Skip to main content

View Diary: ACASignups: New updates from NY, CT, MA & MN (update: KY as well!) (67 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  State Targets Very Confusing (4+ / 0-)

    I don't know where the state targets come from but they can be very confusing and misleading.  Some states have set very aggressive targets like Kentucky and others like New York have set very low targets.  Many targets are around 10 to 15% of the total uninsured in a state but many targets are much higher.  Commonly the states with low targets look like they are going like gangbusters while more aggressive states look like laggards.  So I think trying to judge a state's relative performance by looking at the state targets can be very misleading.  

    A few examples showing the state and the percent of the target versus the total uninsured can prove very instructive:

    New York: 8.0 %
    Minnesota: 13.8%
    California: 17.1%
    Nevada: 19.0%
    Kentucky: 33.5%
    Washington: 35.2%
    Oregon: 40.6%
    Vermont: 100.0%

    Note even California is over twice New York.  So what do we see, New York is 80.88% of target and California is only 32.92% so California looks much worse.  If California had used a much lower target like New York they would be at 70.4% of target.  This almost looks like someone in each state just plucked the targets out of the air contingent on how aggressive they wanted to be.  This also has the rather perverse effect of making the more aggressive states look like laggards.  

    I imagine that there could be some decent rationale for some of this wide variation in targets such as a difference in the income distribution in the uninsured population pool but I feel a lot of this is just arbitrary.  

    I think a more sensible way to handle this under the circumstances would be to take the 7.066 million national  target and divide this by the total number of uninsured in the country which is 50.616 million to give a multiplier of  0.1396 (or 13.96%) and multiply this by the population of the uninsured people in each state.  I think this would give us a more reasonable and consistent benchmark than these widely varying targets that we are seeing coming from these  different states and the resultant confusion coming because we are using widely varying benchmarks.  

    •  State targets are indeed confusing (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      ladybug53, Brainwrap

      The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) set the national projection of 7,066,000, which the news media have long since treated as a "target".

      However, in email as well as in a phone conversation with me, the CBO underscored that they did not calculate the state breakdowns published by many news media, provided by the Associated Press.

      The stated source for that is the Centers for  Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS), which is under the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS). We’ve been trying to obtain the original document that has the state-by-state breakdowns, which clearly contain some errors – so far without luck.

      We would also like to know the basis for the calculation of those state projections/targets.

      “The meaning of life is to find it.”

      by ArcticStones on Tue Dec 31, 2013 at 04:11:07 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site