More

Three-Fourths Of Uninsured Live In States That Don't Provide Affordable Health Care, Analysis Finds

Health Care Costs

By RICARDO ALONSO-ZALDIVAR   01/23/12 07:29 AM ET   AP

WASHINGTON -- Here's a reality check for President Barack Obama's health overhaul: Three out of four uninsured Americans live in states that have yet to figure out how to deliver on its promise of affordable medical care.

This is the year that will make or break the health care law. States were supposed to be partners in carrying out the biggest safety net expansion since Medicare and Medicaid, and the White House claims they're making steady progress.

But an analysis by The Associated Press shows that states are moving in fits and starts. Combined with new insurance coverage estimates from the nonpartisan Urban Institute, it reveals a patchwork nation.

Such uneven progress could have real consequences.

If it continues, it will mean disparities and delays from state to state in carrying out an immense expansion of health insurance scheduled in the law for 2014. That could happen even if the Supreme Court upholds Obama's law, called the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act.

"There will be something there, but if it doesn't mesh with the state's culture and if the state is not really supporting it, that certainly won't help it succeed," said Urban Institute senior researcher Matthew Buettgens.

The 13 states that have adopted a plan are home to only 1 in 4 of the uninsured. An additional 17 states are making headway, but it's not clear all will succeed. The 20 states lagging behind account for the biggest share of the uninsured, 42 percent.

Among the lagging states are four with arguably the most to gain. Texas, Florida, Georgia and Ohio together would add more than 7 million people to the insurance rolls, according to Urban Institute estimates, reducing the annual burden of charity care by $10.7 billion.

"It's not that we want something for free, but we want something we can afford," said Vicki McCuistion of Driftwood, Texas, who works two part-time jobs and is uninsured. With the nation's highest uninsured rate, her state has made little progress.

The Obama administration says McCuistion and others in the same predicament have nothing to fear. "The fact of states moving at different rates does not create disparities for a particular state's uninsured population," said Steve Larsen, director of the Center for Consumer Information and Insurance Oversight at the federal Department of Health and Human Services.

That's because the law says that if a state isn't ready, the federal government will step in. Larsen insists the government will be ready, but it's not as easy as handing out insurance cards.

Someone has to set up health insurance exchanges, new one-stop supermarkets with online and landline capabilities for those who buy coverage individually.

A secure infrastructure must be created to verify income, legal residency and other personal information, and smooth enrollment in private insurance plans or Medicaid. Many middle-class households will be eligible for tax credits to help pay premiums for private coverage. Separate exchanges must be created for small businesses.

"It's a very heavy lift," said California's health secretary, Diana Dooley, whose state was one of the first to approve a plan. "Coverage is certainly important, but it's not the only part. It is very complex."

California has nearly 7.5 million residents without coverage, more than half of the 12.7 million uninsured in the states with a plan. An estimated 2.9 million Californians would gain coverage, according to the Urban Institute's research, funded by the nonpartisan Robert Wood Johnson Foundation.

Democrats who wrote the overhaul law had hoped that most states would be willing partners, putting aside partisan differences to build the exchanges and help cover more than 30 million uninsured nationally. It's not turning out that way.

Some states, mainly those led by Democrats, are far along. Others, usually led by Republicans, have done little. Separately, about half the states are suing to overturn the law.

Time is running out for states, which must have their plans ready for a federal approval deadline of Jan. 1, 2013. Those not ready risk triggering the default requirement that Washington run their exchange.

Yet in states where Republican repudiation of the health care law has blocked exchanges, there's little incentive to advance before the Supreme Court rules. A decision is expected this summer, and many state legislatures aren't scheduled to meet past late spring.

The result if the law is upheld could be greater federal sway over health care in the states, the very outcome conservatives say they want to prevent.

"If you give states the opportunity to decide their own destiny, and some choose to ignore it for partisan reasons, they almost make the case against themselves for more federal intervention," said Sen. Ben Nelson, D-Neb.

A conservative, Nelson was on the winning side of a heated argument among Democrats over who should run exchanges, the feds or the states. Liberals lost their demand for a federal exchange, insulated from state politics.

"It's pretty hard to take care of the states when they don't take care of themselves," said Nelson, who regrets that the concession he fought for has been dismissed by so many states.

