American Community Survey Briefs

Mitigating the Loss of Private Insurance With 

Public Coverage for the Under-65 Population: 

2008 to 2012

INTRODUCTION

In periods of economic downturn, the ability of individuals to access and afford private health insurance 

becomes more limited. Federal, state, and local programs exist to improve disadvantaged individuals’ 

access to health care in the form of public coverage, including coverage for some of those who have 

become economically disadvantaged during those 

periods. This report uses 1-year American Community 

Survey (ACS) data to examine changes in the uninsured 

rate of people under age 651 and the ability of this 

public “safety net” to either partially or wholly compensate for decreases in private health insurance during 

two periods: from 2008 to 2010 and from 2010 to 

2012.2

CHANGES IN COVERAGE OF THE UNDER-65 

POPULATION IN THE UNITED STATES: 2008 to 

2010

According to American Community Survey data, 

from 2008 to 2010, unemployment3 increased from 

6.4 percent to 10.8 percent, and the median income 

for families with at least one person under age 65 

fell from $69,102 to $64,902 (in 2012 dollars). The 

United States also saw an increase in the poverty rate 

(13.3 percent to 15.3 percent), and the percentage of 

households with public cash assistance rose from 2.3 

1 Given that most adults over the age of 64 are eligible for 

Medicare, a form of public coverage, the reports seeks to eliminate 

the effects of an aging population by looking at people under the age 

of 65. 2 Trends in health insurance coverage were very similar from 2008 

to 2009 and from 2009 to 2010, as were the trends from 2010 to 2011 

and from 2011 to 2012. 3 Of the civilian labor force, aged 16 to 64.

percent to 2.9 percent. As expected in such a period of 

economic decline, the percentage of people under the 

age of 65 with only private health insurance4 decreased 

from 66.1 percent to 62.5 percent (Table 1). Making up 

for some of that loss, public health coverage increased 

2.4 percentage points, from 17.4 percent to 19.8 

percent. However, that increase was not large enough 

to offset the 3.6 percentage point loss in private health 

insurance. The result was a net 1.15 percentage point 

increase in the uninsured rate from 2008 to 2010.

4 This report divides the population into three mutually exclusive 

categories: 1) Uninsured, 2) With private insurance only, and 3) With 

public coverage. Individuals with both private insurance and public 

coverage fall into the “with public coverage” category. For the purposes 

of the report, any reference to “private insurance” should be treated as 

“with private insurance only.” 5 Apparent discrepancy is due to rounding.

Issued September 2013

ACSBR/12-11

By Jonathan Rodean

DEFINITIONS

Private health insurance: Health insurance 

provided through an employer or a union, a plan 

purchased by an individual from an insurance 

company, or TRICARE or other military health 

coverage.

Public coverage: Includes the federal programs 

Medicare, Medicaid and other medical assistance 

programs, VA Health Care; the Children’s Health 

Insurance Program (CHIP); and individual state 

health plans.

U.S. Department of Commerce

Economics and Statistics Administration

U.S. CENSUS BUREAU

census.gov
2 U.S. Census Bureau

CHANGES IN COVERAGE OF 

THE UNDER-65 POPULATION 

AMONG STATES: 2008 to 2010

Given the fact that states have 

different policies and programs, it 

is not surprising that their safety 

nets have varied effects on the 

uninsured rate when faced with 

decreases in private insurance. 

Between 2008 and 2010, all but 

5 states had decreases in private 

insurance, and of those 45 states 

and the District of Columbia, only 

Rhode Island and Wyoming did 

not have a statistically significant 

increase in public coverage. In 

32 of these 45 states, the loss of 

private insurance outpaced the 

gains in public coverage, resulting in an increase in the uninsured 

rate. Hawaii had among the largest 

Table 1.

Coverage by Type of Health Insurance

(Civilian noninstitutionalized population under age 65)

Characteristic

2008 2010 2012 Difference 

2008–2010

Difference 

2010–2012

Percent

Margin of 

error (±)1 Percent

Margin of 

error (±)1 Percent

Margin of 

error (±)1 Percent2 Percent2

With private health insurance only . . . 66.1 0.1 62.5 0.1 62.2 0.1 *–3.6 *–0.4

With public coverage . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17.4 0.1 19.8 0.1 20.9 0.1 *2.4 *1.1

Uninsured . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16.5 0.1 17.7 0.1 16.9 0.1 *1.1 *–0.7

* Statistically different from zero at the 90 percent confidence level. 1

 Data are based on a sample and are subject to sampling variability. A margin of error is a measure of an estimate’s variability. The larger the margin of error is 

in relation to the size of the estimate, the less reliable the estimate. This number when added to and subtracted from the estimate forms the 90 percent confidence 

interval. 2

 Differences are calculated with unrounded numbers, which may produce different results from using the rounded values in the table.

Sources: U.S. Census Bureau 2008, 2010, and 2012 1-year American Community Surveys.

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

TX

CA

MT

AZ

ID

NV

KS

CO

NM

OR

UT

SD

IL

WY

NE IA

FL

MN

OK

ND

WI

WA

AL GA

MO

PA

AR

LA

NC

MS

NY

IN

MI

VA

TN

KY

SC

OH

ME

WV

VT

NH

NJ

MD

MA

CT

DE

RI

DC

AK

HI

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2008 and 2010 1-year American Community Surveys.

0 500 Miles

0 100 Miles

0 100 Miles

Coverage characteristics

by state

Changes in the Health Insurance Coverage of the Under-65 Population

in the United States: 2008 to 2010

Figure 1.

Private Insurance

Decrease

Private Insurance

Increase or no change

Uninsured rate decrease

or no change

Uninsured rate increase

Public coverage increase

Public coverage decrease or

no change
U.S. Census Bureau 3

declines in private insurance (5.9 

percentage points),6 but it also had 

among the largest rises in public 

coverage (4.5 percentage points, 

Table 2).7 Comparatively, Kansas 

had less of decrease of private 

coverage (3.8 percentage points), 

but its public coverage increased 

by only 0.9 percentage points, 

giving it the largest net increase in 

its uninsured rate (2.9 percentage 

points).8

In the remaining 13 states (Alaska, 

Arizona, Colorado, Connecticut, 

Delaware, Idaho, Maine, New 

Hampshire, New Mexico, 

Oklahoma, Utah, Vermont, and 

Wyoming) and the District of 

Columbia, the increase in public 

coverage was enough to offset the 

loss of private insurance.9 In fact, 

there was such an increase in public coverage in Arizona, Colorado, 

and New Mexico that the uninsured 

rate decreased from 2008 to 2010.

Arkansas, Montana, North Dakota, 

South Dakota, and West Virginia 

were the five states that did not 

have a statistically significant 

change in the percentage of people 

under the age of 65 with private 

insurance. Given there was no loss 

of private health insurance to mitigate, it is not surprising that public 

coverage did not change in almost 

all of those states. Only West 

Virginia had a statistically significant increase, adding 1.3 percentage points to the percent of 

6 Hawaii’s change in private insurance 

only is not statistically different from that of 

Delaware, Florida, Indiana, Michigan, Nevada, 

Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont, or Wisconsin. 7 Hawaii’s change in public coverage is not 

statistically different from that of Arizona, 

Connecticut, Delaware, Florida, Maryland, 

Michigan, New Mexico, Oregon, Vermont, or 

Wisconsin. 8 Kansas’ change in the percent uninsured 

is not statistically different from Kentucky, 

Nevada, Rhode Island, South Dakota, or 

Wyoming. 9 Wyoming’s increase in public coverage 

was not statistically significant, but the state 

did not have a change in the uninsured rate 

after a statistically significant decrease in 

private insurance.

under-65 population with public 

coverage.

CHANGES IN COVERAGE OF 

THE UNDER-65 POPULATION 

AMONG METRO AREAS: 2008 to 

2010

The trend for the nation and the 

states was also seen in the country’s 25 largest metropolitan statistical areas. All but the San AntonioNew Braunfels, TX Metro Area had a 

statistically significant decrease in 

the percentage of people under the 

age of 65 with private insurance. 

The San Antonio-New Braunfels, 

TX Metro Area also did not have a 

significant change in the percentage of people under the age of 65 

with public coverage, as well as no 

significant change in the uninsured 

rate of that population.

Of the 24 metro areas that had 

decreases in private insurance, all 

had increases in the percentage of 

people under the age of 65 with 

public coverage. In both the DallasFort Worth-Arlington, TX Metro Area 

and the Phoenix-Mesa-Glendale, AZ 

Metro Area, this increase was large 

enough to cause the uninsured 

rate to decline, dropping 0.8 and 

1.0 percentage points, respectively 

(Table 3).10 In six other metro areas 

(Baltimore-Towson, MD; DenverAurora-Broomfield, CO; OrlandoKissimmee-Sanford, FL; Pittsburgh, 

PA; San Diego-Carlsbad-San Marcos, 

CA; and Tampa-St. PetersburgClearwater, FL), the increase was 

only enough to compensate for the 

decrease, resulting in no statistical 

change in the uninsured rate. In 

the remaining 16 metro areas, the 

increase in public coverage was not 

enough to prevent the uninsured 

rate from climbing.

10 The decline in the uninsured rate in the 

Dallas-Fort Worth-Arlington, TX Metro Area 

and the decline in the uninsured rate of the 

Phoenix-Mesa-Glendale, AZ Metro Area are not 

statistically different.

CHANGES IN COVERAGE OF 

THE UNDER-65 POPULATION IN 

THE UNITED STATES: 2010 to 

2012

Although many of the economic 

indicators continued to decline 

between 2010 and 2012, they did 

so at a slower rate than from 2008 

to 2010. The median income of 

families with at least one person 

under 65 decreased, but only by 

$816 (in 2012 dollars), compared 

with a $4200 drop from 2008 to 

2010. The poverty rate decreased 

by 1.4 fewer percentage points 

(2.0 percentage points between 

2008 and 2010 compared with 0.6 

percentage points between 2010 

and 2012), and the percentage of 

households with cash public assistance remained steady at 2.9 percent. Employment rebounded, as 

Source: U.S. Census Bureau 2008, 2009, 

2010, 2011, and 2012 1-year American 

Community Surveys.

With Private Insurance 

Only

Percent

Year

With Public Coverage

Uninsured

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

2008 2009 2010 2011 2012

Figure 2.

Coverage by Type of

Health Insurance: 2012

(Civilian noninstitutionalized

population under age 65)
4 U.S. Census Bureau

the unemployment rate11 decreased 

by 1.4 percentage points during 

the latter period.

The decrease in percentage of 

people under the age of 65 with 

only private health insurance also 

started to rebound from 2010 to 

2012, as it fell only 0.4 percentage points compared with the 3.6 

percentage point decrease from 

2008 to 2010 (Table 1). Parallel 

with the smaller decrease in private 

health insurance, there also was 

a smaller increase in the percentage of people under the age of 65 

with public health coverage. Public 

coverage grew from 19.8 percent 

to 20.9 percent, less than the 2.4 

percentage point increase from 

2008 to 2010.

11 Of the civilian labor force, aged 16 to 

64.

Even though the increase in public 

coverage was smaller from 2010 

to 2012 than from 2008 to 2010, 

those gains outnumbered the 

relatively smaller loss of private 

insurance. Facing a less substantial 

decrease in private insurance, the 

increase in public insurance lowered the uninsured rate of people 

under the age of 65 by 0.7 percentage points to 16.9 percent in 2012.

CHANGES IN COVERAGE OF 

THE UNDER-65 POPULATION 

AMONG STATES: 2010 to 2012

Even though the United States saw 

a decrease in the percentage of 

people under the age of 65 with 

private health insurance from 2010 

to 2012, most states (32) and the 

District of Columbia did not have a 

statistically significant change. Of 

these 33, 14 states and the District 

of Columbia also had no statistical 

change in the percentage of people 

under age 65 with public coverage.12 Only Arizona had a decrease 

in public coverage, and the 

result was a 1.0 percentage point 

increase in Arizona’s uninsured 

rate for people under 65 (Table 2). 

