Lanigan, Lindsey
Lukanen, Elizabeth
Zylla, Emily

State-Based Marketplace Transition Data During the Unwinding (Cross-Post)

The following content is cross-posted from State Health & Value Strategies. 
Authors: Elizabeth Lukanen, Emily Zylla, and Lindsey Theis, SHADAC

This expert perspective (EP) will be updated by SHADAC experts as additional dashboards/reports go live. Please visit the State Health & Values Strategies webpage for the most recent version of this EP.

Original publication date: August 16, 2023. Updated: November 17, 2023.

As the unwinding of the Medicaid continuous coverage requirement progresses, SHVS is closely monitoring state reporting on the impacts of redeterminations and disenrollments. There is intense interest in data that monitors transitions between Medicaid and Marketplace coverage and, more importantly, the outcomes of those transitions. State-Based Marketplaces (SBMs) play a significant role, coordinating with Medicaid agencies using a number of different strategies to ensure a smooth transition for people who no longer qualify for Medicaid, but might be eligible for a qualified health plan (QHP) offered through the Marketplace. To date, 12 of the 18 SBMs are reporting data on Marketplace transition outcomes. (Virginia, which would be the 19th SBM, launched on November 1, 2023. Virginia is not included in the total number of SBMs since it was not operating as an SBM from the beginning of the unwinding.)

The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) continues to release required state data reporting metrics. On October 31, CMS released a fourth batch of data which included detailed information on Marketplace enrollment transitions. CMS reported slightly different data for states that use HealthCare.gov compared to SBMs. And among SBMs, for states with an integrated system versus those who transfer accounts between Medicaid and the Marketplace. Broadly, these data include:

• Consumers who were transferred to or applied for Marketplace coverage.
• Consumers who were eligible for a QHP or Basic Health Plan (BHP) coverage (disaggregated by those eligible for financial assistance).
• Consumers with a QHP selection or BHP enrollment.

In all cases, CMS provides both counts and percentages. Among SBM states without an integrated system, CMS provides two percentage calculations – one where the denominator is applications and one where the denominator is account transfers. This distinction is important, because using the much larger account transfers number as a denominator makes the successful rate of transitions to QHP coverage seem much smaller. While the presentation of the CMS data is clear and the availability of counts and percentages is useful, it could leave room for misinterpreting the denominator.

Data reporting and interpretation have been complicated by the announcement from CMS that 29 states and the District of Columbia have been making ex parte renewal determinations on a household, rather than an individual level, as regulations require. This includes 16 of the 18 SBMs (California and Rhode Island are in compliance). This has caused some states to pause procedural terminations, reinstate coverage, and/or implement temporary extensions for renewal.

Given the ongoing data concerns and cautions regarding state comparisons, differences in how states are managing changes to ex parte renewals and potential confusion regarding the use of different denominators, it is more important than ever for SBMs to release their own data.

SHADAC will continue to update this expert perspective as more states publish their unwinding data.

SBMs Reporting Marketplace Transition Outcome Data
 

Note: In some cases, SBMs publish Marketplace transition outcome data in a more ad-hoc way (e.g., in a legislative report) or in administrative documents that are hard to access (e.g., board meeting minutes). Because these data are not being systematically reported and are more difficult to access, they are not represented in the map above. 

Variation in State Reporting

To date, 12 of the 18 SBMs that use their own eligibility platform are reporting outcomes for individuals who exited Medicaid and were transitioned to the Marketplace. In summary:

• Seven states are reporting whether individuals were eligible for a QHP.
• 11 states are reporting whether individuals selected a plan.
• Five states are reporting enrollment and/or eligibility broken down by whether the individual received financial assistance (e.g., advance premium tax credit or cost-sharing reduction payments).
• Three states are reporting on the demographics of people transitioning from Medicaid to Marketplace coverage.
• One state, Idaho, reports having completed its redeterminations.

Select Data Highlights
In addition to general information on transition outcomes, most of the states reporting outcome measures are providing additional information of interest, though this detail differs by state. Select data highlights are provided on the SHVS Expert Perspective .

