Health Insurance and Mortality, Part 2

Please read Part 1 of this post before continuing.

Not surprisingly, there have been several criticisms of the Sommers, Long and Baicker study. Here are the main ones I've been able to identify so far, and my comments on each.

• It's too good to be true. The New York Times reports that experts are “skeptical of the magnitude and suddenness of the decline” in mortality. According to Dr. Joseph  Antos, a health economist at the American Enterprise Institute, “Health care is a much more involved process—you don't just sign up and suddenly get well.” This objection, of course, does not explain the results. These researchers may be overlooking the fact that being without health insurance is a psychological stressor, the removal of which may have widespread health benefits.

• The results contradict those of the Oregon Medicaid study. A 2013 study by Baicker, et al., examined the effects of Medicaid expansion in Oregon using a randomized control group design. (The opportunity to sign up for Medicaid was determined by lottery.) Although this study found economic and psychological benefits of Medicaid, its effects on objective measures of health were disappointing.  Blood pressure, cholesterol and blood sugar levels were all lower in the Medicaid group, but the differences were not statistically significant. However, the Oregon study's sample size was too small to detect medically important health benefits. The Massachusetts study has many more particpants. If the same percentage decline in mortality observed in the Massachusetts study had been seen in Oregon, it too would not have been statistically significant. The two studies are not inconsistent. An important strength of the Massachusetts study is its larger sample size. Furthermore, it measured the effects of the entire health reform package, not just Medicaid expansion.

• It costs too much. Using the Sommers, et al., data, Cannon calculated that it cost Massachusetts $4 million per life saved. He argues that this is not cost effective. However, this assumes that the only benefit people received from Romneycare was when it saved their lives. It ignores the many health and quality of life benefits people receive from medical treatments for non-life-threatening illnesses and injuries. What is the value of a knee or hip replacement that allows a person to walk free of pain for 20 years? How do you measure the benefits to a family of avoiding bankruptcy and the loss of their home?

• Massachusetts is different from other states. Massachusetts is “whiter and more affluent” than most other states, but the matched comparison groups control for race and income. It could be argued that Massachusetts has a more effective health care system (more doctors, better-equipped hospitals) than other states. However, a convincing alternative explanation must explain not just lower mortality in Massachusetts, but all the results. Why did the mortality rate change from 2001-2005 to 2007-2010? Wouldn't a better health care system be expected to help people over 65 as well? As Sommers, et al., state in their conclusion:

Although we cannot rule out unmeasured confounders, it is challenging to identify factors other than health care reform that might have produced this pattern of results: a declining mortality rate in Massachusetts since 2007 not present in similar counties elsewhere in the country, primarily for health care-amenable causes of death in adults aged 20 to 64 years (but not elderly adults), concentrated among poor and uninsured areas and not explained by changes in poverty or unemployment rates.

Of course, health insurance is useless if there are no doctors or hospitals in your area. The quality of the health system may have interacted with health care reform to produce a better result in Massachusetts than would be expected in other states. This does not explain away the results, but it may limit our ability to generalize from them.

• More research is needed. This cliché is, of course, trivially true. However, it is unrealistic to expect definitive studies of effects of the Affordable Care Act (ACA), since it is being implemented simultaneously in all 50 states. There are no experimental and control groups, only before and after comparisons, the results of which can easily be dismissed as caused by other changes taking place in society at the same time. About the best we can expect will be comparisons between states that do or do not expand Medicaid. (Pennsylvanians will be happy to know that, thanks to Governor Tom Corbett and our legislature, future researchers will be counting the number of excess deaths in our state.) However, states that are not expanding Medicaid are already known to differ both economically and politically from other states. And while Medicaid expansion is an important provision of the ACA, it is only a part of it.

In short, the Sommers, et al., study may be the best that is available for the foreseeable future. Even conservative critics of health care reform are granting it grudging respect.  Megan McArdle stated, "(A)fter yesterday's report, I've revised the probability of 'huge benefits' [from health care reform] upward, and you should do the same."

