In my new post on the JAMA forum, I game out the new Medicaid expansion option available to states by virtue of the Supreme Court’s ACA decision. Go read it.
Authors
-
Recent posts
- Is medication nonadherence a medical condition?
- Levy and Meltzer on the impact of health insurance on health
- Compounding pharmacy bills
- Copayments are stupid, ctd.
- Should very young children be taking stimulants?
- GDP vs health care spending
- The medical device tax needs to stay
- More comparative effectiveness goodness
- Fluoridation
- How to debate a wing nut
Archives
For speaking inquiries
Aaron’s stuff
Austin’s stuff
-
JAMA: Gaming out the new Medicaid option
July 19, 2012 at 12:55 pm
Austin FraktWrite a comment
Follow the blog
TIE Books
Tag cloud
AcademyHealth accountable care organizations Affordable Care Act announcement antitrust blogging books comic competitive bidding costs cost shifting deficit employer-sponsored health insurance health care costs health insurance health insurance mandates health reform hospital readmissions hospitals instrumental variables insurance exchange market power Massachusetts Medicaid Medicare mortality obesity On The Record physicians politics PPACA premiums premium support prescription drugs prostate cancer quality reading list reflex RWJF single payer spending substance use tax uninsured xkcd
Loading
by Theodore Whitfield on July 20th, 2012 at 11:00
Dear Austin,
I read your post. I don’t see where you address the concern that for some states the Medicaid expansion might be very expensive, even after receiving the 90% Federal support.
by Austin Frakt on July 20th, 2012 at 11:06
It’s not addressed there, but is elsewhere, at least implicitly. See http://theincidentaleconomist.com/wordpress/all-the-reasons-to-expand-medicaid-all-the-reasons-not-to/
This is not my last on this subject.
by Theodore Whitfield on July 20th, 2012 at 12:21
Dear Austin,
Yes, I read that post. I could see only one reference to costs for the states, and it was a link to a CBPP post that said that the costs weren’t very high, in my opinion a very poorly argued piece. But there have been other arguments that the costs will indeed be quite considerable, at least for some states, and especially once the initial teaser rates expire. Of course, all bets are off after 8 years, although it does seem unlikely that the states will continue to enjoy the 90% federal subsidy.
If you want to do evidence-based medicine, you have to consider the full range of the evidence, not just one or two studies.
by Austin Frakt on July 20th, 2012 at 12:28
I’m not arguing that this isn’t at some expense for states and what I link to documents that (evidence!). What you overlooked was the evidence I also linked to that it also enhances economic activity in states, which, at least in part, offsets the cost. I’m not arguing one or two sides. I’m providing all I can on this topic. Admittedly, when I make a point I only link to one thing, not everything that has been said on it (which is impossible). But there are limits and there is Google. I think you know what to do.
I must add, you’re not linking to anything, just making claims. Just saying …