ObamaCare & the ER
To the list of ObamaCare promises likely to prove empty, add cost savings from fewer emergency room visits. That's the implication of a new study that found previously uninsured Oregonians made far more ER visits after gaining Medicaid coverage.
Published in the journal Science, the study involved thousands of low-income Portland-area residents who gained Medicaid coverage in a random 2008 lottery. In their first 18 months on Medicaid, they made 40 percent more ER visits than did lottery participants who didn't gain coverage — a pattern that “held true across most demographic groups, times of days and types of visits,” The New York Times reports.
President Obama and his backers maintain that by giving uninsured Americans access to primary-care doctors, ObamaCare will cause ER usage to drop. But that flies in the face of a basic economics principle that this study's authors acknowledge: If a service — such as emergency room care — costs people less out of pocket, they'll use that service more.
With about 25 million uninsured Americans eligible for ObamaCare coverage, expect ObamaCare to produce anything but ER savings. Expect, too, a vicious cycle in which hospitals push for Medicaid expansion under ObamaCare — to pay for more and more emergency room visits as more uninsured gain coverage.
ObamaCare simply can't keep its ER savings promise in real-world practice. It's another reason to repeal this doomed-to-fail law.
TribLive commenting policy
You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.
We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.
While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.
We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments â either by the same reader or different readers.
We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.
We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.
We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.
We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.