The reasons that 25 states chose not to participate in creating a new health exchange aren’t exactly the ones they’ve been claiming – that Obamacare is too complicated, too anti-consumer, or too politically unpopular.
The truth is that they have never done a very good job of protecting the health and well-being of their people – especially their children – and they were not ready to start now.
Now that all fifty states have decided whether or not they will at least participate in running their own health insurance exchanges as allowed by the Affordable Care Act (you can see the updated information about what each state decided on my state rankings page), a clear picture is emerging of what distinguished the states choosing to participate from those refusing to do so.
On the whole, when compared to one another, the 25 states that have chosen to participate in running their exchanges (17 by themselves, 8 in partnership with the federal government)do a much better job of taking care of their people than do the 25 states that have deferred to the federal government.
So, just as we imagined a few months ago, residents in the states that refused are likely to be much better off with the federal government running their exchanges.
In many cases, the differences between the states choosing to participate and those refusing to participate are significant.
Let me illustrate why by showing you some updated numbers. But first, let me explain briefly how I get to them.
If you rank the states from best to worst, and assign the ranking of 1 to the best and the 50 to the worst, then two “averages” result. The average ranking of all the states will be 25.5. And if you divide the states into two equal groups of 25, with all the top-ranked states in one group and all the bottom-ranked states in the other, then the average ranking of the top group will be 13, and the average ranking bottom group will be 38.
So keep in mind that 13 is the best possible average ranking for any group of 25 states to have, and 38 is the worst possible.
Now here are some average health-related rankings of the group of 25 states choosing to participate in establishing their own exchanges:
- Overall health (OHPM 2012 rankings): 21.5
- 2012 Kids Count ranking: 21.2
- Percentage of uninsured: 21.7
- Percentage with employer-based insurance: 22.4
- Ranking in spending on mental health: 24.7
And here are the average rankings of the group of 25 states refusing to participate in establishing their own exchanges:
- Overall health (2012 OHPM rankings): 29.5
- 2012 Kids Count ranking: 29.8
- Percentage of uninsured: 29.3
- Percentage with employer-based insurance: 28.6
- Ranking in spending on mental health: 26.3
In every instance, states choosing to participate in setting up their own exchanges have a much better track record than states refusing to participate. In only the mental health spending ranking is it even close.
Those of us living in one of the 25 states refusing to participate ought to be thankful that our state policymakers punted on the exchange, because it is more likely than not that we’ll be much healthier and better insured in the long run.
Especially our children. States choosing to participate rank an average of almost ten places better than the states refusing to participate. Children may have literally won the health lottery when those states decided that the federal government could do a much better job of assuring access to health care in the future.
The differences among the states are not just political ones, either.
Solid Republican states like Utah, Idaho, and Kentucky are all creating their own exchanges, and states like Arkansas, West Virginia, and South Dakota are partnering with the feds. Meanwhile, Maine, Wisconsin, Ohio, and Pennsylvania are all letting the federal government create their exchanges.
And the decisions have turned the traditional north/south, “state’s rights” argument on its head. States’ rights states, like Texas and Florida, are refusing to participate, while states like Connecticut, Massachusetts, and New York are choosing to do so.
States refusing to participate may have tried explaining their decision by claiming that the federal government created a program that was too complex, too controversial, or too anti-consumer. But those clearly aren’t the reasons.
No, the real reason is that they know that the federal government has already proven itself over time to be better equipped to protect our health than they are.
To reach Paul Gionfriddo via email: gionfriddopaul@gmail.com. Twitter: @pgionfriddo. Facebook: www.facebook.com/paul.gionfriddo. LinkedIn: www.linkedin.com/in/paulgionfriddo/
No comments:
Post a Comment