Study: Medicaid enrollment aids mental health, has little impact on physical conditions
WASHINGTON — If you're uninsured, getting on Medicaid clearly improves your mental health, but it doesn't seem to make much difference in physical conditions such as high blood pressure.
The counterintuitive findings by researchers at Harvard and MIT, from an experiment involving low-income, able-bodied Oregonians, appear in Thursday's New England Journal of Medicine. The study offers a twist for states weighing a major Medicaid expansion under President Obama's health care law, to serve a similar population of adults around the country.
“The study did not generate any evidence that Medicaid coverage translated to measurable improvements in physical health outcomes over a two-year window,” said lead researcher Katherine Baicker of the Harvard School of Public Health. “It did generate robust improvements in mental health and enormous reductions in financial strain and hardship.”
That leaves policymakers with “a much more nuanced and complex picture” of the potential benefits of expanding Medicaid, said Baicker, an economist.
It also debunks a widespread perception that having Medicaid is no better, and maybe even worse, than being uninsured. A federal-state partnership, Medicaid covers more than 55 million low-income and severely disabled people, ranging from poor children to nursing home residents. It pays providers less than Medicare or private insurance.
Obama's health care law envisioned expanding Medicaid to anyone making up to 138 percent of the federal poverty line, or nearly $15,860 for an individual. About 15 million people — mostly adults with no children living at home — could eventually be covered if all states expand. But the Supreme Court last year gave states the right to reject the expansion without jeopardizing the rest of their federal Medicaid funds.
The study found that having Medicaid reduced rates of depression by 30 percent and virtually eliminated catastrophic medical expenses because of a serious accident or the sudden onset of a life-threatening illness. People with Medicaid had better access to doctors, preventive care, prescriptions and hospitals. They also used their benefits, consuming about $1,200 a year more per person in health care services than do the uninsured.
But Medicaid had no significant effect on blood-pressure readings, high cholesterol or elevated blood sugar levels, although it did increase the probability that people with diabetes would be diagnosed.
The study is unusual because it took advantage of a state policy decision to create a natural experiment. A 2008 Medicaid expansion in Oregon used lottery drawings from a waiting list to determine who would get coverage. That created two populations: those who got in, and those left out — a control group of people who remained mostly uninsured. Comparing the two randomly selected groups gives the research a high degree of scientific rigor.
Obama administration officials, in a written reaction published alongside the study, suggested that two years might not be enough time for differences to emerge in physical health results, particularly for patients with chronic conditions influenced by lifestyle choices. They also noted that the Oregon group was relatively small, about 12,000 people, compared to the millions who will gain coverage next year. The Oregon pool might not have been large enough to tease out valid results, they suggested.
Show commenting policy
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 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.
- Reagan shooter Hinckley closer to permanent freedom
- U.S. attorney general nominee Lynch vote likely this week, U.S. senator says
- Service marks 20 years since Oklahoma City bombing
- Accused terror plotter pleads not guilty in Ohio
- ‘Dr. Oz’ to counter criticisms on air
- Author says demise of coal cannot be reversed
- Collection gives insight into Oklahoma City federal building bomber McVeigh
- Foggy Interstate 70 pileup injures dozen in Colorado
- Social media makes it difficult for ‘hero’ to stay anonymous
- Dog lovers know it’s chemistry at work
- Federal appeals court appears divided on Obama’s immigrant deportation shield