Medicaid Studies Highlight Life-Saving Impact
This month, two studies have sparked significant discussions about Medicaid, especially in light of the ongoing debate in Washington, D.C. One of the studies, released recently in the New England Journal of Medicine, along with additional findings from the National Bureau of Economic Research, suggests that Medicaid—an essential insurance program for over 70 million low-income Americans and those with disabilities—plays a crucial role in saving lives.
As legislative measures are considered, experts like Harvard economist Amitab Chandra, who wasn’t part of the studies, stress the importance of these findings. He underlined that while cutting Medicaid might seem financially beneficial at first glance, the toll on human lives could be far greater.
“We’re realizing that limiting Medicaid access might save some money, but at an enormous cost,” Chandra observed, emphasizing the human consequences.
Tens of Thousands of Lives Saved
One of the research papers, authored by economists Angela Weiss from Dartmouth and Bruce Meyer from the University of Chicago, focused on Medicaid expansion in states under the Affordable Care Act. After analyzing data from 37 million individuals, they found some striking results:
- Those who gained Medicaid coverage through the ACA had a 21% lower annual mortality rate compared to those without health insurance.
- From 2010 to 2022, states that opted to expand Medicaid saved approximately 27,400 lives.
- In states that chose not to expand Medicaid in 2014, around 12,800 lives were lost that might have been saved.
While their study doesn’t delve into the reasons behind these outcomes, previous research suggests connections such as improved physical health and decreased mortality rates from chronic conditions like diabetes and cancer.
Interestingly, the researchers also noted that young adults—typically assumed to be less affected by the necessity of insurance—benefited significantly from Medicaid, particularly from mental health and substance abuse treatment services.
Medicaid’s Critical Role in Healthcare
Another study published on May 14 examined how Medicaid affects a particularly vulnerable demographic: 12 million individuals eligible for both Medicare and Medicaid. Often classified as “dual eligible,” these individuals, whether disabled or over 65, navigate two major public health insurance programs.
When they lose Medicaid, they also forfeit significant Medicare coverage, including valuable savings on prescriptions averaging about $6,000 annually. Due to complex policies, some individuals maintain their Medicaid longer than other benefits depending on various factors.
The researchers, led by economist Eric Roberts from the University of Pennsylvania and Harvard’s Jose Figueroa, found that individuals who lost Medicaid faster suffered detrimental health impacts:
- They had, on average, 1.2 fewer prescriptions.
- Risk of death increased by 4% to 22%, influenced by the cost and type of medications.
- Patients reliant on medications for conditions like HIV or heart disease faced heightened mortality risks during the 17-month study.
Chandra remarked on the significance of these findings. While it’s now clear that Medicaid saves lives, the deeper inquiry remains: why does it have such an effect?
Chandra pointed to Medicaid’s role in ensuring access to lifesaving medications, highlighting the broader importance of medication accessibility.
Recent regulations from the Department of Health and Human Services indicate that nearly a million more individuals could benefit from additional medication support. Yet, proposed Republican changes could delay these benefits until 2035.
The Challenges of Policy Changes
Roberts noted another pressing issue regarding the implications of increasing bureaucratic hurdles, especially as Republican proposals include more frequent eligibility checks and work requirements, making Medicaid retention difficult.
Research shows that it’s not uncommon for individuals to lose Medicaid coverage temporarily—due to fluctuating incomes or administrative errors—only to regain it soon after, a phenomenon experts refer to as “churn.”
Policies that exacerbate this churn could be fatal, as Roberts highlighted. “For very sick and poor individuals, even a week without critical medications can have dire consequences,” he explained.
Determining that roughly 3,000 individuals died during research despite many only losing aid for short periods underscores the urgency of this issue.
In conclusion, these two studies bring to the forefront critical realities for lawmakers. Whether they decide to generously fund programs or complicate processes, the new evidence suggests that lives are at stake regardless of the path taken.
