Tweet
(photo: TimmyGUNZ / flickr)
The weird federal-state design of Medicaid has created a natural experiment. A few states have already chosen to expand their Medicaid program to low-income childless adults, like the Affordable Care Act will do in 2014. This allowed researchers to compare the impact these Medicaid expansions have relative to neighboring states that didn’t expand it. The results, published in the New England Journal of Medicine, show increasing the number of people on Medicaid did indeed reduce adjusted all-cause mortality, implying that providing people with basic public health insurance does save lives. From the study:
Our study documents that large expansions of Medicaid eligibility in three states were associated with a significant decrease in mortality during a 5-year follow-up period, as compared with neighboring states without Medicaid expansions. Mortality reductions were greatest among adults between the ages of 35 and 64 years, minorities, and residents of poor counties. These findings may influence states’ decisions with respect to Medicaid expansion under the ACA.
Our study shows a mortality reduction associated with state Medicaid expansions to cover adults. Using state-level differences in Medicaid expansion as a natural experiment avoids the confounding between insurance and individual characteristics (e.g., poverty or health status) that plagues cross-sectional observational studies. These results build on previous findings that Medicaid coverage reduces mortality among infants and children3,4 and are consistent with preliminary results of a randomized, controlled trial of Medicaid in Oregon, which showed significant improvement in self-reported health during the first year (although objective measures of health are not yet available and 1-year mortality effects were not significant and were imprecisely estimated).
Expect this study and others like it to be cited in the coming political fight over whether or not states should expand their Medicaid program under the ACA, now that the Supreme Court has made that decision optional.
20 Comments
Support this site!
Subscribe to the newsletter
Advertise on Firedoglake
Send
us your tips
Make us your homepage
About FDL Action
Actually this is showing why Medicaid should be federalized as that would make the question moot as to what Governors/State Legislatures should do.
Hmmm. So, they are saying, access to medical care can save lives eh?
Sounds like a socialist conspiracy to me!
Off topic, but I hear they have computers on The Internet now. This should make The Internet way better than ever!
Except that leader author works for HHS… And the unique disclaimer on the article screams ‘me thinks the lady doth protest too much’
No different than Jon gruber singing hcr praises while on payroll…
New Medicaid enrollees were older than the general population, disproportionately male, nonwhite, and in fair or poor health.
Fact- medicaid is third tier hc (there are several recent studies showing no better or worse than no insurance for much of care…)
We should be screaming that Medicaid condemns the poor to less access to care- normally we progressives are on te right side of a ‘separate but equal’ debate.
Unfortunately that won’t matter to red state legislatures such as ours in AZ. On purely ideological grounds they will reject this. AZ was covering “childless adults” until last year because voters had approved a measure to provide Medicaid to everyone up to 100% FPL in 2000. When the budget crisis hit they found an excuse to end that and they have already indicated they will not reinstate it. Out of pure hatred for Obama and the desire to make the poor suffer.
Exactly. We have come to the point in our political life that facts don’t matter, only your team matters. Most Democrats just don’t get it.
Really? Arizona was one of the states in the study.
Yes, but does Medicaid save the lives of rich people? That is the important question that must be considered before it can be expanded. That is how America is today.
STUDY INDICATES MEDICAID SAVES LIVES
sociopathic 1%ers
get rid of that ASAP
cant have that no sirrrrrrrrrreeeeeeeeeeee
If I may……I believe what this says is that Medicaid saves live of poor people.
I don’t think that is consistent with republican goals.
I’m pretty sure Romney and the republican party is against that!!!!
See my #11.
We DO think alike.
It’s kinda spooky????
We need to remember that “free to die” is the 1%/GOP motto. We have had people in the US dying for a very long time from lack of health care. Reagan made it fashionable to “not care”. With states, counties, cities either bankrupt or close to it, medicaid is a big issue. In CA if one owns a home and gets medicaid, a lien is filed on their home for the amount they receive. Medicare-for-all may cause some health insurance companies to go bankrupt because their systems can not adjust down to the 3% administration costs of medicare. Live in a red state and know if you get sick and need care, you will not get it. Live in a blue state and study the laws. Move to a state that covers everyone. Work to return the Congress to those who will represent all Americans. The ACA is a beginning that, like social security, the 1% are mobilizing to destroy and their tea party friends will be happy to die for them.
It turns out, yes.
My research indicates that Medicaid has not saved the life of even one rich person in its entire history.
That seems disproportionate.
I guess if they gave everyone at the FPL $50,000 they could reduce poverty too.
This study claims that 2840 deaths result for each 500,000 people excluded from Medicare expansion.
If Muslims cause 3000 American deaths we call it terrorism.
If Christians cause 2840 American deaths we call it conservative government policy.
“My research indicates that Medicaid has not saved the life of even one rich person in its entire history.”
You must have overlooked Ayn Rand – but then she tried to hide her need for government assistance.
I can think of lots of reasons why the rich might benefit from giving poor people better health care. Public health for example.
But that’s irrelevant. My point is that what must be discussed and elucidated beforehand is specifics as to how the rich can benefit from having healthier servants. Unless that vital point is focused on, which the above article carelessly neglects to do, then Medicaid will not expand. Since we do live in America after all. That’s all I am saying.