Modified Adjusted Gross Income (MAGI) Income Conversion Methodologies. Section III: Methods that Account for Disregards Combined with Household Composition and Income Counting (HCIC) Methods

03/01/2013

The Department also considered a number of methods that adjust for the income counting and household composition differences between MAGI and gross income.  Key Disregard/HCIC methods examined were:

  • Same Number Net and MAGI (SNNM)
  • Average Difference
  • Marginal Difference

For each of these methods, the analytic approach is similar to that of the disregard only method, with the following exceptions:

Same Number Net and MAGI (SNNM) versus Same Number Net and Gross (SNNG):  Similar to the SNNG method, the SNNM method begins by estimating the number of individuals eligible in a particular state and category according to current income eligibility rules.  Then all individuals who fit into that eligibility category (using non-income criteria) are ranked from lowest to highest MAGI income.  The converted standard is set at the point at which the number of individuals eligible based on MAGI income is equal to the number of eligibles under the existing rules.

Average Difference versus Average Disregard:  The Average Difference Method takes the difference between MAGI income (calculated by accounting for household composition and income counting rules, as well as disregards)11 and net income for all eligible or enrolled individuals, and adds this average to the existing net income standard.   The method differs from the Average Disregard Method because the value added to the net standard is based on the difference between MAGI income (calculated as specified above) and net income, as opposed to the difference between gross and net income.

Marginal Difference versus Marginal Disregard:  Similar to the Marginal Disregard Method, the Marginal Difference Method computes the average disregard for individuals within an income band of 25 percentage points below the existing net standard and adds this average disregard to the existing net standard.  In addition, this method incorporates a mean-based adjustment for the average difference between MAGI income and gross income.  In contrast, the Marginal Disregard Method does not include an adjustment for the mean difference between MAGI and gross income.

After analysis of these methods, the Department decided not to incorporate an adjustment for MAGI income counting and household composition rules in its preferred methodology.  There were three main reasons for this decision:

  1. Little or no change in income:  While the household composition and income counting rules that will be used in January 2014 to determine Medicaid eligibility differ from current Medicaid rules, the analysis shows that gross income and MAGI income are the same for approximately 80% of low-income individuals. 
  2. Confidence Intervals:  The confidence intervals around the estimated adjustments for household composition and income counting are, for many states and eligibility categories, large enough that we cannot be confident the adjustment is significantly different from zero.  In other words, for many categories, the adjustment for household composition and income counting should be zero, meaning that there is no difference between the converted standard using disregards only and the standard that also adjusts for household composition and income counting.
  3. Accounting for Young Adults:  In some cases where it appears that the adjustments might make a difference, the results are extremely sensitive to assumptions about whether adult children will be claimed as tax dependents by their parents, and there are no reliable data to inform estimates about how many adult children are likely to be claimed. See Appendix 2 for additional discussion of the impact of MAGI household composition and income counting rules on income.

Another complication in adjusting the conversion methodology for MAGI rules regarding income counting and household composition is that such a methodology cannot be done using state data only.  Many state Medicaid and CHIP agencies do not collect or retain information on income that can be disaggregated into the components of MAGI, nor do they collect data on people who are not included in the household under current rules.  Therefore the Disregard/HCIC Methods can either be applied using SIPP data for all components, or taking a hybrid approach that uses state data for the disregard component, and SIPP data for the income counting and household composition components.  The Department preferred to recommend as the Standardized Methodology a method that could be applied using only state data, if a state so chose.

We provide the supporting analysis for each of these three points below.

1. Little or no change in income 

Table 2 below uses SIPP data to demonstrate the percentage of individuals whose income is affected by MAGI rules.  In all 16 categories examined, more people experience a decrease in income when applying the MAGI rules (see Column 1) than an increase in income (see Column 3).  However, depending on the eligibility category, 73 - 83% of individuals experience no change in income due to income counting and household composition rules (see Column 2).  A category-wide adjustment based on the mean change would affect all individuals in the category.  Because approximately 80% of the people in each category experience no change, the decision to include no adjustment for household composition and income counting rules better reflects the overall experience of the target population of each eligibility category.

