<p>I could have made this very easy. Taken 1.1 million previously insured. Taken 85 percent of that. 935,000.
The ratio is 70/30. Previous uninsured/new sign ups. 935,000/400,714.
400,714 new sign ups. </p>
<p>Made it really complicated for no good reason. :)</p>
<p>dstark, I am not sure where I saw this but one of the surveys indicated that only 50% of the previously uninsured actually made the first payment, while almost 100% of the previously insured were paying. Overall, 85% were paying. If you apply these numbers it would have to bring down the number of previously uninsured who actually enrolled on the exchange. I think it works out to be the same 70/30 ratio but only 1/2 of the 30% actually enrolled.</p>
<p>70% + 1/2(30%) = 85%</p>
<p>If you calculate it this way, you get around 200,000 new (previously uninsured) sign ups.</p>
<p>You get 200,000 paid new sign ups. There is a difference between paid new sign ups which is your number and new sign ups which is my number. 400,714. </p>
<p>The equation I am using is sign ups.
70%+15%+15%=100%. </p>
<p>During the last two weeks of March, there should be 250,000 new sign ups. Because the bill is not due until apr 26 or so, almost zero will pay. Zero.
So…
An example
If all 400,714 new insureds as of March 1 pay, and 108,036 new insureds from the first 2 weeks of March pay…this gives us 508,759 paid and 250,000 who did not get a bill that are unpaid.
508,750/758,750=.67% paid as of Mar 31. </p>
<p>The other 250,000 did not get a bill yet so the ratio will go up by May 1.</p>
<p>This is just an example. I know I lost almost everybody now… But I like the above concept. I think it is good.</p>
<p>"I’m sorry, GP, but to say that someone with cancer who is now getting treatment when previously they weren’t because they were unaware they were eligible for coverage “isn’t being helped” is insensitive in the extreme. That’s what I mean by “callous.” </p>
<p>Who said that? It is impossible to communicate effectively with people who just make things up and name call. Shhesh!</p>
<p>I agree Covered Calif screwed up. They are going to ask the question “Are you insured?” Or some variation in the fall.</p>
<p>GP, we are going to get to the same place in June or so…if the concept is right. I am going to have to subtract from my numbers because 100 percent wont pay and you will
have to add to your numbers because more than 50 percent of new signees will pay.</p>
<p>Just a reminder that my D signed up right before xmas for her ACA plan and was consistently told by BCBS DO NOT PAY until you get a bill. The bill came in early March. Up until then I assume she was counted as not paying.</p>
<p>Apparently no one properly asked about prior insurance. At this point, spilt milk.</p>
<p>Sax, yeah, my son did not pay for 2 months. </p>
<p>I hope to finish this up right now until more info comes out. </p>
<p>I was told when this is all over. The percentage paid is going to be over 90 percent. </p>
<p>So…using 60 percent formerly insured …and 40 percent new signups.</p>
<p>To get to 90 percent paid.</p>
<p>60 percent pay 100 percent… 40 percent pay 75 percent.</p>
<p>To get to 95 percent paid.</p>
<p>60 percent pay 100 percent … 40 percent pay 87.5 percent.</p>
<p>So… 758,750 new sign ups times .75= 569062.5 newly indured and paid.</p>
<p>So… 758,750 sign ups times .875 = 663906.25 newly insured and paid.</p>
<p>I think these numbers are close…</p>
<p>We will get better info going forward and we can tweak…</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>If you are the government, why would you care about the answer? (Serious question, since if I was them, I would not care. But equally important, the answers will probably be inconsistent and/or wrong If someone “has” insurance today, for example, but it is in the process of being cancelled, do they check ‘Yes’ or ‘No’, or ‘Maybe’?)</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Disrupt the insurance market? This would destroy the insurance market. Giving Medicaid to poor people just costs money; you’re expanding Medicaid to more people, so it would cost more money. </p>
<p>But think about this idea of letting sick people get Medicaid. GP, you say that you view insurance as something that guards against catastrophes, and so you should. But now, you’ve just been given a safety net. Let’s say your Medicaid premium would be $X. If you think your medical expenses will be less than $X, you do not buy any insurance; rather, you just pay your bills. If you think that your medical expenses will be greater than $X, you enroll in Medicaid. If you get sick, you just enroll in Medicaid then and pay the $X.</p>
<p>You may say that Medicaid wouldn’t offer you the chance to go to high-end providers, and so you would prefer to continue with your present insurance. Possibly. But think of the rest of the people in your plan. How many of them would agree with you? The people who would drop your plan in a second would be the healthy ones. The ones who would want to continue to be able to go to Cedars Sinai are the ones getting treatment there now. This is the textbook example of adverse selection.</p>
