Private Health Insurance in Michigan, 2008 to 2011

September 25, 2013Filed under: Cover Michigan, Coverage

  • Author(s):
  • Marianne Udow-Phillips, MHSA;
  • Nancy Baum, PhD;
  • Theresa Dreyer, MPH;
  • Abdullah Hammoud, MPH

private-insurance-cover-mi-2013-cover

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Introduction

More than 500,000 people in Michigan lost their private health insurance from 2008 to 2011. The primary reason for the decline in private insurance in Michigan and in the nation was the erosion of employer-sponsored insurance (ESI), the most common way that Americans get private coverage.

From 1999 to 2011, the proportion of individuals covered by ESI decreased by approximately 15 percent nationwide.1 In Michigan during that time, the percentage of people with ESI fell by 20 percent, the second greatest reduction among all states, exceeded only by South Carolina.2 In spite of these declines, in 2011 the proportion of people covered by employer-sponsored plans in Michigan remained 4.5 percentage points higher than the national average, in part because a larger percentage of employers in Michigan have historically offered health insurance.

This issue brief describes trends in private health insurance coverage in Michigan and the U.S., and focuses on coverage both by industry type and by income level. Key findings include:

  • The percentage of people with private coverage declined by more than 4 percentage points in both Michigan and the nation from 2008 to 2011. Reductions in the proportion of people with employer-based plans drove the overall decline in private coverage nationally and in Michigan, while the proportion of people with individually purchased coverage fell more slowly.
  • The percentage of employers offering health benefits fell by approximately 5 percentage points from 2008 to 2011 in Michigan and the U.S. However, a larger proportion of employers in several industries in Michigan offered benefits in 2011, compared to the national average, including manufacturing, agriculture, and construction.
  • In Michigan from 2010 to 2011, approximately 55,000 low-income people aged 18 to 25 years gained or retained private insurance as a result of the Affordable Care Act (ACA).

Trends in Private Insurance Coverage

From 2008 to 2011, Michigan had consistently higher rates of private insurance coverage than the United States overall. However, the proportion of people with private coverage declined during that time by 4.7 percent in Michigan and by 4.4 percent nationally. By 2011, 68.5 percent of people in Michigan had private coverage, down from 73.2 percent in 2008. Nationally, the proportion of people with private coverage fell from 69.8 percent in 2008 to 65.4 percent in 2011.
The economic recession from 2007 to 2009 contributed to the decline, as did the rising cost of health insurance premiums.3 4The most rapid decline in coverage was from 2008 to 2009, with a drop of 3.1 percentage points in Michigan and 2.2 percentage points nationally. In the following two years, private coverage declined more slowly.5

FIGURE 1: Proportion of the Population with Private Insurance, U.S. and Michigan, 2008–2011

figure-1

Source: CHRT, using American Community Survey (SHADAC) data, 2013

Private insurance can be directly purchased by individuals or can be provided through an employer-sponsored plan. From 2008 to 2011, most people with private insurance received coverage as a benefit of employment. Reductions in the proportion of people covered by ESI during those years drove the overall declines in private coverage. The decline of ESI is due in part to reductions in the number of employers who offer health benefits, as well as increasing numbers of part-time workers, who may not be eligible for benefits. Affordability may also be a factor, as fewer workers enroll in employer-sponsored plans due to cost sharing, and more people are unemployed.6 Although the proportion of people with ESI declined faster in Michigan (5.1 percentage points) than in the nation overall (3.9 percentage points), the proportion of people enrolled in employer-sponsored plans remained higher in Michigan in 2011 than in the U.S.

The proportion of people with individually purchased coverage did not change as much as did employer-sponsored coverage between 2008 and 2011. Individual coverage fell by only 1.9 percentage points in the nation and by 0.7 percentage points in Michigan. In 2008, 14.1 percent of the population bought insurance individually in the U.S. and 12.9 percent did so in Michigan. In 2011, 12.2 percent of people nationally and in Michigan purchased coverage in the individual market.

FIGURE 2: Proportion of the Population with Private Insurance, ESI and Individual Plans, U.S. and Michigan, 2008–2011

 Overall Private Health CoverageEmployer-Sponsored InsuranceIndividual Coverage
YearU.S.MichiganU.S.MichiganU.S.Michigan
200869.8%73.2%60.6%65.1%14.1%12.9%
200967.6%70.1%58.5%61.7%13.1%12.6%
201066.0%68.9%56.9%60.5%12.7%12.5%
201165.4%68.5%56.7%60.0%12.2%12.2%

Source: CHRT, using American Community Survey (SHADAC) data, 2013

Employer-Sponsored Insurance by Industry

In 2008, 56.9 percent of businesses in Michigan offered employees, and often their dependents, insurance coverage. By 2011, only 52.1 offered such coverage. The proportion of employers offering coverage declined more rapidly between 2008 and 2010 in Michigan than in the nation, causing Michigan to fall below the national average in 2009 and 2010 in terms of the percentage of employers offering health insurance coverage. In 2011, this trend reversed, with 52.1 percent of Michigan employers offering coverage compared to 51 percent nationally.

