{"id":2061,"date":"2014-03-07T12:10:58","date_gmt":"2014-03-07T17:10:58","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/www.dougsbriefcase.com\/blog\/?p=2061"},"modified":"2014-03-07T12:07:21","modified_gmt":"2014-03-07T17:07:21","slug":"obamacare-numbers-exchange-enrollment","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.dougsbriefcase.com\/blog\/obamacare-numbers-exchange-enrollment\/","title":{"rendered":"Obamacare By The Numbers: Exchange Enrollment"},"content":{"rendered":"
\"Some<\/a>

Some Oba\u00admacare sup\u00adport\u00aders claim that 10 mil\u00adlion unin\u00adsured Amer\u00adi\u00adcans have so far gained cov\u00ader\u00adage thanks to the new law. Are they right? (Cred\u00adit: AP<\/span>)<\/p><\/div>\n

\u201c<\/span>Let\u2019s look at the bot\u00adtom line. The bot\u00adtom line is this: 10 mil\u00adlion Amer\u00adi\u00adcans have health insur\u00adance today who would not have had it with\u00adout the Afford\u00adable Care Act. Ten mil\u00adlion.\u201d  \u2014 Sen. Richard Durbin (D\u2011IL<\/span>)<\/a><\/em><\/p>\n

Oba\u00admacare crit\u00adics have tak\u00aden con\u00adsid\u00ader\u00adable plea\u00adsure in point\u00ading out the law\u2019s short\u00adcom\u00adings \u2014 can\u00adceled poli\u00adcies, high\u00ader pre\u00admi\u00adums and cost-shar\u00ading, nar\u00adrow net\u00adworks \u2014 the list goes on.<\/p>\n

Now that the web\u00adsite\u2019s worst prob\u00adlems have been resolved and enroll\u00adment num\u00adbers look more respectable, you can hard\u00adly blame the law\u2019s embat\u00adtled advo\u00adcates for using favor\u00adable num\u00adbers a bit loose\u00adly. After all, if those who find fault with the law have some\u00adtimes behaved irre\u00adspon\u00adsi\u00adbly, why should\u00adn\u2019t its defend\u00aders stretch the truth a bit?<\/p>\n

There\u2019s just one prob\u00adlem: the claim that the law has result\u00aded in 10 mil\u00adlion new\u00adly insured Amer\u00adi\u00adcans is more than a stretch.  It\u2019s a whopper.<\/p>\n

Where did the 10 mil\u00adlion fig\u00adure come from?  Sen\u00ada\u00adtor Durbin appears to have added the num\u00adber of peo\u00adple who were report\u00aded to have select\u00aded plans in the exchanges through Feb\u00adru\u00adary 1 (3.3 mil\u00adlion<\/a>) to the num\u00adber of peo\u00adple who were deter\u00admined by state agen\u00adcies to be eli\u00adgi\u00adble for Med\u00adic\u00adaid over the last three months of 2013 (6.3 mil\u00adlion<\/a>), and then round\u00aded 9.6 mil\u00adlion up to an even 10 million.<\/p>\n

Sim\u00adple math that is sim\u00adply wrong.  The topline num\u00adbers from those two gov\u00adern\u00adment reports are quite mis\u00adlead\u00ading.  You have to dig through their details to ascer\u00adtain more accu\u00adrate num\u00adbers and con\u00adcede that pre\u00adcise esti\u00admates of how many peo\u00adple have gained cov\u00ader\u00adage through the law are sim\u00adply not possible.<\/p>\n

In this post, I will look at the most recent CMS<\/span> report on exchange enroll\u00adment, doing my best to hew as close\u00adly as pos\u00adsi\u00adble to the facts and min\u00adi\u00admize spec\u00adu\u00adla\u00adtion.  In a sub\u00adse\u00adquent post, I will look at Med\u00adic\u00adaid enrollment.<\/p>\n

For those who hate charts and num\u00adbers, here are two key take\u00adaways, so you don\u2019t have to read on.<\/p>\n