You may also be interested in reading:

Health Insurance and Mortality, Part 1

Big News From Oregon:  Not All of It Good

The Coverage Gap:  The Real Failure of Obamacare

Romneycare:  The Bottom Line

Health Insurance and Mortality, Part 1

In 2006, Massachusetts implemented the country's first comprehensive health care reform (“Romneycare”). It made health insurance mandatory for nearly all citizens, expanded Medicaid to cover people earning up to 150% of the federal poverty level (FPL), and provided health insurance subsidies for people with incomes up to 300% of FPL. It became the structural model for the Affordable Care Act (ACA). A previous study showed that Massachusetts residents reported themselves to be in better health following the implementation of Romneycare. A new study out this week shows that health care reform significantly reduced the mortality rate in Massachusetts compared to nearby states. This is the bottom line in health care research. It's good news not only for the ACA, but for single payer advocates as well, since single payer would further expand the number of people covered by health insurance and would presumably reduce the red tape and out-of-pocket costs that keep some people from using health care.

The study, by Drs. Ben Sommers, Sharon Long, and Katherine Baicker, is a quasi-experimental design. It lacks an important feature of true experiments—random assignmnent of participants to conditions—but attempts to compensate for this by using a matched comparison group that controls for most plausible alternative explanations. In this case, the experimental group was the citizens of Massachusetts. Each county in Massachusetts was matched with a comparison county drawn from a nearby state. The counties were matched for age distribution, race and ethnicity, poverty, income, unemployment, lack of health insurance, and their existing mortality rate. The authors compared the mortality rates of adults under 65 from 2001-2005 (prereform) to 2007-2010 (postreform). Here are the results.

• Mortality in Massachusetts declined 2.9% relative to the comparison group. This is equivalent to 8.2 deaths per 100,000 people, or one death prevented for every 830 people who obtain health insurance. The New York Times calculates that a national 2.9% decline in mortality among adults under 65 would translate to about 17,000 lives saved per year. Harold Pollack claims that the number is as high as 24,000 per year.
• Mortality “amenable to health care,” i.e., from causes such as cancer, heart disease and diabetes, declined 4.5% relative to the control group. Mortality from causes not amenable to health care was unchanged. See the chart below.
  
  

• Mortality among people over 65 was unaffected. This is to be expected, since senior citizens already had Medicare.
• Reductions in the mortality rate were greatest among counties with the lowest incomes and the lowest rates of insurance coverage prior to reform.
• As you would expect, the study also found significant increases in insurance coverage, access to medical care, and self-reported health in Massachusetts compared to the comparison group.

As health care expert Austin Frakt has noted, this study constitutes the strongest evidence yet that having health insurance can save your life. Nevertheless, the study is not without its critics. I will look at some of those criticisms in Part 2 of this post.

You may also be interested in reading:

Big News From Oregon:  Not All of It Good

The Coverage Gap:  The Real Failure of Obamacare

Romneycare:  The Bottom Line

Tom Corbett to PA's Working Poor: "Drop Dead!" Pt. 4

Part 4. What We Can Do

On Tuesday, February 5, PA Governor Tom Corbett stated that at this time he cannot recommend accepting $38 billion in federal funding to expand Medicaid, thereby denying medical assistance to more than 700,000 Pennsylvanians. So far, I've discussed empirical studies demonstrating that Medicaid improves health and saves lives, the costs and benefits of Medicaid, how those costs and benefits are distributed in Pennsylvania, and the governor's stated reasons for rejecting Medicaid expansion.

The conclusion to this series has proven to be the most difficult to write. I've already had to change the “tomorrow” in part 3 to “next time.” It's time to tie the loose ends together.

First, let me try to justify the rude title of these posts. As previously noted, the Sommers, et al, study contains an estimate of the number of lives saved by Medicaid expansion.

Results correspond to 2840 deaths prevented per year in states with Medicaid expansions, in which 500,000 adults acquired coverage. This finding suggests that 176 additional adults would need to be covered by Medicaid in order to prevent one death per year.

