–18, 55–64, and 45–54 age bands being the most populous. Virginia and Florida have smaller total member counts, but their age distributions are similar, with no state showing a dramatic skew toward either younger or older populations. This suggests a broad-based member mix, requiring providers to be prepared for a full spectrum of care needs.

Estimated Members by State

INNOVATIVE LONG TERM CARE MGMT GRP's estimated membership is highly concentrated in Michigan, which accounts for 6,012 members out of a national total of 8,811. Virginia follows with 2,153 members, while Florida has a much smaller presence at 646 members.

This geographic distribution aligns closely with the payer's premium volume and market share, with Michigan being the clear anchor state. The relatively small member base in Florida, despite its large population, reflects the payer's limited market share there. For providers, this means that contracting opportunities and patient volume with this payer will be most significant in Michigan, with more limited impact in Virginia and Florida. Multi-state provider groups should prioritize Michigan for network participation and care management strategies with this payer, while viewing Virginia and Florida as secondary markets for this book of business.