Lukanen, Elizabeth
Zylla, Emily

States Reporting of Medicaid Unwinding Reinstatement Data (SHVS EP Cross-Post)

.

The following content is cross-posted from State Health & Value Strategies. 
Authors: Emily Zylla and Elizabeth Lukanen, SHADAC

States, the federal government, advocates, and the media have all been closely tracking and monitoring the impacts of eligibility redeterminations during the unwinding of the Medicaid continuous coverage requirement. While there has been a strong focus on disenrollment data, recently, several states have also voluntarily begun reporting Medicaid reinstatement (also sometimes referred to as “re-enrollment” or “re-opening”) data. Medicaid and Children’s Health Insurance Program (CHIP) reinstatement data (especially when paired with enrollment data) allows states to tell a more complete story about what happens to individuals after they are disenrolled.

Individuals can be reinstated in Medicaid or CHIP for a variety of reasons. Recently, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) directed 29 states and Washington D.C. who self-identified as conducting ex parte renewal processes at the household level, rather than at the individual level, to reinstate coverage for at least 500,000 individuals whose coverage was terminated inappropriately.^[1] Individuals may also have their coverage reinstated as a result of fair hearing cases, or as a result of re-enrolling in Medicaid or CHIP within the 90-day reconsideration period.^[2]

This expert perspective reviews current state reporting of reinstatement data and provides recommendations for the reporting of such data. To facilitate transparency, states are encouraged to report data for at least 90-days, disaggregate data by race, ethnicity, age and other population characteristics and provide additional information to contextualize reinstatement data.

States’ Reporting of Reinstatement Data

SHADAC’s review of public unwinding data identified nine states that report some type of Medicaid reinstatement data:^[3]

• Arizona
• Connecticut
• Kentucky
• Massachusetts
• New Hampshire
• New Jersey
• New York
• Pennsylvania
• Virginia

 The federal government does not require states to report reinstatement data as part of their Monthly Unwinding Data; and, while CMS could presumably leverage Transformed Medicaid Statistical Information System (T-MSIS) data to track whether Medicaid or CHIP members who are disenrolled are later reinstated, the availability of such data is delayed. Without a standardized national approach, each of the nine states are reporting a measure with a slightly different definition. Specific differences include the population being counted within the “reinstatement” category and the timeframe being reported and tracked (Table 1).

Table 1. States Reporting Medicaid Unwinding Reinstatement Data*

Variation in Reinstatement Measures

As seen above, there is wide variation in the definitions, timeframes, and amount of detail provided in the reinstatement data that states are reporting. For example, New York only reports the number of individuals reinstated in accordance with the CMS Ex Parte Renewal Guidance (Figure 1).

Figure 1. New York Medicaid Unwinding Data – Reinstatements

Screenshot: 10/31/2023

In contrast, Massachusetts reports the number of members who have departed and regained MassHealth benefits for any reason over the past 12 months (not just those reinstated due to CMS guidance) and for every month since the unwinding began (Figure 2). (Note, however, that Massachusetts does not provide a breakdown by the specific reinstatement reason.)

Figure 2. Massachusetts Unwinding Data – Re-Openings

Screenshot: 10/31/2023

Arizona reports a cumulative total of reinstatements for those individuals who were procedurally disenrolled since the unwinding began in April (Figure 3).

Figure 3. Arizona Unwinding Data – Renewals After a Procedural Discontinuance

Screenshot: 11/16/2023

Best Practices for Reporting Reinstatement Data

Although it is not required, reporting Medicaid and CHIP reinstatement data publicly promotes transparency. Like the reporting of closure reason or transition outcome data (i.e., whether individuals who were disenrolled transitioned to coverage through a Marketplace plan or an employer-sponsored plan), reporting Medicaid reinstatement data (especially when paired with enrollment data) allows states to give the full picture about what happens to individuals after they are disenrolled. Being more transparent about who is coming back into Medicaid can help provide additional context about the impact of unwinding processes on populations.

