HEALTH INSURANCE COVERAGE IN MINNESOTA Early Results from the 2011 Minnesota Health Access Survey Access Workgroup - Governor’s Health Reform Task Force March 29, 2012 Jessie Kemmick-Pintor Stefan Gildemeister Researcher, SHADAC/School of Public Health Director, Health Economics Program
50
Embed
HEALTH INSURANCE COVERAGE IN MINNESOTA · 3/29/2012 · HEALTH INSURANCE COVERAGE IN MINNESOTA Early Results from the 2011 Minnesota Health Access Survey Access Workgroup - Governor’s
This document is posted to help you gain knowledge. Please leave a comment to let me know what you think about it! Share it to your friends and learn new things together.
Transcript
HEALTH INSURANCE COVERAGE IN MINNESOTA Early Results from the 2011 Minnesota Health Access Survey Access Workgroup - Governor’s Health Reform Task Force March 29, 2012 Jessie Kemmick-Pintor Stefan Gildemeister Researcher, SHADAC/School of Public Health Director, Health Economics Program
Overview • Background on the Minnesota Health Access Survey • Access to health insurance
• Sources of insurance coverage • Rates of uninsurance (age, race/ethnicity, income) • Demographics and employment characteristics of the uninsured • Potential sources for coverage & barriers to coverage
• Access to care • People with a usual source of care • Rates of confidence about receiving needed care • Experienced discrimination • Affordability of care
• Conclusion
2
BACKGROUND
3
Survey Objectives • Monitor the distribution of health insurance coverage in Minnesota
• Describe the characteristics of the uninsured • Identify economic and demographic factors associated with lack of health insurance
• Inform state level policy and decisions • Establish baseline data for evaluating health reform implementation (coverage, access to care, barriers to care, etc.)
4
Survey Overview • Stratified area probability survey designed to produce reliable health
access estimates for: • Regions of the state; and • Most populous racial/ethnic groups
• Survey conducted in partnership between Minnesota Department of Health and University of Minnesota School of Public Health
• Previous surveys in 2001, 2004, 2007, and 2009
• 2011 MNHA Survey: • Over 11,000 telephone interviews were conducted between
August and November 2011 • Certain populations were oversampled; others were screened to
lower probability of selection; a surname sample was conducted • About 40 percent of survey respondents were reached on a cell
phone
5
ACCESS TO INSURANCE COVERAGE
6
Uninsurance Rate Trends in Minnesota
6.1%
7.7%* 7.2%
9.0%* 9.1%
0%
2%
4%
6%
8%
10%
2001 2004 2007 2009 2011
7
*Indicates statistically significant difference (95% level) from prior year shown. Source: 2001, 2004, 2007, 2009, and 2011 Minnesota Health Access Surveys
Estimated Number of Uninsured in Minnesota, 2001 to 2011
304,000
392,000* 375,000
478,000* 489,000
0
100,000
200,000
300,000
400,000
500,000
600,000
2001 2004 2007 2009 2011
8
*Indicates statistically significant difference (95% level) from prior year shown. Source: 2001, 2004, 2007, 2009, and 2011 Minnesota Health Access Surveys
Sources of Insurance Coverage in Minnesota, Select Years
*Indicates statistically significant difference to year shown (95% level). Estimates that rely solely on household survey data differ slightly from annual estimates that include both survey and administrative data. Source: Minnesota Health Access Surveys, 2009 and 2011.
9
Trends in ESI Coverage, Select Years (Minnesota’s Non-elderly Population)
10
*Indicates statistically significant difference (95% level) from prior year shown. Source: 2001, 2009, and 2011 Minnesota Health Access Surveys
Other Measures of Uninsurance
11
Measures of Uninsurance in Minnesota, 2007 to 2011
12
*Indicates statistically significant difference (95% level) from prior year shown. Source: 2007, 2009, and 2011 Minnesota Health Access Surveys.
Minnesotans With an Episode of Uninsurance, 2011 (about 12.6 percent of population)
unin
sure
d no
w
uninsured at som
e point in the year
Sh
ort-t
erm
Long-term
Insu
red
now
episode of uninsurance in past 12 months
13
Long-term uninsured means uninsured for 12 months or longer. Source: 2011 Minnesota Health Access Survey
Age Distribution of the Long-Term Uninsured and the Total Population, 2011
14
^Indicates statistically significant difference in the rates to the overall population (95% level) Source: Minnesota Health Access Survey.
