Big government social engineers must be shaking their heads in disbelief. Meanwhile the honest amongst them have to be asking: How they could have been so wrong?
The effectiveness of both Medicaid and Head Start, two bulwarks of the left’s belief that massive government spending could make a difference in the lives of the poor, have been exposed as ineffective.
A much anticipated study out of the state of Oregon on the health impacts of having Medicaid (versus not having) it has released its second year data, and the results are devastating to those who believe in the power of government medicine.
The study compared health care outcomes for more than 6,000 people who were just entering the Medicare system after having no health insurance to those outcomes for just under 6,000 people who continued to not have health insurance.
Medicaid advocates at long last believed they would be able to prove what they instinctively knew to be true – Medicaid saves lives, and helps the health of those who receive it.
The Oregon study now throws not just a pail, but a full bucket of cold water on their expectations that Medicaid makes a difference.
Reporting in the New England Journal of Medicine …
We found no significant effect of Medicaid coverage on the prevalence or diagnosis of hypertension or high cholesterol levels or on the use of medication for these conditions. Medicaid coverage significantly increased the probability of a diagnosis of diabetes and the use of diabetes medication, but we observed no significant ef- fect on average glycated hemoglobin levels or on the percentage of participants with levels of 6.5% or higher. Medicaid coverage decreased the probability of a positive screening for depression (?9.15 percentage points; 95% confidence interval, ?16.70 to ?1.60; P=0.02), increased the use of many preventive services, and nearly eliminated catastrophic out-of-pocket medical expenditures.
In laymen’s terms, Medicaid had no significant effect on actual measurable medical conditions, but it did “nearly eliminate catastrophic out-of-pocket medical expenditures.”
In this year alone, the Obama Administration plans to spend $267 billion on Medicaid alone rising to $529 billion by 2023.
Think about that, this year alone more than a quarter of a trillion dollars is being spent on a program that doesn’t significantly improve measurable health outcomes for its recipients, but facts be damned, when it comes to other people’s money, it is more about feeling good about our actions rather than whether they achieve the desired impact.
(To continue reading this piece, press the “Read More …” icon below).
Rick Manning (@rmanning957) is the Vice President of Public Policy and Communications for Americans for Limited Government.
***
35 comments
Wow: I wonder if FITS will publically admit: BigT has been right all along….
You mean about Medicaid? Where on this site have you seen any pro-Medicaid coverage? Seriously … we’ve been railing against it for years man.
So much of Liberal-Tarian outrage is focused on money, and government waste.
Yet you attack calls for moral behavior as a move by government to run peoples’ lives.
When the government is paying, it should Dictate behavior.
Once the payers (us) get some ability to teach/preach proper practices to the government-check gobblers, we can expect to see some improvement…Instead we’re treated like ogres by Liberal-Tarians, the media and liberals.
Liberal-Tarians, who demand un-earned rights for liberal voters, are ignorant about accountability and responsibility….Because of that, it will just get worse…
Lincoln was a vampire killer you repressed homosexual consumer of Limbaugh’s fecal waste.
Sashay over to the government check gobbler line to so you can “Dictate” to them fool.
There’s plenty of people that will reward you for teaching and preaching to them.
Sounds to me like a lot of doctor and hospitals are being paid a lot of money and producing meager results.
Sounds to me like a lot of doctor and hospitals are being paid a lot of money and producing meager results.
So much government failure is tied together by Liberalism…but no one ever wants to admit it, and take responsibility.
That is the story w/ everything Obama touchces. From Unemployment and Arab Spring to Gas prices and ObamaCare..Obama has jockeyed one failure after another…and you have idiots Bashing Bush as an answer…
Same w/ Government trying to do the job of parents. It will never work.
When liberal voters are allowed to shirk responsibility, because they want to believe Obama can and will do it…it has DISASTER writtten all over it.
Obama has proven that….for those of us w/ the guts and compassion to look at reality…
T, I can’t agree with you more. You have written a thoughtful and semi insightful post on this occasion. Congratulations my man!! Welcome to the human race.
Now the only thing left to do is get you to understand that the Repuklitards and Democraps are two sides of the same coin.
Keep working on him folks (and Folks). I think he’s comin’ ’round!!
Have a Great Day!! :) There won’t be many left with the Demlicans and Republicrats in charge.
Frank Pytel
Without corresponding lifestyle changes, are you surprised at the result?
Without corresponding lifestyle changes, are you surprised at the result?
It is not a surprise that when you give something out for free, it will be non effective and abused. These people really take advantage of Medicaid as well as the hospitals. Physicians receive about 2% of the funds. Remember, we just learned our primary Medicaid hospital in the state the Medical University of South Carolina (MUSC) cleared 71 million in Medicaid per DHHS. Thank goodness disproportionate share will be cut to MUSC next year.