Tracking and reporting Medicaid and CHIP reinstatement data over a 90-day period at a minimum is highly recommended. States that have reinstatement periods longer than 90 days can consider tracking and reporting data over both a 90-day period and the longer, state-elected period. If possible, states should also provide a breakdown of the type of reinstatements. For example, the number of individuals who were procedurally disenrolled and reinstated, the number of individuals who lost coverage due to an erroneous ex parte redetermination and were reinstated in accordance with the CMS Ex Parte Renewal Guidance, etc. While these standards are best, state reporting systems may have different functionality.

For example, some states are counting reinstatements for individuals who were terminated for procedural reasons as new applications, making those cases more difficult to track. Regardless of system capacity, states are encouraged to report at least some of the number of people who are reinstated, using whatever definition is feasible for ongoing reporting. Even limited reporting can be paired with state context to help shed light on the larger impact of unwinding.  

Reporting reinstatements by enrollee characteristics, such as age, race or ethnicity, or on the basis of eligibility (i.e., MAGI, CHIP, and non-MAGI if applicable) might also help provide insights into where barriers might exist, enabling states to target outreach. For example, New Hampshire reports the number of Medicaid cases that are reopened and provides breakdowns by both age (adults and children) and for individuals in long-term care (LTC) and disability categories (Figure 4). Virginia also reports reinstatements for individuals with a procedural closure that can be broken down by eligibility category (e.g., individuals who are blind or disabled, children, enrolled due to pregnancy, etc.) and by program type (i.e. fee-for-service versus managed care) (Figure 5). Connecticut provides detailed breakdowns showing where individuals who have been disenrolled have regained coverage and by what type (i.e., whether they have enrolled in a qualified health plan with advance premium tax credits, transitioned to a non-MAGI Medicaid program, or regained active Medicaid coverage) (Figure 6).

Figure 4. New Hampshire Unwinding Reopening Data – Children and Individuals who Are Disabled or in Long-Term Care

Screenshot: 10/31/2023

Figure 5. Virginia Eligibility Redetermination Tracker – Procedural Closure Tab

Screenshot: 11/14/2023

Figure 6. Connecticut Unwinding Data – Renewal Post-Disenrollment Tracking

Screenshot: 10/31/2023

Finally, states are strongly encouraged to include data labels, detailed definitions, and context for reinstatement data. Describe population numerators and denominators if relevant. And, if the format allows, link to information that can help contextualize the data, such as overall application or enrollment data or comparisons to a previous time period that might help a user understand the historical context of the data.

Conclusion

While Medicaid churn remains a challenge, states are working hard to maintain Medicaid enrollment for eligible individuals, and they should present data that provides a more complete picture of their efforts and impacts on coverage. Renewals and disenrollments remain important measures of successful unwinding, but there is a growing need for states to provide more information to tell the whole story. To convey a more nuanced narrative, states should provide information on Medicaid and CHIP reinstatements, in whatever form is most feasible. This approach ensures that states effectively keep the public, policymakers, and advocates informed of their progress.

[1] See SHVS’ expert perspective, CMS Guidance on Conducting Eligibility Redeterminations at the Individual Level, for additional information.

[2] During the reconsideration period, states must reconsider eligibility without requiring the individual to fill out a new application if the renewal form or documentation is returned within 90 days after the date of the MAGI enrollee or CHIP enrollee’s termination. States have the option to (1) adopt a reconsideration period of longer than 90 days for MAGI enrollees, and (2) provide a 90-day (or longer) reconsideration period for individuals enrolled on a non-MAGI basis.

[3] No states reporting separate CHIP reinstatement data were identified—only New Hampshire and Virginia report reinstatement data by age.

SHADAC Staff

p 612.624.4802
e shadac@umn.edu

State Dashboards to Monitor the Unwinding of the Medicaid Continuous Coverage Requirement (Cross-Post)

The following content is cross-posted from State Health & Value Strategies. 
Authors: Elizabeth Lukanen, Emily Zylla, and Lindsey Theis, SHADAC

This expert perspective (EP) will be updated by SHADAC experts as additional dashboards/reports go live. Please visit the State Health & Values Strategies webpage for the most recent version of this EP.

Original publication date: March 16, 2023. Updated November 15, 2023.

As the unwinding of the Medicaid continuous coverage requirement continues, both states and the federal government are tracking and monitoring the impacts of the resumption of eligibility redeterminations and disenrollments. To-date, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) has released three batches of required state data reporting metrics; most recently on September 29th. However, given the time-lags and caveats of the CMS data, many states have decided to also publish their own state data dashboards. Releasing data in this format allows states to follow some specific best practices, including providing additional detail about definitions, timeframes, and state context that are important for communicating the unique and specific circumstances that states are experiencing during unwinding. Colorado’s state dashboard, for example, highlights the state’s lower unemployment rate and provides context around the state’s reconsideration period in order to help users understand the CMS data reports.

States Publicly Posting Unwinding Data

To date, 45 states including the District of Columbia (D.C.) have publicly published their own unwinding data in some format (this does not include states with pre-existing enrollment dashboards that don’t specifically identify unwinding cohorts). In most cases, state Medicaid departments are releasing those data, although some State-Based Marketplaces (SBMs) are also publishing unwinding data (see the SHVS expert perspective on SBM Marketplace Transition Data During the Unwinding). Of the 45 states currently reporting data:

• 23 are releasing state unwinding data online in either an interactive dashboard or static pdf format.
• Two states have only released copies of their required CMS Monthly Unwinding Data.
• 20 states are releasing both state data and their CMS Monthly Unwinding Data reports.

In some cases, states are publishing unwinding information in an ad-hoc way—such as by a press release. Because these data are not being systematically reported, they are not represented in the map above. As unwinding has progressed, the number of new states reporting unwinding data has slowed significantly and states are updating their data less frequently. Eight states have not updated their state unwinding data reports since August. Arkansas and Idaho report to have completed all redeterminations and are no longer reporting through their unwinding dashboards (Arkansas continues to make monthly reports to CMS publicly available).

The public release of unwinding data has proven to be a valuable tool in understanding who is losing Medicaid coverage and why. States and advocates have successfully used the data to both monitor outcomes and adjust strategies. Although CMS has indicated they only plan to continue reporting unwinding data through June 2024, we encourage states to continue to make detailed disenrollment, renewal, and call center data (in addition to the enrollment data most states already report) available publicly on an ongoing basis.

SHADAC will continue to update this expert perspective as more states publish their unwinding data.

Variation in States’ Reporting of Indicators

There is a wide variation in the indicators that states are reporting on their state data dashboards and reports. Of the 44 states reporting publicly, most are now reporting renewal and termination data. Some states are also reporting other interesting indicators such as:

• Reasons for procedural denials (see Colorado example below).
• Number of cases terminated that are re-enrolled or reinstated in Medicaid (see Massachusetts example below).
• Qualitative data from individuals about reasons why they did not renew Medicaid (see New Hampshire example below).
• Enrollment in CHIP (see Utah example below).

It’s important to note that states use different terminology, definitions, population denominators, and timeframes on their dashboards making it difficult to compare one state’s data to another. In some instances, the data displayed on state dashboards also varies from what states include in their monthly reports to CMS (see Georgetown’s State Unwinding Renewal Data Tracker for a summary of states’ monthly CMS reports).

Another cause of variation in the types of indicators reported across states is that states began disenrolling people from Medicaid in different months. For example, Arkansas resumed eligibility determinations in April 2023, and as of October 9th, the state indicated that it had fully completed its statutorily required six-month unwinding process. In contrast, Oregon started initiating procedural terminations in October and plans to take 10 months to complete eligibility redeterminations. Data reporting and interpretation across states is further complicated by the announcement from CMS that 29 states and D.C. have been making ex parte renewal determinations on a household, rather than an individual level as regulations require. This has caused some states to pause procedural terminations, reinstate coverage and/or implement temporary extensions for renewal. 

