Oregon's Verdict on Medicaid | Michael F. Cannon | Cato Institute: Commentary

Oregon's Verdict on Medicaid | Michael F. Cannon | Cato Institute: Commentary: "Americans may be surprised to learn that little solid evidence exists to support the claim that expanding health insurance will improve the health and financial security of the uninsure"

"Medicaid coverage led to higher medical consumption"

"medical consumption was no higher in the first half of the year, suggesting there was no 'pent-up demand' for medical care"

"no discernible difference in ER use between Medicaid enrollees and the control group."

"The likelihood of having out-of-pocket medical expenses fell from 56 percent to 36 percent, while the likelihood of having to borrow money or skip paying other bills to pay for medical care fell from 36 percent to 21 percent. Enrollees' likelihood of having any type of unpaid bill sent to collection fell from 50 percent to 45 percent."

"no evidence that Medicare (which covers a much older and sicker population) saved any lives even ten years after its introduction."

"the likelihood of screening positive for depression fell from 33 percent to 25 percent, and the share reporting their health to be good or better rose from 55 percent to 68 percent. However, two-thirds of the improvement in self-reported health occurred almost immediately after enrollment, before any increases in medical consumption."

"despite being eligible for Medicaid, 13 percent of the control group had private health insurance — suggesting that on some dimension, Medicaid's eligibility rules are already too broad."

"For a century, the Left has advocated universal health insurance despite not knowing what benefits it might bring. In 2010, Congress and President Obama vastly expanded Medicaid without waiting for the results of the one study that might tell them what taxpayers would get in return for their half a trillion dollars. As the law's supporters seek to cajole doctors into practicing evidence-based medicine, it is no small irony that they themselves dove head-first into evidence-free policymaking."