Comments on: UNINSURED BS FROM FAMILIES USA http://www.healthcarebs.com/2009/03/04/unisured-bs-from-families-usa/ Cleaning the Augean Stables of the Health Care Debate Thu, 09 Feb 2012 13:17:29 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.3.3 By: Brian T. Schwartz http://www.healthcarebs.com/2009/03/04/unisured-bs-from-families-usa/#comment-433987 Brian T. Schwartz Thu, 18 Jun 2009 21:26:16 +0000 http://www.healthcarebs.com/2009/03/04/unisured-bs-from-families-usa/#comment-433987 Want more Families USA BS? Read this post by Linda Gorman about their claims about the cost-shift from the uninsured: http://www.john-goodman-blog.com/families-usa-makes-strong-bid-for-worst-study-of-the-year-award/ Want more Families USA BS? Read this post by Linda Gorman about their claims about the cost-shift from the uninsured:

http://www.john-goodman-blog.com/families-usa-makes-strong-bid-for-worst-study-of-the-year-award/

]]> By: HD Carroll http://www.healthcarebs.com/2009/03/04/unisured-bs-from-families-usa/#comment-433490 HD Carroll Tue, 31 Mar 2009 19:24:35 +0000 http://www.healthcarebs.com/2009/03/04/unisured-bs-from-families-usa/#comment-433490 There is a fairly straightforward reconciliation between this manipulation of the data by Families USA and the Census bureau. It doesn't take an actuary (I happen to be one, however) to dissect the data. Families USA wanted to find a way to take the facts and make the numbers look worse somehow. So, yes, they looked at a two year period, and are able to say (and this is probably correct) that 86.5 million different persons under age 65 were without formal health insurance at some point within that 2 year period. The point, however, is that when they compare that figure with 262.3 million persons under age 65, they are mixing two years of a subset with an implicit single year of "exposure." Using mid-points for the brackets of length of uninsured status, and calculating a weighted average, we arrive at an average period of uninsured status of 13.1 months. That is not important however, what is important is that the total number of "uninsured person months" during the two year period is 1,132.75X10^6, while the number of total person months exposed during the two year period is 6,295.2X10^6, for a ratio of uninsured months to total exposed months of roughly 18%. (The total exposure is the 262.3X10^6 population times 24 months each.) Guess what 18% of 262.3X10^6 is? 47.2 million (some rounding error). That looks suspiciously like the census bureau figure for the average, at any given time, of the number of uninsured persons. There is a fairly straightforward reconciliation between this manipulation of the data by Families USA and the Census bureau. It doesn’t take an actuary (I happen to be one, however) to dissect the data. Families USA wanted to find a way to take the facts and make the numbers look worse somehow. So, yes, they looked at a two year period, and are able to say (and this is probably correct) that 86.5 million different persons under age 65 were without formal health insurance at some point within that 2 year period. The point, however, is that when they compare that figure with 262.3 million persons under age 65, they are mixing two years of a subset with an implicit single year of “exposure.” Using mid-points for the brackets of length of uninsured status, and calculating a weighted average, we arrive at an average period of uninsured status of 13.1 months. That is not important however, what is important is that the total number of “uninsured person months” during the two year period is 1,132.75X10^6, while the number of total person months exposed during the two year period is 6,295.2X10^6, for a ratio of uninsured months to total exposed months of roughly 18%. (The total exposure is the 262.3X10^6 population times 24 months each.) Guess what 18% of 262.3X10^6 is? 47.2 million (some rounding error). That looks suspiciously like the census bureau figure for the average, at any given time, of the number of uninsured persons.

]]>