TABLE 2: DIFFERENCE BETWEEN MAGI AND GROSS INCOME FOR VARIOUS ELIGIBILITY CATEGORIES, SIPP DATA

State

Eligibility Group

Negative Change

MAGI < Net

(% of people)

(1)

No Change

MAGI = Net

(% of people)

(2)

Positive Change

MAGI > Net

(% of people)
(3)

Average Change

(% of FPL)
 

(4)

 

Children under 1

15.9

78.4

5.7

2.29

 

Children 1-5

15.4

79.6

4.9

3.15

 

Children 6-18

14.6

73

12.4

15.56

 

Parents

16.7

79.6

3.7

-0.07

Arizona

CHIP

16.4

78.4

5.2

-0.33

 

Children under 1

19

78.3

2.7

-1.17

 

Children 1-5

18.7

79.8

1.5

-2.97

 

Children 6 -18

21.3

73.7

5

-1.49

 

Parents

21.3

75.2

3.5

-0.19

Nebraska

CHIP

22.8

73.9

3.3

-4.94

 

Children under 1

18

79.6

2.3

-2.04

 

Children 1-5

18.5

80.2

1.4

-2.87

 

Children 6-18

21.3

75

3.7

-2.61

 

Parents

18.7

77.6

3.7

-0.98

New York

CHIP

20.8

75.4

3.8

-4.19

West Virginia

Parents

14.6

83.1

2.3

0.54

Source: Analysis of SIPP data. 

2. Confidence Intervals

Table 3 below shows the average difference between MAGI and gross income with 95% confidence intervals for 22 eligibility categories.  A negative mean indicates that on average, MAGI income is lower than gross income; similarly, a positive mean indicates that on average, MAGI income is higher than gross income.


Table 3: Confidence Intervals (Note: The numbers for pregnant women assume that pregnant women are “not claimed” as tax dependents under MAGI.)


For 14 of the 22 eligibility categories, the confidence intervals around the mean encompass 0, meaning we cannot determine if MAGI income is significantly different from gross income. 

For 1 of the remaining 8 eligibility categories (Arizona Children 6-18), the mean is positive, indicating an adjustment for household composition and income counting rules would increase the converted standard.

For the 7 remaining eligibility categories, the average is negative, indicating that a mean-based adjustment for household composition and income counting rules would decrease the converted standard.  While the adjustment would be negative, the data in Table 4 show, for example, that among children’s groups with a significant negative adjustment, the overwhelming majority of children (close to 80%) experience either no change in income, or a positive change.  In fact, given these underlying trends in the data, it is not surprising that a median-based adjustment for MAGI rules would have been 0 for each eligibility category analyzed in Table 4.12

Another trend apparent in these data is that of the categories with a significant MAGI change, 6 of the 8 categories were children’s groups. For 5 of the 6 children’s groups the MAGI adjustment was negative, meaning a MAGI adjustment could lower the converted standard. Adjusting the converted standard downward for children’s groups is inconsistent with the intent of the statute, where children’s groups are specifically protected:

“The Secretary shall ensure that the income eligibility thresholds proposed to be established using modified adjusted gross income and household income, …and the methodologies and procedures proposed to be used to determine income eligibility, will not result in children who would have been eligible for medical assistance under the State plan or under a waiver of the plan on the date of enactment of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act no longer being eligible for such assistance.”13

Given that approximately 80% of children do not have a negative difference between MAGI income and gross income, a decision to adjust the converted standard for MAGI rules seems inconsistent with this section of the statute.  In the most extreme case, a downward adjustment for MAGI would lead to a converted standard that is lower than a state’s existing net income standard. This result is observed for the New York CHIP group.

Overall, household composition and income counting rules appear to affect less than one quarter of the eligible population.  Both the direction and magnitude of these changes are variable.  As such, a single adjustment for household composition and income counting rules at the eligibility category level does not accurately represent the income changes experienced by most people.

