SPG synthesis report - State Coverage Initiatives

More documents

Recommendations

Info

State Table 2-3 MEPS-IC Estimates of Employer Offerings Percent of Private-Sector Establishments Offering Coverage 2000 38 2000 Standard Error 2005 2005 Standard Error Alabama 62.1 2.95 59.8 2.28 Alaska N/A N/A 42.4 2.96 American Samoa N/A N/A N/A N/A Arizona 62.9 2.68 55.0 1.48 Arkansas 46.4 2.41 40.8 2.44 California 56.8 1.37 59.8 1.61 Colorado 64.6 2.74 54.1 1.65 Connecticut 69.4 2.89 63.8 2.97 Delaware N/A N/A 57.6 2.26 District of Columbia N/A N/A 74.3 1.57 Florida 57.7 2.01 51.2 2.27 Georgia 54.7 3.41 52.3 2.72 Guam N/A N/A N/A N/A Hawaii N/A N/A 89.6 1.63 Idaho N/A N/A 43.8 1.76 Illinois 59.6 1.74 53.3 2.15 Indiana 58.4 2.27 55.9 1.84 Iowa 53.3 2.06 47.9 1.49 Kansas 58.1 2.01 50.8 1.90 Kentucky 61.5 3.35 57.1 2.60 Louisiana 50.4 2.50 52.6 1.56 Maine N/A N/A 55.6 2.96 Maryland 57.7 2.36 64.1 2.88 Massachusetts 68.2 2.79 63.3 2.16 Michigan 63.0 2.63 59.9 2.25 Minnesota 55.4 3.14 54.3 2.61 Mississippi 52.4 2.16 45.3 1.75 Missouri 58.3 1.40 50.6 2.12 Montana N/A N/A 39.2 2.85 Nebraska 46.3 2.05 45.2 2.22 New Hampshire 65.1 2.47 62.0 2.87 New Mexico 52.6 3.10 51.2 1.52 New Jersey 65.1 2.53 69.3 3.05 North Carolina 61.4 1.91 56.7 1.61 North Dakota 46.1 3.33 49.1 1.32 Oklahoma 51.9 2.88 48.3 2.84 Oregon 55.3 1.89 56.7 1.80 Pennsylvania 68.5 1.37 61.5 2.52 Puerto Rico N/A N/A N/A N/A Rhode Island N/A N/A 59.5 3.95 South Carolina 56.7 1.76 63.2 2.14 South Dakota 42.4 2.89 48.1 3.20
State Percent of Private-Sector Establishments Offering Coverage 2000 39 2000 Standard Error 2005 2005 Standard Error Tennessee 58.3 1.56 54.7 2.57 Texas 52.8 1.74 50.1 1.42 Utah 54.7 3.16 44.1 2.18 Vermont N/A N/A 56.8 1.66 Virgin Islands N/A N/A N/A N/A Virginia 60.0 1.45 56.7 2.08 Washington 59.3 2.48 53.8 1.78 West Virginia 55.0 1.97 48.8 2.80 Wisconsin 58.3 1.69 59.3 2.50 Wyoming N/A N/A 38.6 1.94 States not shown separately 60.2 Total 59.3 0.43 56.3 0.50 Source: 2000 and 2005 MEPS-IC, Table II.A.2. States were asked to provide overall rates of employer-based coverage in their states. In response, some used MEPS-IC (Arizona), while many others used state-specific surveys of employers (Alaska, Connecticut, Delaware, Michigan, Minnesota), state household surveys (Vermont,) and the Current Population Survey (North Carolina). Some states relied on previously conducted surveys. California did not conduct new data gathering, instead relying on the 2001 California Health Benefits survey conducted by the Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation and the Health Research Educational Trust. Several themes emerged from states’ collection of data related to employer-based coverage. • Steady decline in employer-sponsored health insurance. Mirroring national trends, many states found that employer-sponsored coverage as the primary source of health insurance slipped during recent years. North Carolina found that the decline in that state’s employer sponsored insurance dropped 9 percent between 2000 and 2003. • Small firms least likely to offer coverage. Vermont’s Family Health Insurance Survey found that only 26.6 percent of workers in firms with fewer than 5 employees are offered coverage at work. In comparison, more than 90 percent of employees in firms with over 50 workers were offered health insurance. Similarly, California found that while only 61 percent of firms with 3 to 9 employees offered coverage, 95 percent of firms with 200-999 workers offered coverage at work. • Premium cost poses significant deterrent to employers. Delaware commented that its research “clearly indicated that cost, or the perception of cost, is the single largest determinant of a business’s decision to offer or not offer health insurance benefits.” 3.19 N/A N/A
Page 1 and 2: HRSA State Planning Grants Program:
Page 3 and 4: Introduction The Health Resources a
Page 5 and 6: State Initial Year Funded for Plann
Page 7 and 8: � Premium Assistance: 10 states
Page 9 and 10: Pilot Planning States In 2004, HRSA
Page 11 and 12: State Pilot Grants Award Amount Yea
Page 13 and 14: A critical resource for states’ d