Rates for Specific Populations
15
Disparities in Rates of Coverage in 2011 Remain Largely Unchanged • Disparities in coverage
• Age & income • Race/Ethnicity • Education
• Differences in coverage also exist by • Region • Marital status & health status • Nativity
• In 2011, rates of uninsurance between Greater Minnesota and Twin Cities do not differ from each other (but metro rate rose)
16
Uninsurance Rates by Age, Select Years
4.7%^
14.4%^
10.0%^
5.9%
2.8%^
0.6%^
6.1% 6.6%#^
21.8%*^
15.0%*^
8.4%*
6.0%*^
1.6%^
9.0%*
5.4%^
16.7%#^ 18.6%^
10.1%
7.5%
0.7%^
9.1%
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
0 to 17 18 to 25 26 to 34 35 to 54 55 to 64 65+ All Ages
2001 2009 2011
Source: Minnesota Health Access Surveys *Indicates statistically significant difference from previous year shown (95% confidence level). #Indicates statistically significant difference from previous year shown (90% confidence level). ^Indicates statistically significant difference from statewide rate (95% confidence level).
17
Presenter
Presentation Notes
Should I remove the symbols for comparison to overall rate? Or maybe just the 90% significance…makes it a bit distracting. -Only age group with a significant DECREASE in the % of uninsured from 2009 to 2011 (90% level). - Because I talk about the 2008 health reform law at the state level, should I include 2007 as well? Take out 2001?
Uninsurance Rate Among Young Adults (ages 18 to 25 years), Select Years
18
*Indicates statistically significant difference (95% level) from prior year shown. Source: 2001, 2009, and 2011 Minnesota Health Access Surveys
Young Adults with Group Coverage, 2011
19
*Indicates statistically significant difference (95% level) from prior year shown. Source: 2009 and 2011 Minnesota Health Access Surveys
Sources of Children’s Health Insurance Coverage in Minnesota by Age, 2011
^Indicates statistically significant difference (95% level) from all children. Source: Minnesota Health Access Surveys, 2011
20
Presenter
Presentation Notes
Uninsured children: 2011: 69,739 2009: 84,633 Rate for Kids: 2011 - 0 to 5 years/6 to 17 years: 5.1%/5.5% 2009 - 0 to 5 years/6 to 17 years: 7.8%/6.6%
Minnesota Uninsurance Rates by Income, Select Years
15.2%^ 13.7%^
7.2%
3.6% 2.0%^
6.1%
16.9%^ 17.1%^
12.4%^
7.2%*
2.9%*^
9.0%*
16.4%^ 15.8%^
13.0%^
6.4%^
2.6%^
9.1%
0%
2%
4%
6%
8%
10%
12%
14%
16%
18%
20%
0 to 100% 101 to 200%201 to 300%301 to 400% 401%+ All Income
Income as % of Federal Poverty Guidelines 2001 2009 2011
21
*Indicates statistical difference to previous year shown (95% level). ^Indicates statistically significant difference (95% level) from all incomes within year. Source: 2001, 2009, and 2011 Minnesota Health Access Surveys
Uninsurance Rates by Race/Ethnicity, Select Years
22
Source: 2001, 2009, and 2011 Minnesota Health Access Surveys. *Indicates statistically significant difference from previous year shown (95% confidence level). ^Indicates statistically significant difference from statewide rate (95% confidence level).
Presenter
Presentation Notes
American Indians the only group with a large decrease in uninsurance (20.7% to 14.3%) – although not significant. All other racial groups experienced about the same or increased rates of uninsurance. Add if significantly different from the statewide rate. Why? – Significant increase in public coverage among American Indians (and not other groups). ADD SLIDE ABOUT THAT?
Insurance Distribution among American Indians and Minnesotans Overall
35.7%^ 29.4%^
57.4% 56.4%
3.4%
1.5%^
5.1% 5.2% 40.2%^ 54.8%*^
28.5% 29.2%
20.7%^ 14.3%
9.0% 9.1%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
2009 2011 2009 2011
American Indians Total
UninsuredPublicIndividualGroup
23
Source: 2009 and 2011 Minnesota Health Access Surveys * Indicates a statistically significant difference from previous year shown at the 95% level. ^ Indicates a statistically significant difference from statewide rate within year at the 95% level.
