Pensacola Discussion Forum
Would you like to react to this message? Create an account in a few clicks or log in to continue.

This is a forum based out of Pensacola Florida.


You are not connected. Please login or register

From the Department of Health Policy and Management, Harvard School of Public Health, Boston.

3 posters

Go down  Message [Page 1 of 1]

Slicef18

Slicef18

Mortality and Access to Care among Adults after State Medicaid Expansions as reported in the New England Journal of Medicine.

Our study period included 5 years before and 5 years after each state's expansion, with the postintervention period beginning the first full year after the expansion to cover childless adults and the preintervention period covering the immediately preceding 5 years. We selected as controls neighboring states without major Medicaid expansions that were closest in population and demographic characteristics to the three states with Medicaid expansions15: New Hampshire (for Maine), Pennsylvania (for New York), and Nevada and New Mexico (for Arizona).

Our estimate of a 6.1% reduction in the relative risk of death among adults is similar to the 8.5% and 5.1% population-level reductions in infant and child mortality, respectively, as estimated in analyses of Medicaid expansions in the 1980s.3,4 Our results correspond to 2840 deaths prevented per year in states with Medicaid expansions, in which 500,000 adults acquired coverage.15 This finding suggests that 176 additional adults would need to be covered by Medicaid in order to prevent 1 death per year.

In conclusion, our results offer new evidence that the expansion of Medicaid coverage may reduce mortality among adults, particularly those between the ages of 35 and 64 years, minorities, and those living in poorer areas. Ongoing research on the basis of randomized data13,45 will be invaluable in expanding on these findings. The Medicaid program is slated to expand coverage to millions of adults in 2014 under the ACA, though the recent Supreme Court ruling enables states to choose whether they will do so, and some states may instead consider program cuts. Policymakers should be aware that major changes in Medicaid — either expansions or reductions in coverage — may have significant effects on the health of vulnerable populations.

PBulldog2

PBulldog2

Slicef18 wrote:Mortality and Access to Care among Adults after State Medicaid Expansions as reported in the New England Journal of Medicine.

Our study period included 5 years before and 5 years after each state's expansion, with the postintervention period beginning the first full year after the expansion to cover childless adults and the preintervention period covering the immediately preceding 5 years. We selected as controls neighboring states without major Medicaid expansions that were closest in population and demographic characteristics to the three states with Medicaid expansions15: New Hampshire (for Maine), Pennsylvania (for New York), and Nevada and New Mexico (for Arizona).

Our estimate of a 6.1% reduction in the relative risk of death among adults is similar to the 8.5% and 5.1% population-level reductions in infant and child mortality, respectively, as estimated in analyses of Medicaid expansions in the 1980s.3,4 Our results correspond to 2840 deaths prevented per year in states with Medicaid expansions, in which 500,000 adults acquired coverage.15 This finding suggests that 176 additional adults would need to be covered by Medicaid in order to prevent 1 death per year.

In conclusion, our results offer new evidence that the expansion of Medicaid coverage may reduce mortality among adults, particularly those between the ages of 35 and 64 years, minorities, and those living in poorer areas. Ongoing research on the basis of randomized data13,45 will be invaluable in expanding on these findings. The Medicaid program is slated to expand coverage to millions of adults in 2014 under the ACA, though the recent Supreme Court ruling enables states to choose whether they will do so, and some states may instead consider program cuts. Policymakers should be aware that major changes in Medicaid — either expansions or reductions in coverage — may have significant effects on the health of vulnerable populations.

Slice, I'm pleasantly surprised that your post above hasn't received the usual comments from the "you're a commie" crowd. That seems to happen every time I post anything from the NEJM or the Harvard School of Public Health in Boston, anyhow. From the tone of some of the local responses I've received over the years, one would think everyone in Massachusetts (especially if they are health care providers) carries large hammers and sickles in the trunks of their cars.

Markle should be here momentarily....I'm sure he'll set you straight about any concerns you may have about adult mortality rates for people with virtually no access to health care. That category of people probably falls into the 5% range of citizens he has essentially suggested could be sacrificed for the good of all, so they don't count. By all means, let's not mess with the greatest health care system in the world by making it accessible to the unwashed masses.

Am I a tad bitter and sarcastic, Slice? Oh, yes. I have been amazed and stunned by the attitudes of some Floridians toward improving health care access for those who are in GapLand - those who are too young for Medicare yet too have too many supposed assets to qualify for Florida's screwed-up Medicaid program.

***Cue those who think the ED is the place to go for those who have no health care access.***

TEOTWAWKI

TEOTWAWKI

correspond to 2840 deaths prevented per year in states with Medicaid expansions

So people have quit dying in Medicaid expansion states....cool.

PBulldog2

PBulldog2

TEOTWAWKI wrote:correspond to 2840 deaths prevented per year in states with Medicaid expansions

So people have quit dying in Medicaid expansion states....cool.

Do you by chance see a connection here, Teo?

PBulldog2

PBulldog2

Heehee....I just had a funny but enlightening thought.

Chrissy slammed me the other day for supporting SSCS and Paul Watson. Supposedly, I should spend my time, effort and money on causes that support humans, not animals....and here I have spent the past 15 or so years battling in my own small way for health care access for humans.

Kind of ironic, I suppose.

Very Happy

http://www.pnhp.org

Slicef18

Slicef18

PBulldog2 wrote:Heehee....I just had a funny but enlightening thought.

Chrissy slammed me the other day for supporting SSCS and Paul Watson. Supposedly, I should spend my time, effort and money on causes that support humans, not animals....and here I have spent the past 15 or so years battling in my own small way for health care access for humans.

Kind of ironic, I suppose.

Very Happy

http://www.pnhp.org


People like Markle and Chrissy have their lives organized in a manner of pigeon-holes where items of life are categorized and put in the proper pigeon-hole labeled as to importance to them. That way when an unpleasant situation arises, they simply put it in the pigeon-hole where they don't deal with it on an emotional level. It's not a good or bad way to live life. Bill Clinton(one of my favorite people) and Hillery both live this way. Hillery could not do her job otherwise.Another of my favorite people, former Secretary of Defense Robert Gates was a master at it.

TEOTWAWKI

TEOTWAWKI

I think everyone should have access to healthcare. It would thin the herd much faster.

Guest


Guest

Slicef18 wrote:
PBulldog2 wrote:Heehee....I just had a funny but enlightening thought.

Chrissy slammed me the other day for supporting SSCS and Paul Watson. Supposedly, I should spend my time, effort and money on causes that support humans, not animals....and here I have spent the past 15 or so years battling in my own small way for health care access for humans.

Kind of ironic, I suppose.

Very Happy

http://www.pnhp.org


People like Markle and Chrissy have their lives organized in a manner of pigeon-holes where items of life are categorized and put in the proper pigeon-hole labeled as to importance to them. That way when an unpleasant situation arises, they simply put it in the pigeon-hole where they don't deal with it on an emotional level. It's not a good or bad way to live life. Bill Clinton(one of my favorite people) and Hillery both live this way. Hillery could not do her job otherwise.Another of my favorite people, former Secretary of Defense Robert Gates was a master at it.

It's only important to people like them when it "is them." They exist in a universe where they believe they will never experience the loss of health care or ever be put in that position- so what other people experience matters none to them.

Sponsored content



Back to top  Message [Page 1 of 1]

Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum