More

Featuring fresh takes and real-time analysis from HuffPost's signature lineup of contributors
Aaron E. Carroll

GET UPDATES FROM Aaron E. Carroll
 

What a Difference a Year Makes

Posted: 09/16/10 10:13 PM ET

Every year about this time, the census releases its yearly numbers on the uninsured. Every year, I write an op-ed or a blog post. Every year, I get a little more depressed.

It's hard to find good news in these numbers. It's even harder because there's just nothing that the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act is going to do about them this year. Or next year. Or even the next few years. And, over that time, things are going to get worse for a large number of people.

Before we even get started, let's kill a myth. When the census reports uninsured people, they mean people who were uninsured for the entire year. Not part of the year, not on the day they were surveyed -- the whole year. How do I know? Because the people who asked the question say so. The US Department of Health and Human Services, in a 2005 document entitled Understanding Estimates of the Uninsured: Putting the Differences in Context, explains that the Current Population Survey (CPS) tells us about people who were uninsured for the whole year (see Table 1). In fact, it specifically says that the CPS does not give a point in time calculation ("N/A"). It does not matter what other people "say" about it. The CPS reports uninsurance for the whole year. In this year's report it also says:

"They were considered 'uninsured' if, for the entire year, they were not covered by any type of health insurance."

Remember that when you read the rest of this. The number of people who were uninsured for at least part of the year is much higher than those who were uninsured all year. They are at risk. They often can't get care. And we're not measuring them at all. Nor do we take into account that so many people in the United States are under-insured. Just having insurance doesn't necessarily mean you're adequately covered. It doesn't necessarily mean that you won't go bankrupt because of illness. It doesn't necessarily mean that you are protected. But we don't measure under-insurance. We just don't know.

Now that that's out of the way, let's hit hit the low notes on this year's report:

The percentage of people without health insurance increased to 16.7 percent in 2009 from 15.4 percent in 2008. The number of uninsured people increased to 50.7 million in 2009 from 46.3 million in 2008.

That means that there are now more people uninsured in the United States than at any time since the passage of Medicare. Full stop. A total of 4,300,000 more people were without insurance in 2009. Remember as well, all of the 16.7% of Americans who are uninsured are less than 65 years old, because all of those older people get Medicare.

The number of people with health insurance decreased to 253.6 million in 2009 from 255.1 million in 2008.

While the percentage of people who are uninsured has gone up and down, this is the first time that the sum total of people who have insurance has gone down in 23 years. It's also been 23 years since we've been looking.

The number of people covered by private health insurance decreased to 194.5 million in 2009 from 201.0 million in 2008. The number of people covered by government health insurance increased to 93.2 million in 2009 from 87.4 million in 2008.

Think about that for a second. We just passed a huge health care reform bill that, for the most part, is built on the private insurance market. And yet that market is failing us miserably. The number of people covered by government insurance increased by almost 7 million, and the number of people covered by private insurance dropped by 6.5 million. Six-and-a-half million. We're going to build on that? Moreover, the PPACA is going to increase the number of people on Medicaid by a substantial number. That's not until 2014. At this rate, funding Medicaid at the state (or even federal) level is going to need a large infusion of cash.

The percentage of people covered by government health insurance programs increased to 30.6 percent in 2009, from 29.0 percent in 2008.

Again, that's the highest percentage of people on government insurance in 23 years, since we started collecting the data.

The percentage and number of people covered by Medicaid increased to 15.7 percent or 47.8 million in 2009, from 14.1 percent or 42.6 million in 2008.

Go check out the CBO report on the final PPACA bill. They estimated that in 2010, 40 million people would be covered by Medicaid and CHIP. Forty million. That's 7.8 million less than it turns out were on Medicaid last year. How's 2010 going from your standpoint? Is there anyone who thinks things have improved so much that that the number of people on Medicaid is going down? I think it's possible that we'll see 50 million people on Medicaid in 2010, which is 10 million more than the CBO thought would be on Medicaid and CHIP. And things may get worse after that.

The PPACA depends on private insurance covering a certain number of people. This will have repercussions on how much reform will cost and how much government will be involved. I can't imagine anyone will be pleased with the changes in its outlook.

If you thought health care reform was done, prepare to be disappointed. It's barely begun.

Aaron regularly blogs about (mostly) health policy at The Incidental Economist.

