Oregon Medicaid study shows no improvement in health or decrease in er visits

[koshergrl]

Remember the reasons for universal health coverage? It was to improve the health of the poor, and to reduce ER visits and thus costs. The idea being that if you spend a lot of money to cover people with shitty health coverage, they'll be more healthy!

Apparently not so. So they have determined that hey, the goal wasn't to improve health/reduce costs/ER visits AFTER all...naw, it was just to increase dr. office visits, with no apparently positive effect on health!



"Medicaid fails almost entirely to achieve its objectives, at fantastic cost to taxpayers, but if there’s even a glint of welfare-state success to report, rest assured that the media will find it. And it’s not just the AP: Scroll through Shikha Dalmia’s round-up of lefty reporters doing their best to spin the study as some sort of win for the program. The lamest, per Gabe Malor, is the Times’s headline trumpeting the fact that Medicaid “increases use of care” — as if visiting the doctor, not improved health, is suddenly the yardstick of a successful health insurance program."

Major Medicaid study from Oregon: Program does little to improve people?s health « Hot Air

 

[koshergrl]

"
Specifically, researchers found that those who received Medicaid increased their annual health care spending by $1,172, or 35 percent more than those who did not receive Medicaid. Those with Medicaid were more likely to be screened for diabetes and use diabetes medication and to make use of other preventive care measures. The study also examined health metrics including blood pressure and cholesterol.
Ultimately, the authors concluded that, “This randomized, controlled study showed that Medicaid coverage generated no significant improvements in measured health outcomes in the first two years, but it did increase use of health services, raise rates of diabetes detection and management, lower rates of depression, and reduce financial strain.”
So, the study suggests that expanding Medicaid is one way of reducing financial pressure on low-income groups, but it’s costly and does not improve their health.
Another interesting finding was that though medical spending increased among Medicaid enrollees due to more prescription drug usage and doctors’ visits, the study “did not find significant changes in visits to the emergency department or hospital admissions.” This undercuts another favorite talking point of liberals, which is that expanding insurance actually saves money by reducing costly emergency room visits."

Landmark study shatters liberal health care claims | WashingtonExaminer.com

 

[g5000]

Rather than wade through a partisan article, here is the peer-reviewed medical study: Link 1

Here is the study from two years ago which is based on the same group of Medicaid patients in Oregon: Link 2

The first report found lower mortality rates. The second report does not mention mortality rates.

The first report found improvements in self-reported health, but the second study found no actual improvements when testing for diabetes and cholesterol.

Both reports found lower rates of depression.

Both also found the costs to be very, very high.

 

[crussmith2]

This was a comparison of Medicaid and an EXPANDED set of benefits for Medicaid. As long as you know the study doesn't say anything at all about the efficiency of Medicaid but only about a pilot program that expanded benefits, fine. I expect you read a lot more into this limited study, as diod the aptly named ding dongs at Hot Air. Specifically this was NOT a comparison of Medicaid and NO health coverage or even a comparison of Medicaid with Medicare. It was a comparison only of Medicaid with a beefed up version of Medicaid.

 

[g5000]

This was a comparison of Medicaid and an EXPANDED set of benefits for Medicaid. As long as you know the study doesn't say anything at all about the efficiency of Medicaid but only about a pilot program that expanded benefits, fine. I expect you read a lot more into this limited study, as diod the aptly named ding dongs at Hot Air. Specifically this was NOT a comparison of Medicaid and NO health coverage or even a comparison of Medicaid with Medicare. It was a comparison only of Medicaid with a beefed up version of Medicaid.

You are completely incorrect.

This was a study between those who were selected in a lottery to be given Medicaid and a control group which was denied Medicaid coverage.

Read the links I provided.

Approximately 2 years after the lottery, we obtained data from 6387 adults who were randomly selected to be able to apply for Medicaid coverage and 5842 adults who were not selected.

 

[koshergrl]

cuss is full of shit, which is no surprise:

"
In 2008, Oregon expanded its Medicaid program, but because the state could not cover everybody, lawmakers opened up a lottery that randomly drew 30,000 names from a waiting list of almost 90,000 and allowed them to apply for the program. This created a unique opportunity for health researchers, ultimately allowing them to compare the health outcomes of 6,387 low-income adults who were able to enroll in the program with 5,842 who were not selected."

Landmark study shatters liberal health care claims | WashingtonExaminer.com

 

[FA_Q2]

The REALLY interesting part for me is this:
We get similar results:
This randomized, controlled study showed that Medicaid coverage generated no significant improvements in measured physical health outcomes in the first 2 years,

With increased use of the system:
but it did increase use of health care services, raise rates of diabetes detection and management, lower rates of depression, and reduce financial strain.

Not good at all if you ask me. The first study is better though because it shows a reduced mortality rate. I would actually be surprised if it did not though. The real question though is whether or not the system is efficient. There is not much in the summery that we can go on as far as the overall costs per person and whether or not there was any real efficiency in the system.

I think there are better ways of doing things and I think that it mostly lies in the manner in which we regulate the medical industry. Throwing money at people only serves to INCREASE the costs and decrease the availability. That is simple fact. Unless you increase the supply and roll back the regulations to something more reasonable we are not going to get a cheaper system.

Obamacare is not going to help either with new taxes on medical equipment. I can’t for the life of me fathom WHY we are taxing medical equipment more. That makes absolutely zero sense to me.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Remember the reasons for universal health coverage? It was to improve the health of the poor, and to reduce ER visits and thus costs. The idea being that if you spend a lot of money to cover people with shitty health coverage, they'll be more healthy!

Apparently not so. So they have determined that hey, the goal wasn't to improve health/reduce costs/ER visits AFTER all...naw, it was just to increase dr. office visits, with no apparently positive effect on health!



"Medicaid fails almost entirely to achieve its objectives, at fantastic cost to taxpayers, but if there’s even a glint of welfare-state success to report, rest assured that the media will find it. And it’s not just the AP: Scroll through Shikha Dalmia’s round-up of lefty reporters doing their best to spin the study as some sort of win for the program. The lamest, per Gabe Malor, is the Times’s headline trumpeting the fact that Medicaid “increases use of care” — as if visiting the doctor, not improved health, is suddenly the yardstick of a successful health insurance program."

Major Medicaid study from Oregon: Program does little to improve people?s health « Hot Air

Well then admit that you want to end Medicaid.

 

[koshergrl]

When did I ever deny it?

 

[francoHFW]

And after 8 years, MassCare has the lowest cost rises by far. Try having some patience, dupes. Preventive medicine takes time. O-care also has coming low cost clinics, care guidelines to cut malpractice, etc etc.