• JAMA: Gaming out the new Medicaid option

    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.


    • 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.

      • 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.

        • 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.

          • 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 …