 
 
 

Follow Aaron E. Carroll on Twitter: www.twitter.com/DSYGAaron

 
 
  • Comments
  • 50
  • Pending Comments
  • 0
  • View FAQ
Comments are closed for this entry
View All
Favorites
Recency  | 
Popularity
Page: 1 2  Next ›  Last »  (2 total)
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
01:00 AM on 09/18/2010
T.R. Reid, correspondent and author, did a one-hour PBS show, "Sick Around the World", comparing the health care systems of the U.S., Britain, Switzerland, Germany, Taiwan, and Japan:

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/sickaroundtheworld/
FRONTLINE: sick around the world | PBS

A three hour interview with T.R. Reid:

http://www.booktv.org/Watch/11328/In+Depth+TR+Reid.aspx>
In Depth - In Depth: T.R. Reid - Book TV

His latest book is "Healing of America" about getting a better healthcare system:

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601109&sid=aLIc5ABThjBk
Vets Loving Socialized Medicine Show Government Offers Savings - Bloomberg.com

“..The care is superb,” said Tanner, 66, a San Diego resident who visits the veterans medical center in La Jolla, California, and a clinic in nearby Mission Valley. The record- keeping, he said, is “state of the art.”

As Congress considers changing Americans’ access to health care, the veterans agency, whose projected budget this year is $45 billion, is evidence that the government can provide care favored by patients that may offer savings when compared with private insurers.

Researchers publishing in the New England Journal of Medicine, the British Medical Journal and the Annals of Internal Medicine in recent years have endorsed the system. A Canadian policy journal, Healthcare Papers, devoted an entire issue to it in 2005..."
nothingchanges
too soon old, too late smart
11:10 PM on 09/17/2010
IMHO the health care reform debate took a wrong turn long ago, and never got back on track.

What this country needs is affordable health care, and an efficient delivery system.

What we got is a debate about health care insurance. Those two topics are not mutually inclusive.
05:37 PM on 09/17/2010
The biggest opportunity to significantly reduce the cost of healthcare lies in the hands of we the people. Over 20% of the cost of healthcare is contributed to ailments caused by obesity We need to quit railing against the insurance companies and do what is necessary to reduce costs - take a little personal responsibility.
photo
HUFFPOST BLOGGER
Aaron E. Carroll
10:23 PM on 09/17/2010
Sorry, but that's not the case.

See: http://theincidentaleconomist.com/wordpress/the-blame-du-jour/
01:13 PM on 09/17/2010
Obama gave away the public option and the medicare buy-in option before the HCR debate even got going. He held secret meetings with big pharma and the health insurance industry very early in 2009 and cut deals in return for their support - or at least their neutrality). That's leadership!
01:05 PM on 09/17/2010
What a suprise the same Obama administration that gave massive bail outs to the banks with no strings attached is trying to give giant healthcare corporations millions of new customers with no restrictions on price increases. The same administration is sitting idly by while China comtinues to cheat on trade stealing millions of jobs. While trying to claim credit for providing healthcare for everyone some day years from now, when 4 million more people are dropped from the insurance rolls today. A simple solution like a medicare buy in could be done with 20 pages or less. Instead we get multi thousand page bills designed to reward special interests. The devil is in the details, the more details the more devils.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
lgillooly
02:05 PM on 09/17/2010
The TARP bailouts were signed by the Bush administration without strings. Remember Hank Paulsen and his 3 page TARP request?
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
forty8r
Gerrman Freethinker
12:48 PM on 09/17/2010
THE GOP motto "let the poor suffer and die they were to lazy to improve their lot in the first place". A true concept for these "Crhistain" conservatives
01:27 PM on 09/17/2010
Unfortunately us democrats motto is lets posture and sell out to the very same interests teh the GOP. The difference is primarily rhetorical. The end result the same. More poor, more uninsured. Heck, they cut food stamp funding this year!. I do not see that Obama and the democrats in Congress have earned any support. Maybe if we let the nuts win (as in Delaware and NY) they will make enough of a mess that someone will care. One might note that the only real concern has been when the banks were in trouble, the auto industry went bust and it became pretty obvious that the democrats were in trouble this fall because of unemployment. It was not a priority because this administration thinks that the middle class is important (except at election time) They and the GOP are all about who makes the donations. Very sad.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
11:48 AM on 09/17/2010
The answer is obvious - let anyone who wants to join Medicare do so.
10:55 AM on 09/17/2010
well simple math umemployment is close to 10% so it only follows the uninsured go's up.obama's health care did nothing to stop his pals in the insurance industry from still making tons of money and passing any increases on to the people so what did his 3000 page bill do.
photo
HUFFPOST PUNDIT
den1953
The best politicians are for free!
10:44 AM on 09/17/2010
It is a good thing the Tea Party wants to destroy the new health care bill why should Americans look forward to living longer and being healthy, why not punish Americans including their own people, after all the republicans would be happy to shut down the government so Tea Party members can't receive their Social Security checks and benefits from their Medicare plans.
10:16 AM on 09/17/2010
Due to tax laws favoring health insurance paid by ones employer health insurance is basically linked with employment. When people lose their jobs they lose their insurance. Why do we pretend that insurance is vital for people to survive. If less people were insured there would be more of a market for affordable health related items. It is because 85% of the population has health insurance that the market is so costly. Value isn't even a marketable commodity in health care. All the proof that you need of that is the fact that you can't even name an advertisement for a health related product that tells you how much that product costs. We don't need to force people to spend hundreds of dollars a month. What we need to do is have affordable care available to everyone if they need it. Give them an alternative to high price health insurance. The legislation passed by Democrats doesn't do that though.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
forty8r
Gerrman Freethinker
12:45 PM on 09/17/2010
Wrong brighteyes in places that have universal healthcare, healthcosts are less. Substantially less btw.
12:58 PM on 09/17/2010
There are reasons that their health care costs less. They ration care and limit how much they pay doctors. The average ER doctor in the UK makes $60,000 per year. Which is why they have to import most of their doctors from the third world. It is too expensive to pay for college and medical school to then only make $60,000 per year. They also rely on the US for innovations in medical care. Most of the major medical advances of the last 2 decades have come in the US for that reason. The problem with our system is the cost and cost is a problem because on average consumers only pay for 12% of their direct medical costs. People don't care if their prescription costs them $3.00 per pill or $0.03 per pill because often times they pay the same amount. If cost wasn't an object we would all drive nicer cars, live in bigger houses, and have giant flat screen TVs.
HUFFPOST PUNDIT
ThatsTheTheWayItIs
religion, ideology, partisanship are delusional
10:09 AM on 09/17/2010
I'm 60, uninsured in violation of the "mandate" here in MA.
(Like Fed law there is no mandate, just a tax penalty if you make enough. I make $40K, pay no penalty.)

