::Thank you for clarifying that Kaiser isn't Permanente! 

 ::At best, the article needs information on how the plans were rated. "Outcomes" is suggested, but not amplified particularly. Ten points for outcomes, five points for cost, two points for paperwork/bureaucracy? What? The ratings seem vague. When Consumer Reports rates something, it is fairly clear on what it is rating, and not just vagues "I am Consumer Reports and Chrysler is tops" and let it go at that. Nobody would buy it anymore. Sounds like WP:PR. 

 ::If six out of ten doctors go unrated, what then is your conclusion? That you will pick only rated doctors? As for me, I would wonder why the six weren't rated. It seems to cast a question on the ratings themselves.  

 ::I am still less than convinced this slim survey by a relatively unknown, self-designated guru, deserves this much white space. Even more so when their methodology is hidden. Why is it hidden? 

 ::Also, let's think about this. Suppose we have an article on "Automobiles." Do we then mention that Consumer Reports (who is fairly well-known) evaluates cars and has found that 8 out of ten cars require way too much maintenance and gets lousy milage? It seems a bit of a stretch to say that every article on a material item requires presentation of evaluation by anyone, even if rating company is reputable and presents useful information to a consumer. We are not a catalog nor a consumer magazine, nor a how-to magazine. Somehow, this seems to have gone beyond presentation of Medicare itself. 

 ::Presentation of material in a political manner may be more germane. "Since Medicare plans are mostly bad, this shows that Congress did the wrong thing by ..." (have to be WP:RELY analysis of course. This take the material out of a "how to" users guide and puts it into a proper role as presenters of material germane to Medicare itself - it would not be aimed at helping users per se.