Healthcare policy in Idaho

in Idaho

Fiscal Budgets Idaho state budget and finances Tax policy in Idaho Finance Financial regulation in Idaho Pensions Public pensions in Idaho Pension health in Idaho Civil liberties Affirmative action in Idaho Campaign finance requirements in Idaho Campaign finance requirements for Idaho ballot measures Nonprofit regulation in Idaho Education Charter schools in Idaho Higher education in Idaho Public education in Idaho School choice in Idaho Elections Ballot access Ballot access requirements for political candidates in Idaho Ballot access requirements for political parties in Idaho Political parties in Idaho Ballot access requirements for presidential candidates in Idaho Redistricting in Idaho Voting in Idaho Energy and Environment Energy policy in Idaho Fracking in Idaho Oil and gas extraction on federal land in Idaho Endangered species in Idaho Environmental policy in Idaho Healthcare Healthcare policy in Idaho Medicaid spending in Idaho Effect of the Affordable Care Act in Idaho Immigration Immigration in Idaho

---

This article does not contain the most recently published data on this subject. If you would like to help our coverage grow, consider donating to Ballotpedia.

---

Healthcare policy in Idaho

State overview

State population: 1,591,700

Percent uninsured: 14%

Total healthcare spending: $8,738,582,000

Percent of gross state product: 16.3%

Total Medicaid spending: $1,451,713,522

Total Medicare spending: $1,749,126,000

Median annual income: $49,952

Average family premium: $14,036

Average employee contribution: $3,598

Percent of income: 7.2%

State healthcare policy

Alabama • Alaska • Arizona • Arkansas • California • Colorado • Connecticut • Delaware • Florida • Georgia • Hawaii • Idaho • Illinois • Indiana • Iowa • Kansas • Kentucky • Louisiana • Maine • Maryland • Massachusetts • Michigan • Minnesota • Mississippi • Missouri • Montana • Nebraska • Nevada • New Hampshire • New Jersey • New Mexico • New York • North Carolina • North Dakota • Ohio • Oklahoma • Oregon • Pennsylvania • Rhode Island • South Carolina • South Dakota • Tennessee • Texas • Utah • Vermont • Virginia • Washington • West Virginia • Wisconsin • Wyoming

Healthcare policy in the U.S. • Medicare • Medicaid • Obamacare overview

Years of data (most recent available as of August 2015): •2013: State population, percent uninsured, median annual income, average family premium, average employee contribution, and percent of income. •2012: Total Medicaid spending. •2009: Total healthcare spending, percent of gross state product, and total Medicare spending.

Healthcare policy in Idaho involves the creation and implementation of laws, rules, and regulations for managing the state's healthcare system. The healthcare system consists of services provided by medical professionals to diagnose, treat, and prevent mental and physical illness and injury. The system also encompasses a wide range of related sectors, such as insurance, pharmaceuticals and health information technology.

According to the National Conference of State Legislatures, the 50 state legislatures collectively "make thousands of health policy decisions each year," not including the decisions made by local governments, which often oversee hospitals, and private bodies, such as insurers. These decisions can include budget appropriations, requirements for doctors obtaining their licenses, which services are covered by insurance, how personal health information is managed, and which immunizations children must receive, among many others.^[1]

Healthcare policy affects not only the cost citizens must pay for care, but also their access to care and the quality of care received, which can influence their overall health. A top concern for policymakers is the rising cost of healthcare, which has placed an increasing strain on the disposable income of consumers as well as on state budgets.

Other issues in healthcare policy include

• state Medicaid expansion,
• health information technology and privacy,
• uninsured and underinsured portions of the population,
• a shortage of primary care physicians, and
• mental healthcare access and coverage.

Background

See also: History of healthcare policy in the United States

In the early years of the United States, healthcare was provided by wives and mothers in the home, with occasional home visits by doctors. Medical colleges were established starting in the late 1700s, providing formal scientific training and licensing to physicians. The role of doctors became more authoritative and pronounced with further advancements in science and the growth of cities, which were a health hazard due to poor sanitation and, consequently, disease.^[2][3][4]

In 1846 a group of physicians formed the American Medical Association (AMA) with the early mission of (and achievement of) state regulation of pharmaceuticals. As medicine grew more professionalized, private health insurance pools were established, and employers and unions began offering some medical benefits to workers. The model of payment known as "fee-for-service," in which doctors are paid for each treatment, test and office visit, emerged.^[2]

Though once housing primarily poor, terminally ill patients, hospitals evolved to more closely resemble the institutions they are today. This was in part due to the development of antiseptics—allowing for more sanitary treatment conditions—and better education of physicians. It was also partly due to their role in the development of employer-sponsored insurance by offering plans for public school teachers, which allowed them to go to hospitals for more routine treatments. The employer-sponsored insurance model spread during World War II, when government wage controls prompted employers to offer health benefits rather than higher salaries in order to attract workers. This model grew more popular after the war when payments by employers toward employee health insurance were made tax-exempt.^[2][5][6]

Throughout the mid-20th century, Congress established federal agencies dedicated to healthcare policy, including the National Institutes of Health and the Centers for Disease Control, the Food and Drug Administration, and the Department of Health and Human Services. The federal government also enacted a number of pieces of healthcare legislation during the second half of the century:

• Social Security Amendments of 1965, which established Medicare and Medicaid
• Health Maintenance Organization Act of 1973, which promoted prepaid group practice service plans known as health maintenance organizations (HMOs) as an alternative to fee-for-service plans
• Consolidated Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1985, which allowed employees to continue healthcare coverage if they would otherwise lose it (due to job loss, medical leave, etc.)
• Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996, which limited the extent to which insurance companies could exclude people with preexisting conditions
• Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act of 2010, known as Obamacare, which established health insurance exchanges and required all citizens to obtain health insurance

Though there have been steady calls for a national health insurance program since the early 1900s, no such measure has been adopted in the United States.^[2]

Today, the healthcare industry is an immense part of the nation's economy. Healthcare spending amounts to about one-sixth of the nation's gross domestic product and health expenditures account for about one-fourth to one-third of state budgets. Healthcare regulation and policy is complex, with nearly "every aspect of the field ... overseen by one regulatory body or another, and sometimes by several." Such regulations are enforced by federal, state and local governments, and even private organizations. The 2010 passage of Obamacare introduced experimentation and uncertainty into the industry, which will be watched closely over the next several years to gauge the lasting effects of its policies.^[1][7][8][9]

Back to top↑

General information

The tables below compare demographic and economic statistics for Idaho and surrounding states, since both factors significantly impact healthcare and healthcare policy. Also provided is general information on the insurance coverage of individuals in each state.

Demographics

See also: State population demographics by age and gender

A major concern for the healthcare industry is the shifting demographic makeup of the nation and its states. Different groups of people—such as men and women, for example—tend to use different health services.In particular, persons aged 65 and older comprise an increasing share of the total population, with that share expected to reach 20.2 percent by 2050. This trend has had a part in the increase in demand for healthcare services and the related increase in costs. It will also influence the federal budget, as more and more seniors join Medicare.^[10]

Idaho had a greater percentage of individuals age 18 and under than any of its neighboring states in 2013. It also had smaller percentages of its population that were between the ages of 19 and 64 and age 65 and above.^[11][12][13]

Age and gender demographics, 2013
State	Total residents	Children 0-18	Adults 19-64	65+	Male	Female
Idaho	1,591,700	29%	58%	13%	49%	51%
Montana	1,002,200	26%	59%	15%	50%	50%
Oregon	3,941,300	23%	61%	16%	50%	50%
Washington	6,862,300	25%	60%	15%	49%	51%
United States	313,395,400	25%	61%	14%	49%	51%
Source: The Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation, "State Health Facts"

Economic indicators

See also: Economic indicators by state

Broadly defined, a healthy economy is typically one that has a "stable and strong rate of economic growth" (gross state product, in this case) and low unemployment, among many other factors. The economic health of a state can significantly affect its healthcare costs, insurance coverage, access to care, and citizens' physical and mental health. For instance, during economic downturns, employers may reduce insurance coverage for employees, while those who are laid off may lose coverage altogether. Individuals also tend to spend less on non-urgent care or postpone visits to the doctor when times are hard. These changes in turn may affect the decisions made by policymakers as they react to shifts in the industry. Additionally, a person's socioeconomic status has profound effects on their access to care and the quality of care received.^[14][15][16]

In September 2014, Idaho had an unemployment rate of 4.5 percent, lowest among its neighboring states. In 2013, most residents in Idaho earned incomes between 200 and 399 percent above the federal poverty level, with a median annual income of $49,952.^{[17][18][19][20]}

Note: Gross state product (GSP) on its own is not necessarily an indicator of economic health; GSP may also be influenced by state population size. Many factors must be looked at together to assess state economic health.

Various economic indicators by state
State	Distribution of population by FPL* (2013)				Median annual income†	Unemployment rate		Total GSP (2013)‡
	Under 100%	100-199%	200-399%	400%+		Sept. 2013	Sept. 2014
Idaho	13%	25%	34%	29%	$49,952	6%	4.5%	$62,247
Montana	15%	19%	35%	31%	$43,924	5.6%	4.6%	$44,040
Oregon	15%	19%	31%	35%	$54,066	7.6%	7.1%	$219,590
Washington	12%	19%	28%	41%	$60,520	6.9%	5.7%	$408,049
United States	15%	19%	30%	36%	$52,047	7.2%	5.9%	$16,701,415
* Federal Poverty Level. "The U.S. Census Bureau's poverty threshold for a family with two adults and one child was $18,751 in 2013. This is the official measurement of poverty used by the Federal Government." † Median annual household income, 2011-2013. ‡ In millions of current dollars. "Gross State Product is a measurement of a state's output; it is the sum of value added from all industries in the state." Source: The Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation, "State Health Facts"

Insurance coverage

See also: Health insurance coverage by source

In general, employers have been the dominant source of health insurance for individuals since the late 1940s and 1950s. This can be at least partially attributed to the income tax exemption granted to employers for payments made toward health insurance for employees. The second major sources of health insurance are the state and federal governments, which jointly provide Medicaid for low-income individuals while the federal government sponsors Medicare for the elderly and disabled.^[21]

In 2013, half of Idaho residents were insured through their employers, the largest percentage among neighboring states. Idaho had the smallest percentage of residents insured through Medicare, and, along with Montana, the smallest percentage enrolled in Medicare.^[22]

Health insurance coverage by source, 2013
State	Employer	Other private	Medicaid	Medicare	Other public	Uninsured
Idaho	50%	9%	12%	13%	1%	14%
Montana	44%	N/A	12%	18%	4%	15%
Oregon	48%	6%	15%	16%	1%	13%
Washington	49%	7%	13%	15%	4%	11%
United States	48%	6%	16%	15%	2%	13%
Source: The Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation, "State Health Facts"

