New Medical Study Reveals People on Medicaid are not significantly healthier

[Bomboozle]

A new report just released in the New England Journal of Medicine reveals that people on Medicaid are not significantly healthier than those without insurance. The study surprised many and punctured Obamacare's argument why Medicaid expansion is necessary.

Study: Giving People Government Health Insurance May Not Make them Any Healthier - The Daily Beast

 

[lynn63]

That doesn't surprise me. How is a visit to a doctor going to make anyone healthier? Everyone already knows what they should be doing in their daily lives to increases your odds of staying healthy. Chronic health condition usually don't start until you reach late 40's and up. Medicaid covers mostly children, the blind and disabled, about 5 million seniors and pregnant women.

 

[Bomboozle]

That doesn't surprise me. How is a visit to a doctor going to make anyone healthier? Everyone already knows what they should be doing in their daily lives to increases your odds of staying healthy. Chronic health condition usually don't start until you reach late 40's and up. Medicaid covers mostly children, the blind and disabled, about 5 million seniors and pregnant women.

The study begs the question whether expanding Medicaid under Obamacare will actually produce the intended result -- namely, healthier people. Isn't that the whole point of Obamacare to provide affordable and quality healthcare for everyone? You are correct that up to now only certain groups of people are eligible for Medicaid benefits, however beginning next year, that all changes. Starting January 1, everyone with an income of up to 138% of the federal poverty level will be eligible for Medicaid. Although the Supreme Court weighed in last year and ruled that HHS could not force the states to expand Medicaid coverage, the feds are offering to pick up 100% of the cost for the next three years for states that agree to expand coverage. Some states have declined to participate in the offer, which means many people will likely remain uninsured, depending on the state they live in, or those states will continue providing healthcare through existing low-income state-run programs. Here's my point: this Medicaid expansion will cost billions of dollars, will not benefit all low-income individuals and families equally, and now this study points to the fact that people aren't any healthier even when they are on Medicaid. So where's the "bang for the buck?" The study is another example of how flawed Obamacare is.

 

[Grandma]

The study seems flawed. Those on medicaid are poor. Poor people are more susceptible to chronic illness due to everything from poor diet to substandard living and working conditions.

 

[Bomboozle]

The study seems flawed. Those on medicaid are poor. Poor people are more susceptible to chronic illness due to everything from poor diet to substandard living and working conditions.

The study was peer-reviewed in order to be published in the New England Journal of Medicine. The study got attention for the very reason you state -- if low-income populations are more susceptible to chronic illness, why didn't the group covered under Medicaid reveal those illnesses and show measurable improvement because they have access to healthcare?

The point is: if the study supports the finding that there is no measurable improvement in health, why should the federal government (through Obamacare) spend millions of dollars on expanding the federal program rather than leaving the task of providing healthcare to low-income communities to the states. How about the federal government steps out of the equation and instead provides funding to states that support health clinics in schools, community centers and other local sites where members within the community can access healthcare locally and at places they have an existing relationship with?

 

[Greenbeard]

How about the federal government steps out of the equation and instead provides funding to states that support health clinics in schools, community centers and other local sites where members within the community can access healthcare locally and at places they have an existing relationship with?

If it had done something like that, we might get to say things about Oregon (the study state) like:

The Affordable Care Act increases the funding available to community health centers nationwide. In Oregon, 29 health centers operate 190 sites, providing preventive and primary health care services to 289,731 people. Health Center grantees in Oregon have received $86,295,727 under the Affordable Care Act to support ongoing health center operations and to establish new health center sites, expand services, and/or support major capital improvement projects.

As a result of historic investments through the Affordable Care Act and the Recovery Act, the numbers of clinicians in the National Health Service Corps are at all-time highs with nearly 10,000 Corps clinicians providing care to more than 10.4 million people who live in rural, urban, and frontier communities. The National Health Service Corps repays educational loans and provides scholarships to primary care physicians, dentists, nurse practitioners, physician assistants, behavioral health providers, and other primary care providers who practice in areas of the country that have too few health care professionals to serve the people who live there. As of September 30, 2012, there were 214 Corps clinicians providing primary care services in Oregon compared to 49 in 2008.

Examples of Affordable Care Act grants to Oregon not outlined above include:

• $630,000 to support the National Health Service Corps, by assisting Oregon’s State Loan Repayment Program in repaying educational loans of health care professionals in return for their practice in health professional shortage areas.
• $7,094,694 for school-based health centers to help clinics expand their capacity to provide more health care services and modernize their facilities.
• $287,100 for Family-to-Family Health Information Centers, organizations run by and for families with children with special health care needs.
• $10,520,441 for Maternal, Infant, and Early Childhood Home Visiting Programs. These programs bring health professionals, social workers, or paraprofessionals to meet with at-risk families in their homes and connect families to the kinds of help that can make a real difference in a child’s health, development, and ability to learn - such as health care, early education, parenting skills, child abuse prevention, and nutrition.