Unwinding Indicators & Disaggregated Data Reported by States

Few states are reporting disaggregated data on their dashboards. The most common breakdowns that states are providing are by program and geography (typically by county). Although CMS only asks states to report data by modified adjusted gross income (MAGI) and non-disability applications, versus disability applications, additional data breakdowns by age, race, ethnicity, and program type can elucidate important trends about the disproportionate impact of unwinding on groups that have been economically or socially marginalized. (See Arizona, Minnesota, Oregon and Washington’s dashboards below for additional examples of disaggregated data reporting). 

Visit the SHVS Expert perspective to view examples of state unwinding dashboards in the following states: Arizona, Colorado, Indiana, Massachusetts, Minnesota, New Hampshire, Oregon, Utah, and Washington.

Hest, Robert
Lanigan, Lindsey

Tracking Health Insurance Coverage During the Unwinding: Monthly Data from the Household Pulse Survey

This update uses data from the October release of the Household Pulse Survey, collected from October 18-October 30th, 2023.

Introduction

The unwinding of the Medicaid continuous coverage requirement represents the largest nationwide coverage transition since the Affordable Care Act. Since February 2020, enrollment in Medicaid and the Children’s Health Insurance Program (CHIP) has increased by 23 million enrollees and analysis indicates that as many as 15 million individuals will exit Medicaid to other coverage or become uninsured. This blog uses data from the U.S. Census Bureau’s Household Pulse Survey (HPS) to track trends in adult health insurance coverage rates as states “unwind” the Medicaid continuous coverage requirement and restart standard redetermination procedures.

Given the intense interest from policymakers and the media in monitoring coverage transitions during the unwinding, many states have released Medicaid administrative data showing their progress, with some State-based Marketplaces also reporting transition data. Though administrative data can show the number of successful Medicaid renewals and coverage terminations along with transitions to Marketplace coverage, they cannot provide information on transitions to other sources of coverage, such as employer-sponsored insurance or provide an estimate of changing rates of uninsured individuals. 

As states continue the process of redetermining beneficiaries’ Medicaid eligibility, this resource will help track transitions in coverage. Specifically, it will present rates of primary source of health insurance coverage by type (Employer/Military, Direct Purchase, Medicaid/CHIP) and rates of no insurance as they are observed in the HPS. Estimates will be presented at the state and national level by selected individual and geographic characteristics. The survey does not include children, so the analysis is limited to adults 18 and older.

This blog will be updated on a monthly basis as new HPS data are released and compare the latest monthly coverage estimates (reference above in the subtitle) to estimates from March 2023, the last month before the unwinding began.

Highlighted Findings

Limited to statistically significant changes at the 95% confidence level.

• Rates of Any Medicaid coverage in the HPS were again lower in late October compared to March:
  • Nationally, the share of adults with any Medicaid coverage fell 1.1PP to 17.5%, and the share among non-elderly adults fell 1.2PP to 18.5%
  • The share among non-Hispanic White adults fell 1.0PP to 13.8%, and the share among adults with 2022 household incomes of $50,000–$74,999 fell 4.0PP to 12.7%
  • The share of adults with any Medicaid coverage fell in Arizona, California, and Georgia, decreasing by 4.8PP, 4.5PP, and 6.7PP, respectively. No state saw a significant increase in the share with any Medicaid coverage.
  • The share of adults with Medicaid as their primary source of coverage saw similar changes over the same period
• Rates of uninsurance increased among non-Hispanic White adults (0.7PP) and adults with 2022 household incomes of $50,000–$74,999 (2.6PP) but were otherwise unchanged among all adults and in nearly all states.
• The share of adults with Direct Purchase coverage and ESI coverage as their primary source of coverage were mostly unchanged.

Select a coverage type from the orange box on the right in the dashboard below to filter the visualizations. 

Methods and Data

This analysis uses public use microdata from the Household Pulse Survey (HPS), a monthly, nationally representative, quick-turnaround survey that collects data on topics including household demographics, education, employment, food sufficiency, financial spending, housing security, and physical and mental health, in addition to current health insurance coverage.