I would gladly buy "health insurance", but that is not allowed.
Instead I am required to buy a health plan, that pays for all health care for me and others.
A system where everyone pays the same, then basically treatment and drugs are free.

Car insurance does not pay for oil changes and gas, it encourages wasteful spending.
Same with a health care plan: free treatments and drugs encourage wasteful spending.
Which is why the US spends 17% of GDP on health care, others less than 11%.

If a "catastrophic coverage" plan fulfilled the MA mandate, I would buy it, but there is none.
The cheapest policy is $5000 a year, with $2000 deductible and prescription drug coverage.
A $5000 policy with a $2000 deductible makes no sense.
Americans take 60% (by $) of the world's prescription drugs, because they are free and have TV ads.

If you want to reduce the number of uninsured, offer insurance, not a health care plan.
Something that covers unforeseen events, not maintenance.
I'll buy one, but I refuse to subsidize an out of control, for-profit medical and drug industry.
09:52 AM on 09/17/2010
Why did you not give any stats on those that freely choose not to get the insurance. That that number and the ones you site, might not as bad. But you talk in half truths.
HUFFPOST PUNDIT
ThatsTheTheWayItIs
religion, ideology, partisanship are delusional
10:11 AM on 09/17/2010
Like people "freely choose" not to own a home? I'm not sure unaffordability is exactly a free choice.
Vinkaye
None of the Above 2012
10:14 AM on 09/17/2010
"freely choose not to get the insurance"... are you talking about people who choose rent and food, over health insurance? Are those "free choices" based on lack of financial means?
11:37 AM on 09/17/2010
You seem to live in a make believe world. Those that can not afford health insurance already have a means of getting it = Medicade. Now lets not forget about SCHIP as well for children. Funny how the left forgets about those 2 wonderfull and 100% unconstitutional programs.
photo
HUFFPOST COMMUNITY MODERATOR
tacevad
American SS Card Carrying Socialist
09:12 AM on 09/17/2010
the goal remains of 100% coverage for all Americans . Is it Achievable? Not at present, Is it inevitable? yes if we are to survive in a World that has already begun achieving that goal.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
08:34 AM on 09/17/2010
O.'s Health Insurance Purchase Mandate will solve the shortage of corporate profits. Unfortunately, it will not help the poor. His assistance to those who cannot afford insurance will be ended before it begins by our new up & coming Bagger Congress elected in larger part over growing anger over O.'s failed presidency. I thought Carter was ineffective & unable to lead. What a guy?
redonthehead
Winning trophies for my game face alone
09:28 AM on 09/17/2010
Aren't the poor covered by Medicaid?
HUFFPOST PUNDIT
ThatsTheTheWayItIs
religion, ideology, partisanship are delusional
10:15 AM on 09/17/2010
Only the very poor. A family policy costs $14K (mine did in 2004) and median family incomes before taxes are $55K, most people are too rich to get Medicaid but can't afford health insurance.

Like me, I'm 60 and uninsured. I have no income because I'm retired, but I have too many assets to get Medicaid or MA assistance, yet too little to afford insurance and not run out of money before I die. Luckily I'll get Medicare in 5 years. I won't buy any of the supplementals, doctor visits and drugs are useless, but I'll be insured against accident or hospitalization, all I care about.
07:40 AM on 09/17/2010
Thank you for a fact-based large picture analysis of the state of our health care "system." This should be an opinion piece in every newspaper in the United States. Reality sucks, but it won't go away.