Not News, But History - A New Look at Medicaid Expansion

                لمشاهدة الفيديو كامل HD 
              والتحميل مجانا

           ↷     من هون     ↶ 

                  ⇩  ⇩  ⇩                                                                                

                                   

Now that 2014 and Obamacare are both here, there will be plenty of stories about Affordable Care Act implementation.  Some will be newsworthy; but others will just be history. 

Last week, we got our first history story characterized as exploding news.

The Washington Post reported on a newly-released Harvard study that analyzed the impact of the 2008 Oregon Medicaid expansion on hospital emergency department visits.  The study found that there was a 40 percent increase in the number of emergency department visits made by the new Medicaid enrollees.

For the Post article, an MIT health economist (I guess no Harvard ones were available!) commented  that he viewed it “as part of a broader set of evidence that covering people with health insurance doesn’t save money,” something he went on to characterize as a “misleading motivator for the Affordable Care Act.”

And Forbes went farther, claiming the study results are “undermining [the] central rationale” for ACA.

But the Oregon expansion increase wasn’t really news by itself, and it tells us nothing about the Affordable Care Act, either.

There are three reasons for this.

The first reason is that Medicaid recipients, as a group, have always been the most frequent users of emergency department care. 

I learned about this up close when I was involved in a community health project in Austin, TX, more than a decade ago. 

We compared the use of emergency departments for non-emergent reasons by privately insured, Medicaid-insured, and uninsured residents.  About half the visits made by privately insured or uninsured people were for non-emergent reasons.  But 60 percent of those made by Medicaid recipients were for non-emergencies. 

The same thing was true when that analysis was repeated in other hospitals in other parts of the country.

So the new study simply confirms what we have known to be the case for years.  Medicaid recipients use hospital emergency departments for non-emergent care more frequently than those who are not on Medicaid.

The second reason is that we also know why Medicaid recipients have historically gone to emergency departments for their non-emergency care. 

It isn’t that emergency rooms are more conveniently located than private doctors and walk-in clinics.  Or that some hospitals now use billboards, texting, or other mass media to advertise shorter emergency department waiting times.

It is simply because – unlike many private primary care providers – hospitals have historically been paid enough to take part in the Medicaid system. 

But there are new realities under the Affordable Care Act.  More federally-qualified health centers are being approved, and other private primary care providers are seeing increased rates – rates comparable to Medicare – for treating Medicaid patients.

While change won’t happen overnight, this means that over time more private providers will be signing up for Medicaid in the expanded Medicaid program, and more Medicaid patients will be choosing them over hospital emergency departments because they can.

And that makes the results of an expansion program that took place six years ago an interesting history lesson, but as poor a predictor of what will happen in the future under a different set of rules as historical stock market performance is of future returns.

The third reason is that cost-savings was not a “misleading motivator” for supporting the Affordable Care Act.

Despite the suggestion of the MIT economist and the Forbes headliner, it wasn’t actually a reason at all.  When the Act was debated in 2009 and 2010, it was clear to all that it was essentially cost-neutral. 

Both the CBO and the Administration projected that we were going to be spending about the same amount on health care overall for the next ten years whether or not we passed the law.  But the law would distribute the costs and savings differently.

Medicare and Medicaid would take on a slightly greater share of costs.  Out-of-pocket costs not covered by public or private insurance would go down (especially for those with chronic diseases and conditions who could not afford insurance in the past).  And private insurance would continue to pay just about one-third of the nation’s health care bill.

While not everyone in the media may have known this at the time, all the people voting on the law did.

That’s not news.  That’s history.

Just like the new Harvard study.

Paul Gionfriddo via email: gionfriddopaul@gmail.com.  Twitter: @pgionfriddo.  Facebook: www.facebook.com/paul.gionfriddo.  LinkedIn:  www.linkedin.com/in/paulgionfriddo/