The survey has a typical monthly sample size of 60,000 to 80,000 U.S. adults and is designed to produce state-level (and a select number of metropolitan-level) estimates of the civilian noninstitutionalized adult population. The survey does not include children (those age 17 or younger).

Data is collected for approximately two weeks each month from adults (age 18 or older) via a short, online survey and is released on a monthly basis. Readers should keep in mind that the HPS emphasis on producing near-real-time data comes with the tradeoff of lower levels of data quality compared with “gold standard” surveys such as the American Community Survey (ACS). These data quality issues include very low response rates (e.g., 6.7% response rate in the March 2023 survey), underrepresentation of harder-to-reach groups (e.g., adults with lower levels of education, young adults), a lack of editing and imputation for most variables, and likely some degree of nonresponse bias. For these reasons, HPS estimates should be treated with a greater degree of caution than estimates from other federal surveys.

Further, like other surveys, the HPS relies on respondents’ self-reporting their coverage, which is often associated with known biases such as the Medicaid Undercount and reflects respondents’ (sometimes imperfect) knowledge of their own coverage rather than the reality reflected in administrative data sources. 

The HPS’ health insurance coverage measure is similar to that used in the ACS and asks respondents: “Are you currently covered by any of the following types of health insurance or health coverage plans?” Respondents are allowed to select “Yes” or “No” from among the following coverage types:

1.  “Insurance through a current or former employer or union (through yourself or another family member)”; 
2.  “Insurance purchased directly from an insurance company, including marketplace coverage (through yourself or another family member)”;
3.  “Medicare, for people 65 and older, or people with certain disabilities”;
4.  “Medicaid, Medical Assistance, or any kind of government-assistance plan for those with low incomes or a disability”;
5.  “TRICARE or other military health care”;
6.  “VA (including those who have ever used or enrolled for VA health care)”;
7.  “Indian Health Service”; or 
8.  “Other”

The response options for employer coverage [1], TRICARE [5], and VA [6] were combined into one Employer/Military coverage category, and respondents were considered uninsured if they didn’t affirmatively report any coverage under options 1-6.

SHADAC’s primary source of coverage hierarchy was applied to determine which payer was likely primary when a respondent reported multiple sources of coverage (see SHADAC brief for more information).

For example, the hierarchy would classify a respondent reporting both Medicaid/CHIP coverage and Employer/Military coverage as having Employer/Military as a primary source of coverage, as Employer coverage typically acts as the primary payer for individuals with Employer and Medicaid coverage.

Estimates with a relative standard error (standard error divided by the percentage estimate) of 30% or greater, based on an unweighted denominator count of less than 50, based on an unweighted numerator count of less than five, or with a weighted estimate of exactly 0% or 100% were considered statistically unreliable and were suppressed.

Two-sided t-tests (95% confidence level) were used to assess statistically significant differences between the most recent data month and the baseline month (i.e., March). A lack of statistically significant difference does not affirmatively establish that there was no significant difference but rather that the data presented here are not sufficient to show a significant difference.

Hest, Robert
Lanigan, Lindsey
Stewart, Andrea

CPS ASEC: 2022 National Health Insurance Coverage Estimates Show Falling Rates of Uninsurance and Direct-Purchase Coverage (Infographic)

The U.S. Census Bureau has released an initial report detailing the state of health insurance coverage in the United States for 2022.

Drawing on data from the Current Population Survey Annual Social and Economic Supplement (CPS ASEC), the report highlights good news overall as the percentage of the population without health insurance coverage at any point in 2022 fell to 7.9% from 8.3% in 2021—a decrease of 0.4 percentage points or approximately 1.3 million people (25.9 million in 2022 vs. 27.2 million in 2021). 

The following blog post explores changes in national-level coverage rates by demographic characteristics - such as age, employment, race and ethnicity, immigration status, poverty status, and Medicaid expansion status - for nonelderly adults (age 19-64) and for children (age 0-18). While neither group saw an overall significant change in uninsured rates, both experienced shifts across demographic subgroups.