<p>If you let people buy fire insurance when their house is on fire, nobody buys fire insurance until their house is on fire.</p>
<p>CF - That’s precisely how Medicaid worked and that’s why people who didn’t need it were not signed up even though they qualified. Hence, my earlier reference to the chunk helped by expansion. So, counting them now as being newly helped is questionable. imho. Unless someone is going to argue that they didn’t know and we should spend millions to inform them. They are not stupid. </p>
<p>Bluebayou, we are never going to get perfect numbers. If every insurance company and medicaid scrolled their numbers at Times Square as people signed up, died, changed plans, moved, etc., we could get close. ;)</p>
<p>but still, my question is Why collect it in the first place? If you are the Czar of Covered California, your job is to get people covered. Why would you care where they came from?</p>
<p>Medicaid had eligibility restrictions before that are now lifted with expansion. Many of the newly insured, Flossy, did not qualify before. Also, one of the provisions is use of electronic data retrieval, to the max degree available- as opposed to the extent of former paperwork trades.</p>
<p>BB, for the way it was asked, at least in my case, I couldn’t tell if they meant you have acceptable employer-sponsored insurance now (which would be a qualifying question) or whether you have coverage (a data collection question.) </p>
<p>“If you let people buy fire insurance when their house is on fire, nobody buys fire insurance until their house is on fire”</p>
<p>This is now happening with Obamacare. People with preexisting conditions are now able to purchase insurance at the same price as everyone else, pushing up prices for everyone in the pool. If we are going to provide these people with some protection from the costs of their medical care, then one option is to let them enroll in medicaid. If their income is high enough, they will have to pay premiums for the coverage they get. This way the entire tax-paying population is paying for it rather than unsubsidized people stuck in the individual market, which is totally unfair to them. </p>
<p>You will not see a stampede to medicaid unless Obamacare wrecks the private insurance market, which is what is happening to the individual market.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>The pre-ACA Medicaid eligibility in a lot of states was (and still is in non-expansion states) a scarily low income. Like $3000 a year and no assets, numbers like that. The people who fall in that category are on average the least informed of the citizenry. A hefty percentage will be mentally disabled, either at birth, or by some mental or physical health condition they have acquired. If those people, who are likely to be unhealthy, have chronic diseases, and need a lot of help, now know they can get help, that’s a small victory.</p>
<p>Uh-Oh, Obamacare premiums are going to skyrocket.</p>
<p>“Health industry officials say ObamaCare-related premiums will double in some parts of the country, countering claims recently made by the administration.”</p>
<p><a href=“http://thehill.com/blogs/healthwatch/health-reform-implementation/201136-obamacare-premiums-are-about-to-skyrocket”>http://thehill.com/blogs/healthwatch/health-reform-implementation/201136-obamacare-premiums-are-about-to-skyrocket</a></p>
<p>The law is a disaster. It is now being held together with chewing gum and bailing wire.</p>
<p>You would absolutely see a stampede to Medicaid, because it would be free. Look at texaspg. Texaspg, commendably, wants to ensure that the low-income employees of the nonprofit are covered for their health care. But if Medicaid were legally available to the workers, texaspg would put them on Medicaid without a second thought. How about that auto body shop that was featured in the news? That employer would put the employees on Medicaid in a millisecond, if Medicaid were available to them. </p>
<p>Most people would go on Medicaid, or put their employees on Medicaid, if it were cheaper. Medicaid is bad health care, you say? That statement has some truth, and is somewhat overblown. But Medicaid wouldn’t be bad health care with all those voters on Medicaid.</p>
<p>Your rule that people with pre-existing conditions have to pay more is both strange and mean. Why are you punishing people for getting sick? Why would you want to punish dstark’s daughter? Or some kid with a low wage job and asthma?</p>
<p>Many people enrolled in the exchanges or off exchanges are going to be shocked if they get cancer. Unfortunately for them, they will not be able get the most advanced treatment, including clinical trials of new medications.</p>
<p><a href=“Health Law Concerns for Cancer Centers | RealClearPolitics”>http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2014/03/19/health_law_concerns_for_cancer_centers_121981.html</a></p>