Table 1.

Characteristics of the Study Population in 2005^†

	Intervention Groups			Comparison Group
	No-Coverage	$150-Cap	$350-Cap	No Cap
N(%)	3,939(11)	2,662(8)	19,014(54)	9,487(27)
Female (%)	55.4	62.3	62.1	52.5*
Age (%)
65<=age<=74	47.4	49.7	52.5	60.7*
75<=age<=84	44.3	40.6	39.3	34.1*
age>=85	8.3	9.7	8.2	5.3*
Whites (%)‡	93.0	96.0*	91.9	92.1
African Americans (%) ‡	5.2	2.4*	6.0	5.7
Below poverty line (%) ‡
<100%	10.6	11.1	10.1	9.9
between 100% and 200%	18.3	20.9*	17.2	16.9
>200%	71.2	68.0*	72.7	73.2
Urban (%) ‡	73.7*	57.7*	79.1	79.7
Diagnosed chronic conditions (%)
Hypertension	54.5*	62.8	62.6	61.2
Hyperlipidemia	48.2	55.7	57	60.4*
Diabetes	19.6*	22.5	22.3	23.3
Prospective Risk Scores§
2004	0.83±0.011	0.85±0.014	0.86±0.005	0.84±0.008
2005	0.92±0.012	0.95±0.016	0.94±0.006	0.92±0.009
2006	1.03±0.015	1.04±0.017	1.04±0.007	1.03±0.010
2007	1.15±0.017	1.19±0.020	1.18±0.008	1.14±0.011
Use of medical services in 2005
Emergency room visits (%)	26.8*	24.1	25.9	24.4
Hospitalizations (%)	18.5	16.8	18.3	17.1
Mean outpatient visits	23±0*	25±1	25±0	26±0
Mean outpatient costs	3498±93	3533±124	3741±47	3869±66
Mean medical costs	6000±187	5838±227*	6209±88	6267±130

Note:

^†These numbers are unweighted raw data. Plus-minus values are means±standard errors.

^*p<0.05. If * is indicated for the comparison group, it means the variable is statistically significant difference between each intervention group and the comparison group. If * is indicated for an intervention group, it means for that particular intervention group compared with the comparison group. We used chi-square tests for categorical variables and one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) test for continuous variables. Some percentages do not sum up to one because of rounding effects.

^‡These numbers are at zip-code level.

^§Prospective risk scores were calculated with the use of an algorithm that is described in the text, with higher scores indicating greater expected future medical spending.