WASHINGTON — States that expand their Medicaid programs under President Barack Obama’s health care law may end up saving thousands of lives, a medical journal report released Wednesday indicates.

Until now, the Medicaid debate has been about budgets and states’ rights. But a statistical study by Harvard researchers in the New England Journal of Medicine found a 6 percent drop in the adult death rate in Maine, Arizona and New York, three states that have recently expanded coverage for low-income residents along the general lines of the federal health care law.

The study found that for every 176 adults covered under expanded Medicaid, one death per year would be prevented.

“Policymakers should be should be aware that major changes in Medicaid — either expansions or reductions in coverage — may have significant effects on the health of vulnerable populations,” wrote the researchers from the Harvard School of Public Health.

Medicaid is a federal-state program for low-income and severely disabled people. It covers about 60 million people in the United States. The new law assigned Medicaid a major role in expanding coverage, accounting for about half the 30 million uninsured people expected to gain insurance as a result of the health overhaul.

But the Supreme Court last month ruled that states have the leeway to reject the law’s Medicaid expansion, which is geared to reach mostly uninsured adults without children and with annual incomes up to about $15,400. As a consequence, the Congressional Budget Office projects 3 million fewer people will gain coverage. Although the CBO still expects most states will expand their programs to some degree, the agency’s nonpartisan analysts project that it may take longer than a decade for some governors and legislatures to decide.

Some governors in Republican-led states, including Texas and Florida, have rejected the Medicaid expansion since the high court’s ruling. Many remain on the fence, awaiting the outcome of the November elections and GOP promises to repeal the law. Although Washington will pay all of the cost of the expansion for the first three years, then scale back to a 90 percent share, Republican governors say Medicaid is already too costly and the Obama administration repeatedly has blocked their efforts to streamline the program.

The New England Journal study seems destined to be swept up immediately into the debate. Critics are certain to point out that its lead author, Dr. Benjamin Sommers, is on temporary assignment from Harvard working in a policy division of the federal Department of Health and Human Services, which is carrying out Obama’s overhaul.

In an interview, Sommers said “HHS does not have anything to do with this paper.” The research was under way before he began serving as an adviser to the department, and no federal money was used in the project, he said. Like other major medical publications, the journal rigorously reviews research prior to publication.

The study’s findings counter a widespread perception that having a Medicaid card is little better than being uninsured. Because Medicaid pays doctors far less than Medicare and private insurance, some experts have questioned it will be able to deliver the care that people need.

The study compared key health statistics in the three states that expanded Medicaid coverage with outcomes in neighboring states that did not, examining five years before the expansion and the five years after.

Maine, New York and Arizona  have all expanded eligibility for childless adults  in 2001 and 2002, with New York’s expansion by far the largest. States that did not expand and were used for the comparison included Pennsylvania (for New York), New Hampshire (for Maine), and Nevada and New Mexico (for Arizona.)

The study is not the gold standard for statistical research because subjects were not selected at random, but Sommers said the researchers cross-checked their results and are confident of the findings.

In addition to the drop in death rates among adults ages 20 to 64, the study found a 21 percent drop in delays getting care blamed on cost barriers.

It’s the second recent study to document the benefits of Medicaid. A study of Oregonians published last year found that those with Medicaid were more far more likely to get regular medical care, including preventive screenings. The subjects of the Oregon study were randomly selected.

“Expanding Medicaid to low-income adults is associated with significant gains in health and survival,” said Sommers.

Join the Conversation

27 Comments

  1. More White House propaganda from the AP.  Anything associated with Harvard seems to be a liability.

    1. Gee, Lepage just cited a Harvard study about education in Maine that he drooled all over as fact.
      Oops, another republican fumble. 

  2. Where are the right to life people on this one?  Saying, “More White House propaganda.” hahahahahhha. Save the fetus, but let the po’ folks die.  Something is wrong with that picture.

    1. “Save the fetus” or more appropriately, “Save the child”? Which one is it? It’s a child if birthed. Otherwise, when aborted it’s a fetus. This sounds to me like relative or situational morality.

      I’d be interested in knowing how many insured people die because of copays in their policies. I’m sure there are plenty of those who neglected to see a doctor just to save money. Should we therefore mandate insurance companies to drop their copays that prevent people from abusing the medical system in order to save lives? People want the government to pay for their living. We now have over 100 million people receiving a welfare check in the country. Are we better off as a result or are people losing their will to earn their own way?