The AP's analysis divided states into four broad groups: those that have adopted a plan for exchanges, those that made substantial progress, those where the outlook is unclear, and those with no significant progress. AP statehouse reporters were consulted in cases of conflicting information.

Thirteen states, plus the District of Columbia, have adopted a plan.

By contrast, in 20 states either the outlook is unclear or there has been no significant progress. Those states include more than 21 million of the 50 million uninsured Americans.

Four have made no significant progress. They are Arkansas, Florida, Louisiana and New Hampshire. The last three returned planning money to the federal government. In Arkansas, Democratic Gov. Mike Beebe ran into immovable GOP opposition in the Legislature. Beebe acknowledges that the federal government will have to run the exchange, but is exploring a fallback option.

In the other 16 states, the outlook is unclear because of failure to advance legislation or paralyzing political disputes that often pit Republicans fervently trying to stop what they deride as "Obamacare" against fellow Republicans who are more pragmatic.

In Kansas, for example, Insurance Commissioner Sandy Praeger is pushing hard for a state exchange, but Gov. Sam Brownback returned a $31 million federal grant, saying the state would not act before the Supreme Court rules. Both officials are Republicans.

"It's just presidential politics," said Praeger, discussing the situation nationally. "It's less about whether exchanges make sense and more about trying to repeal the whole law." As a result, outlook is unclear for a state with 361,000 uninsured residents.

There is a bright spot for Obama and backers of the law.

An additional 17 states have made substantial progress, although that's no guarantee of success. Last week in Wisconsin, GOP Gov. Scott Walker abruptly halted planning and announced he will return $38 million in federal money.

The AP defined states making substantial progress as ones where governors or legislatures have made a significant commitment to set up exchanges. Another important factor was state acceptance of a federal exchange establishment grant.

That group accounts for just under one-third of the uninsured, about 16 million people.

It includes populous states such as New York, Illinois, North Carolina and New Jersey, which combined would add more than 3 million people to the insurance rolls.

Several are led by Republican governors, including Virginia and Indiana, which have declared their intent to establish insurance exchanges under certain conditions. Other states that have advanced under Republican governors include Arizona and New Mexico.

For uninsured people living in states that have done little, the situation is demoralizing.

Gov. Rick Perry's opposition to the law scuttled plans to advance an exchange bill in the Texas Legislature last year, when Perry was contemplating his presidential run. The Legislature doesn't meet this year, so the situation is unclear.

McCuistion and her husband, Dan, are among the nearly 6.7 million Texans who lack coverage. Dan is self-employed as the owner of a specialty tree service. Vicki works part time for two nonprofit organizations. The McCuistions have been uninsured throughout their 17-year marriage, although their three daughters now have coverage through the Children's Health Insurance Program. Dan McCuistion has been nursing a bad back for years, and it only seems to get worse.

"For me it almost feels like a ticking time bomb," his wife said.

Dan McCuistion says he doesn't believe Americans have a constitutional right to health care, but he would take advantage of affordable coverage if it was offered to him. He's exasperated with Perry and other Texas politicians. "They give a lot of rhetoric toward families, but their actions don't meet up with what they are saying," he said.

Perry's office says it's principle, not lack of compassion.

"Gov. Perry believes `Obamacare' is unconstitutional, misguided and unsustainable, and Texas, along with other states, is taking legal action to end this massive government overreach," said spokeswoman Lucy Nashed. "There are no plans to implement an exchange."

___

Online:

FOLLOW HUFFPOST BUSINESS
Subscribe to the HuffPost Money newsletter!
Filed by Maxwell Strachan  | 
 
 
  • Comments
  • 1,735
  • Pending Comments
  • 0
  • View FAQ
Post Comment Preview Comment
To reply to a Comment: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to.
View All
Favorites
Highlights
Bloggers
Recency  | 
Popularity
Page: 1 2 3 4 5  Next ›  Last »  (19 total)
08:42 AM on 01/29/2012
Rockin roll makes a good point. Most of the cost of health care is attributable to life style diseases. If people ate healthy foods and exercised many diseases could be prevented. Instead people argue, in their ignorance, that they should eat anything they want to and sit on their as--- all day if they want to. That would be fine if it did not drive up health care costs for EVERYONE.
08:37 AM on 01/29/2012
Like everything else these days it turns into politics instead of doing what is best for the majority of people. Ohio had a very confusing measure put on the ballot by Republicans and people voted against implementation of the Affordable Care Act. The wording was so confusing on the ballot that I suspect the percentages would have been reversed if people understood what "for" and what "against" meant. It seemed deliberately designed to be confusing.
04:33 PM on 01/26/2012
3/4 of All US Population Live in States that Don't Provide Affordable Health Care, Analysis Also Finds.
This means you are *just as likely* to be uninsured if you're in a state without a plan, as if you're in a state with a plan. Scary.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
LVNVprog
President Elizabeth Warren - 2016
12:24 PM on 01/25/2012
Our Sick Care Program does Nothing to Provide Wellness for over 50 Million Americans. If we lost 45 Thousand soldiers per year in a war it would be catastrophic, but if we lose them due to a lack of health care - no one cares. It's time to totally overhaul this criminally corrupt system entirely. Stop the marriage of Politician and Insurance Corporations, Pharmacy, and Wall-Street Hospital Corporations. We could cover everyone for far less than what we pay now for inferior care. The Top Physicians, Equipment and Hospitals are rationed now and only accessible to the very wealthy or the few with Mega Benefit Insurance Plans.
11:23 AM on 01/25/2012
The truth is - Health Care is expensive. It isn't affordable no matter who pays. Prescription prices are INSANE! All hospital care is overpriced! Until the COSTS are addressed it will never be affordable.
The only way to fix it is no Insurance. Make it a cash business and people will take better care of themselves or die!
Genders
Love, Tolerance, Enlightenment
11:08 PM on 01/24/2012
Even the homeless in Sweden, Germany and Holland have health care.

Think about that.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
cwebster
predominantly exasperated
12:49 AM on 01/25/2012
...and Canada...
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
02:12 AM on 01/25/2012
and Britain.
Linda from Deerfield
Paying attention
08:36 PM on 01/24/2012
Our health insurance is not affordable, but we pay for it anyway. I see from their tax return that Ann and Mitt Romney only paid $2,000 more for their 2010 coverage than my husband and I.
04:35 PM on 01/26/2012
They must be in worse health than you and yours. Best wishes; may you remain well and healthy all year long!
10:39 AM on 01/29/2012
Ok, point? Why should two people pay different prices for the same service?
03:47 PM on 01/24/2012
Capitalism and it's greedy, one-sided and skewed to win (for a few) HAS GOT TO GO. How much money is enough to enjoy for yourself, pass to your kids. You do know you can't take it with you?!
And the old answer of "So what, I earned it" isn't an answer to my post.
photo
HymnsToSilence
so - you want to part as friends
01:28 AM on 01/25/2012
It is people that become/are greedy not necessarily capitalism making them greedy. What system do you recommend?
10:39 AM on 01/29/2012
All those other systems worked out so well too, right? Look at how all those communist and socialist utopias are doing. Bankrupt, bankrupt, bankrupt, gone.
02:59 PM on 01/24/2012
Regarding the earlier posting a copy of which is found below .... the poster is full of prevarication and outright lies. I live in Canada and hospitals do NOT shut down in September due to lack of funds, nor do physicians have to get prior government approval for procedures, etc. The original poster has probably never been to Canada, never worked for a Canadian firm, etc., and is coming up with all this nonsense that anti national comprehensive health care have been espousing for years.

"This is an old, pathetic argument. I worked for a Canadian Company. Our Company News sight on the computer always had an article about Canadian Health Care. The system was broke every year by late August or early September. At that point, many hospitals closed down entire wings, reduce the hours of the medical staff and the operating rooms only did emergency, life saving procedures­. Many of my Canadian Co-workers at one time or another had to come to the states for a medical procedure they couldn't get approved by the Canadian Government­. Before I retired, one of my friends told me that most people who can afford it, have a supplement­al insurance policy to pay for treatments that the Government won't"
07:58 PM on 01/24/2012
Thanks for setting the record straight. There are so many lies out here about national health care systems, particularly Canadian health care, that one would assume most Canadians rush to the US anytime they need medical care. I have a number of relatives in Canada and I know that's not true. But try to tell it to any of the brainwashed millions in this country who've been fed a diet of lies.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
cwebster
predominantly exasperated
12:53 AM on 01/25/2012
I'll say it's full of lies...and the poster was only semi-literate to boot.