3. Accounting for Young Adults

Accounting for the impact of the presence of young adults on a household’s size and income poses particular challenges.  A methodology adjusting for young adults in the size and income of the household must rely on assumptions for which there are no data.  Two groups raise particular problems: students and young pregnant women.

Under current Medicaid eligibility rules, a parent’s income counts in determining the eligibility of 19 and 20 year-olds, even if the 19 or 20 year-old is not considered part of the parent’s household or tax unit.  For a young adult age 21 or older, the parent’s income is not counted for determining the young adult’s eligibility, even if the young adult lives with one or both parents.  Moreover, the young adult’s household size, which affects the Federal Poverty Level applied for determining eligibility, does not include the parents.  Similarly, for pregnant women under age 21, the parent’s income counts for determining eligibility, unless the state explicitly allows a disregard of parental income for pregnant minors under 21.

Under MAGI-based rules, however, individuals from age 19 up to (but not including) age 24 can be claimed as qualifying children if they are students, live at home for half the year, and have not provided more than half of their own support.  Older children can be claimed as qualifying relatives if they have income under $3800 per year and the parent provides at least half of their support.14  If a parent claims a young adult, the parent will be counted in determining the young adult’s household size, and the parent’s income will be counted for determining the young adult’s Medicaid eligibility.

Parental claiming of young adults for tax reasons, therefore, may lead to young adults not qualifying for Medicaid under MAGI-based rules, even though they qualified for Medicaid under current rules.  Excluding young adults from their parents’ household always lowers income for these young adults, but the effects of exclusion on the eligibility of other family members can vary.  Adding a young adult to the family unit increases family size, which increases eligibility if the young adult brings no income to the family unit.  However, if the young adult has earnings, the additional income may make the household ineligible.   

Estimates of the number of young adults who will be eligible for Medicaid in 2014 are extremely sensitive to assumptions about whether the young adults will be claimed as tax dependents by their parents.  However, the Department is unaware of any method to reliably estimate the extent to which these young adults will be claimed.  As a result, any adjustment for household composition is likely to introduce substantial error into the conversion process.

Because of the lack of data to support assumptions that are necessary to adjust a conversion methodology for the MAGI-based rules affecting household composition and income counting, as well as the likelihood of introducing error into the process, the Department decided against recommending any methodology that included such adjustments.

The Department’s decision to recommend the Marginal Disregard Method, with the margin defined as a band of 25 percentage points of FPL at or below the current net income standard, is supported by the data in Tables 4 and 5 below. 15    

Impact of Methodologies on Converted Standards:  Table 4 provides a comparison of the converted standards resulting from each of the six methods previously discussed.  For most of the 19 eligibility categories analyzed, the six converted standards are all within a range of 10 percentage points.  In a few cases, the range is much larger, while in others this range is much narrower, closer to five percentage points. 

A few trends merit particular attention.  First, based on analysis of a limited number of eligibility categories and states, the Marginal Disregard Method (MDM/25) with SIPP data is rarely more than 10 FPL percentage points removed from the original net standard.

Second, in 15 of the 19 eligibility categories in Table 4, the converted standards produced using the MDM/25 with SIPP data (column 2) are within five percentage points of the standard computed using the SNNM method (column 5).  The difference between these two methods is close to 11 percentage points for one of the remaining categories, and much larger for the three categories with the largest differences.  

The information used to rank individuals under the SNNM method (an individual’s net income and MAGI income) is the person-level information that is also used to assess the number of individuals gaining eligibility, the number losing eligibility, and the net change in eligibility reported in Table 5 (Comparison of Methods on Income Standards and Eligibility Categories).  Therefore, when the SNNM and MDM/25 methods produce similar converted standards, we would expect to observe a small net change in eligibility.  When the methods produce converted standards that are more varied, we would expect a larger net change in eligibility.  Even in the cases where the difference between these two methods is larger than five percentage points, the overall impact on eligibility is limited.   

