WASHINGTON (AP) — The ranks of America's poor edged up last yearto a high of 49.7 million, based on a new census measure that takesinto account medical costs and work-related expenses.

The numbers released Wednesday by the Census Bureau are part ofa newly developed supplemental poverty measure. Devised a year ago,this measure provides a fuller picture of poverty that thegovernment believes can be used to assess safety-net programs byfactoring in living expenses and taxpayer-provided benefits thatthe official formula leaves out.

Based on the revised formula, the number of poor people exceededthe 49 million, or 16 percent of the population, who were livingbelow the poverty line in 2010. That came as more people in theslowly improving economy picked up low-wage jobs last year butstill struggled to pay living expenses. The revised poverty rate of16.1 percent also is higher than the record 46.2 million, or 15percent, that the government's official estimate reported inSeptember.

Due to medical expenses, higher living costs and limitedimmigrant access to government programs, people 65 or older,Hispanics and urbanites were more likely to be strugglingeconomically under the alternative formula. Also spiking higher in2011 was poverty among full-time and part-time workers.

As a result, the portrait of poverty broken down by statenotably changes. California tops the list, hurt by high housingcosts, large numbers of immigrants as well as less generous taxcredits and food stamp programs to buoy low-income families. It isfollowed by the District of Columbia, Arizona, Florida andGeorgia.

In the official census tally, it was rural states that were morelikely to be near the top of the list, led by Mississippi, NewMexico, Arizona and Louisiana.

"We're seeing a very slow recovery, with increases in povertyamong workers due to more new jobs which are low-wage," saidTimothy Smeeding, a University of Wisconsin-Madison economist whospecializes in poverty. "As a whole, the safety net is holding manypeople up, while California is struggling more because it'srelatively harder there to qualify for food stamps and otherbenefits."

Broken down by group, poverty was disproportionately affectingpeople 65 and older — about 15.1 percent, or nearly double the 8.7percent rate calculated under the official formula. They also havehigher medical expenses, such as Medicare premiums, deductibles anddrug costs, that aren't factored into the official rate.

Working-age adults ages 18-64 saw an increase in poverty from13.7 percent to 15.5 percent, due mostly to commuting and childcare costs.

In contrast, the new measure showed declines in poverty forchildren, from 22.3 percent under the official formula to 18.1percent. Still, they remained the age group most likely to beeconomically struggling by any measure.

Hispanics and Asians also saw much higher rates of poverty, 28percent and 16.9 percent, respectively, compared with rates of 25.4percent and 12.3 percent under the official formula. Their povertylevels rose after the government took into account safety-netprograms such as food stamps and housing, which have lowerparticipation among immigrants and non-English speakers.

In contrast, African-Americans saw a modest decrease in poverty,from 27.8 percent under the official rate to 25.7 percent based onthe revised numbers. Among non-Hispanic whites, poverty rose from9.9 percent to 11 percent.

Economists long have criticized the official poverty rate asinadequate. Based on a half-century-old government formula, theofficial rate continues to assume the average family spendsone-third of its income on food. Those costs have actually shrunkto a much smaller share, more like one-seventh.

The official formula also fails to account for other expensessuch as out-of-pocket medical care, child care and commuting, andit does not consider noncash government aid, such as food stampsand tax credits, when calculating income.

In reaction to some of the criticism, the government in 2010asked the Census Bureau to develop a new measure, based partly onrecommendations made by the National Academy of Sciences. Itreleased national numbers based on that formula for the first timelast year. This year's release features a 50-state breakdown onpoverty, prompted in part by local officials such as New York CityMayor Michael Bloomberg who have argued that the official measuredoes not take into account urban costs of living and that largercities may get less federal money as a result.

The goal is to help lawmakers to better gauge the effectivenessof anti-poverty programs, although it does not replace the CensusBureau's official poverty formula.

Among the findings:

—If it weren't for Social Security payments, the poverty ratewould rise to 54.1 percent for people 65 and older and 24.4 percentfor all age groups.

—Without refundable tax credits such as the earned income taxcredit, child poverty would rise from 18.1 percent to 24.4percent.

—Without food stamps, the overall poverty rate would increasefrom 16.1 percent to 17.6 percent.

"These figures are timely given the looming expiration of twokey measures that account for part of these programs' largeantipoverty impact: federal emergency unemployment insurance andimprovements in refundable tax credits" such as the Earned IncomeTax Credit, said Arloc Sherman, a senior researcher at the Centerfor Budget and Policy Priorities, a liberal-leaning think-tank."Letting these measures expire at year's end could push largenumbers of families into poverty."