State Insurance Market Report 2026
Compare the demographic inputs, inspect the assumptions, and build an evidence checklist for a state-level insurance lead campaign.
Originally published January 2026 · Input snapshot retained from April 2026 · Methodology clarified October 30, 2026
How should an insurance agency choose a state to test?
Use demographics to form a shortlist, then verify the current source data, the product and geography you can serve, an actual lead quote, and a comparable campaign outcome cohort. A demographic score cannot establish available lead volume, producer competition, cost per acquisition, or return on investment.
- 50-state inputs: retained snapshot; row-level release dates not independently reverified
- Scenario scores: fixed formulas, not observed agent counts or lead prices
- Buying decision: verify the quote, contact rules, and a comparable measured cohort
- Download: blank validation worksheet with a clearly synthetic calculation example
What this report can tell you
An agency comparing states needs to separate three things: demographic context, assumptions used to screen that context, and outcomes from an actual campaign. This page makes those boundaries explicit. It does not supply a verified state ranking, a licensed-producer census, an available-lead inventory, or a measured lead-price index.
The earlier report described its density and cost columns as license-derived and based on observed campaign economics. The displayed calculation uses only demographic inputs and fixed weights. Those descriptions were unsupported by the calculation and have been corrected. Earlier national totals, regional demand ratings, and state performance narratives are withheld from this version pending source and method verification.
The practical deliverable is a repeatable way to challenge a shortlist: inspect the inputs and formula, record the evidence still missing, then compare a real campaign with the same product, format, geography, and observation window.
Inputs, formulas & limits
The calculations below use the same retained inputs shown in the demographic table. Income is in dollars; senior and uninsured shares enter the formulas as fractions (17% becomes 0.17). Population strings ending in M or K are expanded to persons. clamp(x, low, high) limits a result to the stated range. No campaign records or producer-license counts enter these formulas.
1. Senior-share scenario
senior share × 0.88
The 0.88 multiplier is a fixed illustrative assumption, not a verified enrollment rate. The displayed result is rounded to one decimal percentage point. It is not a Medicare beneficiary count, eligibility estimate, or enrollment share; it excludes any independent evidence about beneficiaries below age 65.
2. Density scenario score — unitless
clamp(22 + ((income − 74,000) / 50,000) × 3 + (senior share − 0.17) × 40 + (population < 2,000,000 ? 4 : 0), 14, 38)
Rounded to one decimal. The baseline 22, adjustments, threshold, and bounds are chosen assumptions. The result is not agents per 10,000 people, is not derived from NAIC license observations, and cannot establish low competition. Its value is showing exactly how the assumptions affect a score.
3. Cost scenario score — unitless
round(clamp(100 + (income − 74,000) / 1,500 + (senior share − 0.17) × 200 + (uninsured share > 0.12 ? −8 : 0), 72, 138))
The reference 100 is chosen; it is not a measured or population-weighted national average. The formula contains no cost per lead, cost per acquisition, close rate, or quote. A score of 120 does not mean leads cost 20% more. Higher income and senior share increase this score because the formula says so, not because this page demonstrates that relationship in observed prices.
4. Rules-based product lens
Apply these rules in order, stopping at the first match: senior share at least 19% → Medicare / Final Expense; otherwise uninsured share at least 12% → ACA / Health; otherwise senior share at least 17% → Medicare Advantage; otherwise homeownership at least 72% → Home / Life; otherwise Multi-line. This is an illustrative classification, not measured demand or an exclusive product recommendation. A state may have several relevant products.
Limits: fixed weights are not fitted or validated against outcomes; rounded inputs limit precision; state averages hide local variation; vintage and coverage must be checked before combining public releases. An uninsured population is not automatically eligible, reachable, or interested in a specific product. A senior population is not a purchased-lead count.
Retained 50-state input snapshot
Historical reference only. Row-level source releases and dates are not independently reverified. These values are not newly collected 2026 data. Search or sort to inspect the retained inputs; state links lead to the existing local lead pages.
