Skip to main content

I've added a few new numbers to ACASignups.net, but the main changes are some new features:

--First, I'm "changing" the name from ObamacareSignups.net to ACASignups.net. Both will take you to the same spreadsheet, of course, but ACASignups.net is just shorter and easier to type. Use whichever one you feel is appropriate when reposting.

--Second, as I mentioned last week, by popular request, I've added graphical charts showing both the ACA Private Exchange enrollments as well as a comparison against the Massachusetts enrollment pattern of 2007.

--Third (and this is BRAND NEW), I've added the actual official HHS Dept. Per-State Goals for the 6-month enrollment period! This answers the question about where the mystical "7 million" figure came from, broken down by state (more about this below the fold).

--As far as I can tell, 2 of the other websites that were tracking ACA enrollments have abandoned the project: Advisory Board Company and Aaron Strauss. However, EnrollMaven.com is still keeping at it.

I was highly skeptical of EnrollMaven at first, as they have an openly anti-ACA/Obamacare mission statement, but their methodology seems to be sound. Plus, they've at least been completely frank about their negative opinion of the ACA, and many of my sources have turned out to be identical to theirs, so I've grown pretty comfortable with using them as a cross-check on my own numbers.

However, there's still a few important differences between their site and ObamacareSignups.net:

--I'm continuing to include Medicaid and SCHIP enrollments, which they don't track; this is still a crucially important factor, both for the success of the ACA as well as from a purely humanitarian POV

--Their site is poorly laid out, requiring you to scroll endlessly to find the states, and they only list the most recent number for the day instead of showing any trend lines or alternative sources

--Since I'm using a Google Docs spreadsheet, you can easily export/copy the data to Excel or whatever to do what you will with

--They sort the states by Federal-run and State-run; I've marked the state-run sites as such (blue rows), but have kept them alphabetical for easier tracking

Having said all of that, here's the latest figures as of Monday, Nov. 25:

Total Exchange ENROLLMENTS: 212,066
Total Medicaid/SCHIP Expansion: 716,707

Total Combined: 928,773

I'm asking my helpers here at dKos to continue scouring state government reports, twitter feeds and news reports for state-by-state enrollment updates (both the exchanges as well as Medicaid).
(click below for full-size versions):

See ACASignups.net for details, including direct links to cited sources.

As for the newly-added "State-by-state Goals" column, if you look closely, there's some interesting things to note:

--For Connecticut, they're targeting 33,000 out of 3.6 million, or about 0.9% of the state popluation, or about 9% of the total uncovered population.

--In Texas (6.3 million uninsured, 630,000 target) they only expect to have 10% of their uninsured covered by then.

For California, they're targeting 1.3 million people, or about 3.4% of the total population, or about 17% of the total uncovered population.

--Vermont is REALLY interesting. Vermont has about 9% of the total population of 626,000 uninsured, which is only about 57,000 people)...and the target is 57,000.

In other words, the HHS Dept. has been hoping that Vermont will have EVERYONE without coverage signed up by 3/31/14. Given that it's deep blue and moving towards single payer anyway, this makes sense.

EMAIL TO A FRIEND X
Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags

?

More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  I'm liking that spike! (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Brainwrap, ArcticStones, Coco Usagi

    Let's hope it gets even, err, spikier.

    You never trust a millionaire/Quoting the sermon on the mount/I used to think I was not like them/But I'm beginning to have my doubts -- The Arcade Fire

    by tomjones on Mon Nov 25, 2013 at 08:59:41 AM PST

    •  That spike will grow – a lot! (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Brainwrap, ybruti

      Look carefully at the total. It doesn’t yet include any sign-ups from the federal exchange, we’re lacking from some state exchanges, and in the others there is a lag in the data – in some cases a very long lag.

      My prediction, for what it’s worth: 500,000 by the end of November.

      “The meaning of life is to find it.”

      by ArcticStones on Mon Nov 25, 2013 at 10:09:54 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  Thnx for changing O-Care to ACA (0+ / 0-)

    Obamacare  is a GOP slur - a product. The ACA is the law.

  •  What is the interpretation of the first graph? (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Victor Ward

    The graph labelled "Affordable Care Act" has what I presume to be actual data up to Nov. 2. What is the meaning of the data beyond that date, and where did it come from?

    I suggest that you change that graph, so that actual data is in solid, and the rest of the data (projected?) is crosshatched or something. I also suggest that you label the two sections.

    I also suggest that you clarify the second graph. You seem to be comparing the Massachusetts signups to the ACA signups, a reasonable enterprise. But you need to make it clear that the Massachusetts line has a different scale (of course it does; the ACA is scaled nationally, and the Massachusetts data is just for one state). And I suggest that instead of filling in the Massachusetts data with light blue, you just use a dashed trend line and no fill. Right now the Massachusetts data dominates the graph, but that's not the crucial information you want to be conveying, so IMO it would be better toned down. That graph can be made much easier to understand.

    Thanks for gathering together these numbers. The new goal data is particularly valuable.

    •  No offense, but have you bothered even looking (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      ybruti

      ...at the actual website???

      I cite and link to my sources for EVERY NUMBER listed.

      I appreciate the words of praise, but don't understand how you can claim not to know where the post-11/2 numbers came from.

      •  I'm looking at the first graph (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Victor Ward

        and finding it hard to understand. The graph should stand on its own, without my having to wade through reams of text to decipher it. That's why we have graphs in the first place-- so we can get a quick understanding of the data without having to read all the tables.

        My beef is not your information-gathering, which is fantastic. I just don't think you are currently displaying your information in the most informative way.

        I want to look at that graph, and see at a glance what the trend of the signups is and where the goal is. The graph has data up to December 3. It's November 25. Why is there anything past November 25?

        On further looking at that confusing first graph, perhaps my beef is really the descent to zero mid December. Why is it there? Shouldn't you have a dashed line going up, instead of a solid line going to zero? It makes me believe that the data for a date is the daily data for that date only, but isn't the data you're presenting cumulative? So why does it go to zero? In any case, you should label the graph either "Cumulative Data" or "Daily (Weekly?) Data", so I don't have to guess.

        •  OK, I see your point (0+ / 0-)

          By default, Excel's chartmaker just drops everything off if there's no further data. There's no data in the following week's dataset, so it just drops off to 0.

          The best I could do would be to have them all flat-line across, but I figured that would be even more confusing.

          I'll try and add a few more labels/captions to explain, however (including the actual website link in case people start reposting the graph without citation).

          •  What if you stopped the chart at today? (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Victor Ward

            That is, what if you made the right side of the chart be today? Then you wouldn't have the problem of Excel giving you a bogus chart for the future, because you'd just be showing accurate data from the past.

            Excel should do that for you with ease.

            •  For one thing, that would negate the (0+ / 0-)

              ...whole "goal by 6 months" part, which is the main point of the chart in the first place.

              Plus, I need the extra space for notes/captions.

              Will tweak it a bit but am leaving it mostly as is.

              •  But the chart doesn't show the goal by six months (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                Victor Ward

                The top of the chart is 1 million. The goal by six months is seven million.

                You may want a chart that shows the goal by six months, but IMO a chart that shows what has been done so far is also valuable. The first chart is a bastard child of those two goals, which does neither well. Let the second chart be the goal by six months, with projections, goals, and the comparison to Massachusetts.

                Give us the actuals in the first chart. We want to see the actuals. At a glance. Without a confusing drop to zero, or a misleading flatline. You have the data to make that useful, easy-to-understand graph, and you should do it.

                •  With all due respect, you're the only one (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  Cartoon Man

                  ...complaining about this. If numerous people gripe about it, I'll consider it, but for now I'm leaving it as is.

                  I'm not being paid to do this, and I do have a job to do.

                  If you want to set up your own site/chart/graph with my data, be my guest.

                  •  OK, good idea. (1+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    Victor Ward

                    Where'd you find the week-by-week data for Massachusetts? Once I get a trend line for Massachusetts and shrink it it to six months I can superimpose the ACA data so far on it, and see what's going on. And then I can play around with just California, and just Kentucky, to see how the states that made competent websites are doing.

                    And I can also make the actual cumulative graph that I want.

                    I hope I can do this in Google Docs, but I may have to go to R, with its super graphing capabilities.

                  •  Cardinal Fang is correct about (0+ / 0-)

                    the dropoff to zero being a problem. I believe that there is a way to tell Excel to end the line at a particular month while showing other data for later periods, but I have not used Excel in years, since I switched to Open Office, and can't tell you how to go about it. I certainly have no difficulty doing it in Libre Office Calc, the successor to Open Office Calc.

                    Ceterem censeo, gerrymandra delenda est

                    by Mokurai on Mon Nov 25, 2013 at 10:33:38 PM PST

                    [ Parent ]

  •  I call it the ACA because that is the title of the (0+ / 0-)

    law.  Sink or swim, the ACA is what it is.

  •  thanks! I signed up last night (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Brainwrap, myboo

    website worked like a dream.
    only gllitch was it would not let me enter my 2 digit birth month..but i clicked on the little calendar icon next to the bar and entered  it that way.
    I also called the help line 3 times, just for incidental questions, not because of website problems. they answered the phone on the FIRST RING all three times. i also appreciated that they were there at 9 PM on a sunday.

    i  am eligible for medicaid. thankfully my GOP gov expanded medicaid. my state doesn't have a state exchange however, so i had to start with ACA, then dive back into the state medical assistance department, where there will be only 2 choices for me...but i am guessing the % coverage will be higher.

    i began filling out the state application via website. much glitchier. then i waited til this morning (8-5 only) and called the help  number for the state  medicaid office.... waited 57 minutes on hold before a person got on the line. also waited 36 minutes for a 'live chat' agent to appear online.
    so i am in the state loop for the time being. will see how that goes. i wish i made enough to qualify for the exchange, because , at first glance it is far less bureaucratic than the state system.

    but the ACA website worked great and now i am one of the numbers in the system.

    thanks!

  •  possibly important information (0+ / 0-)

    when i submitted my state medicaid app today  i asked the rep if this would be evaluated with the 2014 expansion in mind.
    (single adults have been ineligible, for example, til the new expansion. also income limits will be raised  for 2014)

    she said apps submitted before December 1 will likely be evaluated based on the old criteria . so i may receive a rejection letter, then technically i may have to ask to have the state review my app for 2014 sometime in december or january, in order for them to consider it based on ACA and expanded medicaid. She said the timing of my app, today..is 'right on the cusp' of the time they will start basing eligibility based on ACA.

    so .. numbers coming from states like mine ,Arizona, are likely very low, because they are still reviewing applications based on old criteria, not for ACA, (which kick in in January.)

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site