The 1980s saw a peak in the percentage of people who were receiving health coverage through their employers, with a continuous decline in the rate thereafter. A study by researchers at the University of Minnesota’s State Health Access Data Assistance Center, which was funded by the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation, found that despite the tax exemption, fewer employers are choosing to offer health coverage to their employees, and when it is offered, fewer employees are enrolling.^[21][23]

Between 2000 and 2012, the rate of employer-sponsored insurance declined by 8.9 percentage points. Meanwhile, the uninsured rate increased by 0.6 percentage points, a smaller increase than the nationwide rate. Click 'show' on the table below to view more comparisons.^[24]

Change in health insurance coverage by source, 2000-2012
State	Change (in percentage points)
	Medicaid enrollment	Employer-sponsored insurance	Medicare enrollment	Uninsured rate
Idaho	2.9	-8.9	4.7	0.6
Montana	2.3	-6	4.8	2.1
Oregon	0.4	-11.8	3	3.7
Washington	4.5	-5.3	1.6	0.5
United States	5.8	-10	2.2	2.3
Source: The Pew Charitable Trusts, "State Health Care Spending on Medicaid"

Back to top↑

Spending and costs

See also: Total healthcare spending by state

Healthcare spending and costs have become a top priority for both state and federal legislators amid growing concern from consumers and employers. Healthcare spending as a percentage of the national gross domestic product (GDP) increased from 5 percent in 1960 to reach 17.4 percent in 2009, or over one-sixth of the nation's economy, where it remained steady through 2013. Total healthcare spending in both the public and private sectors amounted to $2.9 trillion in 2013. Federal, state and local governments were responsible for about 43 percent of that spending. Projections have shown that if healthcare spending continues to increase at its current rate, it will reach 19.3 percent of GDP in 2023.^{[25][26][27][28]}

The rise in spending has been attributed partially to increased demand, but in large part to the increased price of delivering and receiving care.

“	Between January 1988 and January 2009, the consumer price index (CPI) rose 82 percent, while the medical component of CPI rose 175 percent.[29]	”
—National Conference of State Legislatures

Such costs mean less disposable income for consumers, greater expenses to hire new employees for employers, and difficulty writing budgets for lawmakers.^[30][31]

In 2009, the most recent year for which state-level data are available, total healthcare spending nationwide was $2.5 trillion. In Idaho, total healthcare spending amounted to $8.7 billion, 16.3 percent of gross state product (GSP). Total spending came out to about $5,658 per person, a lower amount than in any neighboring state. Between 1991 and 2009, per capita spending in Idaho increased at a higher average annual rate than its neighboring states.^[32][33][34]

Total healthcare spending*, 2009
State	Total health spending (in millions)	Percent of GSP	Health spending per capita	Avg. annual percent growth†
Idaho	$8,739	16.3%	$5,658	7.9%
Montana	$6,468	18.6%	$6,640	7%
Oregon	$25,155	14.7%	$6,580	7.5%
Washington	$45,246	13.6%	$6,782	7.3%
United States‡	$2,505,800	17.4%	$8,175	6.8%
* "Total Health Spending includes spending for all privately and publicly funded personal health care services and products (hospital care, physician services, nursing home care, prescription drugs, etc.) by state of residence. Hospital spending is included and reflects the total net revenue (gross charges less contractual adjustments, bad debts, and charity care)." † 1991–2009 ‡ Data come directly from the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, "NHE Summary including share of GDP, CY 1960-2013" Source: The Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation, "State Health Facts"

Healthcare spending trends in Idaho were roughly equal to the trends throughout the United States.^[35]

Back to top↑

Government spending

See also: Idaho state budget and finances

Medicaid and Medicare

Medicaid

See also: Medicaid spending in Idaho

During fiscal year 2012, combined federal and state spending for Medicaid, a government health insurance program primarily for low-income and disabled persons, was lower in Idaho than in its neighboring states, with the exception of Montana, totaling about $1.5 billion. Spending per enrollee amounted to $6,412, above only that of Washington. Between 2000 and 2012, Medicare spending in Idaho experienced greater growth than in neighboring states, rising by 88 percent. The percent of Idaho’s state budget dedicated to Medicaid was also greater than in any of its neighboring states, 27.2 percent.^{[36][37][38][39][40]}

Medicaid spending, fiscal year 2012
State	Total spending*†	Per enrollee*†	Total growth‡	Compound annual growth rate‡	Federal share*	State share*	Percent of state budget
Idaho	$1,451,713,522	$6,412	88%	5.4%	70%	30%	27.2%
Montana	$972,565,512	$8,840	67%	4.4%	68%	32%	16.8%
Oregon	$4,587,105,504	$7,314	66%	4.3%	63%	37%	18.2%
Washington	$7,560,049,390	$6,190	45%	3.1%	50%	50%	12.1%
United States	$415,154,234,831	$6,833	63%	4.1%	57%	43%	N/A
* "Expenditures do not include administrative costs, accounting adjustments, or the U.S. Territories." † Includes both state and federal expenditures. ‡ 2000–2012. Includes payments for services, administrative expenses, and DSH payments.