Uh, no. while a large amount of funds are funneled into admin pockets, At $250k per year salary for a general practitioner and $38.00 per hour (+OT) for an RN you can bet your sweet ass that its not just the admins cashing in.
Have a Great Day!! :) There won’t be many left with the Demlicans and Republicrats in charge.
Frank Pytel
Frank, I can tell you a general surgeon/trauma surgeon at MUSC makes less than 100k. It is around 90-92k for every 3-4 night call. For this reason, we depend on hiring new graduates and less experienced physicians. We then are also asked to agree to a 2 year restrictive covenant to keep us from leaving. Why do I know? I was one!
Private sector son. Private sector.
Further by the time you figure in state retirement benefits (typically 5X’s private sector and nearly 100% funded by taxpayers) that salary triples over the life time of the career. Tack on Gubmint benefits and you get much closer to the 250k I put forth.
Why do I know? I’m not one of them, but I know how to read plain English.
Have a Great Day!! :) There won’t be many left with the Demlicans and Republicrats in charge.
Frank Pytel
It is not a surprise that when you give something out for free, it will be non effective and abused. These people really take advantage of Medicaid as well as the hospitals. Physicians receive about 2% of the funds. Remember, we just learned our primary Medicaid hospital in the state the Medical University of South Carolina (MUSC) cleared 71 million in Medicaid per DHHS. Thank goodness disproportionate share will be cut to MUSC next year.
Uh, no. while a large amount of funds are funneled into admin pockets, At $250k per year salary for a general practitioner and $38.00 per hour (+OT) for an RN you can bet your sweet ass that its not just the admins cashing in.
Have a Great Day!! :) There won’t be many left with the Demlicans and Republicrats in charge.
Frank Pytel
Frank, I can tell you a general surgeon/trauma surgeon at MUSC makes less than 100k. It is around 90-92k for every 3-4 night call. For this reason, we depend on hiring new graduates and less experienced physicians. We then are also asked to agree to a 2 year restrictive covenant to keep us from leaving. Why do I know? I was one!
Private sector son. Private sector.
Further by the time you figure in state retirement benefits (typically 5X’s private sector and nearly 100% funded by taxpayers) that salary triples over the life time of the career. Tack on Gubmint benefits and you get much closer to the 250k I put forth.
Why do I know? I’m not one of them, but I know how to read plain English.
Have a Great Day!! :) There won’t be many left with the Demlicans and Republicrats in charge.
Frank Pytel
Most physicians don’t accept Medicaid.The ones who do are more likely to be ripping off the system than their patients.Most Medicaid patients receive care at the ER..
‘Medicaid coverage decreased the probability of a positive screening for depression’
Mentally ill Medicaid patients go to the ER,and usually jail,rather than receiving treatment
For-profit healthcare has failed
Most physicians don’t accept Medicaid.The ones who do are more likely to be ripping off the system than their patients.Most Medicaid patients receive care at the ER..
‘Medicaid coverage decreased the probability of a positive screening for depression’
Mentally ill Medicaid patients go to the ER,and usually jail,rather than receiving treatment
For-profit healthcare has failed
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2013/05/02/heres-what-the-oregon-medicaid-study-really-said/
http://www.blueoregon.com/2013/05/oregons-lesson-nation-medicaid-works/
Doesn’t improve outcomes? More likely to go see a doctor and get preventative care? More likely to get a proper diagnosis of diabetes? Less likely to go bankrupt from extreme medical debt? Those sound like improved outcomes to me. I’d rather know I have diabetes and not go bankrupt trying to treat it than the alternatives.
Wow, cholesterol/blood pressure/blood sugar doesn’t necessarily improve? That isn’t dependent upon getting proper medical care so much (other than being alerted to the need to control such factors), it is dependent on the diet and lifestyle (and possibly genetics) of the individual. Besides that, two years isn’t a huge amount of time to do something about that stuff, unless you are assuming that all of the individuals in question knew about these conditions at the very beginning of their coverage.
Also, Jesus Christ dude, you are taking one small sample of a lottery of people covered under an expansion over a mere two fucking years and trying to prove the entire program is bogus and everyone on it, including those who weren’t involved in the expansion of it, doesn’t deserve any health care coverage whatsoever? As in a few random poor people were selected to be covered by an expansion, not an entire subset of people in a given income bracket, and only two years have passed, which doesn’t reasonably dictate enough time for any of these changes to take place or for the patients in question to actually go through a lengthy period of time to allow other health issues to come up?
