The RAND study discussed in the previous post has now been made public.
It reports, contrary to the countless conservative web sites that claimed only 858,000 out of 7.1 million of ObamaCare exchange enrollees were previously uninsured, the actual figure is, (predictably) much, much higher. RAND estimates that as of mid-March, when there were 3.9 million exchange enrollees, 1.4 million of them were previously uninsured. When you extrapolate these numbers through of the end of March--a period in which the number of exchange enrollees exploded to 7.1 million--you get 2.5 million exchange enrollees who were previously uninsured. The represents a 36% slice of the exchange pool who are newly insured, which is 3 times the rate claimed by bogus conservative reporting of the RAND study prior to publication.
Furthermore, when you include the other areas of ObamaCare, primarily the expansion of Medicaid, the total number of newly insured from Sept. 2013-mid-March, 2014 is 9.3 million, a drop in the percent of uninsured in the country from 20.5% to 15.8%.
This is one of the clearest examples of how the conservative media can disseminate false information through a viral connection of media outlets.
Tuesday, April 8, 2014
Wednesday, April 2, 2014
Viral Information and ObamaCare
Do me a favor. Do a Google search on "RAND Corporation 858000".
You will get countless hits from conservative web sites all claiming that an "under wraps" or "hush-hush" RAND Corporation study has concluded that only 858,000 enrollees in ObamaCare were previously uninsured. These articles all use almost exactly the same language, because they are just viral repetitions of the same source.The thing is, though, none of these sites link to an actual RAND study. Presumably because it is, well, still "under wraps."
If this is true, then only about 12% of those getting insurance through the state and federal exchanges were previously uninsured.
I have a prediction to make.
1) The RAND Study will never see the light of day, either because it never existed or because it was never an official RAND study deemed worthy of public release.
or,
2) The RAND study will appear, but it will not show what this conservative viral phenomenon claims that it shows.
The claims about the mysterious RAND study seem to originate from a Daily Mail Online article that also does not provide a link to or provide any sourcing for this claim. As of now the mainstream media has ignored this story because, until an actual study is published, it is little more than rumor.
It will be interesting to see how this turns out.
EDIT: It appears that (2) is more likely. Apparently the study is real enough. This LA Times article claims to have seen the unpublished data and even names the study's author as Katherine Carman. The money quote from the article is this:
EDIT 4-2-2014: The Washington Post also spoke directly to the RAND Study's author, Ms. Carmen, and they report "What percentage of the 7 million are “newly insured?” No one really knows at this point, though a reasonable, conservative estimate would be about one-third. That’s a little over 2 million people."
It is becoming increasingly evident that, as I suspected, the 858,000 (or 12% of 7.1 million) figure was bogus. Both the LA Times and the Washington Post have spoken directly with the study's author and both report that the number is higher 27% of new enrollees. The Post pegs it at about 33%, or 2.3 million.
You will get countless hits from conservative web sites all claiming that an "under wraps" or "hush-hush" RAND Corporation study has concluded that only 858,000 enrollees in ObamaCare were previously uninsured. These articles all use almost exactly the same language, because they are just viral repetitions of the same source.The thing is, though, none of these sites link to an actual RAND study. Presumably because it is, well, still "under wraps."
If this is true, then only about 12% of those getting insurance through the state and federal exchanges were previously uninsured.
I have a prediction to make.
1) The RAND Study will never see the light of day, either because it never existed or because it was never an official RAND study deemed worthy of public release.
or,
2) The RAND study will appear, but it will not show what this conservative viral phenomenon claims that it shows.
The claims about the mysterious RAND study seem to originate from a Daily Mail Online article that also does not provide a link to or provide any sourcing for this claim. As of now the mainstream media has ignored this story because, until an actual study is published, it is little more than rumor.
It will be interesting to see how this turns out.
EDIT: It appears that (2) is more likely. Apparently the study is real enough. This LA Times article claims to have seen the unpublished data and even names the study's author as Katherine Carman. The money quote from the article is this:
A February survey by consulting firm McKinsey & Co. found 27% of new enrollees were previously uninsured, but newer survey data from the nonprofit Rand Corp. and reports from marketplace officials in several states suggest that share increased in March.If the RAND study suggests that the number of previously uninsured was greater than 27% of new enrollees, then it certainly cannot claim that the number is 12% or 858,000. It is possible that the 858,000 number ignores the increase in the Medicaid participants, which was always envisioned as perhaps the most significant method for lowering the number of those left without health insurance. Until the study is finally published it is impossible to know.
EDIT 4-2-2014: The Washington Post also spoke directly to the RAND Study's author, Ms. Carmen, and they report "What percentage of the 7 million are “newly insured?” No one really knows at this point, though a reasonable, conservative estimate would be about one-third. That’s a little over 2 million people."
It is becoming increasingly evident that, as I suspected, the 858,000 (or 12% of 7.1 million) figure was bogus. Both the LA Times and the Washington Post have spoken directly with the study's author and both report that the number is higher 27% of new enrollees. The Post pegs it at about 33%, or 2.3 million.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)