FIGURE 3: Percent of Employers that Offer ESI, U.S. and Michigan, 2008–2011

figure-3

Source: CHRT, using Medical Expenditure Panel Survey data, 2013

In 2011, a larger proportion of Michigan employers in several industries offered ESI than employers in these industries nationally. The largest differential between Michigan and national employers was in the agriculture, fishing, forestry, and construction industries: 40.2 percent of Michigan employers in these industries offered health benefits in 2011, compared to 35.2 percent of such employers nationally. A similar differential existed in the mining and manufacturing industry, which includes the auto-manufacturers. A larger percentage of employers in the retail and service industries in Michigan also offered benefits in 2011, compared to such employers nationwide. However, the proportion of Michigan employers in professional services and all other industries offering benefits was lower than the national average in those industries.

FIGURE 4: Percentage of Private Sector Businesses Offering Health Insurance by Industry Type, U.S. and Michigan, 2011

figure-4

Source: CHRT, using Medical Expenditure Panel Survey data, 2013

Private Health Insurance by Federal Poverty Guideline

From 2008 to 2011, more than 340,000 people in Michigan with incomes above 400 percent of the federal poverty guideline (FPG)7 lost private insurance coverage, accounting for nearly two-thirds of those who lost private insurance statewide during this time. Over one-third of those who lost private coverage had an income between 201 and 400 percent of the FPG (nearly 190,000 people). Less than 5 percent of the total decline in private coverage was among individuals with an income between 139 and 200 percent of the poverty guideline.

People in Michigan whose income was below 138 percent of the FPG experienced a significant8 increase in private coverage (1.3 percentage points) between 2008 and 2011. This low-income group experienced both gains and losses in private coverage in recent years, but the overall gain in 2011 is attributable to the ACA provision that allowed young adults up to age of 26 to be covered by their parents’ insurance plans beginning in 2010. In Michigan, nearly 97 percent of those who gained private coverage in this income bracket were aged 18 to 25 years (approximately 55,000 people). Prior to this policy change, a large proportion of young adults were uninsured, particularly those who were low income.9

FIGURE 5: Private Health Coverage in Michigan, by Federal Poverty Guideline, 2008–2011

 Number Privately Insured (in thousands)Percentage Privately Insured
Year0–138% FPG139%–200% FPG201%–400% FPG401+ FPGTotal0–138% FPG139%–200% FPG201%–400% FPG401+ FPG
20089356822,4793,0567,15313.1%9.5%34.7%42.7%
20099547512,4302,6906,82614.0%11.0%36.0%39.0%
20109256752,3922,6666,65814.0%10.0%36.0%40.0%
20119516572,2932,7126,61314.4%9.9%34.7%41.0%

Source: CHRT, using American Community Survey (SHADAC) data, 2013

FIGURE 6: Distribution of Individuals Who Lost Private Health Insurance 2008–2011, by Federal Poverty Guideline, Michigan

figure-6

Source: CHRT, using American Community Survey (SHADAC) data, 2013

Conclusion

From 2008 to 2011, both the percentage of people with employer-sponsored plans and the proportion of business offering benefits declined in the U.S. and Michigan, driving overall reductions in private coverage rates. Despite declines, in 2011 the proportion of employers offering benefits in Michigan remained higher than the national average. In Michigan, declines in private coverage were partially offset from 2010 to 2011, when approximately 55,000 people between 18 and 25 years gained or retained private coverage as a result of provisions in the ACA. With full implementation of the ACA in 2014, subsidies for individuals with incomes between 100 and 400 percent of the FPG will help make private coverage more widely available at all income levels.

Appendix

FIGURE A-1: State Comparisons: Percent Privately Insured, All Ages 2008–2011

Rankings (1=high, 51=low)
2011 Rank2008 RankState% Privately Insured 2011
12North Dakota79.1
21Hawaii77.7
36New Hampshire76.6
44Minnesota76.0
55Iowa75.8
63Massachusetts74.9
79Virginia74.7
810Maryland74.5
97Nebraska73.9
107Connecticut73.4
1114Utah73.0
1212Kansas72.8
1316South Dakota72.6
1413Pennsylvania72.1
1511Wisconsin71.6
1615Rhode Island71.3
1619Wyoming71.3
1817New Jersey71.2
1918Delaware70.2
2027Vermont69.7
2124Colorado69.6
2230District of Columbia69.5
2320Washington69.3
2421Ohio69.0
2522Michigan68.5
2625Missouri68.3
2729Idaho68.1
2823Indiana67.9
2926Illinois67.1
3031Maine66.0
3134Montana65.8
3227Oregon65.7
3333Alabama65.3
3432New York65.0
3538Alaska64.9
3637North Carolina64.0
3738Kentucky63.7
3835Tennessee63.5
3936Nevada63.0
4040South Carolina62.5
4142Georgia62.0
4241West Virginia61.8
4344Oklahoma61.5
4443California60.3
4546Arizona59.2
4648Arkansas58.9
4647Louisiana58.9
4845Florida57.7
4950Texas57.6
5048Mississippi56.2
5151New Mexico53.7
United States65.4

