The Oregon Trial A new study exposes Medicaid's flaws, but liberals call it success.
On Wednesday the New England Journal published the results from year two of the Oregon project, which "showed that Medicaid coverage generated no significant improvements in measured physical health outcomes" versus being uninsured. If Medicaid were a new drug, in other words, the FDA would reject it.
Medicaid in Oregon did nearly eliminate catastrophic medical expenses, compared to 5.5% of the uninsured control group that experienced a ruinous illness or injury. But that sure sounds like an argument for reforming Medicaid to extend basic catastrophic coverage to more poor people, instead of holding Medicaid lotteries.
Extending Medicaid benefits to the poor did not improve their health whatsoever. It did improve their mental health and reduce their financial strain and hardship. Megan McArdyle explains why this study is a big, big deal.
Government health insurance unquestionably functions as income protection. What's less clear is whether it functions as health protection.Posted by Jill Fallon at May 3, 2013 9:52 AM | Permalink