| Alabama | 5.1M | $54,943 | 17.7% | 9.1% | 69.4% | 2.1 |
| Alaska | 733K | $77,790 | 13.9% | 12.6% | 64.2% | 2.0 |
| Arizona | 7.4M | $65,913 | 18.4% | 9.8% | 65.8% | 1.9 |
| Arkansas | 3.0M | $52,528 | 17.8% | 8.4% | 66.2% | 2.2 |
| California | 39.0M | $84,907 | 15.2% | 6.8% | 55.5% | 1.8 |
| Colorado | 5.9M | $80,184 | 15.2% | 7.1% | 65.2% | 2.0 |
| Connecticut | 3.6M | $83,771 | 18.0% | 4.8% | 66.1% | 1.9 |
| Delaware | 1.0M | $72,724 | 19.6% | 5.7% | 70.2% | 2.0 |
| Florida | 22.6M | $63,062 | 21.3% | 11.3% | 67.0% | 1.8 |
| Georgia | 11.0M | $65,030 | 14.7% | 12.4% | 64.3% | 1.9 |
| Hawaii | 1.4M | $84,857 | 19.2% | 3.8% | 60.5% | 1.7 |
| Idaho | 1.9M | $65,988 | 16.5% | 9.5% | 71.7% | 2.2 |
| Illinois | 12.5M | $72,205 | 16.6% | 6.4% | 66.3% | 1.8 |
| Indiana | 6.8M | $61,944 | 16.4% | 7.6% | 69.8% | 2.1 |
| Iowa | 3.2M | $65,573 | 18.0% | 4.7% | 71.1% | 2.1 |
| Kansas | 2.9M | $64,521 | 16.6% | 8.5% | 67.0% | 2.2 |
| Kentucky | 4.5M | $55,573 | 17.5% | 5.3% | 67.5% | 2.1 |
| Louisiana | 4.6M | $52,087 | 16.4% | 8.0% | 66.6% | 2.0 |
| Maine | 1.4M | $64,767 | 22.0% | 6.0% | 73.3% | 2.0 |
| Maryland | 6.2M | $90,203 | 16.2% | 5.8% | 66.9% | 1.9 |
| Massachusetts | 7.0M | $89,645 | 17.5% | 2.9% | 62.3% | 1.7 |
| Michigan | 10.0M | $63,498 | 18.1% | 5.4% | 72.5% | 2.0 |
| Minnesota | 5.7M | $77,706 | 16.7% | 4.4% | 71.6% | 2.0 |
| Mississippi | 2.9M | $48,610 | 16.7% | 11.0% | 66.2% | 2.0 |
| Missouri | 6.2M | $61,043 | 17.4% | 9.0% | 67.2% | 2.1 |
| Montana | 1.1M | $63,249 | 19.3% | 8.0% | 68.4% | 2.2 |
| Nebraska | 2.0M | $66,644 | 16.5% | 7.3% | 66.8% | 2.1 |
| Nevada | 3.2M | $65,686 | 16.8% | 10.4% | 56.5% | 1.8 |
| New Hampshire | 1.4M | $83,449 | 19.5% | 5.6% | 71.0% | 2.1 |
| New Jersey | 9.3M | $85,751 | 17.0% | 7.5% | 63.8% | 1.8 |
| New Mexico | 2.1M | $53,992 | 18.4% | 10.3% | 67.5% | 1.9 |
| New York | 19.6M | $74,314 | 17.3% | 5.2% | 54.1% | 1.4 |
| North Carolina | 10.7M | $64,730 | 17.0% | 9.6% | 65.5% | 2.0 |
| North Dakota | 780K | $68,131 | 16.4% | 7.8% | 62.5% | 2.2 |
| Ohio | 11.8M | $59,855 | 18.0% | 6.0% | 66.3% | 2.0 |
| Oklahoma | 4.0M | $55,826 | 16.3% | 13.4% | 66.2% | 2.2 |
| Oregon | 4.2M | $71,562 | 18.2% | 5.8% | 62.0% | 1.9 |
| Pennsylvania | 12.9M | $67,587 | 19.1% | 5.5% | 69.0% | 1.9 |
| Rhode Island | 1.1M | $71,169 | 18.2% | 3.9% | 61.4% | 1.7 |
| South Carolina | 5.3M | $59,318 | 18.8% | 10.1% | 69.0% | 2.0 |
| South Dakota | 910K | $63,920 | 17.6% | 9.5% | 67.8% | 2.2 |
| Tennessee | 7.1M | $59,695 | 17.1% | 9.5% | 67.0% | 2.1 |
| Texas | 30.5M | $67,321 | 13.1% | 16.6% | 62.3% | 2.0 |
| Utah | 3.4M | $78,268 | 11.9% | 8.6% | 70.0% | 2.3 |
| Vermont | 647K | $63,477 | 21.4% | 4.0% | 72.6% | 2.1 |
| Virginia | 8.6M | $80,963 | 16.3% | 7.0% | 66.2% | 2.0 |
| Washington | 7.8M | $82,324 | 16.1% | 5.7% | 63.0% | 1.9 |
| West Virginia | 1.8M | $50,884 | 20.9% | 5.8% | 72.3% | 2.1 |
| Wisconsin | 5.9M | $67,125 | 18.0% | 5.0% | 67.0% | 2.0 |
| Wyoming | 577K | $65,003 | 17.6% | 11.1% | 70.1% | 2.3 |
Illustrative scenario outputs
Calculated from the retained snapshot using the formulas above. The scores are unitless assumptions, not verified market measurements, available inventory, enrollment, price, competition, or ROI.
