Search

Objective: To evaluate the effect of Medicaid coverage on dental care outcomes, a major health concern for low-income populations., Data Sources: Primary and secondary data on health care use and outcomes for participants in Oregon's 2008 Medicaid lottery., Study Design: We used the lottery's random selection to gauge the causal effects of Medicaid on dental care needs, medication, and emergency department visits for dental care., Data Collection: Data were collected for lottery participants over 2 years, including mail surveys (N = 23,777) and in-person questionnaires (N = 12,229). Emergency department (ED) records were matched to lottery participants in Portland (N = 24,646)., Principal Findings: Medicaid coverage significantly reduced the share of respondents who reported needing dental care (-9.8 percentage points, p < .001) or having unmet dental care needs (-13.5 percentage points, p < 0.001). Medicaid doubled the share visiting the ED for dental care (+2.6 percentage points, p = .003) and the use of anti-infective medications often prescribed for dental care, but it had no detectable effect on uncovered dental care or out-of-pocket spending., Conclusions: Expansion of Medicaid covering emergency dental care substantially reduced unmet need for dental care, increasing ED dental visits and medication use, while not changing patient use of uncovered dental services., (© Health Research and Educational Trust.)

Policy Points: We take advantage of Oregon's Medicaid lottery to gauge the causal effects of Medicaid coverage on mental health care, how effectively it addresses unmet needs, and how those effects differ for those with and without a history of depression. Medicaid coverage reduced the prevalence of undiagnosed depression by almost 50% and untreated depression by more than 60%. It increased use of medications and reduced the share of respondents reporting unmet mental health care needs by almost 40%. There are likely to be substantial mental health consequences of policy decisions about Medicaid coverage for vulnerable populations., Context: Expanding Medicaid to previously uninsured adults has been shown to increase detection and reduce the prevalence of depression, but the ways that Medicaid affects mental health care, how effectively it addresses unmet needs, and how those effects differ for those with and without a history of depression remain unclear., Methods: We take advantage of Oregon's Medicaid lottery to gauge the causal effects of Medicaid coverage using a randomized-controlled design, drawing on both primary and administrative data sources., Findings: Medicaid coverage reduced the prevalence of undiagnosed depression by almost 50% and untreated depression by more than 60%. It increased use of medications frequently prescribed to treat depression and related mental health conditions and reduced the share of respondents reporting unmet mental health care needs by almost 40%. The share of respondents screening positive for depression dropped by 9.2 percentage points overall, and by 13.1 for those with preexisting depression diagnoses, with greatest relief in symptoms seen primarily in feeling down or hopeless, feeling tired, and trouble sleeping-consistent with the increase observed not just in medications targeting depression but also in those targeting sleep., Conclusions: Medicaid coverage had significant effects on the diagnosis, treatment, and outcomes of a population with substantial unmet mental health needs. Coverage increased access to care, reduced the prevalence of untreated and undiagnosed depression, and substantially improved the symptoms of depression. There are likely to be substantial mental health consequences of policy decisions about Medicaid coverage for vulnerable populations., (© 2018 Milbank Memorial Fund.)

There is a popular perception that insurance coverage will reduce overuse of the emergency department (ED). Both opponents and advocates of expanding insurance coverage under the Affordable Care Act (ACA) have made statements to the effect that EDs have been jammed with the uninsured and that paying for the uninsured population's emergency care has burdened the health care system as a result of the expense of that care. It has therefore been surprising to many to encounter evidence that insurance coverage increases ED use instead of decreasing it. Two facts may help explain this unexpected finding. First, there is a common misperception that the uninsured use the ED more than the insured. In fact, insured and uninsured adults use the ED at very similar rates and in very similar circumstances-and the uninsured use the ED substantially less than the Medicaid population. Second, while the uninsured do not use the ED more than the insured, they do use other types of care much less than the insured.