 

[Dugdale_Jukes]

Next some investigator will find gambling in casinos.

There is no question preventive care produces healthier populations. If the study shows no difference, then the problem is the method medicine is practiced in the programs, nothing else.

Next.

 

[lynn63]

Yes, the problem is the method medicine is practiced in those programs and it is because they are capitated.

 

[Bomboozle]

How about the federal government steps out of the equation and instead provides funding to states that support health clinics in schools, community centers and other local sites where members within the community can access healthcare locally and at places they have an existing relationship with?

If it had done something like that, we might get to say things about Oregon (the study state) like:

The Affordable Care Act increases the funding available to community health centers nationwide. In Oregon, 29 health centers operate 190 sites, providing preventive and primary health care services to 289,731 people. Health Center grantees in Oregon have received $86,295,727 under the Affordable Care Act to support ongoing health center operations and to establish new health center sites, expand services, and/or support major capital improvement projects.

As a result of historic investments through the Affordable Care Act and the Recovery Act, the numbers of clinicians in the National Health Service Corps are at all-time highs with nearly 10,000 Corps clinicians providing care to more than 10.4 million people who live in rural, urban, and frontier communities. The National Health Service Corps repays educational loans and provides scholarships to primary care physicians, dentists, nurse practitioners, physician assistants, behavioral health providers, and other primary care providers who practice in areas of the country that have too few health care professionals to serve the people who live there. As of September 30, 2012, there were 214 Corps clinicians providing primary care services in Oregon compared to 49 in 2008.

Examples of Affordable Care Act grants to Oregon not outlined above include:

• $630,000 to support the National Health Service Corps, by assisting Oregon’s State Loan Repayment Program in repaying educational loans of health care professionals in return for their practice in health professional shortage areas.
• $7,094,694 for school-based health centers to help clinics expand their capacity to provide more health care services and modernize their facilities.
• $287,100 for Family-to-Family Health Information Centers, organizations run by and for families with children with special health care needs.
• $10,520,441 for Maternal, Infant, and Early Childhood Home Visiting Programs. These programs bring health professionals, social workers, or paraprofessionals to meet with at-risk families in their homes and connect families to the kinds of help that can make a real difference in a child’s health, development, and ability to learn - such as health care, early education, parenting skills, child abuse prevention, and nutrition.

My point exactly. Why the need to expand Medicaid if low-income communities are already being served well? The expansion of Medicaid into the same communities is duplicative based on your own numbers.

 

[Greenbeard]

My point exactly. Why the need to expand Medicaid if low-income communities are already being served well? The expansion of Medicaid into the same communities is duplicative based on your own numbers.

Medicaid funds keep the lights on for those kinds of safety net providers. Grants to build new health centers and support capital improvement on existing ones are great, but that's not the end of the story. When someone in the soon-to-be expansion population seeks services in a newly build or expanded health center, those services have to be paid for.

If you want to serve more people and serve them better, you need to build the capacity to do that and you need to establish the revenue streams to sustain that capacity. Check the first box, get ready to check the second.

 

[editec]

A new report just released in the New England Journal of Medicine reveals that people on Medicaid are not significantly healthier than those without insurance. The study surprised many and punctured Obamacare's argument why Medicaid expansion is necessary.

Study: Giving People Government Health Insurance May Not Make them Any Healthier - The Daily Beast

Did the study note that healthy people without insurance don't apply for Medicaid, but sick people without insurance end up doing so?

I mean come on now...how hard is that to intuit?

 

[Bomboozle]

A new report just released in the New England Journal of Medicine reveals that people on Medicaid are not significantly healthier than those without insurance. The study surprised many and punctured Obamacare's argument why Medicaid expansion is necessary.

Study: Giving People Government Health Insurance May Not Make them Any Healthier - The Daily Beast

Did the study note that healthy people without insurance don't apply for Medicaid, but sick people without insurance end up doing so?

I mean come on now...how hard is that to intuit?

Given that Medicaid eligibility is based on income, not health, I'm not following your logic. And the reason the study got attention is because it punches a hole in the second part of your statement. My point is this -- Medicaid expansion will add more people onto a system that is already overburdened. Even Obama's proposed budget includes reductions in Medicaid funding in some areas, so I question whether expansion is the most efficient way to serve communities as opposed to sending the money directly to local communities to expand and fund existing programs.

 

[Bomboozle]

My point exactly. Why the need to expand Medicaid if low-income communities are already being served well? The expansion of Medicaid into the same communities is duplicative based on your own numbers.