Finally, Table 4 shows that converted standards using the SIPP sample are similar to the converted standards using state data.16

Table 4: Converted Threshold Comparisons by Method for Certain States
  Net Income Standard MDM 25 (SIPP Data) MDM 25 –(State Data) Same Number Net and Gross Same Number Net and MAGI MDM 25 – Full MAGI Average Disregard Method
Arizona: Kids <1 140 147.55 . 150.07 150.07 146.74 143.12
Arizona: Kids 1-5 133 139.38 . 140.42 142.7 140.76 136.22
Arizona: Kids 6-18 100 105.79 . 106.17 116.38 113.88 103.02
Arizona: CHIP 200 200 . 200 200.98 198.48 200
Arizona: Parents 100 105.56 106.3 105.77 103.74 102.66 104.89
Arizona: Pregnant 150 159.66   157.58 105.85 132.69 153.92
Nebraska: Kids <1 150 158.33 162.1 159.58 156.64 154.37 153.7
Nebraska: Kids 1-5 133 139.79 145.3 141.25 137.61 134.85 136.69
Nebraska: Kids 6-18 100 105.94 108.7 106.95 101.73 101.01 103.22
Nebraska: CHIP 200 208.17 . 209.23 203.8 201.87 207.41
Nebraska: Parents 50.3 55.41 . 54.41 50.74 49.88 55.92
Nebraska: Pregnant 185 196.31 199.1 199.75 163.96 180.24 191.32
New York: Kids <1 200 206.47 . 206.96 206.96 200.84 203.14
New York: Kids 1-5 133 138.64 . 139.69 136.5 134.1 136.18
New York: Kids 6-18 133 138.21 . 138.85 134.82 132.05 135.87
New York: CHIP 400 400 . 399.67 396.1 392.25 400
New York: Parent 87 86.92 . 87.31 85.44 83.53 88
New York: Pregnant 200 206.66   205.98 156.59 195.94 204.05
West Virginia: Parents (1931) 18 18.17 17.9 21.3 0.49 18.62 18.43
Source: Analysis of April 2010 SIPP data and analysis of selected state data

 

Impact on eligibilityTable 5 below provides a detailed assessment of the impact of each conversion method on eligibility, at both the individual level and in the aggregate (eligibility category) level. The table includes the converted standards produced using each of the previously discussed methods, and also reports the following information:

  • Number originally eligible
  • Number eligible after conversion
  • Number and percent losing eligibility
  • Number and percent gaining eligibility
  • Net change in eligibility
  • Percent (net) change in eligibility

Table 5 shows that for the MDM/25 using SIPP data (column 4), the percent change in eligibility reported for each category ranges from -5.01% to 11.06%.  Overall, for 7 of 19 categories, the percent change in absolute terms is below 1%.  In 12 of these 19 categories, the percent change is below 2%.  Of the remaining 7 categories, 3 have a change of less than 3%.  The estimates reported in Table 5 assume that pregnant women are claimed under MAGI, while tables and figures elsewhere in the report assume that pregnant women are not claimed.  

Overall, these data show that the MDM/25 using SIPP data produces a small change in the aggregate levels of eligibility.  Aggregate changes reported in this table are both positive and negative: in some cases the MDM/25 with SIPP data leads to an overall gain in eligibility, while in other instances this method leads to an overall reduction in eligibility.  However, while the rules for eligibility vary widely among categories and states, the magnitude and range of net eligibility changes introduced by the MDM/25 using SIPP data are relatively small.

Conclusion

n conducting this study, the Department examined alternative conversion methods in an attempt to identify a single method that could accurately convert each state’s current net income standards for Medicaid and CHIP to a MAGI-based equivalent, as required by the Affordable Care Act.  The Department determined that the MDM/25, using either state or SIPP data, is best suited for converting existing net income standards.  This methodology focuses on those individuals for whom disregards are most likely to affect their eligibility.  The Department also concluded that an adjustment for household composition and income counting rules would, for many eligibility categories, not significantly change the income standard resulting from the MDM/25.  More generally, the Department’s analysis indicated that such an adjustment might make the methodology less accurate than the MDM/25. 

