I’ve been playing around with some state-by-state data on the Kaiser Family Foundation web site trying to figure out if there are any correlations between the uninsured and penetration levels for Medicaid, individual insurance and employer-sponsored insurance.
The first chart (below) shows for each of the 50 states and D.C. the percentage of the state’s population in Medicaid on the x axis and the percentage of people uninsured on the y axis. It suggests there is no correlation between Medicaid penetration and the level of uninsured.
The second chart (below) shows the percentage of each state’s population in individual health plans on the x axis and the percentage of people uninsured on the y axis. It suggests a small indirect correlation between individual insurance penetration and the level of uninsured; i.e., as individual insurance penetration rises, the percentage of uninsured falls (but only a little).
The last chart (below) shows the percentage of the state’s population in employer-sponsored health plans on the x axis and the percentage of people uninsured on the y axis. It suggests a substantial indirect correlation between ESI penetration and the level of uninsured, i.e., the higher the ESI penetration, the lower the level of uninsured.
I’d be interested in your thoughts on what this information means. To me it suggests something obvious: Medicaid and the individual insurance market (as structured today) aren’t adequate to pick up the slack of a faltering employer-sponsored health insurance market. (Btw, I also ran the charts for correlations between ESI, individual and Medicaid. Higher ESI penetration did clearly correlate to lower Medicaid levels, but the correlation wasn’t as strong as between ESI and the uninsured; there was no correlation between ESI and individual).
So the question is whether the reforms being proposed — i.e., expanding Medicaid and instituting individual market reforms — will do the trick. But you knew that already.
Subscribe in RSS Reader