Acute care services are those that are typically provided within a short time frame, such as inpatient hospital stays, lab tests and prescription drugs. Long-term care services, on the other hand, are those provided over a long period of time, such as home care and mental health treatment. Disproportionate Share Hospital (DSH) payments are funds given to hospitals that tend to serve more low-income and uninsured patients than other hospitals. The bulk of Medicaid spending went towards acute care in Idaho. About 1.6 percent of Medicaid spending in Idaho went to DSH payments, a similar portion as in Montana and Oregon. The remaining 35.9 percent went toward long-term care services.^[41]

In 2010, there were 227,849 Idaho residents enrolled in Medicaid. The majority of spending, 67 percent, was on the elderly and disabled, who made up 25 percent of Medicaid enrollees. This is typical of most states, since this group of enrollees is "more likely to have complex health care needs that require costly acute and long-term care services," according to the Pew Charitable Trusts. The portion of Medicaid enrollees who are elderly and disabled is a factor taken under significant consideration when state lawmakers make appropriations for the program each year.^[42]

Distribution of Medicaid enrollment and payments, 2010
State	Enrollment rates			Payment for services
	Total	Elderly and disabled individuals	Parents and children	Total (in billions)	Elderly and disabled individuals	Parents and children
Idaho	227,849	25%	75%	$1.4	67%	33%
Montana	128,792	25%	75%	$0.9	65%	35%
Oregon	643,940	24%	76%	$3.9	64%	36%
Washington	1,352,939	22%	78%	$6.6	61%	39%
United States	66,390,642	24%	76%	$369.3	64%	36%
Source: The Pew Charitable Trusts, "State Health Care Spending on Medicaid"

Medicare

Medicare is a federal health insurance program for elderly persons over age 65 and younger individuals with certain disabilities. Medicare accounted for 14 percent of the federal budget in 2013. In 2009, the most recent year for which state spending data is available, total federal Medicare spending for enrollees in Idaho amounted to $1.7 billion. Between 1991 and 2009, total Medicare spending and per enrollee spending grew at higher rates in Idaho than in any of its neighboring states.^{[43][44][45][46]}

Medicare spending and growth, 2009
State	Total (in millions)	Average annual growth rate*	Per enrollee	Average annual growth rate*
Idaho	$1,749	9.8%	$7,880	6.8%
Montana	$1,247	7.9%	$7,576	6%
Oregon	$4,967	8.3%	$8,247	6.4%
Washington	$7,971	8.2%	$8,497	5.9%
United States	$471,260	8.0%	$10,362	6.4%
* 1991–2009 Source: The Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation, "State Health Facts"

In 2012, there were 242,889 individuals in Idaho enrolled in Medicare, or 15.3 percent of the state population. Aged beneficiaries made up 82.2 percent of the total number, while 17.8 percent were disabled.^[47][48][49]

Medicare beneficiaries, 2012
State	Number	Percent of population	Eligibility category
			Aged	Disabled
Idaho	242,889	15.3%	82.2%	17.8%
Montana	177,835	17.8%	83.1%	16.9%
Oregon	653,905	16.9%	83.4%	16.6%
Washington	1,029,529	15.1%	82.7%	17.3%
United States	49,435,610	16.0%	81.4%	18.6%
Source: The Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation, "State Health Facts"

Dual eligibility

Some individuals, such as low-income seniors, are eligible for both Medicare and Medicaid; these individuals are known as dual-eligible beneficiaries. For those enrolled in Medicare who are eligible, enrolling in Medicaid may provide some benefits not covered by Medicare, such as stays longer than 100 days at nursing facilities, prescription drugs, eyeglasses, and hearing aids. Medicaid may also be used to help pay for Medicare premiums. Total Medicaid spending for dual eligibles in Idaho amounted to $499 million. Most payments were made toward long-term care.^[50][51]

Medicaid spending for dual eligibles by service, fiscal year 2011 (in millions)
State	Medicare premiums	Acute care	Prescribed drugs	Long-term care	Total
Idaho	$40	$133	$10	$317	$499
Montana	$27	$71	$2	$299	$399
Oregon	$142	$300	$8	$1,094	$1,545
Washington	$308	$251	$27	$1,685	$2,271
United States	$13,489	$40,190	$1,462	$91,765	$146,906
Source: The Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation, "State Health Facts"

Back to top↑

Prison healthcare

See also: Prison healthcare

In 1976, the United States Supreme Court ruled that adequate healthcare for prisoners is a constitutional right and that the refusal to provide them with such violates the Eighth Amendment prohibiting cruel and unusual punishment. As such, state budget allocations for correctional facilities, like other healthcare expenditures, have continued to grow, especially as the prison population ages. Correctional healthcare spending nationwide totaled $7.7 billion in 2011, or $6,047 per inmate, which The Pew Charitable Trusts estimated to be about one-fifth of total prison spending. This was up from 2007, but down from a peak in 2009 as the average daily prison population decreased. States have experienced fiscal pressure to manage prison healthcare costs without compromising prisoners' right to quality care.^[52]

“	The manner in which states manage prison health care services that meet these legal requirements affects not only inmates' health, but also the public's health and safety and taxpayers' total corrections bill.[29]	”
—The Pew Charitable Trusts

The daily prison population rose by a greater percentage in Idaho than in any of its neighboring states from 2007 to 2011. Per enrollee spending grew by 8 percent to reach $4,891 in 2011, lowest among neighboring states. Idaho also had the smallest percentage of inmates that were age 55 and over in 2011, 6.5 percent.^[52]