While the Department recommends the MDM/25 as its Standardized MAGI Conversion Methodology, the CMS Guidance provides flexibility for states to develop an alternative method.  Because states have unique knowledge of their specific circumstances, the Department will consider for approval alternative methodologies that meet the criteria for evaluation that the Department applied in developing its recommended method.17

Table 5: Comparison of Methods on Income Standards and Eligibility Categories18

Eligibility Category (Net Standard)

SNNG (GROSS)

(1)

SNNG (MAGI) 
(2)

Marginal 25 - HCIC correction (3)

Marginal 25 – disregards

(4)

Average Disregard

(5)

State Marginal 25

(6)

Note: While this table reports FPL standards, West Virginia and Nebraska use fixed dollar categories to assess eligibility in the 1931 parent groups.  In practice, the FPL standards would be converted back to dollar values.

Additional Notes:  Asset tests are not applied.  Five percent disregard is not applied.  Young adults, age 19 and older, are not assumed to be claimed by parents for tax purposes.  Pregnant women, aged 19-20, are assumed to be claimed by their parents for purposes of taxes if they are students or have incomes less than $3800. This assumption surrounding claiming of pregnant women in Table 5 is different from the assumption used in the other tables of the report.  Other estimates and tables in the report assume that pregnant women are not claimed under MAGI.

Arizona: CHIP (200%)

Converted Standard

200

200.98

198.48

200

200

.

Weighted Population

217329

217329

217329

217329

217329

.

Number Originally Eligible

122530

122530

122530

122530

122530

.

Number Losing Eligibility

3798

3798

4551

3819

3819

.

Percent Losing Eligibility

3.10%

3.10%

3.71%

3.12%

3.12%

.

Number Gaining Eligibility

3529

3991

3485

3529

3529

.

Percent Gaining Eligibility

2.88%

3.26%

2.84%

2.88%

2.88%

.

Net Change in Eligibility

-270

193

-1066

-290

-290

.

Percent Change in Eligibility

-0.22%

0.16%

-0.87%

-0.24%

-0.24%

 
               

Arizona: Children 1-5 (133%)

Converted Standard

140.42

142.7

140.76

139.38

136.22

 

Weighted Population

536770

536770

536770

536770

536770

.

Number Originally Eligible

281415

281415

281415

281415

281415

.

Number Losing Eligibility

6681

5917

6536

6940

8459

.

Percent Losing Eligibility

2.37%

2.10%

2.32%

2.47%

3.01%

.

Number Gaining Eligibility

3863

5974

3878

1981

1427

.

Percent Gaining Eligibility

1.37%

2.12%

1.38%

0.70%

0.51%

.

Net Change in Eligibility

-2818

57

-2659

-4958

-7032

.

Percent Change in Eligibility

-1.00%

0.02%

-0.94%

-1.76%

-2.50%

 
               

Arizona Children 6-18 (100%)

Converted Standard

106.17

116.38

113.88

105.79

103.02

 

Weighted Population

1176629

1176629

1176629

1176629

1176629

.

Number Originally Eligible

482450

482450

482450

482450

482450

.

Number Losing Eligibility

39604

33863

34968

39604

42962

.

Percent Losing Eligibility

8.21%

7.02%

7.25%

8.21%

8.90%

.

Number Gaining Eligibility

15618

33978

28505

15445

11776

.

Percent Gaining Eligibility

3.24%

7.04%

5.91%

3.20%

2.44%

.

Net Change in Eligibility

-23986

116

-6463

-24159

-31186

.

Percent Change in Eligibility

-4.97%

0.02%

-1.34%

-5.01%

-6.46%

.

               

Arizona Children <1 (140%)

Converted Standard

150.07

150.07

146.74

147.55

143.12

.

Weighted Population

106130

106130

106130

106130

106130

.

Number Originally Eligible

60321

60321

60321

60321

60321

.

Number Losing Eligibility

1015

1015

1119

1080

1555

.

Percent Losing Eligibility

1.68%

1.68%

1.86%

1.79%

2.58%

.