The remaining 17 states of the 32 

whose private insurance rate did 

not change had increases in public 

coverage. In most of these states,13

the increase in public coverage 

caused a reduction in the uninsured 

12 Arkansas, Delaware, Indiana, Iowa, 

Louisiana, Nebraska, North Dakota, Rhode 

Island, Tennessee, Utah, Washington, West 

Virginia, Wisconsin, and Wyoming. 13 Alabama, Georgia, Hawaii, Idaho, 

Illinois, Kansas, Maryland, Minnesota, 

Mississippi, New Mexico, Pennsylvania, 

Texas, and Virginia.

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

TX

CA

MT

AZ

ID

NV

KS

CO

NM

OR

UT

SD

IL

WY

NE IA

FL

MN

OK

ND

WI

WA

AL GA

MO

PA

AR

LA

NC

MS

NY

IN

MI

VA

TN

KY

SC

OH

ME

WV

VT

NH

NJ

MD

MA

CT

DE

RI

DC

AK

HI

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2010 and 2012 1-year American Community Surveys.

0 500 Miles

0 100 Miles

0 100 Miles

Changes in the Health Insurance Coverage of the Under-65 Population

in the United States: 2010 to 2012

Figure 3.

Coverage characteristics

by state

Private Insurance

Decrease

Private Insurance

Increase or no change

Uninsured rate decrease

or no change

Uninsured rate increase

Public coverage increase

Public coverage decrease

or no change
U.S. Census Bureau 5

rate. However, in New Hampshire, 

Oklahoma, South Carolina, and 

South Dakota, the increase was not 

large enough to produce a statistical change in the uninsured rate.

Kentucky, Michigan, and Vermont 

saw increases in the rate of private 

insurance. In all three of these 

states, the percentage of people 

under the age of 65 with public 

health coverage did not change 

statistically, but the uninsured rate 

fell due to the increase in private 

insurance.

Following the trend of the United 

States as a whole, 15 states had 

a statistical decrease in private 

insurance from 2010 to 2012. Of 

these, only Alaska did not have an 

increase in public coverage. However, Alaska’s uninsured rate for 

people under age 65 did not statistically change. In Missouri, there 

was an increase in public coverage, but the greater loss in private 

insurance caused an increase in the 

uninsured rate. The increases in 

public coverage cancelled the 

effect of the loss in private insurance in Connecticut, Maine, 

Montana, Nevada, and North 

Carolina, which had no statistical 

change in their uninsured rates. 

However, gains in public coverage 

drove the uninsured rate down in 

California, Colorado, Florida, 

Massachusetts, New Jersey, New 

York, Ohio, and Oregon.

CHANGES IN COVERAGE OF 

THE UNDER-65 POPULATION 

AMONG METRO AREAS: 2010 to 

2012

As was the case with states, most 

of the 25 largest metropolitan areas 

did not have a statistical change in 

the percentage of people under the 

age of 65 with private health 

insurance (16, Table 3). The 

Detroit-Warren-Livonia, MI; 

Phoenix-Mesa-Glendale, AZ; 

Pittsburgh, PA; San Antonio-New 

Braunfels, TX; and Seattle-TacomaBellevue, WA metropolitan areas 

also saw no change in the percentage of people under the age of 65 

with public coverage. Even without 

a change in private insurance, the 

remaining 11 of those 16 metropolitan areas (Atlanta-Sandy 

Springs-Marietta, GA; BaltimoreTowson, MD; Chicago-JolietNaperville, IL-IN-WI; Houston-Sugar 

Land-Baytown, TX; Los AngelesLong Beach-Santa Ana, CA; MiamiFort Lauderdale-Pompano Beach, 

FL; Portland-Vancouver-Hillsboro, 

OR-WA; San Diego-Carlsbad-San 

Marcos, CA; San Francisco-OaklandFremont, CA; Tampa-St. PetersburgClearwater, FL; and WashingtonArlington-Alexandria, DC-VA-MDWV) had increases in the percentage of people under the age of 65 

with public coverage.

In eight metropolitan areas, the 

2008 to 2010 decrease in the 

percentage of people under the age 

of 65 with private health insurance continued through 2012 

(Boston-Cambridge-Quincy, MA-NH; 

Dallas-Fort Worth-Arlington, TX; 

Denver-Aurora-Broomfield, CO; New 

York-Northern New Jersey-Long 

Island, NY-NJ-PA; OrlandoKissimmee-Sanford, FL; 

Philadelphia-Camden-Wilmington, 

PA-NJ-DE-MD; Riverside-San 

Bernardino-Ontario, CA; and St. 

Louis, MO-IL). However, each of 

these metropolitan areas avoided 

a decrease in the overall uninsured 

rate because of an increase in public coverage. Additionally, the public coverage gains in the BostonCambridge-Quincy, MA-NH; New 

York-Northern New Jersey-Long 

Island, NY-NJ-PA; and Riverside-San 

Bernardino-Ontario, CA metropolitan areas resulted in a decrease in 

the uninsured rate.

The Minneapolis-St. PaulBloomington, MN-WI Metro Area 

was the only one of the 25 largest 

metropolitan areas that had an 

increase in the percentage of 

people under the age of 65 with 

private health insurance from 2010 

to 2012. Because of this increase, 

the uninsured rate decreased, even 

though the percentage of people 

under the age of 65 with only public coverage did not significantly 

change.

SOURCE AND ACCURACY

The most current data presented 

in this report are based on the ACS 

sample interviewed from January 

2012 through December 2012. 

Data from the 2008 and 2010 ACS 

are included to examine change.

