Latest Look Finds Mass. Near Zero Percent Without Health Insurance

BOSTON — When Massachusetts passed its landmark health coverage law under Gov. Mitt Romney in 2006, no one claimed the state would get to zero, as in 0 percent of residents who are uninsured. But numbers out today suggest Massachusetts is very close.

Between December 2013 and March of this year, when the federal government was urging people to enroll, the number of Massachusetts residents signed up for health coverage increased by more than 215,000. If that number holds, the percentage of Massachusetts residents who do not have coverage has dropped to less than 1 percent.

Click to see the full enrollment trends document from the Massachusetts Center for Health Information and Analysis.

Click to see the full enrollment trends document from the Massachusetts Center for Health Information and Analysis.

“We’re thrilled that we are getting this close to universal health care access,” said  the Rev. Burns Stanfield, president of the Greater Boston Interfaith Organization.

Stanfield says a report out last month that found mortality rates dropped in the first four years of expanded coverage, coupled with the insurance numbers, show that “our statewide move to universal access is working, and it’s a powerful witness to the nation.”

You won’t hear that kind of enthusiasm from the state, at least not on the record yet.

“These numbers are a sign that we are moving in the right direction, but there is still a lot of uncertainty about what they will ultimately mean to the total level of health insurance coverage in Massachusetts,” said Aron Boros, director of the Center for Health Information and Analysis, the state agency that tallied the latest insurance figures.

Uncertainty might be an understatement. One insurance insider says there is chaos behind the scenes. Most of the new enrollees are in a temporary coverage plan because the state, with its failed website, has not been able to figure out if these people qualify for free or subsidized care.

What if they don’t qualify for help, asked Lora Pellegrini, president of the Massachusetts Association of Health Plans, will these new enrollees be willing to pay a premium?

“The real challenge is going to be to move these folks from the temporary coverage into the permanent coverage where they belong, and then see if we’re able to retain these numbers,” Pellegrini said.

Some state officials expect the numbers to hold. That’s because despite a broken website and tons of confusion about deadlines and eligibility, it looks like more than 200,000 residents who did not have health insurance last year pushed to enroll.

There are some good explanations for why:

First, there was a big federal enrollment campaign that might have caught people’s attention.

Second, more residents are eligible for free or subsidized help coverage under the new federal insurance law.

And third, most of the remaining uninsured in Massachusetts were low income workers who could not afford premiums under their employers plans. They were not allowed to sign up for state subsidized insurance because they had access insurance through work. The federal law lifts that restriction.

“It is hard not to look at this and say, if it turns out the numbers are actually correct — that’s a big if — this is good,” said Gail Wilensky, a senior fellow at Project Hope and former health care adviser to President George H. W. Bush. “It is urgent that we have confirmation that continued enrollment after the first year can happen and, in fact, in a place like Massachusetts did happen.”

The state may be dropping even closer to zero than the numbers from CHIA indicate. This analysis is based on 167,000 residents in temporary coverage at the end of March. As of today, there are 217,000 in that plan. It’s not clear how many of these people are newly insured. Private health insurers lost at least 10,000 members during the first quarter of this year.

Massachusetts will continue to have undocumented residents and others who are uninsured. Making sure coverage is affordable is an ongoing challenge. And paying to subsidize insurance for more residents may strain the state budget. But Massachusetts may have become the first the state in the country where nearly everyone can focus more on their health and less on whether they can see a doctor if they are injured or ill.

Please follow our community rules when engaging in comment discussion on this site.
  • Marya Dantzer

    Yes, health insurance coverage — but what kind of care? And how much access to it? What proportion of physicians — especially well-credentialed, popular physicians — accept MassHealth patients? The stratification has shifted from insurance/no-insurance to access/circumscribed-access, exacerbating a type of health-care inequality that has long reigned in mental health care. Obamacare should include a provision that providers who accept Medicare be required also to accept Medicaid. That is an appropriate “stick.” An appropriate carrot could be greater public financing of medical training.

  • tarajunky

    Insurance for insurance sake?

    When RomneyCare was sold, a key part of the argument was the Massachusetts had the highest health care costs of any state in the country, and expanding insurance would get more people to see primary care doctors, less people in the ER, and an overall healthier population that would deliver major cost savings.

    Now 8 years later, Massachusetts STILL has the highest health care costs of any state in the country. And over those 8 years, health care inflation in Mass has been HIGHER than the national average.

    Now we already see ObamaCare unraveling, with the same broken promises about $2,500 per year lower premiums, less ER use, etc. Costs are HIGHER, ER use is HIGHER. Health care inflation will be higher with ObamaCare than without, as the failed RomneyCare experiment proves.

    And the clincher is that they already KNEW all of this about RC BEFORE they passed ObamaCare. They knew prices would go up not down, ER use would go up not down, they ignored the facts and spewed lyes to get it passed.

    • Martha Bebinger

      Hi Tarajunky – I don’t agree with everything here but you make a really important point that the rest of the country should hear. There is very little, if any, evidence that expanding insurance in Mass. has helped moderate the cost of coverage. If others who are reading remember some proof I’ve forgotten – please let me know!

      Thanks for writing.

      • tarajunky

        I agreed with the idea that states are the laboratories of democracy, and RomneyCare was an experiment worth trying. The people of Massachusetts strongly supported it and still do.

        But I think part of doing an experiment is analyzing the outcome in an honest way, to decide if it would be a good idea elsewhere. As far as I’m concerned, the answer is a resounding NO.

        I think it fits into the same class as Head Start, which was an experiment worth trying. We tried it and tried it some more for 40+ years. $170+ billion later, the results are in with the Head Start Impact Study finding that it delivered ZERO lasting educational benefit to anyone.

        Instead of reversing course and trying something ELSE that might work, it has become a political football, with the President even demanding universal Pre-K, which is mind numbingly irrational given the data.

  • http://www.bernardhealth.com Nikki Davis

    Great news for Massachusetts!