Number Gaining Eligibility

1248

1248

407

716

407

.

Percent Gaining Eligibility

2.07%

2.07%

0.67%

1.19%

0.67%

.

Net Change in Eligibility

232

232

-713

-364

-1148

.

Percent Change in Eligibility

0.38%

0.38%

-1.18%

-0.60%

-1.90%

 
               

Arizona Parents, Expanded (100%)

Converted Standard

105.77

103.74

102.66

105.56

104.89

106.3

Weighted Population

1293698

1293698

1293698

1293698

1293698

1293698

Number Originally Eligible

427766

427766

427766

427766

427766

427766

Number Losing Eligibility

9124

10429

12672

9339

9681

9124

Percent Losing Eligibility

2.13%

2.44%

2.96%

2.18%

2.26%

2.13%

Number Gaining Eligibility

16008

10542

10149

15470

14110

16338

Percent Gaining Eligibility

3.74%

2.46%

2.37%

3.62%

3.30%

3.82%

Net Change in Eligibility

6884

113

-2523

6131

4430

7214

Percent Change in Eligibility

1.61%

0.03%

-0.59%

1.43%

1.04%

1.69%

               

Nebraska: CHIP (200%)

Converted Standard

209.23

203.8

201.87

208.17

207.41

 

Weighted Population

56608

56608

56608

56608

56608

.

Number Originally Eligible

34183

34183

34183

34183

34183

.

Number Losing Eligibility

426

1109

1533

509

672

.

Percent Losing Eligibility

1.25%

3.24%

4.48%

1.49%

1.97%

.

Number Gaining Eligibility

1445

1121

1000

1331

1260

.

Percent Gaining Eligibility

4.23%

3.28%

2.93%

3.89%

3.69%

.

Net Change in Eligibility

1019

12

-533

822

589

.

Percent Change in Eligibility

2.98%

0.04%

-1.56%

2.40%

1.72%

 
               

Nebraska Children 1-5 (133%)

Converted Standard

141.25

137.61

134.85

139.79

136.69

145.3

Weighted Population

129883

129883

129883

129883

129883

129883

Number Originally Eligible

45252

45252

45252

45252

45252

45252

Number Losing Eligibility

460

683

1436

536

917

138

Percent Losing Eligibility

1.02%

1.51%

3.17%

1.18%

2.03%

0.30%

Number Gaining Eligibility

1358

700

607

1090

651

2613

Percent Gaining Eligibility

3.00%

1.55%

1.34%

2.41%

1.44%

5.77%

Net Change in Eligibility

898

18

-828

555

-266

2475

Percent Change in Eligibility

1.98%

0.04%

-1.83%

1.23%

-0.59%

5.47%

               

Nebraska Children 6-18 (100%)

Converted Standard

106.95

101.73

101.01

105.94

103.22

108.7

Weighted Population

330571

330571

330571

330571

330571

330571

Number Originally Eligible

79474

79474

79474

79474

79474

79474

Number Losing Eligibility

2314

3943

4374

2681

3425

2034

Percent Losing Eligibility

2.91%

4.96%

5.50%

3.37%

4.31%

2.56%

Number Gaining Eligibility

4758

3969

3844

4649

4060

5281

Percent Gaining Eligibility

5.99%

4.99%

4.84%

5.85%

5.11%

6.64%

Net Change in Eligibility

2444

27

-530

1968

634

3246

Percent Change in Eligibility

3.08%

0.03%

-0.67%

2.48%

0.80%

4.08%

               

Nebraska Children <1 (150%)

Converted Standard

159.58

156.64

154.37

158.33

153.7

162.1

Weighted Population

25122

25122

25122

25122

25122

25122

Number Originally Eligible

10429

10429

10429

10429

10429

10429

Number Losing Eligibility

107

156

233

156

233

38

Percent Losing Eligibility

1.03%

1.50%

2.23%

1.50%

2.23%

0.36%

Number Gaining Eligibility

362

236

102

262

102

499

Percent Gaining Eligibility

3.47%

2.26%

0.98%

2.51%

0.98%

4.78%

Net Change in Eligibility

255

80

-131

106

-131

461

Percent Change in Eligibility

2.45%

0.77%

-1.26%

1.02%

-1.26%

4.42%

               

Nebraska Parents (50.3%)

Converted Standard

54.41

50.74

49.88

55.41

55.92

 

Weighted Population

349838

349838

349838

349838

349838

.