Presenter
Presentation Notes
Note from Stefan: I think your slide #2 is probably most clear, but what do you think about this way of presenting it? Jessie: I agree, looks great The rate of uninsurance declined for American Indians in 2011 however, this decline is not significant. Preliminary analysis indicate that sig. increase in public coverage is distributed across a variety of programs including Medical Assistance and VA benefits due to a service related disability. Consistent with prior years, group coverage is lower and public coverage is higher among American Indians than is true for the state population as a whole.
Potential sources of change from 2009 to 2011 among American Indians • Shift toward the lower levels of the income distribution from 2009 to 2011 • 46% are at or below 200% FPL in 2009 compared to
60% in 2011 • American Indian community more concentrated at lower end of age spectrum than total population • 45% age 0-17 compared to 25%
• Proportion unemployed in American Indian community is higher than population overall, restricting access to private coverage
• 43% vs. 28%
24
Presenter
Presentation Notes
Note from Stefan: this is just background information or do you plan on showing this slide? Jessie: we were planning to show this slide, just to add some context Shift toward the lower levels of the income distribution from 2009 to 2011, helping to explain higher rates of public program eligibility. Children enjoy higher rates of coverage than non-elderly adults; this may be driving down overall uninsurance rate for American Indians. Unemployment increased in 2011 for AIs, but not significantly
Insurance Coverage for Minnesotans Born in the US and Not Born in US
25
Source: 2009 and 2011 Minnesota Health Access Surveys * Indicates a statistically significant difference from previous year shown at the 95% level. ^ Indicates a statistically significant difference from statewide rate within year at the 95% level.
Why lower rates of group coverage among non-US born?
• Employment rates are same for US and non-US born both years • However, significantly fewer non-US born population work 31 hours
per week or more in 2011 than in 2009 (81% vs 84% respectively)
• Although no change from 2009 to 2011, factors associated with lower group coverage include: • Temporary and seasonal employment more common among non-US
born than US born (e.g., 16% and 9% respectively in 2011). • Non-US born are more likely than US born Minnesotans to live in
greater MN (83% vs 52% in 2011) where group coverage less common
26
Presenter
Presentation Notes
Significantly lower % of non-US born population work 31 hours per week or more in 2011 than in 2009 (81% vs 84% respectively), which is also associated with offer of, and eligibility for, employer based insurance.
Why higher rates of uninsurance among non-US born?
• The following are related to higher uninsurance rates: • Non-US born more concentrated among adults age 26-54 • Non-US born more highly concentrated in the lower income
groups • In 2011, 46% of non-US born had household incomes at or below
200% FPL compared to 29% of US born
• A significantly larger percentage of non-US born Minnesotans report living in the US 11 years or more (64% vs 52%) and 6 years or more (82% vs 77%) in 2011 than in 2009 • Meet 5 year eligibility for public program enrollment
27
Presenter
Presentation Notes
While does not explain an increase in uninsurance between 2009 and 2011 the following are related to higher uninsurance rates: Age composition of Non-US born is more concentrated among adults age 26-54 than true of US born; these age groups are more likely to be uninsured than children and older adults. In 2011, 46% of non-US born had household incomes at or below 200% FPL compared to 29% of US born. Although their low incomes would indicate eligibility for public programs, this is also dependent on the length of time they have been in the US and other factors associated with immigration. A significantly larger percentage of non-US born Minnesotans report living in the US 11 years or more (64% vs 52%) and 6 years or more (82% vs 77%) in 2011 than in 2009, which is an indicator or their potential eligibility for public programs and familiarity with the US health care system. The race and ethnic composition of the Non-US born uninsured subpopulation shifted slightly, but not significantly, between 2009 and 2011. Specifically, a greater proportion identify as Black and a smaller proportion identify as Hispanic (lower panel of Exhibit 3). However, non-US born Hispanics continue to make up the largest share of the non-US born uninsured (almost 50% in 2009 and 40% in 2011) followed by non-US born Blacks (19% in 2009 and 27% in 2011). If question asked: about ¼ - 1/3 of foreign-born in MN would not be categorically eligible for Medicaid due to immigration status
Characteristics of the Uninsured
28
Demographic Characteristics of the Uninsured
• Compared to the Minnesota population overall, Minnesota’s uninsured in 2011 were more likely to be: • Between 26 and 34 years of age • African American and Hispanic/Latino • Not born in the U.S. • Of middle and low income (300% of FPG or less) • Not married • In good or fair health (vs. excellent, very good or poor).