Granted, this is just an estimate. The real number may be somewhat higher or lower, but both mortality and Medicaid enrollment statistics in this country are usually pretty accurate. Corbett's decision will deny health insurance to 719,000 Pennsylvanians whose income is between 46% and 100% of the Federal poverty level. This too is an estimate based on 2010 census data. Using these two estimates, we can compute the number of lives per year that would be saved by Medicaid expansion.

719,000/176 = 4085

I think we can safely estimate that Corbett's decision sentences approximately 4000 Pennsylvanians to death per year, at least for the first five years (the duration of the Sommers study). These lives will be lost in order to save the state (by Corbett's estimate) $4.1 billion over eight years, while simultaneously turning down $37.8 billion in Medicaid funds from the Federal government.

Gov. Tom Corbett

As if to add insult to injury, Corbett has been extremely generous to Pennsylvania's corporate class. His budget projects that corporate tax revenues will drop $311 million (-5.9%) in 2013-14, due mostly to rate cuts in the capital stock and franchise tax beginning in 2014. He proposes to gradually phase out this tax. He also proposes to gradually eliminate the corporate income tax beginning in 2015. Corbett has pledged $1 billion in corporate welfare to Shell Oil to attract a $5 billion ethane cracker plant to Western Pennsylvania. (These are not saltines; they are dirty petrochemicals.) This plant will create hundreds of jobs, far fewer than Medicaid expansion. And Act 13, which imposes a minimal “impact fee” on natural gas drillers, has been described as “the nation's worst corporate giveaway.” Meanwhile, the Governor is not proposing to close tax loopholes, such as the Delaware loophole, which allows two-thirds of Pennsylvania corporations to completely avoid income tax.

I would argue that the humanitarian and economic arguments in favor of Medicaid expansion are overwhelming. In addition, Medicaid expansion would be easy to incorporate into a single-payer system, should the state or the nation move in that direction. I suggest that as health care advocates we immediately begin to lobby for Medicaid expansion with all the enthusiasm we can generate.

The economic logic of Medicaid expansion is so strong, and there are so many powerful economic interests that support it, that I think we will ultimately find ourselves on the winning side of this debate. Here are some of the reasons to be optimistic:

• Governor Corbett's announcement rejecting Medicaid expansion contained the hedge words “at this time,” suggesting that he may be open to changing his mind.
• He will face serious pressure from hospitals that, instead of gaining new customers, face financial losses as a result of having to provide medical services to the uninsured (“forced charity”). Other segments of the health care industry, such as pharmaceutical and medical equipment companies, are also seeing dollar signs disappearing.
• Since Medicaid expenditures ultimately circulate throughout the economy, it's likely that Chambers of Commerce and other business interests will come out in favor of expansion.
• Public opinion data collected last Summer showed 49% of Americans favor of Medicaid expansion in their state and 43% opposed. The number in favor should increase as the costs and benefits become more clear.
• The fact that several other Republican governors who initially opposed expansion, such as Govs. Brewer of Arizona, Kasich of Ohio and Snyder of Michigan, have decided to accept it has cast Corbett in the role of an ideological extremist.
• Since Pennsylvania Democrats who have spoken out so far seem to be unanimous in their support of Medicaid expansion, it may take only a few high profile Republican defectors to convince the Governor that he doesn't have majority support.
• I hedged my statement by saying “ultimately.” Even if it isn't decided to expand Medicaid this year, there is nothing to prevent Pennsylvania from accepting it in the future, should Gov. Corbett not be re-elected and the political balance of power in Harrisburg change.

However, there is no justification for complacency. The stakes for Pennsylvania's working poor are too high.

I've previously reviewed research showing that wealthy people have the greatest influence on political decisions in this country, the influence of the middle class is much less, and the influence of the poor is virtually nonexistent. This suggests that the occasional successes progressive activists have are usually due to our interests temporarily coinciding with those of much more powerful economic forces. For example, passage of the Affordable Care Act itself may have had little to do with providing health care to uninsured Americans, except insofar as this provided the cover story for a massive transfer of wealth from the government to health insurance, pharmaceutical, and other health care corporations.