Number Originally Eligible

41784

41784

41784

41784

41784

.

Number Losing Eligibility

1609

2784

2841

1436

1426

.

Percent Losing Eligibility

3.85%

6.66%

6.80%

3.44%

3.41%

.

Number Gaining Eligibility

3604

2721

2606

3891

4043

.

Percent Gaining Eligibility

8.63%

6.51%

6.24%

9.31%

9.68%

.

Net Change in Eligibility

1996

-63

-235

2455

2617

.

Percent Change in Eligibility

4.78%

-0.15%

-0.56%

5.88%

6.26%

 
               

New York: CHIP (400%)

Converted Standard

399.67

396.1

392.25

400

400

.

Weighted Population

488444

488444

488444

488444

488444

.

Number Originally Eligible

429447

429447

429447

429447

429447

.

Number Losing Eligibility

1055

1473

3152

1055

1055

.

Percent Losing Eligibility

0.25%

0.34%

0.73%

0.25%

0.25%

.

Number Gaining Eligibility

1794

1794

1794

1794

1794

.

Percent Gaining Eligibility

0.42%

0.42%

0.42%

0.42%

0.42%

.

Net Change in Eligibility

739

320

-1358

739

739

.

Percent Change in Eligibility

0.17%

0.07%

-0.32%

0.17%

0.17%

 
               

New York: Children 1-5 (133%)

Converted Standard

139.69

136.5

134.1

138.64

136.18

.

Weighted Population

1272558

1272558

1272558

1272558

1272558

.

Number Originally Eligible

579891

579891

579891

579891

579891

.

Number Losing Eligibility

2148

4920

11688

2148

6770

.

Percent Losing Eligibility

0.37%

0.85%

2.02%

0.37%

1.17%

.

Number Gaining Eligibility

10763

5567

5320

7703

5429

.

Percent Gaining Eligibility

1.86%

0.96%

0.92%

1.33%

0.94%

.

Net Change in Eligibility

8616

646

-6368

5556

-1341

.

Percent Change in Eligibility

1.49%

0.11%

-1.10%

0.96%

-0.23%

 
               

New York: Children 6-18 (133%)

Converted Standard

138.85

134.82

132.05

138.21

135.87

.

Weighted Population

3115259

3115259

3115259

3115259

3115259

.

Number Originally Eligible

1223346

1223346

1223346

1223346

1223346

.

Number Losing Eligibility

13146

27250

37793

13370

26084

.

Percent Losing Eligibility

1.07%

2.23%

3.09%

1.09%

2.13%

.

Number Gaining Eligibility

36999

27801

26202

34859

28488

.

Percent Gaining Eligibility

3.02%

2.27%

2.14%

2.85%

2.33%

.

Net Change in Eligibility

23853

551

-11591

21489

2404

.

Percent Change in Eligibility

1.95%

0.05%

-0.95%

1.76%

0.20%

 
               

New York: Children <1 (200%)

Converted Standard

206.96

206.96

200.84

206.47

203.14

.

Weighted Population

248383

248383

248383

248383

248383

.

Number Originally Eligible

147682

147682

147682

147682

147682

.

Number Losing Eligibility

303

303

1010

303

471

.

Percent Losing Eligibility

0.21%

0.21%

0.68%

0.21%

0.32%

.

Number Gaining Eligibility

795

795

106

106

106

.

Percent Gaining Eligibility

0.54%

0.54%

0.07%

0.07%

0.07%

.

Net Change in Eligibility

493

493

-904

-196

-365

.

Percent Change in Eligibility

0.33%

0.33%

-0.61%

-0.13%

-0.25%

 
               

New York: Parents (87%)

Converted Standard

87.31

85.44

83.53

86.92

88

.