We DO have supplemental insurance for dental, eyeglasses and drugs and things like orthotics and massage therapy.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
munki
Global to Local now Local to Global
01:24 PM on 01/24/2012
SO SO TRUE...

My friends from Scandinavia, Japan and few other countries used to tell me...

"If I am not rich to pay for Health Insurance or Insurances in America... I may lose my life on street in America...Fells like we work first 2-3 months to pay insurance premiums (inclusive of auto, etc.) next 3-5 months to pay tax... what left is... so thin"...

Well, they may pay more tax, but the know what they get paid at the end of the day to live...
03:01 PM on 01/24/2012
Yes, compare the US to the Scandi's, you realize their GDP is about that of New Jersey, right?
03:15 PM on 01/24/2012
So?
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
munki
Global to Local now Local to Global
06:34 PM on 01/24/2012
Yes, but we have 50 states... thought our healthcare system is up to the States in some limit???
09:36 AM on 01/24/2012
Did you ever knowtice anything with a catch name such as "Affordable health care" seems to help everyone but the people.
Bush's "Bankruptcy reform" where you could not go bankrupt.
Dodd Frank reform that is everything but.
We need less help from the politicans and not more.
oilfield
small manufacturing business owner
01:55 PM on 01/24/2012
war is peace
09:22 AM on 01/24/2012
...because their states refuse to make it affordable, have cut their state supported health care to exclude single adults of all ages, and refuse to accept the fact that denying care to people with moderate health problems, kicks them into major health problems which are much more expensive that the state ends up paying.

which was the point of the Affordable Health Care act, which the red states continue to fight in the hopes they can get their candidate in the White House and repeal any and all of the law, which again, dumps Americans into the ditch as they continue to support the insurance industry over people.
08:02 PM on 01/24/2012
You're so right. Our rightwing governor has turned down federal funds to help put together a state health exchange in the hopes either the SCOTUS will overturn it or Obama will lose in 2012. Meanwhile, this same governor (Brownback of Kansas) has rolled out a plan to privatize Medicaid while cutting millions out of the program. He says no one will lose benefits because he'll be able to put all the mentally ill and disabled on the program to work.

Of course, since we can't yet put our able-bodied and sane citizens to work, that isn't going to happen, but he'll make the cuts anyway and then say, "Oops." And then he'll cut payments to nursing homes and doctors so that the frail elderly will be dumped out into the community where no one is equipped to provide the skilled 24/7 nursing care they need, and there'll be no doctors to treat them.
08:48 AM on 01/24/2012
There is a really simple answer to the healthcare problem.

Start living healthy lives to avoid the system altogether for most of the time, while saving sufficiently for any emergency needs.

Demand and costs will fall. "Needed" follow-up services and "must-have" annual check ups will fly out the window.

Medical suppliers will have to deliver value or go out of business.
09:24 AM on 01/24/2012
how handy - if you are young, or have the funds to pay more for food [or food at all] and able to reverse health issues you may have been born with, and the assumption that you make enough income to 'save' -- try 'saving' on minimum wage.

But then, you're dreaming of Utopia, not the United States of America.
10:01 AM on 01/24/2012
Firstly, I have to be really clear: I do not include people who are born with medical issues in my comments. I include all people who end up with self-induced chronic disease and other issues. If the system were not so clogged up with the latter, those with medical issues beyond their control would have better and cheaper access to care.

Secondly, I am not young, and at the moment I am pretty d. poor with an uncertain business future.

I take ballet classes three times a week (with money I have saved). I try to work out at least twice a week (at home -- costs nothing). I work at eating healthy food every day (not perfect at this). While I am short of cash, I use frozen or canned fruits and vegetables a lot (frozen are usually more nutritious than fresh, as the nutrients are frozen in time, while the nutrients in fresh produce diminish with storage and distribution). I eat a lot of tuna. I take advantage of grocery price wars in my neighborhood. I try to avoid all high-density carbohydrates. I eat just one or two meals a day. I walk a lot rather than driving or taking public transportation.

I avoid doctors like the plague. Don't go for annual check ups. Refuse to have mammograms (big business inducing scam). Don't get my bone density checked (take calcium and Vitamin D and exercise), etc.