Medicaid expansion is another instance in which our preference coincides with that of important segments of the economic ruling class. Our support may make a difference; we will never know for sure. But even if Medicaid expansion occurs for reasons having nothing to do with anything we say or do, this is an excellent opportunity for health care advocates to renew their faith in the effectiveness of progressive activism.

I expect more sophisticated analyses of the costs and benefits of Medicaid expansion to become available soon. Meanwhile, if you would like to reprint this analysis or if you want me to edit it down to meet your needs, please let me know.

Tom Corbett to PA's Working Poor: "Drop Dead!" Pt. 1

Part 1. Medicaid Improves Health and Saves Lives

On Tuesday, PA Governor Tom Corbett stated that at this time he cannot recommend accepting $38 billion in federal funding to expand Medicaid under the Affordable Care Act, thereby denying medical assistance to more than 700,000 Pennsylvanians. This series of posts will consider the implications of that decision.

It is difficult to arrange a definitive test of whether a social policy such as Medicaid is effective in achieving its goal of better health. In order to demonstrate causality, you must run an experiment with a randomized control group design, in which some people are randomly assigned to receive Medicaid (the experimental group), while others are randomly assigned to not receive it (the control group). Random assignment is critical. You can't compare Medicaid recipients to all non-recipients because to be eligible for Medicaid, you must be poor, and poor people have worse health outcomes. Since Medicaid is voluntary, you can't compare people who sign up and receive Medicaid to other eligible people who don't sign up, because people seek out health insurance when they are ill. While these flaws may seem obvious, you should be careful. Opponents of government health insurance will sometimes cite these flawed comparisons to convince people that Medicaid is counterproductive.

Assuming that a randomized control group design is not possible, there are two general ways to evaluate a social reform such as Medicaid expansion. In a time series design, you measure the outcomes of a group of people from before to after the change is implemented. The main problem with this design is that other events may occur at the same time as the reform, and they may serve as alternative explanations for the results. In a comparison group design, you compare the outcomes of a group of people who receive the treatment to a comparison group that does not receive it. Outcomes are measured at the same time. The problem with this design is that the two groups may not have been equivalent at the beginning of the study. Any irrelevant difference between the two groups can be an alternative explanation for the results. It is possible to combine the good features of both these designs in a time series design with a comparison group. However, it is still possible that some outside event that coincides with the treatment is affecting one group more than the other.

 All rights reserved by forwardstl

I will discuss two studies, both published in 2012, that evaluate Medicaid outcomes. Since these two studies are superior to any that have gone before, previous studies are basically irrelevant. A study by Benjamin Sommers and others, published in the New England Journal of Medicine, utilized a time series design with comparison groups. One of its strengths is that it used three experimental groups and four comparison groups. In 2001 and 2002, three states, New York, Maine and Arizona, substantially expanded Medicaid by relaxing their eligibility requirements. For example, in New York, you could previously apply for Medicaid if you were below the federal poverty level. In 2001, people were allowed to sign up if their income was at or below 150% of the poverty level. For each of these states, they selected geographically close and demographically similar comparison states that did not expand Medicaid access. New York's comparison state was Pennsylvania, Maine's was New Hampshire, and Arizona's were Nevada and New Mexico. Since they were interested in whether Medicaid saved lives, the primary outcome measure was the mortality rate, which in this country is reported at the county level. All the outcomes were measured from five years before the change until five years after.

The results showed that prior to Medicaid expansion, there were no significant differences in mortality between the expansion and comparison states. After they implemented the expansion, these states showed a 6.1% reduction in mortality relative to the comparison states. Additional analyses showed that, as you might expect, the decline in mortality was greatest among the poor, minorities and older adults. Survey data showed that Medicaid expansion was associated with a 24.7% increase in Medicaid coverage, a 21.3% decrease in the rate of delayed care due to cost, and a 3.4% increase in number of people saying their health was “excellent” or “very good.” The authors calculated that one life per year was saved for every 176 adults that were added to the Medicaid rolls.

As impressive as these results are, they do not prove that Medicaid caused these health improvements.  A critic might argue that these three states—especially New York, which showed the greatest drop in the death rate—are not typical of the rest of the country, and thus the study exaggerates the benefits of Medicaid. Fortunately, circumstances have given us a randomized control group design with which to evaluate the effects of Medicaid. This is the “gold standard” for social policy research. In 2008, Oregon attempted to expand its Medicaid program, but didn't have enough money. They invited people who were eligible to apply. Ninety thousand people applied, and 10,000 of them were randomly selected to receive Medicaid in a lottery. Amy Finkelstein and her colleagues are conducting an ongoing survey comparing the lucky winners to those who applied but were turned away. They reported some preliminary results last year.

The main finding is that the Medicaid group is 25% more likely than the control group to report themselves in “good” or “excellent” health, as opposed to “fair” or “poor” health. More importantly, 40% fewer people in the experimental group reported a decline in their health over the last six months. (The reason this difference is so much greater than in the Sommers study is that Finkelstein only compared Medicaid recipients to those who were turned away, while Sommers' data estimated the health of everyone in these states regardless of whether they were enrolled in Medicaid.) As you would expect, the Medicaid group reported more doctor and hospital visits, more preventive care, and fewer unpaid medical bills.

The number of people in the Oregon study is too small to detect meaningful differences in mortality. Nevertheless, the two studies converge to give us the best evidence we have ever had that Medicaid improves its recipients' health and saves some of their lives. In the next post in this series, I will look at cost considerations.

Lessons from HBO's 'Weight of the Nation'

This past week HBO debuted a four part documentary called The Weight of the Nation on the obesity epidemic in the US.  The clip above from part four talks about how geography can have a big effect on one's health due to the socioeconomic factors which surround these areas.  The fourth episode which deals with public health challenges can be seen below and is relevant to much of the research I have been doing for PUSH-Healthcare for All PA on Pennsylvania's uninsured.  The episode can be seen below.  All four parts can be seen at the above link in italics.  I'll review this episode in particular.

The program does a good job of presenting the data and issues related to the obesity epidemic in the US.  The impacts of their actions, intentional or not, are discussed at length including those on health care costs.  Various solutions to the problem are discussed such as ending farm subsidies, creating more park space in inner city areas such as Philadelphia County, and adding more bike trails.  While all of these are good things which I fully support, how much does the obesity epidemic really contribute to the high cost of health?  According to The Incidental Economist only around $25 billion in extra health care spending in 2004 can be attributed to health problems related to obesity because other non obesity related diseases such as prostate cancer are just as prevalent in the US relative to other countries with universal care such as Japan, Germany and the UK as can be seen in the graph below.  Diseases below the horizontal line in the graph such as Hepatitis B and Bladder Cancer are more prevalent in those countries.  You can see more cost analysis at this page.

In the opening credits of the episode above we can see that one of the sponsors of this documentary is Kaiser Permanente which was skewered for its profiteering practices in the film Sicko by Michael Moore.  The practices of the health insurance, pharmaceutical, and agribusiness industries to maximize profits often overlap.  I credit the filmmakers for skewering the food industry.  Is the Kaiser Permanente using this documentary to distract individuals from their own practices?  Congress only turned on the tobacco industry when the costs to the health care system became clear.

**Related Posts**

Evergreening

 

Moving Backward 

 

Unbelievable Promises Monopolized Care—UPMC

WaPo Interactive International Cost Graphic

County Health Rankings

While we're all waiting for the Supreme Court to rule on the Affordable Care Act, the 2012 County Health Rankings were released yesterday for all counties in the US.  An interactive map for Pennsylvania can be seen with all of the county rankings for an overall measure that considers morbidity and mortality above.  Ranked first is Union County(abbrev. UN) and last out of 67 counties is Philadelphia (PH).  These counties were the same in 2011.  Both counties were similar in the percent uninsured in 2009, the most recent year Census Bureau estimates are available, with the 2nd and 3rd highest rates in the state as can be seen in the table below.  The graph shows that in 2011 both were below the statewide median household income of $50,702 with Philadelphia having $37,090 and Union having $45,545.  