• Unlike in 2009, the uninsured in 2011 were demographically comparable to the overall population by • Gender • Region (Twin Cities/Greater Minnesota)
29
Employment Characteristics
• Compared to the Minnesota population overall, Minnesota’s the uninsured in 2011 were more likely to: • Be self employed • Work between 21 and 30 hours (as compared to fewer or more
hours) • Hold more than one job • Work for firms with fewer than 50 employees, and • Hold temporary or seasonal jobs
• The uninsured in 2011 were as likely to be employed as the general population (68 percent compared with 72 percent)
30
Potential Sources of Coverage
31
Potential Sources of Health Insurance Coverage for Minnesota Uninsured, 2011
32
Differences to previous years (not shown) are not statistically significant. Source: Minnesota Health Access Survey, 2011
Main 4 Reasons for Lack of Coverage Among the Uninsured, 2011
33
Did not Take-up of ESI When Offered
Did Not Purchase Coverage Directly
Reason for Loss of Coverage
Too expensive/ could not afford 47.6%
73.6%
Too much hassle/ paperwork 3.6%
Not eligible for reason other than health 5.5% 3.4%
Don’t like benefits package 6.9%
Expect to be covered shortly 2.9%
18 or older so does not qualify as dependent
5.2%
Job that provided coverage ended 32.7%
No longer eligible for public insurance 14.9%
Did not get information to stay on coverage 11.6%
Just moved to state, haven’t gotten coverage
8.1%
Main Reason For Not Enrolling in Public Health Care Programs
34
Category “other” includes among other responses: response refused, confusion over next steps/ enrollment, rarely sick, too much paperwork, don’t want government involved in health care. Source: Minnesota Health Access Survey, 2011
Interaction of the Uninsured with Minnesota Public Programs, 2011
35
Source: 2011 Minnesota Health Access Survey
ACCESS TO CARE
36
Percent of Minnesotans Who Did Not Have a Usual Source of Care
*Indicates a statistically significant difference from previous year shown at the 95% level. #Indicates statistically significant difference from previous year shown at 90% level. ^Indicates a statistically significant difference from statewide rate within year at the 95% level.
6.0%^
18.6%^
7.3%^
39.9%^
10.0% 8.8%*^ 9.3%* 8.1%^
46.7%^#
12.1%*
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
35%
40%
45%
50%
Group Individual Public Uninsured Total
2009 2011
37
Presenter
Presentation Notes
Notes from Stefan: can you add notes of significance on the bottom? Also, is the difference for uninsured significant? I assume not, because it isn’t marked. Jessie: It was only significant at 90%, we’re only including 95% here, right? The proportion of people with a USC decreased significantly from 2009 to 2011, for the total sample (90.0% to 87.9%) and or those with group coverage (94.0% to 91.2%) Significant change at .1 level for the uninsured (60.1% to 53.3%).
Percent of Minnesota Children Who Did Not Have a Usual Source of Care
38
*Indicates a statistically significant difference from previous year shown at the 95% level. ^Indicates a statistically significant difference from statewide rate within year at the 95% level. Source: 2009 and 2011 Minnesota Health Access Surveys
Place of Usual Source of Care, 2011
39
*Indicates a statistically significant difference from 2009 at the 95% level. ^Indicates a statistically significant difference from statewide rate within year at the 95% level. Source: 2009 and 2011 Minnesota Health Access Surveys
Presenter
Presentation Notes
There was no change from 2009 to 2011 in type of USC for the total sample. Use of the ER as USC increased for those with group (1.3% to 2.0%) and decreased for those with individual (2.8% to 1.3%) coverage. The % of uninsured reporting a sliding fee/free clinic as USC increased from 2009 to 2011 (17.9% to 28.9%). In 2009 and 2011, the uninsured report highest use of ER as usual source of care (7.5%), followed by those with public (2.8%), group (2.0%), and individual (1.3%) coverage.