State spending on prison healthcare
State	Category	2007	2008	2009	2010	2011	Percent change
Idaho	Total spending*	$21,515	$24,034	$25,086	$25,542	$25,232	17%
	Daily prison population	4,737	4,861	4,919	5,000	5,159	9%
	Per inmate spending	$4,542	$4,944	$5,100	$5,108	$4,891	8%
	Percent of inmates age 55+	N/A	5.4%	5.8%	6.2%	6.5%	20%
Montana	Total spending*	$19,721	$26,883	$27,315	$28,866	$29,284	48%
	Daily prison population	3,193	3,199	3,309	3,408	3,464	8%
	Per inmate spending	$6,176	$8,404	$8,255	$8,470	$8,454	37%
	Percent of inmates age 55+	9%	9.5%	10.2%	11.2%	12.7%	41%
Oregon	Total spending*	$80,778	$82,648	$100,872	$93,662	$103,836	29%
	Daily prison population	13,264	13,766	13,620	13,819	14,116	6%
	Per inmate spending	$6,090	$6,004	$7,406	$6,778	$7,356	21%
	Percent of inmates age 55+	10.7%	11.8%	12.7%	12.8%	13.8%	30%
Washington	Total spending*	$117,865	$140,581	$143,222	$128,503	$119,253	1%
	Daily prison population	16,108	16,280	16,564	16,995	16,997	6%
	Per inmate spending	$7,317	$8,635	$8,646	$7,561	$7,016	-4%
	Percent of inmates age 55+	N/A	N/A	N/A	N/A	N/A	N/A
* In thousands. Source: The Pew Charitable Trusts, "State Prison Health Care Spending"

State employees

See also: State employee health plans

State employee health insurance accounts for the second-largest portion of state healthcare spending, behind only Medicaid. The total cost of insurance for state workers was $30.7 billion nationwide in 2013, with $25.1 billion paid for by the states. Premium costs varied widely, with higher premiums found in states such as New Hampshire and Vermont compared to those in states like Arkansas and Mississippi. Part of this variation is due to demographic factors and provider prices, and part may be attributed to differences in health plan "richness," or the cost sharing between the insurer and health plan enrollees, such as deductibles and copayments.^[53]

“	State health plans were generally "rich," paying on average 92 percent of the typical enrollees’ health care costs. By way of context, these plans would be designated "platinum" plans within the new health insurance marketplaces.[29]	”
—The Pew Charitable Trusts

Several states are experimenting with various cost-containment methods. "Pooled public employee health benefit programs" are one such strategy, which are mergers between state employee health plans and those of other, smaller public employers, such as city governments and school districts. The idea is to save on administrative costs for insurers and leverage the larger pool to negotiate lower premium rates. Evidence of cost savings is mixed, with the smaller public employers reaping most of the benefits. Programs for pooling public employee health plans have been implemented in 31 states; as of December 2014, Idaho was not one of them.^[54]

Idaho is one of 20 states that "self-fund all of their health plan offerings," meaning that rather than purchasing insurance, the state pays health insurance claims with state and employee out-of-pocket insurance contributions while an insurer administers the benefits. As of 2013, there were 24 states offering plans with a $0 deductible; Idaho was not one of these states.^[53][54]

Net state employee health plan expenditures in Idaho totaled $168 million in 2013. From 2011 to 2013, Idaho’s state healthcare expenditures rose by 5 percent, the only increase in such expenditures among neighboring states.^[53]

Note: Due to such variations as demographics, plan richness and provider rates, "higher spending is not necessarily an indication of waste, and lower spending is not necessarily a sign of efficiency."^[53]

State employee health plan spending (in thousands)
State	Total state expenditures (gross)		Change	Total state expenditures (net)		Change
	2011	2013		2011	2013
Idaho	$176,243	$185,724	5%	$160,547	$168,004	5%
Montana	$125,260	$126,146	1%	$117,986	$114,348	-3%
Oregon	$749,358	$755,073	1%	$749,358	$717,319	-4%
Washington	$1,112,783	$1,131,014	2%	$982,450	$962,552	-2%
United States	$30,311,259	$30,692,147	1%	$25,263,863	$25,071,413	-1%
Note: "Gross expenditures include employer and employee premium contributions. Net expenditures include only employer premium contributions. All spending figures are in 2013 dollars." Source: The Pew Charitable Trusts, "State Employee Health Plan Spending"

Average annual health plan premiums for single coverage in Idaho were lowest among its neighboring states, while those for family coverage were second lowest. The state paid on average 90 percent of the premiums.^[53]

Average state employee health plan monthly premiums, 2013
State	Single			Family			Employer contribution percentage	Employee contribution percentage
	Total premium	Employer contribution	Employee contribution	Total premium	Employer contribution	Employee contribution
Idaho	$458	$421	$37	$1,063	$958	$105	90%	10%
Montana	$712	$733	-$21	$890	$733	$157	91%	9%
Oregon	$1,030	$978	$51	$1,366	$1,298	$68	95%	5%
Washington	$536	$459	$77	$1,187	$1,008	$179	85%	15%
United States	$570	$502	$68	$1,233	$1,004	$230	84%	16%
Note: "Due to rounding, the sum of employer and employee contributions may differ from total premium." Source: The Pew Charitable Trusts, "State Employee Health Plan Spending"

Back to top↑

Private insurance

See also: Private health insurance

Premiums

For private insurance, consumers typically either receive coverage through their employer or buy it on their own through the individual market. As healthcare costs have increased, so have insurance premiums. Between 2000 and 2014, insurance premiums for employer-sponsored plans, including state and local government plans, increased 144 percent for single coverage and 161 percent for family coverage. However, the rate of increase has slowed in more recent years. Between 2000 and 2007, premiums grew by 81 percent for single coverage and 88 percent for family coverage. Between 2007 and 2014, the rates of increase were 34.5 percent and 39 percent, respectively.^[55]

