Oregon Medicaid study: insurance improves quality of life even if health outcomes are uncertain

The NEJM study out today analyzing Oregon's Medicaid program is drawing heated commentary across the web. The study suggested people added to the Medicaid rolls spend more on healthcare than other poor people, but don't necessarily wind up with better health with two major exceptions: they had less depression and they were financially more secure.

Argued Harvard professor Ashish Jha on his An Ounce of Evidence blog: “Oregon tells us that insurance has its benefits – it gives us peace of mind and improves access to health services like office visits and preventive screening. But it doesn't do that much for health, because it's not about access to healthcare. It's about access to high quality healthcare. Quality is the link between healthcare services and better health outcomes.”

Dr. Aaron Carroll, director of Indiana University School of Medicine's Center for Health Policy and Professionalism Research, and Austin Frakt, a healthcare economist at Boston University, wrote on The Incidental Economist blog: “The good: Medicaid improved rates of diagnosis of depression, increased the use of preventive services, and improved the financial outlook for enrollees. The bad: It did not significantly affect the A1C levels of people with diabetes or levels of hypertension or cholesterol. This has led many to declare that the ACA is now a failed promise, that Medicaid is bad, and that anyone who disagrees is a 'Medicaid denier.' How many people saying that are ready to give up insurance for themselves or their family?”