4 ms·

> the first rigorous experiment to find that health coverage leads to fewer deaths, a claim that politicians and economists have fiercely debated in recent year

> the first rigorous experiment to find that health coverage leads to fewer deaths, a claim that politicians and economists have fiercely debated in recent years Living in Europe I must have missed this debate. Is it not self-evidently true? What are the arguments against it?

BurningFrog 5y ago
Most studies on the topic shows that having health insurance in the US doesn't impact people's health much or at all. Everyone agrees this is counterintuitive, but that's been the data so far. This study adds some weight to the other side.
- autoexec 5y ago
  > Most studies on the topic shows that having health insurance in the US doesn't impact people's health much or at all. I can't speak to "most" having not seen all of them, but studies have shown it matters. https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/jun/24/us-healthcare-republican-bill-no-coverage-death https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/jun/24/us-healthcar... These came up a year later: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2323087/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2323087/ https://news.gallup.com/poll/268094/millions-lost-someone-couldn-afford-treatment.aspx https://news.gallup.com/poll/268094/millions-lost-someone-co... Seems there has been some prior evidence for supporting the idea that health insurance (the only way to get affordable healthcare in the US) matters. What are examples of studies that show it has little to no impact?
- lostcolony 5y ago
  No no. They say -mortality- isn't affected. Like, people don't die more often without health insurance. There are all sorts of measured benefits of health insurance, quality of life, lower prevalence of medical debt, etc. It's just that a lack of it doesn't lead to people dying sooner. Which kind of makes sense; the cost even with insurance ensures people don't go to the doctor as often as they should, until something is concerning them. And if it is sufficiently concerning, even someone without insurance goes. And if it's going to prove lethal without treatment, even those without insurance will probably still get the treatment, since better to be alive and in debt the rest of their life than dead. Someone else linked https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oregon_Medicaid_health_experiment https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oregon_Medicaid_health_experim... and it's a good example; it calls out that those with coverage are less likely to have medical debt sent to a collecitons agency, which implies that those without coverage are still seeking treatment...they just are going into debt for it.
  - BurningFrog 5y ago
    The Wikipedia article also says: "Approximately two years after the lottery, researchers found that Medicaid had no statistically significant impact on physical health measures"
ahupp 5y ago
In the US you still get emergency medical care without insurance but then have to deal with the bill. Sometimes that means bankruptcy, sometimes its forgiven. The elderly (65+) have universal care through the government account for most mortality. So with those combined, it means the impact of coverage on mortality is small enough that its hard to measure. Of course avoiding financial catastrophe is also a good reason for some kind of universal coverage even if the direct health benefits are low.
- knorker 5y ago
  Right, but none of the two methods you mention will get you treatment for any cancer your get in your 40s, right? Is the argument that before 65 people just don't die from anything medical, except things emergency room will treat? But then there's also the secondary effects, like losing your house because of medical bills. And we know that even with universal health care (every civilized country except the US) health is associated with money. Another reply asserted that studies say it doesn't help much, but... that's just so counter intuitive to me that the the studies that were replied there saying actually it does help can be summarized by "well, duh". But I've thought "well, duh" about false things in the past, which is why I want to know.

BurningFrog 5y ago

Most studies on the topic shows that having health insurance in the US doesn't impact people's health much or at all. Everyone agrees this is counterintuitive, but that's been the data so far. This study adds some weight to the other side.

autoexec 5y ago
> Most studies on the topic shows that having health insurance in the US doesn't impact people's health much or at all. I can't speak to "most" having not seen all of them, but studies have shown it matters. https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/jun/24/us-healthcare-republican-bill-no-coverage-death https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/jun/24/us-healthcar... These came up a year later: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2323087/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2323087/ https://news.gallup.com/poll/268094/millions-lost-someone-couldn-afford-treatment.aspx https://news.gallup.com/poll/268094/millions-lost-someone-co... Seems there has been some prior evidence for supporting the idea that health insurance (the only way to get affordable healthcare in the US) matters. What are examples of studies that show it has little to no impact?
lostcolony 5y ago
No no. They say -mortality- isn't affected. Like, people don't die more often without health insurance. There are all sorts of measured benefits of health insurance, quality of life, lower prevalence of medical debt, etc. It's just that a lack of it doesn't lead to people dying sooner. Which kind of makes sense; the cost even with insurance ensures people don't go to the doctor as often as they should, until something is concerning them. And if it is sufficiently concerning, even someone without insurance goes. And if it's going to prove lethal without treatment, even those without insurance will probably still get the treatment, since better to be alive and in debt the rest of their life than dead. Someone else linked https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oregon_Medicaid_health_experiment https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oregon_Medicaid_health_experim... and it's a good example; it calls out that those with coverage are less likely to have medical debt sent to a collecitons agency, which implies that those without coverage are still seeking treatment...they just are going into debt for it.
- BurningFrog 5y ago
  The Wikipedia article also says: "Approximately two years after the lottery, researchers found that Medicaid had no statistically significant impact on physical health measures"

ahupp 5y ago

In the US you still get emergency medical care without insurance but then have to deal with the bill. Sometimes that means bankruptcy, sometimes its forgiven. The elderly (65+) have universal care through the government account for most mortality. So with those combined, it means the impact of coverage on mortality is small enough that its hard to measure. Of course avoiding financial catastrophe is also a good reason for some kind of universal coverage even if the direct health benefits are low.

knorker 5y ago
Right, but none of the two methods you mention will get you treatment for any cancer your get in your 40s, right? Is the argument that before 65 people just don't die from anything medical, except things emergency room will treat? But then there's also the secondary effects, like losing your house because of medical bills. And we know that even with universal health care (every civilized country except the US) health is associated with money. Another reply asserted that studies say it doesn't help much, but... that's just so counter intuitive to me that the the studies that were replied there saying actually it does help can be summarized by "well, duh". But I've thought "well, duh" about false things in the past, which is why I want to know.