The study provides the strongest evidence yet for the intuitively appealing proposition that increasing the number of people with health insurance will give more people access to healthcare services and result in better health outcomes. It was seen as providing support for the Obamacare coverage expansion.
But that's been a controversial proposition both politically and in research circles, especially since last year's New England Journal of Medicine study in Oregon reported that having Medicaid did not improve new beneficiaries' physical health, though it did boost their mental health and financial security.
With the new research evidence that increasing coverage saves lives, how do opponents of expanding Medicaid to adults earning up to 138% of the federal poverty level—which would extend coverage to millions more Americans—defend their position? Some say that even if the Massachusetts coverage expansion saved lives, the price per life saved was too high and there may be equally effective policy approaches that cost taxpayers less.
There undoubtedly will be more studies of whether insured people have a better survival rate than uninsured people now that Obamacare has taken effect and about half the states have expanded Medicaid while the other half have not. “It's very unfortunate for people living in states not expanding Medicaid, but from the point of view of research, it's a gold mine,” Richard Kronick, director of the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, told the New York Times.
Follow Harris Meyer on Twitter: @MHHmeyer