Employers have reacted to these costs in a number of ways, one of which has been to shift more responsibility for premium contributions to their employees. The portion of premiums paid by employees for single coverage has increased by four percentage points, from 14 percent to 18 percent, since 2000, and by three percentage points, from 26 percent to 29 percent, for family coverage. Average deductibles for employees have also risen, doubling from $584 to $1,135 between 2006 and 2013.^[55][56]

In Idaho's private, employer-based insurance market, average premiums for employer-sponsored coverage amounted to $5,019 for single coverage and $14,036 for family coverage. These figures were below national averages. Employees contributed about $975 per year for single coverage and $3,598 for family coverage. As shown in the bar chart above, premiums in Idaho's individual market were lower than any of its neighboring states, averaging at about $199 per month, or $2,387 per year.^[57][58][59]

Average annual premiums for private employer-based insurance, 2013
State	Single			Family
	Employee contribution	Employer contribution	Total	Employee contribution	Employer contribution	Total
Idaho	$975	$4,044	$5,019	$3,598	$10,438	$14,036
Montana	$882	$4,772	$5,654	$3,495	$11,657	$15,152
Oregon	$804	$4,645	$5,449	$4,327	$11,529	$15,856
Washington	$680	$5,010	$5,690	$3,930	$11,791	$15,721
United States	$1,170	$4,401	$5,571	$4,421	$11,608	$16,029
Note: "Figures may not sum exactly due to rounding." Source: The Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation, "State Health Facts"

In 2013, private sector employers in Idaho contributed on average 80.6 percent to single coverage premiums and 74.4 percent to family coverage premiums. Click on the table below to view further details and state comparisons.^[60][61]

Average annual premiums for private employer-based insurance, 2013 (percents)
State	Single			Family
	Employee contribution	Employer contribution	Total	Employee contribution	Employer contribution	Total
Idaho	19.4%	80.6%	100%	25.6%	74.4%	100%
Montana	15.6%	84.4%	100%	23.1%	76.9%	100%
Oregon	14.8%	85.2%	100%	27.3%	72.7%	100%
Washington	12%	88%	100%	25%	75%	100%
United States	21%	79%	100%	27.6%	72.4%	100%
Note: Percentages calculated by Ballotpedia. Source: The Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation, "State Health Facts"

Competitiveness

The Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation measured the competitiveness of the private health insurance market in 2013, using the Herfindahl-Hirschman Index (HHI) as an indicator. The HHI takes into account how much of a market is controlled by each of the companies competing within it (market share) and is expressed in a value between zero and 10,000. The lower the number, the more competitive the market. The analysis was divided into individual, small group and large group insurance markets. The data also includes information on the market share of the largest insurer in each state, as well as the number of insurers with a market share of greater than five percent.^{[62][63][64][65]}

Idaho’s individual, small group and large group health insurance markets were all less competitive than those in its neighboring states. Within the state, the large group market was the least competitive, with the largest insurer holding a market share of 67 percent.^[62][63][64]

Health insurance market competition, 2013
State	Individual			Small group			Large group
	HHI*	Market share of largest insurer	Insurers with >5% market share	HHI*	Market share of largest insurer	Insurers with >5% market share	HHI*	Market share of largest insurer	Insurers with >5% market share
Idaho	3,498	50%	3	3,614	49%	3	5,112	67%	2
Montana	2,781	36%	4	3,081	46%	4	4,574	60%	2
Oregon	1,779	31%	7	1,521	23%	6	2,537	41%	4
Washington	3,200	39%	3	2,415	37%	5	2,617	31%	3
United States	3,888	55%	3	3,841	57%	4	4,038	57%	4
* "The Herfindahl-Hirschman Index (HHI) is a measure of how evenly market share is distributed across insurers in the market. HHI values range from 0 to 10,000, with an HHI closer to zero indicating a more competitive market and closer to 10,000 indicating a less competitive market. An HHI index below 1,000 generally indicates a highly competitive market; an HHI between 1,000 and 1,500 indicates an unconcentrated market; a score between 1,500 and 2,500 indicates moderate concentration; and a value above 2,500 indicates a highly concentrated (uncompetitive) market." Source: The Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation, "State Health Facts"

Back to top↑

Other sectors

Pharmaceuticals

See also: Prescription drug sales by state

In the United States, there are more than 10,000 FDA-approved medicines available for doctors to prescribe or individuals to purchase over-the-counter. A major target of state healthcare cost-containment efforts is the price of these medicines. Prescription drugs generated a total of $259 billion in sales at retail pharmacies nationwide in 2014. Since generic drugs tend to be significantly less expensive than their brand name equivalents, all states allow pharmacists to dispense generics in place of brand name drugs for prescriptions. This practice is required in 13 states, except when a brand name drug is specifically ordered by a physician; this group of states does not include Idaho.^[66]

Additionally, state Medicaid programs typically take a number of steps to control spending on pharmaceuticals. Most common are establishing preferred drug lists, which are prescription drugs that are automatically covered by the program, and negotiating rebates with manufacturers for both brand name and generic drugs. Idaho's Medicaid program utilizes both of those strategies and is also part of a multi-state pool of states to enhance its buying power.^[67]

In 2014, retail sales of prescription drugs at pharmacies in Idaho amounted to $1.1 billion, with about 20 million drugs sold. On average, women and individuals over age 65 bought more prescription drugs than men and those under age 65. These totals do not include medications sold over-the-counter.^{[68][69][70][71]}

