Two studies published this month add important data to Washington’s fierce political debate on Medicaid, one published last week by the DCEACH study. New England Journal of Medicineanother one is a working paper issued from the nonpartisan National Bureau of Economic Research - providing evidence that Medicaid, a public insurance program covering more than 70 million Americans with low income and disabilities, is saving lives.

Harvard University economist Amitabh Chandra said the findings underscore the importance of stampede when Congress considers major changes to the plan.

“What we are learning is that limiting access to Medicaid might save us money, but that’s a huge price,” Chandra said. “It’s human life.”

Saved thousands of lives

A national economic research paper by Dartmouth College, Angela Wyse, economist at Dartmouth College, and Bruce Meyer, University of Chicago economist, highlights millions of low-income adults who have access to Medicaid coverage in states that have expanded the program’s Affordable Care Act. After examining the data set of 37 million people, the authors found:

• Those who have access to Medicaid coverage through the ACA expansion are 21% less likely to die within a given year of enrollment than peers who do not have access to health coverage.
• The states that chose to expand Medicaid saved 27,400 people between 2010 and 2022.
• The states that refused to expand Medicaid in 2014 missed the opportunity to save 12,800 lives.

The study does not explain how Medicaid expansion has this effect, but previous studies have shown that the program is associated with improved physical health and a decrease in deaths from diabetes and cancer diseases.

Wyse and Meyer also found that young people who have long believed that they have gained less from insurance also saw the strong life-saving effects of the program. The authors suggest that mental health and coverage of medication use treatments in this age group may be key.

Medicaid brings life-saving drugs

this NEJM The May 14 study examines the impact of Medicaid on smaller but vulnerable populations who qualify for Medicare and Medicaid.

The 12 million Americans have low incomes and are also disabled or over 65, and some of them checked all three boxes. To get the care they need, this “dual” set of policy makers often call up was forced to drive the country’s largest public health insurance program.

When Duals lose Medicaid, they also lose significant Medicare coverage, making prescription drug costs (part D low income subsidy) average about $6,000 per year. However, due to policy quirks, some people are able to subsidize longer than others, depending on when they lose Medicaid.

The authors of the study, led by Eric Roberts, an economist at the University of Pennsylvania and José Figueroa, Harvard University researcher, took advantage of this derogatory quirk to isolate and measure the effects of Part D low-income subsidies. They found that those who had additional help were more quickly lost:

• Fill in an average of 1.2 prescriptions
• The likelihood of death is 4% to 22%, depending on the level of medication and the type of medication used
• If their drug costs are particularly high, they are most likely to die during the 17-month study period
• If they rely on drugs to treat HIV, heart disease, or chronic lung disease, they are more likely to die during that period

In addition to showing the value of Medicaid, the "extraordinary paper" helps answer bigger questions, said Chandra, an economist at Harvard University.

"We now know that Medicaid can save lives, but there is still a question," Chandra said. "Why does Medicaid cause people to live longer?"

He said, at least according to this article, one obvious reason is that the program makes prescription drugs more accessible. Chandra said this not only proves the value of Medicaid, but also allows for more widespread use of drugs.

A regulation completed by the Department of Health and Human Services in 2023 is expected to help nearly one million dual-dual drugs get this additional drug assistance. However, the latest Republican proposal delays rule until 2035.

The impact of additional traditional Chinese tape festivals

Roberts,,,,, The co-author of this study highlights another timely meaning of his team achievement.

Republicans cite concerns about waste and fraud, propose increasing the frequency of eligibility checks and requiring states to meet job requirements - both of which may make it harder for people to continue using Medicaid.

Research shows that people often briefly lose Medicaid coverage (e.g., due to income fluctuations, or due to paperwork errors), but they are reinstated shortly thereafter - a phenomenon known as “loss.”

Roberts said policies that increase loss could have a fatal impact.

“For people who are very sick, very poor, even if there is no life-saving drug for a week, there will be huge consequences,” he said.

Roberts found that while many of them lost only about two months of drug subsidy, nearly 3,000 pairs of people died.

The two research papers jointly highlight the difficult reality for Congressional Republicans as they continue to consider a large number of possible Medicaid cuts to fund their other policy priorities.

Regardless of how they narrowed the program, whether it was by making federal funds less generous or more cumbersome, this new evidence suggests that some people could be hurt.

This story comes from a nonprofit health news agency trade off and Originally appeared on its website. Leslie Walker is the senior journalist/producer of the tradeoffs.