One in Three: Non-Elderly Americans without Health Insurance, 2002 - 2003
June 2004
Families USA
Lewin contact: Lisa Alecxih
On June 16th, 2004, Families USA released a report entitled "One in Three: Non-Elderly Americans without Health Insurance, 2002-2003." The report was based on an analysis of Census Bureau data conducted by The Lewin Group, and provides estimates of the number of people under age 65 who lacked insurance for at least one month over the two-year period of 2002-2003. The report provides national and state-level estimates, as well as a breakdown by selected population characteristics. Some of the highlights from the report include:
Approximately 81.8 million Americans -- one out of three people under 65 years of age -- were uninsured at some point of time during 2002-2003.
Almost two-thirds (65.3 percent) of this 81.8 million were uninsured for six months or more, and about half (50.6 percent) were uninsured for at least nine months.
States with the highest proportion of non-elderly individuals with insurance gaps during the 2002-2003 period include Texas (43.4%), New Mexico (42.4%), and California (37.1%). States with the lowest proportion of individuals with insurance gaps include Minnesota (22.4%), New Hampshire (23.0%), and Vermont (24.9%).
A significant proportion of the middle class experienced insurance gaps. For example, among people with incomes between 300 and 400 percent of the federal poverty level (between $55,980 and $74,640 in annual income for a family of four in 2003), more than one out of four were uninsured for all or part of the two year period.
Researchers Note: In March 2003, The Lewin Group completed a similar analysis for Families USA that provided estimates of lack of insurance over the period 2001-2002. That analysis relied on Census Bureau data from 1998-1999, the most recent data available at the time, projected forward based on known population and economic trends. More recently available Census Bureau data for 2001-2002 indicate that these earlier 2001-2002 uninsured estimates were conservative. Therefore, the new 2002-2003 estimates should not be directly compared to the previous estimates for 2001-2002.