…Medicaid does not produce positive health outcomes for its enrollees. If anything, people are better off without the deficient entitlement program.
In 2008, Oregon conducted a Randomized Control Test, known as the Oregon Health Insurance Experiment (OHIE), to monitor health outcomes of 10,000 Oregonians who won a “lottery” to enroll in Medicaid. This subpopulation was split into two groups – the uninsured and those on Medicaid. Health researchers then compared and evaluated the following four major health measures between the two groups: elevated blood pressure, high cholesterol, elevated HbA1c levels, and long-term cardiovascular risk.
Until now, defining “positive health outcomes” has remained questionable. The release of OHIE’s second year results clearly indicate no tracings of significant positive health outcomes among the specified Medicaid population. Let me repeat that, no tracings of positive health outcomes were determined. As expected, utilization of services, health expenditures, prescriptions, and diagnoses increased among Medicaid enrollees. Researchers found that those who received Medicaid increased their annual health care spending by $1,172, or 35 percent more than those who did not receive Medicaid.
The authors of the report also claim that despite the increase in Medicaid enrollees, the number of ER visits did not significantly change.
So, what does this mean? This monumental study destructs President Obama’s unconstrained vision where more people on Medicaid will reduce the number of the uninsured, increase positive health outcomes, and reduce the number of costly ER visits.
OHIE’s second-year results raise a red flag for all states to reject Medicaid expansion, repeal Obamacare, and resort to a consumer-driven Medicaid program where taxpayers and beneficiaries both benefit.
