Snappy newsletters. Simple Facebook sharing. Spirited comments. Sweet features are waiting… GET THEM NOW!

Medicaid Expansion Could Save Lives

Lower death rates associated with expansions in 3 states

By Evann Gastaldo,  Newser Staff

Posted Jul 26, 2012 8:37 AM CDT

(Newser) – As states decide whether to expand Medicaid by 2014 under ObamaCare, a new study could give them a compelling reason to do so: Harvard researchers found that fewer people died in states that expanded their programs. The study looked at data from New York, Maine, and Arizona, all of which recently began offering Medicaid to more low-income adults, and found that mortality rates of people ages 20 to 64 decreased by around 1,500 per year—while, in four neighboring states that did not expand Medicaid, death rates increased. When the data was adjusted for various factors, researchers determined that Medicaid expansions were associated with a 6.1% decline in deaths. General health was also improved, the New York Times reports.

The study is important because research into the efficacy of Medicaid is notoriously difficult, and critics often argue that Medicaid expansions may actually be linked to poor health. Even so, some skepticism remains. One big problem is that the data used are county-level statistics rather than individual mortality rates, one expert says. Another issue? Just one of the states, New York, had a statistically significant decline in deaths when studied individually; for that and other reasons, it may be difficult or impossible to generalize the results. Even so, experts note that another Medicaid study in Oregon found similarly positive results.

Ora Botwinick performs a pre-natal exam on Maria de Lourdes at the Multnomah County's North Portland Health Center Monday, June 18, 2012, in Portland, Ore.
Ora Botwinick performs a pre-natal exam on Maria de Lourdes at the Multnomah County's North Portland Health Center Monday, June 18, 2012, in Portland, Ore.   (AP Photo/Rick Bowmer)
« Prev« Prev | Next »Next » Slideshow

This says, well there is benefit to giving people insurance. Maybe you don’t want to pay the cost, but you can’t say there’s no benefit. - Dr. Janet M. Currie, director of the Center for Health and Well-Being at Princeton

« Prev« Prev | Next »Next » Slideshow
My TakeCLICK BELOW TO VOTE
0%
6%
2%
76%
0%
16%
To report an error on this story, notify our editors.
COMMENTS
Showing 3 of 10 comments
Pragmatist
Jul 26, 2012 4:14 PM CDT
Very obvious:  Those with health insurance are likely to attain/regain and maintain their health and live longer. Very human:  Assuring that all of us have readily available access to needed basic healthcare. Very difficult:  Cost-efficiently providing such care to all with the U.S. healthcare industry in place. Very likely:  Expansion of current medicare/medicaid coverage in a continued cost-inefficient manner. Very pragmatic (but politically suicidal):  A universal single-payer nationalized healthcare system (following critiqued AMA guidelines) providing:   1)   Well-care physicals for all   2)   Common ailment drug prescriptions for all getting physicals & following the resulting advice   3)   Life-saving & common major injury emergency room care for all    4)   Hospice care for all    5)   Full healthcare services for all under age 16   6)   Full healthcare services for all full-time, non-felon, good-academic standing students under age 28   7)   Full healthcare services for all active duty enlisted military personnel and their spouses/children Personal wealth, additional health insurance or charity-sponsored sources would have to be utilized to secure coverage for any additional healthcare services This would promote...   ,,, greater individual responsibility (with guidance) for maintaining personal health   ... less administrative hurdles for consumers and less administrative overhead for providers    ... hassle-free healthcare for all kids and those young adults highly likely to better our future society   ... elimination of a huge worry for those families with enlistees defending our country          ... a freely competitive non-compulsory marketplace to any/all other medical services Of course, there are a couple of major things we all would have to be willing stomach...    ... the funding of universal (but limited scope) healthcare system   ... the realization the "Haves" (with personal wealth, insurance or charity) would use #4 later than the "Have Nots"
Barbs1133
Jul 26, 2012 2:43 PM CDT
These are not the lives that our esteemed power elites (the 1%) want to see saved.
john09
Jul 26, 2012 12:26 PM CDT
I pay into Medicaid, im poor, but i make too much use it. why should they expand it if I pay for my own health insurance. and then why do i pay for somebody else who probably doesn't have a ged ,and has ten kids. I understand that it helps the disabled people and whatnot, but seriously why should I pay for others who get it just because they're poor enough.
 

NEWS FROM OUR PARTNERS
Other Sites We Like:   24/7 Wall St.   |   BuzzFeed   |   Cracked   |   Timelines   |   POPSUGAR Tech   |   Business Insider   |   HuffPost Entertainment   |   NewsOne