The estimates based on this sample 

describe the actual average values 

of person, household, and housing 

unit characteristics over this period 

of collection. Sampling error is the 

uncertainty between an estimate 

based on a sample and the corresponding value that would be 

obtained if the estimate were based 

on the entire population (as from 

a census). Measures of sampling 

error are provided in the form of 

margins of error for all estimates 

included in this report. All comparative statements in this report 

have undergone statistical testing, 

and comparisons are significant at 

the 90 percent level unless otherwise noted. In addition to sampling 

error, nonsampling error may be 

introduced during any of the operations used to collect and process 

survey data such as editing, reviewing, or keying data from questionnaires. For more information on 

sampling and estimation methods, 

confidentiality protection, and 

sampling and nonsampling errors, 

please see the 2012 ACS Accuracy 

of the Data document located at 

<www.census.gov/acs

/www/Downloads/data

_documentation/Accuracy/ACS

_Accuracy_of_Data_2012.pdf>.
6 U.S. Census Bureau

Table 2.

Coverage by Type of Health Insurance by State—Con.

(Civilian noninstitutionalized population under age 65)

State Type

2008 2010 2012

Difference 

2008–

2010

Difference 

2010–

2012

Percent

Margin of 

error (±)1 Percent

Margin of 

error (±)1 Percent

Margin of 

error (±)1 Percent2 Percent2

Alabama . . . . . . . . . . With private health insurance only 64.6 0.6 61.0 0.7 60.4 0.6 *–3.6 –0.5

With public coverage 20.1 0.4 22.2 0.5 24.0 0.4 *2.1 *1.9

Uninsured 15.3 0.4 16.8 0.4 15.5 0.4 *1.5 *–1.3

Alaska . . . . . . . . . . . . With private health insurance only 63.2 1.3 60.8 1.4 58.7 1.4 *–2.3 *–2.1

With public coverage 16.3 1.1 17.9 1.0 19.0 1.0 *1.5 1.1

Uninsured 20.5 1.1 21.3 1.1 22.3 1.1 0.8 1.1

Arizona . . . . . . . . . . . With private health insurance only 58.9 0.6 56.5 0.6 56.4 0.6 *–2.4 –0.1

With public coverage 20.5 0.5 24.1 0.5 23.2 0.4 *3.6 *–0.9

Uninsured 20.6 0.4 19.4 0.4 20.4 0.5 *–1.2 *1.0

Arkansas . . . . . . . . . . With private health insurance only 55.2 0.8 54.1 0.8 55.0 0.6 –1.1 0.9

With public coverage 25.0 0.5 25.6 0.5 25.8 0.6 0.7 0.2

Uninsured 19.8 0.6 20.3 0.6 19.2 0.4 0.5 *–1.1

California . . . . . . . . . . With private health insurance only 62.3 0.2 58.7 0.2 58.2 0.2 *–3.7 *–0.4

With public coverage 18.5 0.2 20.6 0.2 21.7 0.2 *2.2 *1.0

Uninsured 19.2 0.2 20.7 0.2 20.1 0.2 *1.5 *–0.6

Colorado . . . . . . . . . . With private health insurance only 69.7 0.5 67.3 0.6 66.3 0.6 *–2.4 *–1.0

With public coverage 11.8 0.4 14.9 0.5 17.1 0.5 *3.1 *2.2

Uninsured 18.5 0.5 17.8 0.5 16.6 0.4 *–0.7 *–1.2

Connecticut . . . . . . . . With private health insurance only 75.6 0.7 72.1 0.7 70.0 0.6 *–3.6 *–2.0

With public coverage 14.4 0.6 17.6 0.5 19.5 0.5 *3.2 *1.9

Uninsured 10.0 0.5 10.4 0.4 10.5 0.4 0.4 0.1

Delaware . . . . . . . . . . With private health insurance only 70.5 1.5 66.3 1.5 65.7 1.1 *–4.2 –0.6

With public coverage 18.0 1.1 22.4 1.4 24.1 1.2 *4.5 1.6

Uninsured 11.5 0.9 11.3 0.9 10.3 0.8 –0.3 –1.0

District of Columbia . . With private health insurance only 65.9 1.2 63.9 1.3 64.8 1.3 *–2.0 0.8

With public coverage 25.8 1.3 27.7 1.3 28.6 1.2 *1.9 0.9

Uninsured 8.3 0.7 8.4 0.7 6.6 0.6 0.1 *–1.8

Florida . . . . . . . . . . . . With private health insurance only 60.8 0.3 55.8 0.4 54.9 0.3 *–5.0 *–0.9

With public coverage 15.1 0.2 18.8 0.2 20.9 0.3 *3.7 *2.1

Uninsured 24.2 0.3 25.4 0.3 24.2 0.2 *1.3 *–1.2

Georgia . . . . . . . . . . . With private health insurance only 62.8 0.4 59.3 0.5 59.3 0.4 *–3.5 –0.1

With public coverage 17.1 0.3 18.8 0.3 20.0 0.3 *1.7 *1.3

Uninsured 20.1 0.4 21.9 0.4 20.7 0.3 *1.8 *–1.2

Hawaii . . . . . . . . . . . . With private health insurance only 78.7 1.0 72.8 1.0 72.5 0.9 *–5.9 –0.3

With public coverage 13.7 0.7 18.2 0.9 19.6 0.8 *4.5 *1.4

Uninsured 7.6 0.6 9.0 0.5 8.0 0.5 *1.4 *–1.0

Idaho . . . . . . . . . . . . . With private health insurance only 65.7 1.0 63.0 0.9 62.1 1.1 *–2.7 –0.9

With public coverage 14.9 0.6 16.7 0.8 19.3 0.9 *1.8 *2.6

Uninsured 19.4 0.7 20.2 0.8 18.6 0.7 0.9 *–1.7

Illinois . . . . . . . . . . . . . With private health insurance only 68.8 0.4 64.6 0.3 64.7 0.3 *–4.2 0.1

With public coverage 17.4 0.2 19.9 0.3 20.8 0.2 *2.5 *0.9

Uninsured 13.9 0.3 15.5 0.2 14.5 0.2 *1.6 *–1.0

Indiana . . . . . . . . . . . . With private health insurance only 69.1 0.5 64.6 0.5 64.8 0.5 *–4.5 0.2

With public coverage 15.7 0.4 18.5 0.4 18.8 0.3 *2.8 0.3

Uninsured 15.2 0.4 16.9 0.4 16.4 0.4 *1.7 *–0.5

Iowa . . . . . . . . . . . . . . With private health insurance only 74.8 0.6 71.2 0.6 71.6 0.6 *–3.6 0.4