  3. So the article itself says that ” [t]he study is not the gold standard for statistical research because subjects were not selected at random, but Sommers said the researchers cross-checked their results and are confident of the findings.”  So what did they cross check with? Why weren’t the subjects polled random? Are there any other reasons as to why more people died in other states outside the fact that medicaid was expanded or not? How about the fact that statistically there has been a decrease in the number of non-elderly people in maine? What good is this information? Who payed for the study?  Sounds like statisticians doing their “magic” and assuming anybody that hears the number they want to hear will agree that the study was done correctly without checking into it…God I hate stats.

    1. They sure can be inconvenient, those statistics. Dont let this get in the way of you preestablished biases. It is so much easier to blame media boas than to face reality.

      1. Did I say what side I’m for or against?  Might want to read the paragraph next time before you spout your preconceived rhetoric so quickly you forget to check your grammar or your spelling.

    2. Predetermine your narrative then cherry pick your statistics and you get to cherry pick your results.
      People take these studies as gospel and many wonder why academics are not held in as high regard as they once were.

    3. Probably global financier and left wing political activist George Soros provided the money for the research. I don’t see why any independent, “non-commissioned” firm would simply volunteer to spend part of its resources unless it had something to gain by it.

      Besides the lack of randomness in the study, the question must be ask if Maine is similar to New Hampshire; New York, to Pennsylvania, and Arizona, to Nevada and New Mexico. Those are big assumptions made by the study group.

      Furthermore, these studies were conducted for over a limited period to time. What guarantee do we have people’s healthcare habits won’t change in the foreseeable future?

      Maine, like most state governments has been expanding its Medicaid program, MaineCare, much over the years. Continued expansion of these programs in these states may have caused a lot of people to drop their insurance coverage in order to become more dependent. Is this a trend? If so, why should we be promoting it at a time when the state of Maine is trying to get its spending under control?

  4. Those darned statistics get the guv everytime & make him out to be a blowhard liar, but then again I guess if it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck…

  5. LePage does NOT care about saving lives in this state….let’s just be frank shall we?  If all the citizens of this state were all on fire LePage wouldn’t pee on a single one of us to put out the fire. Pffffft.

    1. He’d ask us to provide half the urine and then refuse to add his own when we don’t put out enough of the fire ourselves.

  6. For some reason, Republicans can’t hear that affordable healthcare saves lives and helps struggling working people.  All they seem to be able to hear is (a) there is a lazy class of people who don’t deserve help, (b) it costs them money to help others.

    It is incredibly difficult to past this wall of irreality.  If we can get people to debate using reason instead of anger, that’s a step.

    1. First of all it doesn’t matter if you have insurance or not when you go to the ER.  They cannot turn you away.  So to say that this saved lives is crazy.  This law doesn’t discriminate and say oh because you have insurance you won’t die today.  If it’s your time then it’s your time no matter what you have or what they do for you.  Stop trying to hype this crap up.

      1. That works for the ER, but what about non emergency? What about cancer? Sure they’ll admit you to the ER when you’re at deaths door, but what if you’re there because you couldn’t afford the early care and treatment to make it non life threatening?

      2. Also, just because they’ll treat you despite not being able to afford the care, doesn’t mean they won’t bill you for it.

      3. The ER is for emergency care. It doesn’t provide consistent quality care that is needed to prevent illness and keep people healthy.

        People need preventative care not just emergency care.

      4. It looks like others are already wisely challenging your ER-method of healthcare, so I’ll just say this:

        If someone has a lump in their side, should they wait till it is crippling to seek out medical help?

        If someone is having occasional heart pain, should they wait till they have a heart emergency to seek help?

        What about people who need medications?

        And who pays for it, when people with emergencies (which could have been prevented, if they could have afforded a doctor before) go to the ER?

    2. Like OBUMACARE?
      Take the part that would let kids stay on their parent’s health plan until age 26. Despite what the administration thinks, that coverage isn’t free.According to the Department of Health and Human Services, the cost is as much as $3,400 per kid each year.Insurers just pass that back onto the companies giving their employees benefits. What’s the outcome?Employers stop offering it.One of the largest union-administered health insurance funds is now dropping dependent coverage for 30,000 employees. That’s thousands of children that are losing insurance, all thanks to Obamacare’s “expanded coverage.

  7. Certainly no ax to grind here for Dr. Sommers…all his research and motives were pure as the driven snow.

    Apparently what we have here is a bad case of post hoc ergo propter hoc.

  8. The only thing this is doing is trying
    to save the community organzer’s job.
    It will help the elderly, it will help the
    poor. What a crock.

Leave a comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *