Health Data Transparency

Region

Tier

Confidence


Rhode Island (RI)	Northeast	High Transparency	86.0	Medium High	View
Vermont (VT)	Northeast	High Transparency	86.0	Medium High	View
Utah (UT)	West	High Transparency	85.7	Medium High	View
Washington (WA)	West	High Transparency	85.7	Medium High	View
Maine (ME)	Northeast	High Transparency	85.2	Medium High	View
Minnesota (MN)	Midwest	High Transparency	84.9	Medium High	View
Wisconsin (WI)	Midwest	High Transparency	84.0	Medium High	View
New York (NY)	Northeast	High Transparency	83.3	Medium High	View
Maryland (MD)	South	High Transparency	83.2	Medium High	View
Hawaii (HI)	West	High Transparency	82.7	Medium High	View

Maine (ME) Health Transparency Profile

Review generated: Mar 6, 2026

Region: Northeast Tier: High Transparency Confidence: Medium High Last Verified: Mar 6, 2026

Send Email Print to PDF

Overall Transparency

85.2

Weighted composite score across six transparency categories.

Population: 1.4M GDP: $98.6B Per $100B GDP: 86.5

Category Analysis

Price Transparency

Confidence: Medium

81.5%

Scores how clearly a state exposes healthcare pricing information, including public pricing resources, accessibility of cost information, and transparency of pricing references.

State note: The score also considers the state's broader public-data and machine-readable-data posture as supporting evidence.

Public Health Reporting

Confidence: Medium

83.0%

Scores the availability and quality of public health reports, statistical publications, dashboards, and recurring reporting resources.

State note: Maine shows provisional public-health-reporting strength based on public reporting pages, reports/publications, and update cadence reflected in legacy evidence.

Open Data Access

Confidence: Medium

91.4%

Scores how easily the public can find, search, download, and reuse health-related public data through open portals or accessible state resources.

State note: Maine open-data access is scored from legacy evidence for public health/open-data availability, downloadable formats, searchability, and metadata structure.

Hospital Quality Reporting

Confidence: Medium

86.5%

Scores transparency of hospital quality reporting, performance information, and public-facing reporting resources that help evaluate provider quality.

State note: This provisional hospital-quality-reporting score reflects public reporting, dashboarding, and accountability signals in the available state-level evidence.

Insurance Market Transparency

Confidence: High

80.3%

Scores the visibility of insurance rate review, market oversight, and public disclosure pathways related to health insurance filings and accountability.

State note: CMS indicates this state has an Effective Rate Review Program for the individual and small-group markets, which supports stronger insurer transparency, public filing visibility, and state-level review accountability.

Machine-Readable Data

Confidence: Medium

90.8%

Scores the availability of structured, downloadable, and machine-readable data assets that support analysis, reuse, and public transparency.

State note: This category reflects the combination of structured metadata quality and evidence of machine-readable open-data availability.

Methodology

Scores represent transparency of healthcare data availability, reporting quality, and machine-readable access.

Category	Weight
Price Transparency	20%
Public Health Reporting	20%
Open Data Access	15%
Hospital Quality Reporting	15%
Insurance Market Transparency	15%
Machine-Readable Data	15%

Confidence Levels

Confidence	Meaning
Low	Limited evidence support or weaker public documentation.
Medium	Reasonable evidence support with some gaps or inferred elements.
Medium High	Strong evidence support with only minor uncertainty.
High	Strong direct evidence support from current public sources.

Tier Thresholds

Tier	Range
High Transparency	85% - 100%
Moderate Transparency	75% - 85%
Limited Transparency	65% - 75%
Low Transparency	Below 65%

Research Limitations

Phase 1 maps legacy evidence into the refined category framework using transparent heuristics.
State-by-state hospital price transparency validation is not yet complete.
Insurance market transparency remains provisional until insurer and rate-review evidence is collected directly.

Derived Metric

Transparency Per 100b GDP
overall_score / (gdp_billion_usd / 100)
Higher values indicate stronger transparency performance relative to state economic scale.

Usage and citation terms: Attribution to Ataira Analytics with a link to the original HTI page or state profile is required. See Terms of Use.

For corrections or licensing requests contact sales@ataira.com.

Evidence Review

Review Date: Mar 6, 2026
Legacy evidence links were structurally reviewed. No targeted live replacement was performed in this pass.
Reviewed Sources: CMS Hospital Price Transparency Overview, CMS Hospital Price Transparency Requirements for Hospitals, CMS Effective Rate Review Programs, CMS Rate Review Data

Refreshed Evidence Links

No refreshed evidence links were included for this state.

Federal Validation

Hospital Price Transparency

Federal Requirement Applies: Yes

Direct State Hospital Audit Completed: No

Validation Status: Federal Baseline Plus State Proxy

CMS hospital price transparency requirements apply nationwide; this dataset uses the federal rule and public enforcement resources as a baseline but does not yet verify every hospital machine-readable file in-state.

Insurance Rate Review

Effective Rate Review Program: Yes

CMS Direct Rate Review: No

Validation Status: CMS State Program Classification

CMS identifies most states and DC as having an Effective Rate Review Program; this state falls in that majority under current CMS guidance.

Browse State Profiles

← Washington

All state profiles

Minnesota →