| State | Region | Population input | 65+ input | 65+ × 0.88 scenario | Rules-based product lens | Density score (unitless) | Cost score (unitless) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Alabama | South | 5.1M | 17.7% | 15.6% | Medicare Advantage | 21.1 | 89 |
| Alaska | West | 733K | 13.9% | 12.2% | ACA / Health | 25.0 | 88 |
| Arizona | West | 7.4M | 18.4% | 16.2% | Medicare Advantage | 22.1 | 97 |
| Arkansas | South | 3.0M | 17.8% | 15.7% | Medicare Advantage | 21.0 | 87 |
| California | West | 39.0M | 15.2% | 13.4% | Multi-line (Auto + Life) | 21.9 | 104 |
| Colorado | West | 5.9M | 15.2% | 13.4% | Multi-line (Auto + Life) | 21.7 | 101 |
| Connecticut | Northeast | 3.6M | 18.0% | 15.8% | Medicare Advantage | 23.0 | 109 |
| Delaware | South | 1.0M | 19.6% | 17.2% | Medicare / Final Expense | 27.0 | 104 |
| Florida | South | 22.6M | 21.3% | 18.7% | Medicare / Final Expense | 23.1 | 101 |
| Georgia | South | 11.0M | 14.7% | 12.9% | ACA / Health | 20.5 | 81 |
| Hawaii | West | 1.4M | 19.2% | 16.9% | Medicare / Final Expense | 27.5 | 112 |
| Idaho | West | 1.9M | 16.5% | 14.5% | Multi-line (Auto + Life) | 25.3 | 94 |
| Illinois | Midwest | 12.5M | 16.6% | 14.6% | Multi-line (Auto + Life) | 21.7 | 98 |
| Indiana | Midwest | 6.8M | 16.4% | 14.4% | Multi-line (Auto + Life) | 21.0 | 91 |
| Iowa | Midwest | 3.2M | 18.0% | 15.8% | Medicare Advantage | 21.9 | 96 |
| Kansas | Midwest | 2.9M | 16.6% | 14.6% | Multi-line (Auto + Life) | 21.3 | 93 |
| Kentucky | South | 4.5M | 17.5% | 15.4% | Medicare Advantage | 21.1 | 89 |
| Louisiana | South | 4.6M | 16.4% | 14.4% | Multi-line (Auto + Life) | 20.4 | 84 |
| Maine | Northeast | 1.4M | 22.0% | 19.4% | Medicare / Final Expense | 27.4 | 104 |
| Maryland | South | 6.2M | 16.2% | 14.3% | Multi-line (Auto + Life) | 22.7 | 109 |
| Massachusetts | Northeast | 7.0M | 17.5% | 15.4% | Medicare Advantage | 23.1 | 111 |
| Michigan | Midwest | 10.0M | 18.1% | 15.9% | Medicare Advantage | 21.8 | 95 |
| Minnesota | Midwest | 5.7M | 16.7% | 14.7% | Multi-line (Auto + Life) | 22.1 | 102 |
| Mississippi | South | 2.9M | 16.7% | 14.7% | Multi-line (Auto + Life) | 20.4 | 82 |
| Missouri | Midwest | 6.2M | 17.4% | 15.3% | Medicare Advantage | 21.4 | 92 |
| Montana | West | 1.1M | 19.3% | 17.0% | Medicare / Final Expense | 26.3 | 97 |
| Nebraska | Midwest | 2.0M | 16.5% | 14.5% | Multi-line (Auto + Life) | 21.4 | 94 |
| Nevada | West | 3.2M | 16.8% | 14.8% | Multi-line (Auto + Life) | 21.4 | 94 |
| New Hampshire | Northeast | 1.4M | 19.5% | 17.2% | Medicare / Final Expense | 27.6 | 111 |
| New Jersey | Northeast | 9.3M | 17.0% | 15.0% | Medicare Advantage | 22.7 | 108 |
| New Mexico | West | 2.1M | 18.4% | 16.2% | Medicare Advantage | 21.4 | 89 |
| New York | Northeast | 19.6M | 17.3% | 15.2% | Medicare Advantage | 22.1 | 101 |
| North Carolina | South | 10.7M | 17.0% | 15.0% | Medicare Advantage | 21.4 | 94 |
| North Dakota | Midwest | 780K | 16.4% | 14.4% | Multi-line (Auto + Life) | 25.4 | 95 |
| Ohio | Midwest | 11.8M | 18.0% | 15.8% | Medicare Advantage | 21.6 | 93 |
| Oklahoma | South | 4.0M | 16.3% | 14.3% | ACA / Health | 20.6 | 78 |
| Oregon | West | 4.2M | 18.2% | 16.0% | Medicare Advantage | 22.3 | 101 |
| Pennsylvania | Northeast | 12.9M | 19.1% | 16.8% | Medicare / Final Expense | 22.5 | 100 |
| Rhode Island | Northeast | 1.1M | 18.2% | 16.0% | Medicare Advantage | 26.3 | 101 |
| South Carolina | South | 5.3M | 18.8% | 16.5% | Medicare Advantage | 21.8 | 94 |
| South Dakota | Midwest | 910K | 17.6% | 15.5% | Medicare Advantage | 25.6 | 94 |
| Tennessee | South | 7.1M | 17.1% | 15.0% | Medicare Advantage | 21.2 | 91 |
| Texas | South | 30.5M | 13.1% | 11.5% | ACA / Health | 20.0 | 80 |
| Utah | West | 3.4M | 11.9% | 10.5% | Multi-line (Auto + Life) | 20.2 | 93 |
| Vermont | Northeast | 647K | 21.4% | 18.8% | Medicare / Final Expense | 27.1 | 102 |
| Virginia | South | 8.6M | 16.3% | 14.3% | Multi-line (Auto + Life) | 22.1 | 103 |
| Washington | West | 7.8M | 16.1% | 14.2% | Multi-line (Auto + Life) | 22.1 | 104 |
| West Virginia | South | 1.8M | 20.9% | 18.4% | Medicare / Final Expense | 26.2 | 92 |
