I have not seen anyone notice this yet, but perhaps it is just because I have obsessed over the pathetically bad Commonwealth Fund survey whose findings were demolished by the numbers in the October report (here and here). Well, it turns out, the October report actually proudly highlights the Commonwealth Funds report, and quotes this line from the Commonwealth Fund in Appendix D:
Of those who have visited the Marketplace, 21 percent enrolled in a plan.
WTF are you doing including this survey finding in a report that essentially makes a laughing stock of this very finding? Let's review what numbers we have in the October report:
- From our chart here, the people covered by a "clicked" plan (sorry, but that is their circumlocution, not mine) were 106,185 (note this is generous because it is not actual enrollments, which will be less)
- From the same chart, the people who were found eligible for Medicaid were 396, 261 (note this is generous as this is not actual enrollments, which will be less).
- Finally, from the same source are total web visitors times 1.78 family members per visitor (to make our ratio apples to apples) of 47,840,217. See here for further explanation of why this calculation is necessary
This gives us a percentage of web visitors of 1% that managed to do something kindof sortof close to enrollment.
This demonstrates just how insane the 21% figure is from the deeply flawed Commonwealth study. So why in the hell is the Obama Administration quoting it as authoritative in their report? Do they think anyone is dumb enough to use the 21% figure instead of the 1% figure? Is this just providing ammunition to political hacks who want to spin the story in Obama's favor? Did the Administration or possibly OFA actually pay for that study?
The only effect including that 21% number has on me is to say that Obama likely has a bigger problem -- If 21% of visitors THINK they enrolled and less than 1% actually did so, aren't a lot of people in for a rude shock?