Prescription drugs filled at retail pharmacies, 2014
State	Total sales for retail Rx drugs	Total number retail Rx drugs	Number per capita by age			Number per capita by gender
			Ages 0-18	Ages 19-64	Ages 65+	Male	Female
Idaho	$1,128,452,081	19,858,568	3.4	13	27.1	9.7	14.9
Montana	$684,443,486	11,968,494	3.4	11.6	24.8	9.1	14.3
Oregon	$2,943,013,659	56,329,817	4	14.9	27.3	11.3	17.3
Washington	$4,620,217,239	91,965,000	3.8	14.1	26.4	10.5	16
United States	$259,092,876,285	4,002,661,750	4.1	12.6	27.9	10.4	14.9
Note: "These totals include prescriptions filled at pharmacies only and a small portion of over-the-counter medications and repackagers and exclude those filled by mail order." Source: The Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation, "State Health Facts"

Monitoring programs

States are also focusing on curbing prescription drug abuse and fraud as a method to contain costs.^[72]

“	According to the Coalition Against Insurance Fraud, prescription drug misuse, abuse and fraud cost private health insurers almost $25 billion a year.[29]	”
—National Conference of State Legislatures

Between 2004 and 2009, there was a documented increase of 98.4 percent in emergency room visits caused by such abuse and misuse of prescription drugs. As an effort to combat the rise in prescription drug abuse and fraud, all but two states have authorized the development of prescription drug databases that can monitor the dispensing of certain controlled substances. These programs have been bolstered by federal grants encouraging their implementation.^[72]

Florida has an operational prescription drug monitoring program that monitors the dispensing of Schedule II, Schedule III, Schedule IV and Schedule V drugs, as well as non-controlled, non-scheduled substances. Information must be reported weekly by pharmacies and practitioners that are authorized to dispense such drugs. Unlike in many states, there are no exemptions to this requirement. The law does not require patients to be notified of the monitoring program.^[73]

Right to try

Under the current model, access to experimental drugs by terminally ill patients is controlled by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), which must give its approval after it receives a form from a patient's physician. What are known as "right to try" laws aim to allow such patients to gain access to experimental drugs without the permission of the FDA. As of March 2016, 27 states in total had adopted right-to-try legislation. Idaho enacted a right-to-try law in March 2016.^[74][75]

Health information technology

Health information technology (IT) refers to electronic systems that manage, store and transmit health information, such as patient records. The adoption of modernized health IT has been promoted by the federal government as a way to increase quality while decreasing costs. For instance, the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 required most health providers to adopt electronic health records by 2015. However, the digitization of health data raises concerns about the privacy of such data, which could be vulnerable to a breach if not properly secured. Since 1996, health IT privacy and security has been governed by the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA), which required and set national standards for the confidentiality of patient information "when it is transferred, received, handled, or shared."^[76][77][78]

All-payer claims databases are one form of health IT that a growing number of states are implementing to track healthcare costs. All-payer claims databases are state systems for collecting data from public and private health insurance claims on demographics, types of services and total charges. According to the National Conference of State Legislatures, "the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services plans to build a nationwide all-payer claims database consisting of a representative sample of the population." All-payer claims databases exist in 17 states, while another 17 have demonstrated a "strong interest" in creating one. To view the status of such a program in Idaho, click here.^{[79][80][81][82]}

Back to top↑

Studies

Citizen health

Each year, the United Health Foundation releases a report titled "America's Health Rankings," which measures the overall health of the citizens in each state. The United Health Foundation is a nonprofit organization that "provides helpful information to support decisions that lead to better health outcomes and healthier communities." Factors taken into account for the report include the percentage of the state population that smokes tobacco, incidents of infectious diseases such as Salmonella, percent of the population uninsured, the number of primary care physicians, and the rate of infant mortality, among others.^[83][84]

In its 2014 report, Idaho ranked 18th in the nation, down from 12th in 2013 and 17th in 2012. According to the report, although Idaho had a low incidence of infectious disease, high per capita public health funding, and a low rate of preventable hospitalizations, the state also had an increase in obesity rates over the past year and low immunization coverage among teens.^[83]

Idaho ranked higher than Montana (22nd), but lower than its other neighboring states, Oregon (12th) and Washington (13th). To read the full report, click here.^[83]

Noteworthy events

2018

On January 5, 2018, Idaho Governor Butch Otter (R) issued Executive Order No. 2018-02, which authorized the state insurance department "to approve [health insurance] options that follow all State-based requirements, even if not all Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA) requirements are met, so long as the carrier offering the options also offers an exchange-certified alternative in Idaho." On February 14, 2018, Blue Cross of Idaho announced the introduction of five new health insurance plans that would meet state standards but would break with some federal requirements under the Affordable Care Act (including prohibitions against setting premiums based on the health of applicants and establishing annual coverage limits).^[85][86]

The legality of the order and its potential ramifications for other states' insurance markets were subject to debate. Nicholas Bagley, a law professor at the University of Michigan, said, "I'm completely flummoxed. Idaho appears to be claiming they do not have to adhere to federal law." Dean Cameron, director of the state's insurance department, said, "We have tried to do everything we can to adhere to and follow the requirements [of the Affordable Care Act]. I recognize we are pushing the envelope a bit. We think this is what is needed." Christopher Condeluci, an attorney who served as tax and benefits counsel to the United States Senate Finance Committee, said, "If [the Department of Health and Human Services] does not go in and enforce the federal floor ... then Idaho can do whatever it wants. Any other state can do whatever it wants." Robert Laszewski, a former insurance industry executive, said, "If I were running an insurance company, there's no way I would stick my neck out until the high court has ruled in favor of this — and they're not going to."^[87][88]