In 2008, Oregon initiated a limited expansion of a Medicaid program for uninsured, low-income adults, drawing names from a waiting list by lottery. This lottery created a rare opportunity to study the effects of Medicaid coverage by using a randomized controlled design. By using the randomization provided by the lottery and emergency-department records from Portland-area hospitals, we studied the emergency department use of about 25,000 lottery participants over about 18 months after the lottery. We found that Medicaid coverage significantly increases overall emergency use by 0.41 visits per person, or 40% relative to an average of 1.02 visits per person in the control group. We found increases in emergency-department visits across a broad range of types of visits, conditions, and subgroups, including increases in visits for conditions that may be most readily treatable in primary care settings.

In 2008 Oregon allocated access to its Medicaid expansion program, Oregon Health Plan Standard, by drawing names from a waiting list by lottery. The lottery was chosen by policy makers and stakeholders as the preferred way to allocate limited resources. At the same time, it also gave rise to the Oregon Health Insurance Experiment: an unprecedented opportunity to do a randomized evaluation - the gold standard in medical and scientific research - of the impact of expanding Medicaid. In this article we provide historical context for Oregon's decision to conduct a lottery, discuss the importance of randomized controlled designs for policy evaluation, and describe some of the practical challenges in successfully capitalizing on the research opportunity presented by the Oregon lottery through public-academic partnerships. Since policy makers will always face tough choices about how to distribute scarce resources, we urge thoughtful consideration of the opportunities to incorporate randomization that can substantially improve the evidence available to inform policy decisions without compromising policy goals.

Background: Despite the imminent expansion of Medicaid coverage for low-income adults, the effects of expanding coverage are unclear. The 2008 Medicaid expansion in Oregon based on lottery drawings from a waiting list provided an opportunity to evaluate these effects., Methods: Approximately 2 years after the lottery, we obtained data from 6387 adults who were randomly selected to be able to apply for Medicaid coverage and 5842 adults who were not selected. Measures included blood-pressure, cholesterol, and glycated hemoglobin levels; screening for depression; medication inventories; and self-reported diagnoses, health status, health care utilization, and out-of-pocket spending for such services. We used the random assignment in the lottery to calculate the effect of Medicaid coverage., Results: We found no significant effect of Medicaid coverage on the prevalence or diagnosis of hypertension or high cholesterol levels or on the use of medication for these conditions. Medicaid coverage significantly increased the probability of a diagnosis of diabetes and the use of diabetes medication, but we observed no significant effect on average glycated hemoglobin levels or on the percentage of participants with levels of 6.5% or higher. Medicaid coverage decreased the probability of a positive screening for depression (-9.15 percentage points; 95% confidence interval, -16.70 to -1.60; P=0.02), increased the use of many preventive services, and nearly eliminated catastrophic out-of-pocket medical expenditures., Conclusions: This randomized, controlled study showed that Medicaid coverage generated no significant improvements in measured physical health outcomes in the first 2 years, but it did increase use of health care services, raise rates of diabetes detection and management, lower rates of depression, and reduce financial strain.

The recently enacted Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act includes a major expansion of Medicaid to low-income adults in 2014. This paper describes the Oregon Health Study, a randomized controlled trial that will be able to shed some light on the likely effects of such expansions. In 2008, Oregon randomly drew names from a waiting list for its previously closed public insurance program. Our analysis of enrollment into this program found that people who signed up for the waiting list and enrolled in the Oregon Medicaid program were likely to have worse health than those who did not. However, actual enrollment was fairly low, partly because many applicants did not meet eligibility standards.

In 2008, a group of uninsured low-income adults in Oregon was selected by lottery to be given the chance to apply for Medicaid. This lottery provides an opportunity to gauge the effects of expanding access to public health insurance on the health care use, financial strain, and health of low-income adults using a randomized controlled design. In the year after random assignment, the treatment group selected by the lottery was about 25 percentage points more likely to have insurance than the control group that was not selected. We find that in this first year, the treatment group had substantively and statistically significantly higher health care utilization (including primary and preventive care as well as hospitalizations), lower out-of-pocket medical expenditures and medical debt (including fewer bills sent to collection), and better self-reported physical and mental health than the control group. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]