Weighted Population

4068108

4068108

4068108

4068108

4068108

.

Number Originally Eligible

1132154

1132154

1132154

1132154

1132154

.

Number Losing Eligibility

45648

49747

62276

48138

41950

.

Percent Losing Eligibility

4.03%

4.39%

5.50%

4.25%

3.71%

.

Number Gaining Eligibility

57011

49968

38281

53020

58785

.

Percent Gaining Eligibility

5.04%

4.41%

3.38%

4.68%

5.19%

.

Net Change in Eligibility

11363

221

-23995

4881

16834

.

Percent Change in Eligibility

1.00%

0.02%

-2.12%

0.43%

1.49%

 
               

West Virginia: Parents, 1931 (18%)

Converted Standard

21.3

0.49

18.62

18.17

18.43

17.9

Weighted Population

348792

348792

348792

348792

348792

348792

Number Originally Eligible

45540

45540

45540

45540

45540

45540

Number Losing Eligibility

1451

5572

1538

1550

1550

1554

Percent Losing Eligibility

3.19%

12.24%

3.38%

3.40%

3.40%

3.41%

Number Gaining Eligibility

7104

5581

6600

6587

6600

6515

Percent Gaining Eligibility

15.60%

12.26%

14.49%

14.46%

14.49%

14.31%

Net Change in Eligibility

5653

8

5062

5037

5050

4961

Percent Change in Eligibility

12.41%

0.02%

11.12%

11.06%

11.09%

10.89%

               

Arizona: Pregnant Women (150%)

Converted Standard

158.07

158.07

151.62

159.33

153.98

.

Weighted Population

48825

48825

48825

48825

48825

.

Number Originally Eligible

23146

23146

23146

23146

23146

.

Number Losing Eligibility

858

858

1217

858

1217

.

Percent Losing Eligibility

3.71%

3.71%

5.26%

3.71%

5.26%

.

Number Gaining Eligibility

887

887

717

887

717

.

Percent Gaining Eligibility

3.83%

3.83%

3.10%

3.83%

3.10%

.

Net Change in Eligibility

29

29

-499

29

-499

.

Percent Change in Eligibility

0.13%

0.13%

-2.16%

0.13%

-2.16%

 
               

Nebraska: Pregnant Women (185%)

Converted Standard

199.51

193.14

201.7

196.2

191.32

199.1

Weighted Population

14652

14652

14652

14652

14652

14652

Number Originally Eligible

6575

6575

6575

6575

6575

6575

Number Losing Eligibility

169

268

152

238

360

238

Percent Losing Eligibility

2.57%

4.08%

2.31%

3.62%

5.48%

3.62%

Number Gaining Eligibility

410

287

435

344

287

410

Percent Gaining Eligibility

6.24%

4.37%

6.62%

5.23%

4.37%

6.24%

Net Change in Eligibility

241

19

283

106

-73

173

Percent Change in Eligibility

3.67%

0.29%

4.30%

1.61%

-1.11%

2.63%

               

New York: Pregnant Women (200%)

Converted Standard

205.93

205.01

194.02

206.56

204.05

 

Weighted Population

158950

158950

158950

158950

158950

.

Number Originally Eligible

92579

92579

92579

92579

92579

.

Number Losing Eligibility

1913

3487

5633

1641

3621

.

Percent Losing Eligibility

2.07%

3.77%

6.08%

1.77%

3.91%

.

Number Gaining Eligibility

4059

4059

3446

4059

3446

.

Percent Gaining Eligibility

4.38%

4.38%

3.72%

4.38%

3.72%

.

Net Change in Eligibility

2145

571

-2187

2417

-175

.

Percent Change in Eligibility

2.32%

0.62%

-2.36%

2.61%

-0.19%

 

 

View full report

Preview
Download

"rb.pdf" (pdf, 747.87Kb)

Note: Documents in PDF format require the Adobe Acrobat Reader®. If you experience problems with PDF documents, please download the latest version of the Reader®