In a letter addressed to Otter and Cameron dated March 8, 2018, Seema Verma, administrator for the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, indicated that Executive Order No. 2018-02 violated federal law. Verma wrote, "The [Trump] Administration recognizes and supports the fundamental role states play in regulating insurance. We further recognize that states face unique challenges in repairing the individual health insurance market and we are committed to working with states to provide flexibility to do so. However, the PPACA remains the law and we have a duty to enforce and uphold the law." Verma also suggested that the proposed state-based plans "could be legally offered under the PHS Act exception for short-term, limited-duration plans." In response to Verma's letter, Otter said, "The letter from C.M.S. Administrator Verma was not a rejection of our approach to providing more affordable health insurance options for the people of Idaho. Her letter made it clear that Idaho’s efforts to pursue innovative alternatives hold great promise, and we believe that Idaho’s plan aligns with the State’s responsibility for ‘substantially enforcing’ Obamacare. In fact, we consider the letter an invitation from C.M.S. to continue discussing the specifics."^[89][90]

Recent legislation

The following is a list of recent healthcare policy bills that have been introduced in or passed by the Idaho state legislature. To learn more about each of these bills, click the bill title. This information is provided by BillTrack50 and LegiScan.

Note: Due to the nature of the sorting process used to generate this list, some results may not be relevant to the topic. If no bills are displayed below, then no legislation pertaining to this topic has been introduced in the legislature recently.

Ballot measures

Voting on Healthcare
Ballot Measures
By state
By year
Not on ballot
Local Measures

See also: Healthcare on the ballot and List of Idaho ballot measures

Ballotpedia has tracked the following ballot measures relating to healthcare matters in Idaho.

1. Idaho Public Hospital Financing, SJR 111 (1996)
2. Idaho Hospital Debt, HJR 4 (2010)
3. Idaho Repeals Section on Insane Asylum, HJR 5 (1930)
4. Idaho Senior Citizens Grants Act, Initiative 1 (1942)
5. Idaho Empower Health Facilities to Finance Health Facilities, SJR 110 (1978)
6. Idaho Empower Health Facilities, HJR 12 (1980)
7. Idaho Denturitry Practice and Licensing Initiative, Initiative 2 (1982)
8. Idaho Proposition 2, Medicaid Expansion Initiative (2018)

Recent news

The link below is to the most recent stories in a Google news search for the terms Idaho healthcare. These results are automatically generated from Google. Ballotpedia does not curate or endorse these articles.

See also

• 

  Medicaid spending in Idaho

• 

  Effect of the Affordable Care Act in Idaho

• 

  U.S. Department of Health and Human Services

External links

• Idaho Department of Health and Welfare
• Idaho Department of Insurance
• Your Health Idaho
• The Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation
• National Conference of State Legislatures, Health
• Health Affairs

Additional reading

• The Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation, "Health Care Costs: A Primer"
• Deloitte Center for Health Solutions, "Dig deep: Impacts and implications of rising out-of-pocket health care costs"
• The Pew Charitable Trusts, "State Health Care Spending Project Reports"

  Back to top↑

Footnotes

	v • e State of Idaho Boise (capital)
Elections	What's on my ballot? | Elections in 2024 | How to vote | How to run for office | Ballot measures
Government	Who represents me? | U.S. President | U.S. Congress | Federal courts | State executives | State legislature | State and local courts | Counties | Cities | School districts | Public policy

v • e Ballotpedia About Overview • What people are saying • Support Ballotpedia • Contact • Contribute • Job opportunities Executive: Leslie Graves, President • Gwen Beattie, Chief Operating Officer Communications: Alison Graves • Carley Allensworth • Abigail Campbell • Sarah Groat • Dillon Redmond • Erica Shumaker External Relations: Andrew Heath • Moira Delaney • Hannah Nelson • Michelle Robinson Operations: Meghann Olshefski • Amanda Herbert • Mandy Morris • Caroline Presnell • Kelly Rindfleisch Policy: Molly Byrne • Jon Dunn • Jacob Hupp • Jimmy McAllister • Annelise Reinwald Content Strategy: Josh Altic Tech: Matt Latourelle • Ryan Burch • Kirsten Corrao • Beth Dellea • Travis Eden • Tate Kamish • Margaret Kearney • Eric Lotto • Trevor Pollo • Joseph Sanchez Contributors: Scott Rasmussen Editorial Content Geoff Pallay, Director of Editorial Content and Editor-in-Chief • Ken Carbullido, Vice President of Election Product and Technology Strategy • Daniel Anderson, Managing Editor • Ryan Byrne, Managing Editor • Cory Eucalitto, Managing Editor • Mandy Gillip, Managing Editor • Doug Kronaizl, Local Elections Project Manager • Jaclyn Beran • Marielle Bricker • Joseph Brusgard • Emma Burlingame • Kelly Coyle • Thomas Ellis • Nicole Fisher • Brianna Galatioto • Joseph Greaney • Thomas Grobben • Jaime Healy-Plotkin • Tyler King • Glorie Martinez • Roneka Matheny • Nathan Maxwell • Ellie Mikus • Jackie Mitchell • Ellen Morrissey • Mackenzie Murphy • Kaley Platek • Samantha Post • Adam Powell • Ethan Rice • Spencer Richardson • Victoria Rose • Briana Ryan • Myj Saintyl • Maddy Salucka • Maddie Sinclair Johnson • Abbey Smith • Janie Valentine • Joel Williams • Samuel Wonacott • Trenton Woodcox • Mercedes Yanora