While overall rankings are interesting and make for interesting press articles such as "Are Philadelphians eating too many cheesesteaks?" they can gloss over important information such as income, the uninsured and gender.  I haven't yet looked at the 2012 data to see how it differs from last years but expect to find more info on how the recession is impacting the health of Pennsylvania.  Union and Philadelphia Counties caught my eye at first glance.  

Teasing apart cause an effect relationships is a lot more difficult.  Uninsured status (and underinsured status which is a lot harder to measure), gender and median household income are just two of the many possible confounding variables on health status.  This does not mean that one should not try to find these relationships.  It's better to rely on raw measures like the ones below than constructed ones like in the map above for these relationships.

Top 10 County Uninsured Rates in 2009 Overall & by Gender

**Related Posts**

Racial and Gender Differences in Pennsylvania's Uninsured 

 

Correlating PA County % Uninsured Rates with Other County Level Measures

 

Correlating PA's Uninsured with Sen Pat Toomey's 2010 Vote

Santorum: No One Has Ever Died Because They Didn’t Have Health Care | The New Civil Rights Movement

This is my first cross post on my two blogs because it fits in so nicely with what I've been talking about on both of them, Rick Santorum and the uninsured. As the former Senator from our state is quoted in the story linked below stating that no one has died due to a lack of health insurance while campaigning in Iowa in early December while he was still polling in the single digits. The exact quote can be read here.  This statement is consistent with his later statement right before the caucus regarding African-Americans and entitlement programs which preceded his strong showing on Jan 3 (only 4% in the CNN entrance poll said health care was the most important issue in the Caucus).

Santorum: No One Has Ever Died Because They Didn’t Have Health Care | The New Civil Rights Movement

This one claim about health care is so demonstrably false with the study I discussed in my previous post on the PUSH website where 45,000 excess deaths in the US each year were estimated from a lack of insurance after adjusting for smoking, obesity, and poverty.  It would only be necessary to show one death from a lack of insurance to prove Santorum's statement wrong.  Josef Stalin once infamously said "one death is a tragedy, a million deaths are a statistic."  It is important to supplement the statistics with narratives from those who are affected most by the problem of the lack of insurance.  That is why we included testimonials like the ones below from Healthy Artists on this webpage from the uninsured.

Michael Moore's film Sicko has the stories of several individuals who are underinsured including a few who died as a result of their situation.  The website Names of the Dead has testimonials from families of those who died as a result of a lack of insurance.  It gives the names and cities of each story so they can be checked for veracity.  This is one from Altoona, PA.  Senator Santorum says he wants to save America from fascism as his grandfather escaped it in Italy.  The first step in fighting it is acknowledging the truth.

Uncle Abe

64, Altoona PA
Cindy Lovell writes:

My Uncle Abe worked as a self-employed plumber. Some years he could afford insurance, and some years he couldn't. He came down with congestive heart failure, and he could not afford insurance. He kept waiting to see a doctor until he turned 65 so he would have Medicare. He waited and hoped. Finally, he got so sick that my other two uncles went and got him. They intended to take him to the emergency room and pay his bill. Both are retired and on fixed incomes, yet their baby brother was so sick, and they were so scared, that they figured they would come up with some way to pay his hospital bills. However, Uncle Abe died in the emergency room... waiting to turn 65!

**Update**

The Colbert Report
Get More: Colbert Report Full Episodes,Political Humor & Satire Blog,Video Archive

 **Related Posts**

Santorum's "Bounce"

 

Making Sense of the Pat Toomey-Joe Sestak Senate Race

 

STOP Obamacare in Pennsylvania and the Uninsured

 

Teapartiers sandbagged by health insurers | MollyRush's Blog and a calculation mortality rates for lack of insurance