« Canada, health care reform, and you | Main | Mass features reinstated »

April 26, 2006

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d83425e13353ef00e55079597e8834

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Evidence:

Comments

shadowfax

I haven't had time to review the metholology, but their numbers seem higher than published elsewhere. For example, if 18% are uninsured based on 300 million population that's, what, 51 million? I had thought we were still in the mid-forties. And the underinsured numbers are way higher, as I mentioned here.

What gives? Is the problem getting worse, (probably) or is this just a measurement bias?

Martin

Shadowfax, it is a nuance of how you measure the uninsured. The Commonwealth Fund was looking at persons who reported being uninsured at the time of the survey or had experienced a time without coverage in the previous twelve months. If you are looking for a more typical figure, then 31.6 million people were uninsured at the time of the survey and 16.2 million people with insurance now were in the category of being without coverage in the prior year.
Martin

spike

Yeah, I think those numbers are a little inflated. I was without health insurance in the past 12 months because I switched jobs and was not covered for the first month of my new job. It may be more a reflection of people changing jobs more often than anything else. What would be more interesting is the number who went without insurance for the entire year, not just a part of it.

The comments to this entry are closed.