Page 15 and 16: The Planning Grant States The origi
Page 17 and 18: State Policy Environments In order
Page 19 and 20: challenges, including low employer
Page 21 and 22: Chapter II: The Diagnostic Work of
Page 23 and 24: Other national data sources include
Page 25 and 26: groups in the policy making process
Page 27 and 28: State Household Uninsured or Consum
Page 29 and 30: Ketsche, P. "Employment Based Healt
Page 31 and 32: supporting this proposal. The state
Page 33 and 34: 10 employees offered health insuran
Page 35 and 36: State CPS Estimate 2-year average:
Page 37: and 34 years of age, and one of eve
Page 41 and 42: the stigma of public programs, sayi
Page 43 and 44: Modeling and Actuarial Studies Many
Page 45 and 46: Table 3-1 lists the lead agency ide
Page 47 and 48: consumers, businesses, local govern
Page 49 and 50: • The Vermont Ethics Network (VEN
Page 51 and 52: Chapter IV: Policy Options The SPG
Page 53 and 54: Policy Options: Emerging Themes As
Page 55 and 56: For purposes of the following overv
Page 57 and 58: establishment of working committees
Page 59 and 60: • In 2002, Illinois received appr
Page 61 and 62: • New Mexico worked through the G
Page 63 and 64: Options “Off the Table” Some st
Page 65 and 66: • Learn from the experiences of o
Page 67 and 68: • Keep expectations realistic. St
Page 69 and 70: Chapter VI: Recommendations to the
Page 71 and 72: • Research on public input proces
Page 73 and 74: an effort to successfully engage st
Page 75 and 76: Michigan is developing an initiativ
Page 77 and 78: Commission reflect the same element
Page 79 and 80: To achieve the reforms that lead to
Page 81 and 82: whether federal action on the unins
Page 83 and 84: APPENDICES
Page 85 and 86: State Cumulative number of new Cove
Page 87 and 88: State Cumulative number of new Cove
Page 89 and 90:
Cumulative number of new Coverage S
Page 91 and 92:
Cumulative number of new Coverage S
Page 93 and 94:
State Cumulative number of new Cove
Page 95 and 96:
Page 97 and 98:
Page 99 and 100:
Page 101 and 102:
Page 103 and 104:
State New Mexico North Dakota Cumul
Page 105 and 106:
Page 107 and 108:
Page 109 and 110:
State Virginia None Cumulative numb
Page 111 and 112:
Page 113 and 114:
Page 115 and 116:
Page 117 and 118:
Table B1. Summary of SPG Consumer F
Page 119 and 120:
Page 121 and 122:
Page 123 and 124:
Page 125 and 126:
Page 127 and 128:
Page 129 and 130:
Page 131 and 132:
Page 133 and 134:
Table B2. Summary of SPG Employer F
Page 135 and 136:
Page 137 and 138:
Page 139 and 140:
Page 141 and 142:
Page 143 and 144:
Page 145 and 146:
Page 147 and 148:
Page 149 and 150:
Page 151 and 152:
Page 153 and 154:
Page 155 and 156:
Table B3. Summary of SPG Household
Page 157 and 158:
Page 159 and 160:
Page 161 and 162:
Page 163 and 164:
Page 165 and 166:
Page 167 and 168:
Page 169 and 170:
Page 171 and 172:
Page 173 and 174:
Table B4. Summary of SPG Employer S
Page 175 and 176:
Page 177 and 178:
Page 179 and 180:
Page 181 and 182:
Page 183 and 184:
Page 185 and 186:
Page 187 and 188:
Page 189 and 190:
Page 191 and 192:
Indiana-implement in 2007 Iowa Kent
Page 193 and 194:
Individual Coverage Mandate Conside
Page 195 and 196:
Considered North Dakota South Carol
Page 197 and 198:
Colorado Idaho Massachusetts Minnes
Page 199 and 200:
Buy-in to employees health plan or
Page 201 and 202:
Individual/small market reform Cons
Page 203 and 204:
Implemented Delaware-implemented (s
Page 205 and 206:
Reed, J.A. et al. "International Ap
Page 207 and 208:
Duncan, P. et al. "The Florida Heal
Page 209 and 210:
Economic Analysis of the Effects of
Page 211 and 212:
Commission to Study Maine's Hospita
Page 213 and 214:
Health Economics Program, Minnesota
Page 215 and 216:
Nebraska Carlson, E. et al. "Reacti
Page 217 and 218:
White Paper on Uninsurance in New M
Page 219 and 220:
Oregon Health Policy and Research,
Page 221 and 222:
Sheils, J. et al. "Covering VHAP an
Page 223 and 224:
Richardson, S.K. "Health Insurance
Page 225 and 226:
HRSA STATE PLANNING GRANTS FINAL RE
Page 227:
whether legislation or waivers were
show all

SPG synthesis report - State Coverage Initiatives

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?