With public coverage 15.2 0.5 18.0 0.6 18.6 0.4 *2.8 0.6

Uninsured 10.0 0.4 10.8 0.4 9.8 0.4 *0.8 *–1.0

Kansas . . . . . . . . . . . . With private health insurance only 73.5 0.7 69.7 0.7 69.4 0.6 *–3.8 –0.3

With public coverage 13.5 0.5 14.4 0.5 16.1 0.4 *0.9 *1.7

Uninsured 13.0 0.5 15.9 0.5 14.4 0.4 *2.9 *–1.4

Kentucky . . . . . . . . . . With private health insurance only 63.1 0.6 59.8 0.7 60.9 0.6 *–3.4 *1.1

With public coverage 21.8 0.5 22.7 0.5 23.0 0.5 *0.9 0.3

Uninsured 15.1 0.4 17.5 0.4 16.1 0.4 *2.5 *–1.5

Louisiana . . . . . . . . . . With private health insurance only 57.5 0.6 54.5 0.6 55.0 0.5 *–3.0 0.5

With public coverage 23.3 0.5 25.3 0.5 25.8 0.5 *2.1 0.4

Uninsured 19.2 0.4 20.2 0.5 19.3 0.4 *1.0 *–0.9

See notes at end of table.
U.S. Census Bureau 7

Table 2.

Coverage by Type of Health Insurance by State—Con.

(Civilian noninstitutionalized population under age 65)

State Type

2008 2010 2012

Difference 

2008–

2010

Difference 

2010–

2012

Percent

Margin of 

error (±)1 Percent

Margin of 

error (±)1 Percent

Margin of 

error (±)1 Percent2 Percent2

Maine . . . . . . . . . . . . . With private health insurance only 63.7 1.0 61.9 0.9 60.2 1.0 *–1.8 *–1.6

With public coverage 24.2 0.9 26.2 0.8 27.5 1.0 *2.0 *1.3

Uninsured 12.2 0.6 12.0 0.6 12.3 0.6 –0.2 0.3

Maryland . . . . . . . . . . With private health insurance only 75.1 0.5 71.1 0.5 70.6 0.5 *–4.0 –0.5

With public coverage 12.9 0.4 16.3 0.5 17.8 0.4 *3.4 *1.5

Uninsured 12.0 0.3 12.6 0.3 11.7 0.3 *0.6 *–0.9

Massachusetts . . . . . . With private health insurance only 76.7 0.5 73.1 0.5 72.1 0.4 *–3.6 *–1.1

With public coverage 18.9 0.4 21.8 0.4 23.5 0.4 *2.9 *1.7

Uninsured 4.4 0.2 5.0 0.2 4.4 0.2 *0.6 *–0.6

Michigan . . . . . . . . . . With private health insurance only 67.9 0.4 62.8 0.4 63.4 0.4 *–5.0 *0.6

With public coverage 19.6 0.3 22.9 0.3 23.3 0.3 *3.3 0.4

Uninsured 12.5 0.2 14.3 0.2 13.3 0.2 *1.8 *–1.0

Minnesota . . . . . . . . . With private health insurance only 76.6 0.4 73.0 0.5 73.5 0.4 *–3.6 0.5

With public coverage 13.9 0.3 16.7 0.4 17.4 0.4 *2.8 *0.6

Uninsured 9.5 0.3 10.3 0.3 9.1 0.2 *0.8 *–1.2

Mississippi . . . . . . . . . With private health insurance only 56.2 0.8 52.2 0.9 52.0 0.7 *–3.9 –0.2

With public coverage 24.6 0.7 27.0 0.6 28.3 0.5 *2.4 *1.4

Uninsured 19.2 0.6 20.8 0.6 19.6 0.4 *1.5 *–1.2

Missouri . . . . . . . . . . . With private health insurance only 68.3 0.5 66.2 0.5 64.7 0.5 *–2.1 *–1.5

With public coverage 17.4 0.4 18.6 0.4 19.5 0.4 *1.2 *0.9

Uninsured 14.3 0.4 15.2 0.3 15.8 0.4 *0.9 *0.6

Montana . . . . . . . . . . . With private health insurance only 64.4 1.3 63.3 1.3 59.6 1.1 –1.2 *–3.7

With public coverage 15.3 0.8 16.5 1.0 19.2 0.9 1.1 *2.7

Uninsured 20.2 1.0 20.2 0.9 21.3 0.7 Z 1.0

Nebraska . . . . . . . . . . With private health insurance only 74.5 0.7 71.0 0.8 71.2 0.8 *–3.5 0.2

With public coverage 13.1 0.5 15.8 0.6 15.9 0.5 *2.6 0.1

Uninsured 12.3 0.6 13.2 0.4 12.9 0.5 *0.9 –0.3

Nevada . . . . . . . . . . . With private health insurance only 65.9 0.8 61.0 0.8 59.2 0.8 *–4.9 *–1.8

With public coverage 10.9 0.6 13.6 0.6 15.6 0.6 *2.7 *2.0

Uninsured 23.2 0.8 25.4 0.6 25.2 0.7 *2.2 –0.3

New Hampshire . . . . . With private health insurance only 76.1 0.9 73.7 1.1 72.9 1.1 *–2.5 –0.7

With public coverage 12.0 0.7 13.6 0.7 14.8 0.8 *1.6 *1.2

Uninsured 11.9 0.7 12.8 0.8 12.3 0.7 0.9 –0.4

New Jersey . . . . . . . . With private health insurance only 73.6 0.4 70.1 0.4 69.5 0.4 *–3.4 *–0.6

With public coverage 12.9 0.3 14.9 0.3 16.0 0.3 *2.0 *1.1

Uninsured 13.5 0.3 15.0 0.3 14.5 0.4 *1.4 *–0.5

New Mexico . . . . . . . . With private health insurance only 53.1 1.0 50.7 1.0 50.5 0.8 *–2.5 –0.2

