A new federal database for the first time allows companies, consumers, health care analysts and others to compare health insurance costs among the nation’s largest cities and other geographical areas. This new metropolitan area data table developed by HHS’ Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ) provides comparable statistics on average annual costs for companies and workers contributing to private-sector health insurance.

The estimates, which are from AHRQ’s Medical Expenditure Panel Survey for 2004 – the most current data – show large geographical variations in how much Americans pay for family coverage and individual coverage as well as how much employers contribute to workers’ health insurance premiums.

Some highlights from the new data for the 20 largest metro areas:

For family health insurance plans, Seattle workers contributed the most (an average $3,299 per year). New York City-area workers contributed the least ($1,851).

Average total premiums for family coverage were highest in New York City ($11,244) and lowest ($8,521) in the Riverside, California metro area, which includes San Bernardino and Ontario.

For individual coverage, Boston workers paid the most ($867). Workers in Riverside paid the least ($449). Total premiums for single coverage were highest in San Francisco ($4,185) and lowest in Riverside, ($3,012).

The database also provides comparisons within states. For example, in the northern and central counties of New Jersey and part of the New Jersey shore, workers contributed an average of $1,676 for family coverage. But in areas of New Jersey further from New York City, such as Atlantic City and Camden, workers contributed an average $3,079 – 84 percent more.

This and other databases comprise a critical component of the HHS ‘Value-Driven Health Care’ program. Using this new AHRQ database, consumers, health care analysts and others will be able to compare and evaluate health insurance costs between the nation’s largest cities and other geographical areas and make informed decisions about coverage.

While the data is interesting, overall the adoption of Health Savings Accounts (HSAs) – a key element of the ‘Consumer Driven Health Care’ designed to reduce employer health coverage burdens – has slowed each of the last three years. Federal sloganeering can only do so much.