Additionally of note, though not within the scope of this blog to explore further, elderly adults (age 65+) saw a significant increase in Medicare rates, which the Census Bureau notes is due to a larger elderly population overall, not a larger share of those adults having Medicare. The continued growth of an aging population will continue to have ramifications for a number of health-related measures, including health insurance coverage rates, and bears following in future research.

Changes in Uninsurance by Age (Nonelderly Adults age 19-64, and Children age 0-18) and Characteristics

Among nonelderly adults, the overall rate of uninsurance fell to 10.8% in 2022, a 0.8 percentage point (PP) decrease from 2021.

Comparatively, the uninsured rate among children remained statistically unchanged from 2021 (5.0%) at 5.4% in 2022.

Race and ethnicity
In 2022, rates of uninsurance fell among nonelderly Black, Hispanic, and White adults, declining to 11.4%, 23.4%, and 6.8% (versus 12.7%, 25.1%, and 7.5%), respectively. Rates of uninsurance among nonelderly Asian adults were unchanged at 7.4%.

Similarly, while uninsurance rates remained stable for children of several racial and ethnic groups in 2022 - 4.1% for Asian children, 4.7% for Black children, and 8.6% for Hispanic children - the rate of uninsurance rose significantly among White children, increasing to 4.1% in 2022 from 3.4% in 2021.

Immigration status
The rate of uninsurance among native-born nonelderly adults fell to 8.2% in 2022 from 9.1% in 2021, while the uninsurance rate among foreign-born adults remained statistically unchanged at 22.1% in 2022 compared to 22.8% in 2021.

Rates of uninsurance were unchanged among native-born children at 4.7% in 2022 and among foreign-born children at 20.6% in 2022.

Poverty level
When examining coverage by poverty level, rates of uninsurance were unchanged at 24.2% among nonelderly adults with incomes below 100% poverty, decreased to 15.2% from 16.8% for those between 100%-399% poverty, and decreased to 3.9% from 4.5% for those living at or above 400% poverty.

In 2022, rates of uninsurance were unchanged for children in the two lower poverty level categories—8.9% for those in families with incomes below 100% poverty and 6.1% for those living in families with incomes between 100%-399% poverty. However, uninsured rates rose to 2.6% among children in families with incomes at or above 400% of poverty, an increase of 0.9 PP from 2021.

Medicaid expansion status
As of January 1, 2022, 38 states and the District of Columbia have chosen to act on the option provided by the Affordable Care Act (ACA) and expand Medicaid eligibility requirements, with the additions of Missouri and Oklahoma last year. Comparing rates of uninsurance by expansion and nonexpansion states revealed divergent trends for nonelderly adults and children.

In 2022, the uninsured rate fell to 8.4% in 2022 from 9.2% in 2021 for nonelderly adults living in expansion states and fell to 16.2% in 2022 from 17.0% in 2021 for those in nonexpansion states.

However, children in expansion and nonexpansion states saw no significant change in uninsured rates for 2022 compared to 2021 at 4.1% and 8.1%, respectively.

Notable Public and Private Coverage Changes

Among nonelderly adults, rates of public coverage and private coverage were unchanged at 19.1% and 72.9%, respectively. Rates of employer-based coverage increased to 63.5% in 2022 among nonelderly adults, up 0.6 PP from 2021. Rates of Medicare coverage fell to 3.6% among nonelderly adults in 2022, down from 3.8% in 2021.

By Race and Ethnicity (Total Population)
Rates of private and public coverage were statistically unchanged among Asian (72.2% and 27.8%, respectively) and Hispanic individuals (49.4% and 37.7%, respectively).

Among Black persons, the percentage with private coverage rose to 56.6% in 2022, up from 55.1% in 2021, and the percentage with public coverage fell to 41.2% in 2022, down from 42.7% in 2021.