The real crime is that Medicaid’s existence/expansion persists as a “solution” to covering people that can’t seek coverage in our broken as hell health care system. Rather than try to put a bucket under the leaking roof, we should just replace the whole goddamn roof. People who think health care should be a privilege and not a right most often only think that way because they haven’t had to deal with losing the “privilege.” God bless you because I hope you don’t have to find out the hard way what it is like.
Brilliant.
“Also, Jesus Christ dude, you are taking one small sample of a lottery of people covered under an expansion over a mere two fucking years and trying to prove the entire program is bogus and everyone on it, including those who weren’t involved in the expansion of it, doesn’t deserve any health care coverage whatsoever?”
See the article I linked on this bogus talking point. This is a legit study with fairly rigorous methodology (although slightly skewed towards finding positive Medicaid outcomes), and the Left was singing its praises after the preliminary 1 year results. Now they say “Nevermind.”
For some reason, my post with the article is not showing. Search Avik Roy, Forbes & Medicaid study to find the article if the post with the link never shows up.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2013/05/02/heres-what-the-oregon-medicaid-study-really-said/
http://www.blueoregon.com/2013/05/oregons-lesson-nation-medicaid-works/
Doesn’t improve outcomes? More likely to go see a doctor and get preventative care? More likely to get a proper diagnosis of diabetes? Less likely to go bankrupt from extreme medical debt? Those sound like improved outcomes to me. I’d rather know I have diabetes and not go bankrupt trying to treat it than the alternatives.
Wow, cholesterol/blood pressure/blood sugar doesn’t necessarily improve? That isn’t dependent upon getting proper medical care so much (other than being alerted to the need to control such factors), it is dependent on the diet and lifestyle (and possibly genetics) of the individual. Besides that, two years isn’t a huge amount of time to do something about that stuff, unless you are assuming that all of the individuals in question knew about these conditions at the very beginning of their coverage.
Also, Jesus Christ dude, you are taking one small sample of a lottery of people covered under an expansion over a mere two fucking years and trying to prove the entire program is bogus and everyone on it, including those who weren’t involved in the expansion of it, doesn’t deserve any health care coverage whatsoever? As in a few random poor people were selected to be covered by an expansion, not an entire subset of people in a given income bracket, and only two years have passed, which doesn’t reasonably dictate enough time for any of these changes to take place or for the patients in question to actually go through a lengthy period of time to allow other health issues to come up?
The real crime is that Medicaid’s existence/expansion persists as a “solution” to covering people that can’t seek coverage in our broken as hell health care system. Rather than try to put a bucket under the leaking roof, we should just replace the whole goddamn roof. People who think health care should be a privilege and not a right most often only think that way because they haven’t had to deal with losing the “privilege.” God bless you because I hope you don’t have to find out the hard way what it is like.
Brilliant.
“Also, Jesus Christ dude, you are taking one small sample of a lottery of people covered under an expansion over a mere two fucking years and trying to prove the entire program is bogus and everyone on it, including those who weren’t involved in the expansion of it, doesn’t deserve any health care coverage whatsoever?”
See the article I linked on this bogus talking point. This is a legit study with fairly rigorous methodology (although slightly skewed towards finding positive Medicaid outcomes), and the Left was singing its praises after the preliminary 1 year results. Now they say “Nevermind.”
For some reason, my post with the article is not showing. Search Avik Roy, Forbes & Medicaid study to find the article if the post with the link never shows up.
The anti-Obamacare faction has been all over this declaring that since the Oregon Medicaid expansion lottery did not cure diseases, it shows that Medicaid is worthless. The fact that the group that was covered had less depression and catastrophic out-of-pocket medical expenses were nearly eliminated counts for nothing.
This argument is like saying fire insurance is worthless because it does not prevent fires.
The anti-Obamacare faction has been all over this declaring that since the Oregon Medicaid expansion lottery did not cure diseases, it shows that Medicaid is worthless. The fact that the group that was covered had less depression and catastrophic out-of-pocket medical expenses were nearly eliminated counts for nothing.
This argument is like saying fire insurance is worthless because it does not prevent fires.
Truly sad the disparity in comments from this to the Sanford soap opera posts. The most rigorous study to date on the efficacy of one of our primary entitlement programs shows that it has statistically significant improvement in health outcomes over having no insurance. The only benefit is in financial security, but we could do that more efficiently by cutting out the middle man and just subsidizing their care. This is a huge deal and shows the fundamental failures of our entitlement programs.
Truly sad the disparity in comments from this to the Sanford soap opera posts. The most rigorous study to date on the efficacy of one of our primary entitlement programs shows that it has statistically significant improvement in health outcomes over having no insurance. The only benefit is in financial security, but we could do that more efficiently by cutting out the middle man and just subsidizing their care. This is a huge deal and shows the fundamental failures of our entitlement programs.