The study found that mortality rates in the three states were
collectively 6.1 percent lower than states that did not expand Medicaid.
The decreased mortality rate mostly benefited older adults, nonwhites
and residents of poor counties.
Since they could only look at Arizona, New York and Maine, researchers cautioned that the results might not be reflective of how a Medicaid expansion would work in every state. However, previous research has shown similar results. Earlier this year, results for the ongoing Oregon Health Study were released with more positive implications for people on Medicaid — happier people, better self-reported health and stronger financial security.
Despite the evidence, Gov.
Kasich and Lt. Gov. Mary Taylor have said the expansion, which state officials estimate would add 400,000 Ohioans to Medicaid enrollment, is too expensive for the state. On June 28, Taylor told The Cleveland Plain Dealer, “Quite frankly we're not sure where we're going to get the money from to cover the additional obligation of spending, let alone have the discussion about the expansion of Medicaid.”
But some research has suggested that the Medicaid expansion would actually save states money by mitigating the cost of having so many uninsured people. The Arkansas Department of Human Services claims the state would save $378 million by 2025 with the Medicaid expansion. Most of the savings would come from uncompensated care — costs that are placed on health institutions and state and local governments when uninsured patients that can’t and don’t pay use medical services. The Urban Institute released a study in 2011 with similar results.
Ohio is not the only state to show skepticism toward the Medicaid expansion. After the Supreme Court released its decision upholding Obamacare, state officials in Texas and Florida said they will not take part in the Medicaid expansion. State governments have until Nov. 10 to make a final decision on whether or not they will take part in the Medicaid expansion.