Medicaid funds keep the lights on for those kinds of safety net providers. Grants to build new health centers and support capital improvement on existing ones are great, but that's not the end of the story. When someone in the soon-to-be expansion population seeks services in a newly build or expanded health center, those services have to be paid for.

If you want to serve more people and serve them better, you need to build the capacity to do that and you need to establish the revenue streams to sustain that capacity. Check the first box, get ready to check the second.

Grants for health centers and other capital improvements are not the issue here. People are the end user, and the question is how to best serve them so they are healthier. Existing health centers are already underfunded, so instead of added more people onto the Medicaid program, how about directing that money to keep the light on by funding existing programs that work and expanding their outreach into the community? And it's always been the case that some doctors and other service providers limit the number of Medicaid patients they accept, if they accept them at all, because of the low reimbursement rate. I doubt that will change under Obamacare. Even Obama's own 2014 budget includes cuts to Medicaid programs. So I don't want to check either of your boxes, instead I want to check the box that gives local communities and states the control to decide how to best use federal funding to maintain and expand existing local health centers that provide services to local communities. There is plenty of research other than the study cited that confirms this is an effective approach.

 

[boedicca]

Yes, the problem is the method medicine is practiced in those programs and it is because they are capitated.

Well, that's exactly what is going to be imposed upon everyone (except Congress and the Exemp Elites) by Obamacare. The IPAB will enact one big mass of restricted prices and limited authorized protocols and medicines.

If such programs are not effective for the poor, how is making them the standard for everyone going to be an improvement?

 

[lynn63]

Look at it this way, the population on aging is shifting to an older populated group that need more in healthcare. The government doesn't want to pay for them so by increasing the numbers on Medicaid which are cheaper to insure, they are decreasing benefits for seniors.

The entire mandate excludes people 65 and older.

 

[Underhill]

Next some investigator will find gambling in casinos.

There is no question preventive care produces healthier populations. If the study shows no difference, then the problem is the method medicine is practiced in the programs, nothing else.

Next.

There is a bit more to it than that.

What the study doesn't talk about is the care people get without Medicaid. Most people still receive some form of care. But instead of preventative care, it tends to be later in the illness and in emergency rooms. The outcomes are often the same, but the cost is considerably less for those receiving regular visits to a doctor.

I listened to an in depth discussion of the study on NPR and the conclusion I drew from it was that Medicare doesn't make people healthier, but it probably saves us considerable money.

The other big problem is nutrition. And I think there are answers to be had here as well. Limit food stamps to healthy foods and we would probably see a difference too. Stop letting them buy Ramen and Hamburger helper. Maybe enroll them in a cooking class.

But I'm getting off topic...

 

[Underhill]

On a more political note, I also find the joyous chants of "we told you so" from the right pretty fucked up.

They have gone out of their way to cut funding for these programs for the last 2 decades then bitch about how they don't work.

It's like deciding you are going to save money by stopping all maintenance on your car, then bitching because the damn thing is always breaking down....

 

[jwoodie]

The purpose of these programs is to remove the stigma of public assistance. Like efforts to improve self-esteem, they are good in theory but counter productive in practice.

 

[midcan5]

OMG the retarded investigations continue, will stupidity stop when a republican becomes president I wonder. It probably will for the retarded.

'Study finding:'

'I smoke, drink too much, and don't exercise. My health check up wasn't very good.

Two weeks later, now on Medicare.

I smoke, drink too much, and don't exercise. My health check up wasn't very good. Medicare obviously doesn't' work.'

I have come to the conclusion the American wingnut lost his or her mind in 2008, and it will take another retarded republican president for it to return.

http://www.usmessageboard.com/education/226685-america-the-stupid.html

http://www.usmessageboard.com/education/226685-america-the-stupid-5.html#post5692225

 

[Bomboozle]

OMG the retarded investigations continue, will stupidity stop when a republican becomes president I wonder. It probably will for the retarded.

'Study finding:'

'I smoke, drink too much, and don't exercise. My health check up wasn't very good.

Two weeks later, now on Medicare.

I smoke, drink too much, and don't exercise. My health check up wasn't very good. Medicare obviously doesn't' work.'

I have come to the conclusion the American wingnut lost his or her mind in 2008, and it will take another retarded republican president for it to return.

http://www.usmessageboard.com/education/226685-america-the-stupid.html

http://www.usmessageboard.com/education/226685-america-the-stupid-5.html#post5692225

The issue is whether Medicaid is an effective way to provide quality healthcare to low-income populations. The study supports that it does not, and if you care to look into the matter further, you will find further research that also supports that Medicaid is less effective than funding local and regional health centers and clinics.