With public coverage 23.3 0.8 26.9 0.8 28.3 0.7 *3.6 *1.4

Uninsured 23.6 0.7 22.4 0.8 21.2 0.6 *–1.2 *–1.2

New York . . . . . . . . . . With private health insurance only 66.2 0.3 63.1 0.3 62.5 0.2 *–3.2 *–0.5

With public coverage 20.8 0.2 23.4 0.3 25.0 0.2 *2.6 *1.6

Uninsured 13.0 0.2 13.5 0.2 12.5 0.2 *0.6 *–1.1

North Carolina . . . . . . With private health insurance only 64.1 0.4 60.4 0.4 59.2 0.4 *–3.8 *–1.2

With public coverage 18.4 0.3 20.5 0.3 21.7 0.3 *2.1 *1.3

Uninsured 17.5 0.3 19.1 0.3 19.1 0.3 *1.6 –0.1

North Dakota . . . . . . . With private health insurance only 76.3 1.2 76.6 1.2 77.1 1.0 0.2 0.5

With public coverage 12.0 0.9 12.1 0.9 11.4 0.7 0.1 –0.7

Uninsured 11.6 0.9 11.3 0.8 11.6 0.8 –0.3 0.3

Ohio . . . . . . . . . . . . . . With private health insurance only 70.3 0.3 66.0 0.3 65.2 0.4 *–4.3 *–0.7

With public coverage 16.7 0.3 19.8 0.3 21.4 0.3 *3.1 *1.6

Uninsured 13.0 0.3 14.2 0.3 13.3 0.2 *1.2 *–0.9

Oklahoma . . . . . . . . . With private health insurance only 59.5 0.7 57.3 0.6 56.9 0.4 *–2.1 –0.5

With public coverage 19.1 0.5 21.0 0.4 21.9 0.3 *1.9 *0.9

Uninsured 21.4 0.5 21.7 0.4 21.2 0.4 0.3 –0.5

Oregon . . . . . . . . . . . . With private health insurance only 67.7 0.7 62.7 0.7 61.6 0.6 *–5.0 *–1.0

With public coverage 14.2 0.5 17.6 0.5 20.9 0.5 *3.4 *3.4

Uninsured 18.1 0.5 19.8 0.5 17.4 0.5 *1.7 *–2.4

See notes at end of table.
8 U.S. Census Bureau

Table 2.

Coverage by Type of Health Insurance by State—Con.

(Civilian noninstitutionalized population under age 65)

State Type

2008 2010 2012

Difference 

2008–

2010

Difference 

2010–

2012

Percent

Margin of 

error (±)1 Percent

Margin of 

error (±)1 Percent

Margin of 

error (±)1 Percent2 Percent2

Pennsylvania . . . . . . . With private health insurance only 72.2 0.3 68.6 0.4 68.4 0.3 *–3.5 –0.2

With public coverage 17.3 0.3 19.5 0.3 20.2 0.3 *2.2 *0.6

Uninsured 10.5 0.2 11.9 0.2 11.5 0.2 *1.4 *–0.4

Rhode Island . . . . . . . With private health insurance only 70.6 1.1 66.9 1.3 67.3 1.2 *–3.7 0.4

With public coverage 17.7 1.0 19.1 1.0 19.9 1.0 1.4 0.7

Uninsured 11.7 0.8 14.0 0.8 12.9 0.7 *2.3 *–1.1

South Carolina . . . . . . With private health insurance only 61.9 0.6 58.7 0.7 57.8 0.7 *–3.2 –0.9

With public coverage 18.9 0.4 21.1 0.5 22.6 0.5 *2.2 *1.5

Uninsured 19.2 0.4 20.2 0.5 19.6 0.5 *1.0 –0.6

South Dakota . . . . . . . With private health insurance only 70.0 1.3 69.2 1.3 68.9 1.0 –0.8 –0.3

With public coverage 17.1 1.2 16.5 1.0 17.8 0.7 –0.6 *1.3

Uninsured 12.9 0.8 14.4 1.0 13.3 0.7 *1.5 –1.0

Tennessee . . . . . . . . . With private health insurance only 64.6 0.5 60.8 0.6 60.9 0.6 *–3.8 0.1

With public coverage 20.7 0.4 22.8 0.5 23.0 0.5 *2.1 0.2

Uninsured 14.8 0.4 16.5 0.4 16.1 0.4 *1.7 –0.4

Texas . . . . . . . . . . . . . With private health insurance only 57.6 0.2 54.7 0.3 54.7 0.3 *–2.9 0.1

With public coverage 16.7 0.2 19.1 0.2 20.3 0.2 *2.5 *1.1

Uninsured 25.7 0.2 26.2 0.2 25.0 0.2 *0.5 *–1.2

Utah . . . . . . . . . . . . . . With private health insurance only 73.1 0.7 70.3 0.7 71.2 0.7 *–2.8 0.9

With public coverage 10.6 0.5 12.9 0.6 12.9 0.5 *2.3 Z

Uninsured 16.4 0.6 16.8 0.6 15.9 0.5 0.4 *–0.9

Vermont . . . . . . . . . . . With private health insurance only 66.0 1.2 62.3 1.2 64.8 1.3 *–3.7 *2.5

With public coverage 24.0 1.1 28.4 1.1 27.6 1.2 *4.4 –0.7

Uninsured 10.1 0.7 9.4 0.8 7.6 0.6 –0.7 *–1.7

Virginia . . . . . . . . . . . . With private health insurance only 74.9 0.5 71.9 0.4 71.7 0.4 *–3.0 –0.1

With public coverage 12.0 0.3 13.4 0.3 14.0 0.3 *1.3 *0.6

Uninsured 13.1 0.3 14.7 0.3 14.3 0.3 *1.7 *–0.5

Washington . . . . . . . . With private health insurance only 69.2 0.5 65.4 0.4 65.4 0.5 *–3.8 Z

With public coverage 16.7 0.4 18.5 0.3 18.7 0.3 *1.8 0.3

Uninsured 14.1 0.3 16.1 0.4 15.9 0.3 *2.0 –0.3

West Virginia . . . . . . . With private health insurance only 59.1 1.0 58.0 1.2 58.2 0.9 –1.1 0.2