Barriers to Care Due to Cost & Other Factors
40
Barriers to Care Because of Costs, 2011
41
*Indicates statistically significant difference between insured & uninsured Source: 2011 Minnesota Health Access Survey
Percent of Minnesotans with Some Delay in Care in 2011, by Type of Coverage
42
^Indicates statistically significant difference to rate for all. Source: 2011 Minnesota Health Access Survey
Percent of Minnesotans with Some Delay in Care in 2011, by Type of Coverage
43
^Indicates statistically significant difference to rate for all. Source: 2011 Minnesota Health Access Survey
Percent of Minnesotans Reporting Provider Discrimination, by Insurance Status
4.5%^
9.0%
17.3%^
32.7%^
10.7%
3.2%*^ 4.8%*^
14.1%*^
26.3%^
8.4%
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
35%
Group Individual Public Uninsured Total2009 2011
44
Change in item wording in 2011 may, in part, explain change in estimates over time. *Indicates a statistically significant difference from previous year shown at the 95% level. ^Indicates a statistically significant difference from statewide rate within year at the 95% level. Source: 2009 and 2011 Minnesota Health Access Surveys
Presenter
Presentation Notes
For the total sample, report of discrimination decreased among all types of coverage from 2009 to 2011. For the total sample, the uninsured are most likley to report discrimination due to type of insurance/because uninsured (26.3%), followed by public (14.1%), individual (4.8%), and group (3.2%).
Percent of Parents Reporting Perceived Provider Discrimination, by Insurance Status
2.3%^ 4.3%
23.9%^
30.7%^
8.9%
1.6%*^
7.1%
22.1%*^ 21.6%^
7.8%
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
35%
Group Individual Public Uninsured Total2009 2011
45
Change in item wording in 2011 may, in part, explain change in estimates over time. *Indicates a statistically significant difference from previous year shown at the 95% level. ^Indicates a statistically significant difference from statewide rate within year at the 95% level. Source: 2009 and 2011 Minnesota Health Access Surveys
Presenter
Presentation Notes
However, among children, those with public coverage are the most likely to report discrimination (22.1%), compared to 21.6% of the uninsured, 7.1% of those with ind. coverage, and 1.6% of those with group coverage. This pattern was not observed among children in 2009 (where the uninsured were most likely to report discrimination). Difference between public and uninsured not significant interesting that > % of adults reporting for children report discrim than adults reporting for self
Confidence in Being Able to Obtain Needed Care
46
Percent of Minnesotans “very confident” They Can Get Care When Needed
80.0%^
65.4%^
70.0%
35.9%^
72.6% 80.7%^
74.6%^ 69.3%^
30.9%^
72.7%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Group Individual Public Uninsured Total
2009 2011
47
*Indicates a statistically significant difference from previous year shown at the 95% level. ^Indicates a statistically significant difference from statewide rate within year at the 95% level. Source: 2009 and 2011 Minnesota Health Access Surveys
Presenter
Presentation Notes
Those with group coverage are most likely to report being "very confident" (80.7%), compared to 74.6% of those with ind. coverage, 69.3% of those with public, and only 30.9% of the uninsured. There was no change in confidence in getting care for the total sample from 2009 to 2011. The only change was seen among those with individual coverage, where more individuals reported feeling "very confident" (65.4% to 74.6%).
Percent of Parents Who Are “very confident” They Can Get Care When Needed for Their Child
87.9%^
65.4%^
77.0%
56.6%^
82.9% 86.8%^ 86.5%^
75.7%^
45.0%^
81.9%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Group Individual Public Uninsured Total
2009 2011
48
*Indicates a statistically significant difference from previous year shown at the 95% level. ^Indicates a statistically significant difference from statewide rate within year at the 95% level. Source: 2009 and 2011 Minnesota Health Access Surveys
Presenter
Presentation Notes
Notes from Stefan: would agree, unless the drop for kids is significant (at .9 maybe)? Jessie: no significant drop for kids, even at 90% Kathleen: Guess it depends on the message could emphasize that parents are more confident about getting care for kids than themselves, yet preventive care is important for both. Guess you could say that with slide 14 and drop 15 and 16. However, I agree that the statewide results are interesting and plenty to talk about. IF you like this strategy, could do the same for the discrim results too (report only total pop and point out interesting results by age – however the bigger story is how confidence and discrim vary by COVTYPE).
Conclusions • Rates of health insurance coverage in 2011 have largely
remained unchanged compared to 2009 • Coverage through employer-sponsored insured did not
improve two years after the end of the recession • Sizable disparities in coverage by age, income, and race
& ethnicity remain • For a variety of reasons, many uninsured do not take
advantage of coverage options available to them • Lack of insurance coverage presents barriers to
accessing care (usual source of care, confidence) • Even Minnesotans who have insurance coverage face
barriers to care, particularly related to cost
49
50
Additional Information from the Health Economics Program Available Online • Health Economics Program Home Page