Where should duals-focused sales teams and community partnerships deploy?

Data through 2025 Q4 · Updated March 15, 2026 static extract

Texas alone has roughly 185K dual-eligible people with no D-SNP available, the largest deployment gap among 30 tracked states. Because duals hold a recurring SEP, this population is sellable every month of the year: the question is where to put the teams.

185K
Largest uncovered-duals pool (TX)
2025 Q4
24.8%
Highest duals density (MS)
2025 Q4
10
Tracked states without FIDE infrastructure
2025 Q4

Deployment priority: duals without a D-SNP available (top 12)

Texas185K· 67% D-SNP coverageCalifornia139K· 78% D-SNP coverageNew York134K· 82% D-SNP coverageFlorida104K· 84% D-SNP coverageNorth Carolina96K· 59% D-SNP coveragePennsylvania86K· 69% D-SNP coverageGeorgia76K· 71% D-SNP coverageTennessee67K· 65% D-SNP coverageOhio67K· 76% D-SNP coverageIndiana61K· 54% D-SNP coverageMichigan60K· 71% D-SNP coverageIllinois59K· 73% D-SNP coverage

Uncovered duals = state duals × (100% − D-SNP coverage). Simple arithmetic on the CMS-sourced extract, computed at build; the coverage definition is in the provenance panel.

Full deployment table: tracked states
RankStateUncovered duals (K)Duals (K)Duals % of MedicareD-SNP coverageFIDE available
1Texas18556215.2%67%Yes
2California13963113.4%78%Yes
3New York13474419.8%82%Yes
4Florida10465116.9%84%Yes
5North Carolina9623416.1%59%No
6Pennsylvania8627814.3%69%Yes
7Georgia7626117.2%71%Yes
8Tennessee6719018.9%65%Yes
9Ohio6728115.8%76%Yes
10Indiana6113314.6%54%No
11Michigan6020614.9%71%Yes
12Illinois5921813.9%73%Yes
13Alabama5614420.6%61%No
14Virginia5515212.8%64%No
15South Carolina5212317.8%58%No
16Kentucky4511918.4%62%No
17Missouri4511613.2%61%No
18Louisiana4114822.1%72%Yes
19Mississippi3711624.8%68%No
20New Jersey3313012.1%75%Yes
21Washington3211010.4%71%Yes
22West Virginia307121.4%58%No
23Wisconsin29819.8%64%Yes
24Minnesota258110.1%69%Yes
25Arizona2413312.4%82%Yes
26Arkansas238820.2%74%No
27Massachusetts21939.4%77%Yes
28Oregon21669.1%68%Yes
29Colorado108210.8%88%Yes
30District of Columbia11419.2%91%Yes

Where duals-led growth is already underway: tracked counties

Counties with a D-SNP share of MA at 20% or higher and positive velocity: the ground game is already converting duals here, so entry means displacing, not pioneering.

CountyStateD-SNP share of MAPenetrationVelocity (pts YoY)CarriersTop carrier
BronxNY38%63.4%+0.875Centene
KingsNY33%58.4%+0.876Centene
PhiladelphiaPA32%62.1%+0.96Centene
Miami-DadeFL31%74.2%+1.358UHC
RichmondGA31%58.2%+0.873Centene
New YorkNY29%56.9%+0.836UHC
El PasoTX28%62.8%+0.934Centene
DeKalbGA28%56.4%+0.874Centene
QueensNY27%61.2%+0.875UHC
LucasOH26%58.1%+0.94Centene
GreeneNC26%44.8%+0.872Centene
WayneMI26%57.4%+0.875Centene
BrowardFL24%71.8%+1.27Humana
CuyahogaOH24%57.2%+0.875UHC
CoconinoAZ24%52.6%+0.872UHC

County coverage is the 76-county tracked set (Plan year 2026, with 2023–2026 penetration history). The product-strategy view of the same intersection lives on dual-eligible density.

↓ Download CSV ✉ Notify me when this updates

So what / Now what

Duals selling is ground-game selling: community health workers, county agencies, food banks, churches, and brokers who work the same zip codes year round. The deployment logic is uncovered duals first, because members with no D-SNP available today are won by whoever shows up with the first product and a familiar face. And because duals hold a recurring SEP, these teams produce enrollment every month, not just during AEP.

Provenance — Dual-eligible density by state
Source file
CMS Medicare-Medicaid dual enrollment data (MMCO quarterly)
Vintage
2025 Q4
Last updated
March 15, 2026
Refresh cadence
Quarterly (pipeline pending; currently a curated extract)
Method
Duals as % of state Medicare population; D-SNP coverage % = share of duals in a county with ≥1 D-SNP available.
Known limitations
State-level only; FIDE availability flag is binary and does not reflect county variation.