With public coverage 23.4 0.7 24.8 0.8 24.6 0.7 *1.3 –0.2

Uninsured 17.5 0.7 17.3 0.7 17.2 0.6 –0.2 Z

Wisconsin . . . . . . . . . With private health insurance only 74.1 0.5 69.0 0.5 69.4 0.4 *–5.1 0.4

With public coverage 15.9 0.4 20.2 0.4 20.3 0.4 *4.3 0.1

Uninsured 10.1 0.3 10.8 0.3 10.4 0.3 *0.7 *–0.5

Wyoming . . . . . . . . . . With private health insurance only 69.9 1.4 67.0 1.6 65.4 1.7 *–3.0 –1.5

With public coverage 14.6 1.1 16.1 1.2 17.1 1.2 1.5 0.9

Uninsured 15.5 1.0 16.9 1.2 17.5 1.1 1.4 0.6

* Statistically different from zero at the 90 percent confidence level.

Z Represents or rounds to zero. 1

 Data are based on a sample and are subject to sampling variability. A margin of error is a measure of an estimate’s variability. The larger the margin of error is 

in relation to the size of the estimate, the less reliable the estimate. This number when added to and subtracted from the estimate forms the 90 percent confidence 

interval. 2

 Differences are calculated with unrounded numbers, which may produce different results from using the rounded values in the table.

Sources: U.S. Census Bureau, 2008, 2010, and 2012 1-year American Community Surveys.
U.S. Census Bureau 9

Table 3.

Coverage by Type of Health Insurance by Metropolitan Area—Con.

(Civilian noninstitutionalized population under age 65)

Metropolitan area Type

2008 2010 2012

Difference 

2008–

2010

Difference 

2010–

2012

Percent

Margin of 

error (±)1 Percent

Margin of 

error (±)1 Percent

Margin of 

error (±)1 Percent2 Percent2

Atlanta-Sandy SpringsMarietta, GA . . . . . . . .With private health insurance only 66.7 0.6 63.0 0.6 63.3 0.6 *–3.7 0.3

With public coverage 13.8 0.4 15.4 0.4 16.5 0.4 *1.6 *1.0

Uninsured 19.5 0.5 21.6 0.5 20.2 0.5 *2.1 *–1.4

Baltimore-Towson, 

MD . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

With private health insurance only 74.9 0.7 71.2 0.8 71.1 0.8 *–3.7 Z

With public coverage 14.4 0.5 17.5 0.7 19.0 0.7 *3.1 *1.5

Uninsured 10.7 0.5 11.3 0.5 9.9 0.4 0.6 *–1.4

Boston-CambridgeQuincy, MA-NH . . . . . .With private health insurance only 78.6 0.6 75.8 0.6 74.8 0.5 *–2.8 *–0.9

With public coverage 16.5 0.5 18.6 0.6 20.3 0.5 *2.1 *1.7

Uninsured 4.9 0.3 5.6 0.3 4.8 0.2 *0.7 *–0.8

Chicago-JolietNaperville, IL-IN-WI . . .With private health insurance only 69.1 0.4 64.5 0.4 64.6 0.4 *–4.6 0.1

With public coverage 16.1 0.3 18.9 0.3 19.8 0.3 *2.8 *0.9

Uninsured 14.9 0.4 16.6 0.3 15.6 0.2 *1.8 *–1.0

Dallas-Fort WorthArlington, TX . . . . . . . .With private health insurance only 61.3 0.6 60.1 0.6 58.4 0.5 *–1.2 *–1.7

With public coverage 13.4 0.3 15.4 0.4 17.3 0.4 *2.0 *1.9

Uninsured 25.3 0.4 24.5 0.5 24.3 0.5 *–0.8 –0.3

Denver-AuroraBroomfield, CO . . . . . .With private health insurance only 71.1 0.6 68.2 0.8 66.9 0.8 *–3.0 *–1.3

With public coverage 10.9 0.4 14.4 0.6 16.6 0.7 *3.5 *2.2

Uninsured 18.0 0.6 17.4 0.7 16.5 0.7 –0.5 –0.9

Detroit-Warren-Livonia, 

MI . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

With private health insurance only 68.0 0.6 62.6 0.6 63.3 0.5 *–5.4 0.7

With public coverage 19.0 0.4 22.4 0.5 22.8 0.5 *3.5 0.3

Uninsured 13.0 0.3 15.0 0.4 13.9 0.3 *1.9 *–1.1

Houston-Sugar LandBaytown, TX . . . . . . . .With private health insurance only 59.2 0.6 55.2 0.6 55.3 0.6 *–4.0 0.2

With public coverage 14.6 0.4 17.5 0.4 19.2 0.4 *2.9 *1.7

Uninsured 26.2 0.5 27.3 0.5 25.4 0.5 *1.1 *–1.9

Los Angeles-Long 

Beach-Santa Ana, 

CA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

With private health insurance only 58.9 0.4 55.5 0.4 55.6 0.4 *–3.4 Z

With public coverage 18.4 0.3 19.8 0.3 21.1 0.3 *1.5 *1.3

Uninsured 22.7 0.3 24.6 0.3 23.3 0.2 *1.9 *–1.3

Miami-Fort LauderdalePompano Beach, FL . .With private health insurance only 58.9 0.6 52.4 0.7 52.0 0.6 *–6.5 –0.4

With public coverage 13.5 0.4 16.4 0.4 18.9 0.4 *2.8 *2.6

Uninsured 27.5 0.5 31.2 0.5 29.1 0.5 *3.7 *–2.2

Minneapolis-St. PaulBloomington, MN-WI . .With private health insurance only 78.7 0.6 74.4 0.6 75.5 0.5 *–4.3 *1.1

With public coverage 12.3 0.5 15.5 0.5 15.8 0.4 *3.2 0.3

Uninsured 9.0 0.4 10.1 0.4 8.8 0.4 *1.1 *–1.4

New York-Northern New 

Jersey-Long Island, 

NY-NJ-PA . . . . . . . . . . .

