Skip to main content

States Medicaid Expansion Saves Lives

Some experts have said that individual States and the decisions they make around health care reform will have more impact on people than the Federal Government and the Accountable Care Act (Obamacare).  Since States will be able to "opt out" of of the reform law's Medicaid expansion, where a person resides may have a huge impact on their health.

A new study published in the New England Journal of Medicine by researchers at the Harvard School of Public Health compared death rates in three states that expanded Medicaid in the past decade - Arizona, Maine and New York, with four neighboring states that did not - New Hampshire, New Mexico, Nevada and Pennsylvania.   They looked at data from adults age 20-64 for five years before and five years after the expansions.  They found that expanding Medicaid eligibility lowered mortality rates by 6.1% compared to States that did not expand.  They also found that death rates declined the most in minorities and residents in lower-income counties.  Additionally there was an increase in individuals who reported their health status as "excellent" or "very good".

The study was conducted long before the Supreme Court hearings on the ACA law.  A similar study looking a Medicaid expansion in Oregon showed that the Medicaid recipients see doctors more often and report better health and better financial stability.

There is no doubt among experts that increasing insurance benefits and access to health care improves overall health.  Isn't that what we, as a Nation, want for our citizens?  Medicaid currently covers needy parents and children, low-income disabled people and the indigent elderly who need nursing home care.  The ACA calls for the expansion of Medicaid to lower-income childless adults.  Begining in 2012, Medicaid expansion in combination with the Affordable Care Act's state exchanges should allow most uninsured Americans to finally get affordable coverage.

Under the ACA, the Federal government will pay 100% of the cost for new expansion for the first 3 years, which declines to 90% by 2020.  Why would a State opt out and leave its own people with poor or no health care?  Texas and Florida are two States that refuse to expand Medicaid.  The biggest impact will be on low-income, uninsured women, about 2.4 million and 1.5 million, respectively.  They say they worry that the Feds will be under financial pressure to pay less over years to come.  I have an answer for that!!  We should elect officials that are committed to America's health and that don't look a health care as the first place to make budget cuts.

The fact that a Governor can look his/her citizens in the eye and say "Nope, we don't want to allow our lower income population to get affordable health care, EVEN THOUGH IT HAS NO ADVERSE EFFECT ON OUR STATE BUDGET" is deplorable.  Are we, as citizens, just asleep?  Do we not care because  this topic is just too complicated to understand? 

Are we proud to be a society that is comfortable spending $100 billion a year on wars in the Middle East but think spending $100 billion a year on health care is outrageous?  Our priorities are backward if we do.


Comments

Toni,

No surprisingly, we are in complete agreement that ideally all citizens should have medical coverage. I do not think that the governors of states who choose to opt out are callous creatures. When they will be responsible for 10% of the cost of new Medicaid folks (10% of an uncertain number), they need to make the math work. Mamy states today are already underwater and sinking. Looks what's happening in your own state of California, for example. I don't think that their reluctance is from a moral lapse. I think its from a growing resource lapse.
Toni Brayer, MD said…
Michael Kirsch,MD, thanks for your thoughtful comment. Many economists believe the cost of NOT expanding is far more expensive in terms of cost shifting and isn't the goal really better health for all citizens? This study shows health coverage really does make a huge difference!

This recession is affecting all States. Healthcare for the poor should not be a partisan issue and I think it is indefensible.

That said, we really need to address rising costs, lack of primary care and payment structures that make the whole thing unsustainable anyway.

Popular posts from this blog

scintillating scotoma

image from myaspiebrain Nothing like experiencing a medical condition first-hand to really help a doctor understand it from the patient's point of view.  After all these years, I had my first (and hopefully last) scintillating scotoma while sitting on the couch playing "words with friends" on my ipad and watching TV.  A scotoma is a partial loss of vision in a normal visual field.  Scintillate is flashing, sparkles.  Put them together and you have moving, flashing sparkles with a blind spot in your eyes. This visual aura was first described in the 19th century  by a Dr. Hubert Airy who had migraine headaches.  The visual sparks and flashes are in a zig-zag pattern and they can precede a migraine headache or occur without any pain.   The scotoma affects both eyes and closing one or the other does not make it go away.  Sometimes the term "ocular migraine" or "retinal migraine"  are used to describe this phenomenon but these involve only one eye, not

Do Doctors Make Too Much Money?

An article in the New York Times says the reason health care costs are so high in the United States is because doctors are paid too much. I saw that and my eyes bugged out. I just came home from a meeting with physicians and hospital administrators and the entire meeting was spent discussing the financial challenges physicians face in keeping their doors open to see patients. The goal of this meeting was to keep health services in that community so patients will have someone to care for them. Not a person in the room would agree that the doctors earn too much. Physicians paid too much? Lets break that down. A doctor spends a minimum of 11 years in education and training after the age of 18. Many are in training for 15 or more years. They are living on student loans and contributing zero to their family's income until the residency years. At that time they earn less than minimum wage if you factor in the 80-100 hour workweek. When a doctor emerges from training (and believe

Spots on the Scrotum

The answer to yesterday's Image Challenge was #2 - Fordyce's angiokeratomas. Like many unusual medical names, the condition was first described by John Addison Fordyce in 1896. These tiny blood vessels (capillaries) are under the superficial dermis and can be found on both men and women in the scrotum and vulva area.  They are painless and appear in the 2nd and third decade and may continue to appear as the person ages. Fordyce's angiokeratomas should not be confused with warts, herpes or other conditions.  They are completely benign and require no treatment. There are a number of chat rooms on-line where men are concerned about these lesions and want them removed by laser.  That can be an expensive and time consuming treatment and there is no guarantee that they will not recur.   The best treatment is awareness and acceptance that every body is varied and Fordyce angiokeratoma is just another appearance. Thanks everyone for your guesses and great diagnostic a