Among White individuals, the percentage with private coverage fell to 72.3% in 2022, down from 73.2% in 2021, and the percentage with public coverage rose to 35.4% in 2022, up from 34.6% in 2021.

Immigration Status (Total Population)
Rates of private and public coverage were unchanged among the native-born population at 67.6% and 36.7%, respectively. Among the foreign-born population, the percent with private coverage was unchanged at 54.4% while the percentage with public coverage rose to 32.8% in 2022 from 31.7% in 2021.

Medicaid Expansion Status (Total Population)
In expansion states, the share with private coverage fell to 66.6% in 2022 from 67.1% in 2021 while the share with public coverage rose to 37.6% in 2022 from 36.9% in 2021. In nonexpansion states, the share of the population with private coverage and public coverage were unchanged at 63.6% and 32.9%, respectively.

Employment Status (Nonelderly Adults)
Public coverage rose among working nonelderly adults in 2022 to 12.6% from 11.8% in 2021 while the share with private coverage was stable at 80.0%. Public coverage rose among those who worked full-time year round and those who worked less than full-time, year round, rising to 8.9% and 23.5%, respectively. Private coverage was unchanged among these groups at 84.8% and 66.0%, respectively. Private and public coverage were unchanged among those who did not work, at 47.5% and 42.6%, respectively.

More on the insurance coverage changes among working-age adults can be found in a topically focused blog released today by the Census Bureau.

Notes
All changes are tested at the 90% confidence level.
All estimates come from the 2022 and 2023 Current Population Survey Annual Social and Economic Supplements, which provide data for years 2021 and 2022, respectively.
Uninsured estimates represent individuals with no health insurance coverage for the entire calendar year.
Estimates of health insurance coverage type represent individuals with that type of coverage at any point during the calendar year. Types of health insurance coverage are not mutually exclusive.

COVID-19 Public Health Emergency Impacts

Continuous Coverage Requirement

The continuous coverage requirement that prevented states from terminating individuals’ Medicaid coverage during the pandemic ended on March 31, 2023. The resumption of Medicaid eligibility redeterminations and renewals (and potential disenrollments), a process commonly referred to as the “unwinding,” began on April 1, 2023, and each state has a year to navigate a return to normal operations while also meeting reporting requirements set by CMS for publicly sharing coverage transitions and outcomes data during this time. While the health insurance estimates released by the US Census Bureau for 2022 precede the beginning of the unwinding process, the data will provide an essential baseline for understanding how health insurance coverage is distributed across the U.S. and among the states prior to the unwinding, as well as marker to measure the impacts of this seismic coverage transition as potentially millions of individuals, both adults and children, are poised to lose Medicaid and must either find another form of coverage (e.g., state-based marketplace or employer-sponsored insurance [ESI]), or risk becoming uninsured.

Several resources have been compiled by SHADAC to track the unwinding process in a variety of avenues, falling under several broader categories:

Guidance for States

• Using Surveys to Monitor Coverage Transitions During the Unwinding of the Medicaid Continuous Coverage Requirement
• Best Practices for Publicly Reporting State Unwinding Data

Health Insurance Coverage Data Tracking

• State-Based Marketplace Transition Data During the Unwinding
• State Dashboards to Monitor the Unwinding of the Medicaid Continuous Coverage Requirement
• Tracking Health Insurance Coverage During the Unwinding: Monthly Data from the Household Pulse Survey

Data Collection and Dissemination - Nonresponse Bias

While Census Bureau researchers have not cited any concerns with CPS ASEC data collection or release processes, an ongoing issue of persistently lower response rates and resultant nonresponse bias has been documented for the past few years, coinciding with the beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic. In March 2023 (the point in time that the CPS is administered), the response rate fell to its lowest point yet, at 68.9%, compared to a pre-pandemic rate of 82% (March 2019). This lower response rate particularly affects the CPS measures of income, and since 2020, the Census Bureau has been working to address the bias in higher reported earnings using new weighting methods to create adjusted income and poverty estimates. More detail on this methodology can be found in a companion blog released today by Census Bureau researchers.