Source: CHRT, using American Community Survey (SHADAC) data, 2013

FIGURE A-2: State Comparisons: Percent Privately Insured, Employer-Based Only, All Ages, 2008–2011

Rankings (1=high, 51=low)
2011 Rank2008 RankState% Employer Based 2011
11Hawaii71.5
24New Hampshire68.6
33Maryland66.8
45Virginia66.6
52Massachusetts65.9
66Connecticut64.8
77Delaware64.1
79New Jersey64.1
911Utah64.0
1010Minnesota63.8
1114Iowa63.0
1225District of Columbia62.5
1312Rhode Island62.3
147Wisconsin62.2
1517North Dakota61.5
1620Alaska61.4
1615Kansas61.4
1613Ohio61.4
1624Wyoming61.4
2017Pennsylvania61.2
2130Vermont60.7
2216Michigan60.0
2319Nebraska59.9
2420Indiana59.7
2522Washington59.6
2628Colorado58.8
2723Illinois58.7
2827Missouri58.6
2936South Dakota58.1
3029New York57.6
3133Maine56.8
3126Nevada56.8
3331Alabama56.4
3431West Virginia56.1
3534Kentucky55.6
3641Idaho55.1
3740Georgia54.8
3838North Carolina54.6
3939South Carolina54.4
3936Tennessee54.4
4135Oregon54.0
4243Oklahoma53.5
4342Montana52.7
4444California51.4
4545Texas51.2
4645Arizona50.4
4648Louisiana50.4
4850Arkansas49.7
4947Florida48.0
5049Mississippi47.4
5151New Mexico46.7
United States56.7

Source: CHRT, using American Community Survey (SHADAC) data, 2013

Suggested Citation: Hammoud, Abdullah; Dreyer, Theresa; Baum, Nancy; and Udow-Phillips, Marianne. Private Health Insurance in Michigan, 2008 to 2011. Cover Michigan 2013. September 2013. Center for Healthcare Research & Transformation. Ann Arbor, MI.

  1. State Health Access Data Assistance Center (SHADAC). 2013. State-Level Trends in Employer-Sponsored Health Insurance. SHADAC Report. (Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota). (accessed 6/1/2013).
  2. Ibid.
  3. America’s Health Insurance Plans. Rising Health Care Costs. (accessed 6/1/13).
  4. Paul Fronstein. 2012. Sources of Health Insurance and Characteristics of the Uninsured: Analysis of the March 2012 Current Population Survey (Washington, D.C.: Employee Benefit Research Institute). (accessed 6/1/13).
  5. State comparison tables displaying 2008 and 2011 rankings based on the percentage of privately insured residents and the percentage of residents with ESI are available in the Appendix.
  6. Elizabeth Mendes. February 14, 2012. Fewer Americans Have Employer-Based Health Insurance. Gallup News website. (accessed 6/1/2013).
  7. The Federal Poverty Guideline is the poverty threshold used by the Department of Health and Human Services to determine eligibility for federal programs. It is often used interchangeably with the Federal Poverty Level, which is based on a slightly different calculation and used primarily for statistical purposes.
  8. Significant at a confidence interval of 95 percent.
  9. Sara R. Collins, Ruth Robertson, Tracy Garber, and Michelle Doty. June 2012. Young, Uninsured and in Debt: Why Young Adults Lack Health Insurance and How the Affordable Care Act is Helping, Publication 1604, Vol. 14 (Washington, D.C.: The Commonwealth Fund). (accessed 6/1/13).
Improving Health. Informing Policy.
  • About
    • History
    • Current Projects
    • Board of Directors
    • Our Team
    • Partners and Funders
    • Careers
    • Contact Us
  • Publications
  • Surveys
    • Cover Michigan Survey
    • Michigan Physician Survey
    • Publications
    • Methodology
    • Survey Services
  • Policy Fellowship
    • 2019 Curriculum
    • 2019 Sponsors
    • 2019 Policy Fellows
    • Fellowship Alumni
    • Apply
  • Action and Impact
    • Annual Report 2018
    • Washtenaw Health Initiative
    • State Innovation Model
    • Michigan Primary Care Transformation
  • Consulting Services
    • Health and Human Services Integration
    • Data Analysis and Reporting
    • Program Evaluation
    • Systematic and Policy Analysis
    • Surveys and Data Collection
  • Subscribe
  • News
    • In The Media
    • CHRT News
Ask CHRT
  • LinkedIn
  • Twitter
  • YouTube

Center for Health
and Research
Transformation

2929 Plymouth Rd, Ste 245
Ann Arbor MI 48105-3206

Tel: 734 998-7555
Fax: 734 998-7557
CHRT-info@umich.edu

University of Michigan

© Copyright 2008-2018