Opinion: Defenders of Medicaid cuts are misunderstanding a study I worked on
\n \t
\n
<\/BR>
\n
\n \t
\n
<\/BR><\/p>\n
There\u2019s been much discussion and debate about the cuts to Medicaid eligibility that Congress just passed<\/a> and, in particular, what they may mean for current Medicaid recipients. A key piece of evidence in this debate has been results from the Oregon Health Insurance Experiment (OHIE<\/a>), a randomized trial, which I helped lead, examining the impact of covering low-income uninsured adults with Medicaid for one to two years.\u00a0While it\u2019s always gratifying to see one\u2019s work used in policy deliberations, it\u2019s frustrating when the results are misinterpreted.<\/p>\n An important sticking point is the interpretation of so-called \u201cnull results\u201d \u2014 estimates of Medicaid\u2019s impact that we cannot statistically distinguish from no effect.\u00a0In the case of the OHIE, we found no evidence of statistically significant impacts of Medicaid coverage on mortality, or on several measures of physical health, such as hypertension, high cholesterol, or diabetes.<\/p>\n