I agree the blog owner is partisan, that is annoying, and also the reason I didn't link the site until now. The data is not suspect, unless you can provide another source with similar (scrutinized) breakdowns and sources showing different numbers. It's probably the best overall (and most heavily scrutinized) source of ACA data to be found anywhere - and it does distinguish paid vs not paid. It also carries a monthly count by exchange, so we can see month to month changes by program by state. The data sources are the state exchanges, the state insurance oversight agencies, and many insurers around the country.
We know the 10M Medicaid numbers are net newly insured. There are another 15M qualified health plans (paid). We don't know how many of those are newly insured and probably won't ever know, because health care coverage iwas not subject to reporting requirements. It was all survey.
We still don't know how many people in the US have qualfied health care, because employer plans are also not subject to the same reporting requirement.
Data from state exchanges
. It appears the current paid enrollment figures are mainly numbers from unnamed sources and projections from old April data released by HHS that the SS repeatedly links to as support for its "current" state numbers-
http://acasignups.net//sites/default/files/pdfs/hhs_march_april_enrollment_report.pdf
Updated "data" appear for Paid Exchange QHPs for all states, yet many states (inc mine) have not released official current paid plan enrollment figures since that Apr HHS report. And most private carriers have not reported their data yet (at least not publicly).
A recent blog entry touting KY's low (or even negative) Exchange attrition rate is somewhat typical. As support for this assertion of minimal attrition in KY the blogger offers nothing more than an unnamed "woman I spoke to at the kynect exchange" who reported current paid KY private Exchange enrollments at "80-85k". No spokesman's name or more precise figures are given.
Kentucky: Net attrition? What Net attrition? Current QHP enrollments even or UP since April | ACASignups.net
Among states that have reported updated info, the SS data for CA and CO appear to conflict with latest numbers from official state sources.
For CA- Exchange enrollments as of Oct 16, 2014, the website's SS shows 1.38M vs official CA number of 1.12M.
Covered California Daily News: Individual Market Enrollment Report - October 16, 2014
For CO- The SS figure is 133k vs 114k reported to the press by CO officials.
Colorado Projects 30 Percent Enrollment Attrition | Kaiser Health News
Again- the blog notes these official numbers for CA and CO but the SS does not.
Based upon all of the above, and I could go on, I do indeed consider the SS data as suspect. IMHO- The latest reasonably reliable 50 state data we have are from that April HHS report. If current reliable public data on this WERE presently available, IMHO we would be seeing it from mainstream reporters invested in HC issues. It is a great topic for ongoing coverage. I also suspect that if there were solid data for eight-figures of "newly insured" as this blogger claims, we would be hearing these positive numbers regularly from the WH & in Democratic campaign ads
Re Medicaid- For a variety of reasons, no one yet knows the real number of new 2014 ACA Medicaid enrollees who formerly lacked HI. But I believe the available data suggest the number of Medicaid "net newly insureds" is somewhat less than 10M. HI survey methodology, specifically US Census and those using that template, has changed over the past few years so most HI data are not directly comparable. So calculating net new Medicaid (or private HI) enrollments is not as simple as subtracting "Year 2014 minus Year 2013" survey results. Even the White House acknowledges that. From NYT-
"Tara McGuinness, a White House spokeswoman, said the changes in the questionnaire would “make it easier to measure the impact of the Affordable Care Act because it will be possible to compare data from 2013 and 2014.” But officials said that the data for this year would not ordinarily be available until September 2015, and that the data for 2013 and 2014 would not be directly comparable with the long series of data for prior years."
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/04/16/u...y-revisions-mask-health-law-effects.html?_r=0
In addition, people regularly move on and off of the Medicaid rolls. Gross change in enrollment does not equal "net newly insured". A significant minority of those enrolling in Medicaid had previous HI from another source. And subsidized Exchange plans may increase that number. For example, the Berkley work (referenced previously) suggests that just over 20% of CA Exchange (private HI) enrollees will change to MediCal (CA medicaid) within a year.
http://laborcenter.berkeley.edu/pdf/2014/churn_enrollment.pdf
One of the few 'pure' (consistent methodology) pre-vs post-ACA HI surveys is the Urban Institute's ongoing Health Reform Monitoring Survey, June 14 vs Sep '13 data. It found that the total number of uninsured adults dropped by 8M after completion of ACA's OE period.
QuickTake: Number of Uninsured Adults Continues to Fall under the ACA: Down by 8.0 Million in June 2014.
Other surveys have found that ACA has NOT decreased the uninsurance rate among children, which was already much lower than for adults.
Obamacare Has Not Cut Uninsured Rate For Kids | Kaiser Health News
For there to be 10M net newly insured under Medicaid, these population surveys would all need to be grossly inaccurate and/or the number with private insurance (all indiv, Exchange, + group HI) would need to have DEcreased rather than increased as most data indicate.
We all agree that total HI coverage has increased in 2014, an increase likely in the millions. For my 2 cents, I think the total number of folks with new STABLE (not intermittent) HI is likely in the 6.5-9M range.
Most experts (from all political perspectives) seem to agree that we are some months from reasonably precise figures on where the post-ACA "steady state" HI situation will settle out. And that is barring legislative/admin 'tweaks' to the law.