With private health insurance only 67.0 0.3 63.5 0.3 62.9 0.3 *–3.5 *–0.5

With public coverage 18.8 0.3 21.2 0.2 22.5 0.2 *2.4 *1.3

Uninsured 14.2 0.2 15.3 0.2 14.5 0.2 *1.1 *–0.8

Orlando-KissimmeeSanford, FL . . . . . . . . .With private health insurance only 64.4 1.2 59.7 0.9 58.0 1.0 *–4.7 *–1.7

With public coverage 12.6 0.6 16.8 0.7 18.8 0.7 *4.2 *2.0

Uninsured 23.0 1.0 23.5 0.7 23.2 0.7 0.5 –0.3

Philadelphia-CamdenWilmington, PA-NJDE-MD.............With private health insurance only 73.6 0.4 70.2 0.5 68.5 0.5 *–3.4 *–1.7

With public coverage 16.0 0.3 18.2 0.4 20.2 0.4 *2.2 *2.0

Uninsured 10.4 0.4 11.6 0.3 11.2 0.3 *1.2 –0.3

Phoenix-MesaGlendale, AZ . . . . . . . .With private health insurance only 62.1 0.6 59.3 0.7 59.4 0.7 *–2.8 0.1

With public coverage 17.6 0.6 21.4 0.6 20.8 0.5 *3.8 –0.6

Uninsured 20.3 0.5 19.3 0.5 19.8 0.5 *–1.0 0.5

Pittsburgh, PA . . . . . . . . With private health insurance only 72.6 0.8 71.2 0.8 71.9 0.7 *–1.4 0.7

With public coverage 17.9 0.6 18.9 0.7 18.6 0.6 *1.0 –0.3

Uninsured 9.5 0.5 9.9 0.4 9.5 0.3 0.4 –0.4

Portland-VancouverHillsboro, OR-WA . . . .With private health insurance only 72.5 0.9 66.9 0.9 67.2 0.7 *–5.5 0.3

With public coverage 12.6 0.7 15.9 0.6 17.5 0.5 *3.2 *1.6

Uninsured 14.9 0.6 17.2 0.7 15.3 0.6 *2.3 *–1.9

Riverside-San 

Bernardino-Ontario, 

CA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

With private health insurance only 58.4 0.7 53.5 0.7 52.4 0.7 *–4.9 *–1.1

With public coverage 19.6 0.6 22.9 0.5 24.8 0.5 *3.3 *1.9

Uninsured 21.9 0.6 23.6 0.5 22.8 0.6 *1.6 *–0.8

St. Louis, MO-IL . . . . . . . With private health insurance only 73.4 0.6 70.1 0.6 68.9 0.7 *–3.3 *–1.2

With public coverage 15.5 0.5 17.3 0.5 18.2 0.5 *1.8 *0.9

Uninsured 11.1 0.4 12.6 0.5 12.8 0.5 *1.5 0.3

See notes at end of table.
10 U.S. Census Bureau

Table 3.

Coverage by Type of Health Insurance by Metropolitan Area—Con.

(Civilian noninstitutionalized population under age 65)

Metropolitan area Type

2008 2010 2012

Difference 

2008–

2010

Difference 

2010–

2012

Percent

Margin of 

error (±)1 Percent

Margin of 

error (±)1 Percent

Margin of 

error (±)1 Percent2 Percent2

San Antonio-New 

Braunfels, TX . . . . . . . .

With private health insurance only 56.9 1.0 56.2 1.0 56.9 0.9 –0.6 0.6

With public coverage 20.7 0.8 21.6 0.7 21.9 0.7 1.0 0.3

Uninsured 22.5 0.8 22.1 0.8 21.2 0.7 –0.3 –0.9

San Diego-CarlsbadSan Marcos, CA . . . . .With private health insurance only 66.1 0.8 64.4 0.7 63.4 0.8 *–1.7 –1.0

With public coverage 14.9 0.6 16.0 0.6 17.5 0.6 *1.0 *1.5

Uninsured 19.0 0.6 19.6 0.6 19.1 0.7 0.6 –0.5

San Francisco-OaklandFremont, CA . . . . . . . .With private health insurance only 74.5 0.6 70.9 0.6 70.8 0.6 *–3.6 –0.2

With public coverage 13.2 0.4 15.2 0.5 16.1 0.5 *1.9 *0.9

Uninsured 12.2 0.5 13.9 0.4 13.2 0.4 *1.7 *–0.7

Seattle-TacomaBellevue, WA . . . . . . . .With private health insurance only 74.7 0.7 70.4 0.6 70.5 0.6 *–4.3 Z

With public coverage 13.1 0.4 15.0 0.5 15.0 0.4 *1.9 Z

Uninsured 12.2 0.4 14.6 0.5 14.5 0.5 *2.4 Z

Tampa-St. PetersburgClearwater, FL . . . . . . .With private health insurance only 62.1 0.8 57.7 0.9 56.8 0.8 *–4.4 –0.9

With public coverage 16.0 0.7 20.1 0.7 21.9 0.6 *4.1 *1.9

Uninsured 21.9 0.6 22.3 0.7 21.3 0.6 0.4 *–1.0

Washington-ArlingtonAlexandria, DC-VAMD-WV . . . . . . . . . . . .With private health insurance only 77.8 0.4 74.3 0.5 74.3 0.5 *–3.5 –0.1

With public coverage 10.3 0.3 12.3 0.3 13.1 0.3 *2.0 *0.8

Uninsured 12.0 0.3 13.4 0.3 12.7 0.3 *1.4 *–0.7

* Statistically different from zero at the 90 percent confidence level.

Z Represents or rounds to zero. 1

 Data are based on a sample and are subject to sampling variability. A margin of error is a measure of an estimate’s variability. The larger the margin of error is 

in relation to the size of the estimate, the less reliable the estimate. This number when added to and subtracted from the estimate forms the 90 percent confidence 

interval. 2

 Differences are calculated with unrounded numbers, which may produce different results from using the rounded values in the table.

Sources: U.S. Census Bureau, 2008, 2010, and 2012 1-year American Community Surveys.