![\"House](\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.dougsbriefcase.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2014\/04\/credit-politico.jpg\")
<\/a>House Speak\u00ader John Boehn\u00ader (R\u2011OH<\/span>) was heav\u00adi\u00adly crit\u00adi\u00adcized for say\u00ading last month that Oba\u00admacare can\u00adce\u00adla\u00adtions had out\u00adnu\u00admered enroll\u00adments. Now a new study tout\u00aded by the Admin\u00adis\u00adtra\u00adtion shows that he had a point. [Cred\u00adit: Politico]<\/p><\/div>\u201cWhen you look at the 6 mil\u00adlion Amer\u00adi\u00adcans who have lost their poli\u00adcies and some \u2014 they claim 4.2 mil\u00adlion peo\u00adple who have signed up \u2014 I don\u2019t know how many have actu\u00adal\u00adly paid for it \u2014 that would indi\u00adcate to me a net loss of peo\u00adple with health insur\u00adance.\u201d<\/em> House Speak\u00ader John Boehn\u00ader (R\u2011OH<\/span>)\n Boehner\u2019s state\u00adment last month that few\u00ader peo\u00adple had gained cov\u00ader\u00adage through health exchanges than had lost their insur\u00adance due to can\u00adce\u00adla\u00adtions required by the health care law was met with wide\u00adspread deri\u00adsion. The state\u00adment earned him 4 Pinoc\u00adchios<\/a> from the Wash\u00ading\u00adton Post\u2019s Fact-Checker.<\/p>\n But a new sur\u00advey released by the RAND<\/span> Cor\u00adpo\u00adra\u00adtion<\/a> at least par\u00adtial\u00adly vin\u00addi\u00adcates the Speaker\u2019s claim.<\/p>\n The Admin\u00adis\u00adtra\u00adtion has for weeks been tout\u00ading the survey\u2019s topline esti\u00admate that the num\u00adber of unin\u00adsured peo\u00adple had dropped on net by 9.3 mil\u00adlion since last fall. RAND<\/span>, how\u00adev\u00ader, did not release the sur\u00advey until yes\u00adter\u00adday, so it was impos\u00adsi\u00adble to deter\u00admine just how it had arrived at that figure.<\/p>\n Now we know. Between last Sep\u00adtem\u00adber and mid-March, accord\u00ading to RAND<\/span>, 5.2 mil\u00adlion peo\u00adple had lost their health insur\u00adance cov\u00ader\u00adage, while only 1.4 mil\u00adlion unin\u00adsured peo\u00adple had obtained cov\u00ader\u00adage through the exchanges. Those fig\u00adures are very close to those used by the Speaker.<\/p>\n So why did RAND<\/span> con\u00adclude that there has been a net gain of 9.3 mil\u00adlion new\u00adly insured between Sep\u00adtem\u00adber 2013 and mid-March 2014? The biggest rea\u00adson is some\u00adwhat sur\u00adpris\u00ading. The sur\u00advey found that 8.2 mil\u00adlion addi\u00adtion\u00adal peo\u00adple have enrolled in employ\u00ader-spon\u00adsored cov\u00ader\u00adage since last September.<\/p>\n This num\u00adber seems rather high, par\u00adtic\u00adu\u00adlar\u00adly since the Admin\u00adis\u00adtra\u00adtion decid\u00aded not to impose a tax penal\u00adty on busi\u00adness\u00ades that don\u2019t offer cov\u00ader\u00adage to their work\u00aders this year. We do know that mil\u00adlions of peo\u00adple have in the past declined<\/a> insur\u00adance offered by their employ\u00aders. It may be that many of them decid\u00aded to accept it this year, per\u00adhaps to avoid the tax penal\u00adty that the IRS<\/span> will assess on unin\u00adsured indi\u00advid\u00adu\u00adals. And more peo\u00adple under 26 may have glommed onto poli\u00adcies offered through their par\u00adents\u2019 employers.<\/p>\n The oth\u00ader major source of new cov\u00ader\u00adage was Med\u00adic\u00adaid. Accord\u00ading to the sur\u00advey, enroll\u00adment in the pro\u00adgram increased by 5.9 mil\u00adlion. But it is impos\u00adsi\u00adble to deter\u00admine how many of these new recip\u00adi\u00adents were eli\u00adgi\u00adble for Med\u00adic\u00adaid under rules that pre-exist\u00aded Oba\u00admacare<\/a>. RAND<\/span>, for exam\u00adple, does not pro\u00advide details of how many of these 5.9 mil\u00adlion reside in the 25 states that did not expand eli\u00adgi\u00adbil\u00adi\u00adty or how many of those liv\u00ading in expan\u00adsion states would have been able to enroll under the old rules.<\/p>\n The RAND<\/span> sur\u00advey is but one data point among many in assess\u00ading enroll\u00adment under Oba\u00admacare. Since it is a sur\u00advey, it is sub\u00adject to con\u00adsid\u00ader\u00adable uncer\u00adtain\u00adty, as Avik Roy<\/a> has not\u00aded. And since it con\u00adclud\u00aded in mid-March, it does not account for enroll\u00adments that occurred dur\u00ading the final days of open sea\u00adson. Its find\u00ading that employ\u00ader-spon\u00adsored cov\u00ader\u00adage has spiked is hard to square with a recent ADP<\/span> study<\/a>,<\/span> which report\u00aded that the num\u00adber of young peo\u00adple enrolling in employ\u00ader-spon\u00adsored cov\u00ader\u00adage is in decline.<\/p>\n But if the results bear up, then the exchanges could prove to be some\u00adthing of a dis\u00adap\u00adpoint\u00adment, with the num\u00adber of new\u00adly insured peo\u00adple falling short of the num\u00adber of can\u00adce\u00adla\u00adtions. The Med\u00adic\u00adaid expan\u00adsion, too, will have been less effec\u00adtive than imag\u00adined, par\u00adtic\u00adu\u00adlar\u00adly giv\u00aden the dif\u00adfi\u00adcul\u00adty of deter\u00admin\u00ading how many new enrollees were eli\u00adgi\u00adble under the old rules. That would leave employ\u00ader-spon\u00adsored cov\u00ader\u00adage as the biggest fac\u00adtor in reduc\u00ading the num\u00adber of uninsured.<\/p>\n It would be iron\u00adic indeed if the major effect of Oba\u00admacare was to induce mil\u00adlions of peo\u00adple to sign up for an employ\u00ader-spon\u00adsored plan that was avail\u00adable to them all along.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" \u201c<\/span>When you look at the 6 mil\u00adlion Amer\u00adi\u00adcans who have lost their poli\u00adcies and some \u2014 they claim 4.2 mil\u00adlion peo\u00adple who have signed up \u2014 I don\u2019t know how many have actu\u00adal\u00adly paid for it \u2014 that would indi\u00adcate \u2026 Con\u00adtin\u00adue read\u00ading