Continued....
10:04 AM on 01/24/2012
...Continued:

I'm with you on the minimum wage issue. I believe minimum wages are bad for people, companies, and the nation (topic for whole different thread); however, my views won't change reality.

Going back to school, though, will change the reality of those earning minimum wage. Luckily, these days that can be done online, or at night. This will ulitmately be the easiest way to improve their lives. New jobs created in the U.S. (anywhere) will require much, much more education than in the past. It can be done. I know too many people who have done it.

For those too old to go back to school, then sharing costs or creating their own ventures are the answers. If they have no business background, ventures can be as simple as garden work, pet sitting/walking, etc. to create more cash flow. Young people can do this as well to create the cash to go to school and/or take courses.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
silverstreet
All you need is love
10:15 AM on 01/24/2012
You can still get sick -- even if you eat right and exercise. In fact, most people who get cancer, for example, are not in the "at risk" category. It happened to me. Also, you never know when you might get in an accident. Wind up in a hospital for months. It happens. And your emergency fund won't last very long in the fact of any serious medical emergency.

Annual check ups are one way to catch disease early. It just happened to a friend of mine. He has cancer -- but, thanks to his annual check up -- it was caught early and he has a chance to survive.
10:44 AM on 01/24/2012
Of course we can still get sick, but it is the self-induced chronic diseases that are clogging up the system, some forms of cancer, by the way, now known to be among them.

My point is that the less the medical system is used, the more efficient and less costly it will become, with more access for treatments that are not self-induced.

I firmly believe that annual check-ups are not necessary but rather have become a great way to generate income. I also firmly believe that cancer has become an industry, catching many "cancers" that would never have spread -- actually catching many "cancers" that are not cancer at all. I firmly believe that cancer-research fund raising has become a provider-driven, perpetual industry, the funds going into the pockets of the fundraisers.

Nevertheless, as you say, many cancers are very real and certainly, as far as we know, not self-induced. The less healthcare is clogged with self-induced chronic disease, the better the services for cancer and other patients struck down at no fault of their own.
nastynorm
say it the way it is
08:17 AM on 01/24/2012
This trickle down routine is largley a farse.The richer they get,the cheaper they get.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
loki
Better to die fighting, than live on knees
07:42 AM on 01/24/2012
The rich do not create jobs.. Period


A billionaire named Nick Hanauer recently wrote an editorial for Bloomberg in which he destroyed the argument that the jobs in America are created by rich entrepreneurs and investors.

In our current "class war" climate, this argument has been repeated so often that it's now regarded as fact. And it is frequently and passionately invoked to defend the idea that we should make further tax cuts for rich people — so rich people can have an incentive to create more jobs.



Read more: http://articles.businessinsider.com/2011-12-12/news/30504074_1_tax-cuts-jobs-rich-people#ixzz1kNYksITD
08:42 AM on 01/24/2012
They don't?

Microsoft, Apple, Ikea, Virgin, WalMart, Berkshire Hathaway, (activities indirectly responsible for jobs of millions in different organizations), Oracle, Google....

Just the beginning of some of the better known organizations started by hundreds of self-made billionaires that hire thousands upon thousands of people.

Your comment is so far off the mark that it is not worth clicking on your link, even for those who dare to click on posters' links with unknown link names.

As for taxes, it just takes a little time to do the research to find out that the rich already pay vastly more taxes than the poor.

The education system is failing miserably in one area: critical thinking (the ability to not take everything we read and hear at face value, but to form our own opinions based on sound research).
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
silverstreet
All you need is love
10:18 AM on 01/24/2012
These companies create far more jobs in China than they create in the USA.

It is true that if you make less than $17,000, you will pay no federal taxes. You still pay sales taxes.

But the rich pay less of a percentage of income in taxes than working people.
08:15 PM on 01/24/2012
The point the article made is that without customers who can afford to buy products or services, the best idea in the world won't result in sales or a viable company.

I have a further point not made in the article. Why are we supposed to think cutting the PERSONAL taxes of the rich creates jobs? If they're going to create jobs they're going to set up a business to do it, therefore it makes no difference what their personal tax rate is.

And my final point is that companies do not hire until they have enough demand for their products or services that they can no longer meet the demand by working the existing workforce harder and longer. In other words, they don't hire until they MUST. And when there's no or little demand, they'll never have a reason to hire unless someone quits or dies.