| Wisconsin | Midwest | 5.9M | 18.0% | 15.8% | Medicare Advantage | 22.0 | 97 |
| Wyoming | West | 577K | 17.6% | 15.5% | Medicare Advantage | 25.7 | 95 |
Synthetic worked example: check the arithmetic
This is an invented scenario, not a state, campaign, quote, or benchmark. Assume population 5,000,000; median income $74,000; senior share 17%; uninsured share 10%; and homeownership 67%.
- Senior-share scenario: 17% × 0.88 = 14.96%, displayed as 15.0%.
- Density score: 22 + 0 + 0 + 0 = 22.0.
- Cost score: 100 + 0 + 0 + 0 = 100.
- Product lens: Medicare Advantage, because the earlier two rules do not match.
Change only income to $75,500: the cost score becomes 101 and density score becomes 22.1 after rounding. Change only senior share to 18% instead: the cost score becomes 102 and density score 22.4. These are sensitivity checks of the formula, not evidence about actual market prices.
Validate a buying shortlist before committing budget
Download the blank market-validation worksheet (CSV). It contains evidence fields and the synthetic calculation above, not a verified statistical dataset. Complete it locally; the worksheet does not upload anything.
- Define the task. Record product, geography, lead format, audience, carrier or license constraints, and the decision the comparison should support.
- Verify context. Record the exact table or dataset, release vintage, geography, unit, denominator, and retrieval date for each public fact. Keep observed data separate from your assumptions.
- Verify the offer. Compare an actual quote and current availability for that same product, state and format. Do not substitute the unitless score for a quote. Published lead pricing and the lead cost calculator serve different tasks: terms versus a scenario built from your inputs.
- Define an outcome cohort. Fix the purchased/delivered denominator, observation window, exclusions, cost, contact and qualification definitions, and attribution method before comparing results. An inquiry, an appointment, an issued policy, and paid revenue are separate outcomes.
- Review before scaling. Compare like-for-like cohorts, include unresolved outcomes, and report sample size and uncertainty. A demographic correlation or a favorable illustrative score does not establish campaign ROI.
Source ledger & citation
This ledger describes what is actually available in this version. It does not claim that a source portal proves every retained value.
- Retained state inputs: population, 65+ share, income, homeownership, uninsured rate and vehicles per household from the earlier report snapshot. Exact field-level release provenance remains unverified.
- Reproducible method: the formulas and ordered rules above generate the displayed scenario outputs. No NAIC license-count dataset or observed buyer-cost dataset is an input to those calculations.
- Official verification starting points: Census ACS data for demographic releases, and ACS 2023 B19013 for that specific income table. A table link identifies a source to check, not a row-level reconciliation of this snapshot.
- Withheld claims: national benchmark totals, regional demand rankings, state campaign performance narratives, and measured producer-density or lead-cost comparisons require independent source and method verification before reuse. These retained section anchors lead here so earlier bookmarks reach the correction.
InsureLeads. (2026). State Insurance Market Report 2026, methodology clarification October 30, 2026. Retained inputs not independently reverified; scenario outputs illustrative. https://www.getinsureleads.com/research/state-insurance-market-report
For an empirical market claim, cite the verified original release and the calculation that produced the claim. This page supports inspection of a method; it does not establish a new empirical benchmark or guarantee ranking, links, lead availability, or campaign results.
Original publication: 2026-01-15. Retained snapshot date: 2026-04-01. The correction date applies to methods and framing, not a data refresh.