Best Analysis of the Oregon Medicaid Experiment I Have Seen
In summary, based on statistically insignificant effects of coverage from the Oregon Experiment: (1) The effects that are closest to statistical significance are that coverage would increase the rate of smoking and damage the cardiovascular prognosis of sick people; (2) the best estimated net effect on total population cardiovascular health is extraordinarily tiny; (3) this effect would be achieved by making the sick sicker, while very slightly improving the health of already healthy people; and (4) this effect is almost certainly unattractive on a risk-adjusted basis. This is not a series of effects that makes a very attractive argument for an increase in health from the experiment.
This is Jim Manzi via Megan McArdle. Entire piece is fascinating.
I’m in the second boat, the if-it’s-not-significant-throw-it-out boat. I agree with his analysis overall, but I fail to see the benefits (however small) he sees at the end. This “experiment” cost the state of Oregon $450 Billion dollars, and generated a NEGATIVE rate of return. It’s not that the program did nothing, it’s that we paid a half a Trillion dollars to do nothing. I could do nothing on my back porch for free. No one pays me.
I have to agree with Gabriel, and – I believe – so would Avik Roy.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/theapothecary/2013/05/11/four-reasons-why-the-oregon-medicaid-results-are-even-worse-than-they-look/
He wrote something similar.
Mark Twain was famous for having once said… “there are three kinds of lies: lies, damn lies, and statistics.”
It sounds like proponents of Medicaid expansion are using all three to support their case!
This is dumb. Of course having a doctor would make you healthier than not having a doctor.
Another very bad experiment. It does not matter if it had a negative or not much of an effect, either way, it still was way too much money to just throw away.
I liked Manzi’s analysis a lot. My take on the Oregon study: http://www.healthycriticism.com/2013/05/decoding-oregon-why-doesnt-medicaid.html
Government spending has this tragedy of the commons thing going for it. If the gov. was financially tied to a portion of misspent, poorly allocated, or downright wasted funds — I’d imagine this sort of thing would stop.
Coverage would increase the rate of smoking?
Wait.. what?
Hey! I know this is kinda off topic however , I’d figured I’d ask. Would you be interested in exchanging links or maybe guest writing a blog article or vice-versa? My site discusses a lot of the same subjects as yours and I think we could greatly benefit from each other. If you are interested feel free to send me an e-mail. I look forward to hearing from you! Wonderful blog by the way! gavin http://rhjconstruction.info/since-olden-times-holistic-medicine-is-endorsing-body/