When happened when people got Medicaid coverage!


The New York Times fails to explain: Out in Oregon, low-income people who lacked Medicaid coverage got thrown into a lottery.

The state had enough extra money to extend coverage to some, not to all. On this basis, some people from the lottery pool received Medicaid coverage. Other people just like them did not.

This created the opportunity for the Oregon Medicaid study, whose results are now being used to convince the world that Medicaid coverage is worthless, just no damn good. In her news report in the New York Times, this is the way Annie Lowrey described the effects of receiving coverage:
LOWREY (5/2/13): [The Oregon study] found that those who gained Medicaid coverage spent more on health care, making more visits to doctors and trips to the hospital. But the study suggests that Medicaid coverage did not make those adults much healthier, at least within the two-year time frame of the research, judging by their blood pressure, blood sugar and other measures. It did, however, substantially reduce the incidence of depression, and it made them vastly more financially secure.
According to Lowrey, Medicaid coverage didn’t make enrollees much healthier, although it lowered their rates of depression and made them more secure financially.

Depression is a major health problem; in this study, Medicaid coverage lowered its incidence by 30 percent. That is a major gain in a major health outcome. For that reason, the taxonomy Lowrey displays in this paragraph makes little sense from the start.

Having said that, let’s consider the matter of financial security. This study does not compare people who got health care through Medicaid to people who got no health care at all. Presumably, many people who lost this lottery continued to pay for their own health care. They may have received just as much health care as the lottery winners, except they had to pay the full fare by themselves.

This may explain their lower rates of financial security and their higher rates of depression. In such matched cases, Medicaid is very much working, even if other health outcomes are exactly the same. (The lottery winners don’t have to go broke, and become depressed, to get their blood pressure medication.)

Still and all, Lowrey said, right out of the gate, that Medicaid coverage didn’t make “those adults much healthier...judging by their blood pressure, blood sugar and other measures.” Later, she tried to go into more detail about this apparent failure.

When she did, she encountered a very important term. That key word was “significantly,” which later seemed to morph into “noticeably:”
LOWREY: The researchers found that Medicaid coverage did not significantly affect the prevalence or diagnosis of hypertension or high cholesterol, or the use of drugs used to treat those conditions. It significantly increased the probability that a person would receive a diagnosis of diabetes and be treated, though it did not reduce blood sugar levels noticeably.

Where Medicaid seemed to have the strongest measured impact was on depression. Getting Medicaid coverage reduced the probability of a positive screening by more than 30 percent.
Lowrey will never be depressed because she lacks medical coverage or because she had to go broke paying for her health care. Having said that, let’s note the way she tried to report the changes in the prevalence of conditions like hypertension and high cholesterol.

“Medicaid coverage did not significantly affect the prevalence or diagnosis of hypertension or high cholesterol,” Lowrey writes. This is odd, because as we can see from this Kevin Drum post, the prevalence of high cholesterol was actually 17 percent lower in the group which had Medicaid coverage.

Also from Drum, “the incidence of high glycated hemoglobin levels (a marker of diabetes)” was 18 percent lower among those with Medicaid coverage.

Those results may not seem “significant” to Lowrey, but they may seem significant to the people who won the Medicaid coverage, and perhaps to the ratty people who belong to their lower-class families. Fine ladies may not spend much time thinking about such lesser beings. Instead, they toss off claims about “significance,” perhaps without knowing that they are interacting with the artefact known as “statistical significance.”

Significance and statistical significance simply aren't the same thing. It only gets worse when Lowrey, or perhaps her even less capable editor, uses “noticeably” in place of “significantly,” presumably to vary the patter, this improving the Times reader’s aesthetic pleasure.

Here at THE HOWLER, we don’t really understand how the concept of statistical significance works in a study like this one. That said, we’d damn sure find out before we wrote a news report for the New York Times saying what Lowrey’s piece did.

Four days after Lowrey’s failure, New York Times columnist Ross Douthat followed suit, saying this about the Oregon study: “With a few modest exceptions, the level of insurance had no significant effect on the participants’ actual wellness.” In fact, the Medicaid recipients had an 18 percent lower rate of high glycated hemoglobin levels and a 17 percent lower rate of high cholesterol. Such effects may seem very significant to the people involved.

Lowrey and Douthat are both Harvard grads. The school is turning out some awful young people, and the New York Times can’t wait to employ them, just as it loves to print the bungled op-ed columns of high-ranking Harvard professors. Increasingly, this is the shape of the guild which poses as our upper-end press corps.

Final suggestion: Click here to watch Harvard students responding to Professor Sandel in the first lecture of his life-changing “Justice” course. In particular, watch the young people tell the world if cannibalism was permissible among a small set of British sailors who were shipwrecked many long years ago.

It never occurs to these young people that they have never faced any experience which dimly resembles the experience under review. If you watch, you will see some very young, inexperienced people who seem to have a very high sense of self regard. You will also see a famous professor pandering to their presumed greatness and thus to their youthful delusions.

Ten years later, people like these will be too lazy to learn their craft when they're employed at the Times. Instead, they will tell Times readers that it isn’t significant or noticeable when low-income people seem to get better health results.

There’s more to be said about “statistical significance” and the role the term plays in this latest gong-show, in which people are being sold the latest conservative line. That said, we see no sign that Lowrey understood what she was saying in that news report.

Why in the world is she in that job? And who in the world was her editor? Final question:

Will Rachel Maddow lower the boom on this gong-show tonight?


  1. "And who in the world was her editor?"

    J. Fred Muggs.

    However, I don't know which Ivy League University he was a graduate of.

  2. Not knowing the difference between statistical significance and substantive significance, which apparently applies to Lowry, Douthat and their editors, ought to be a fireable offense in this day and age. What a disgrace!

  3. The journalists mentioned seem to have no self-awareness; therefore, they are incapable of seeing their arrogance and lack of life experience. Intellect alone does not create a whole person.

  4. Apprесiatiοn to my fathеr ωho іnformed
    me about thіs ωeblog, this web site is in fact amazing.

    Feel fгee tο surf to mу website
    abrir cuenta facebook

  5. Diabetes (or pre-diabetes), hypertension, and high cholesterol are typically chronic conditions that develop over an extended period of time, often as a long-term result of poor diet and/or lack of exercise. They may be partially alleviated with medication, but real progress can require years of effort involving major lifestyle changes. If the person who now has Medicaid coverage is otherwise still poor, can't afford decent food, or is working multiple jobs and doesn't have time to eat well or exercise, those lifestyle changes are unlikely to occur.

    Another reason people don't take good care of themselves is because of depression, so reducing depression in itself could eventually help some people overcome their other health problems.

    Another thing to consider is that not all of the benefits of having access to Medicaid will necessarily be evident from monitoring the health outcomes of the recipients themselves. The non-profit group Save the Children just released its 14th annual State of the World's Mothers report, ranking 168 countries on the basis of, among other things, child mortality. The US had the highest first-day infant mortality rate in the industrialized world. Save the Children's CEO Carolyn Miles attributed the high infant death rate in the US to the prevalence of premature births, which she blamed on insufficient access to medical care on the part of poor women. Did the Oregon study even consider lowered infant mortality as a possible benefit of access to Medicaid?

  6. It's awesome to pay a visit this web site and reading the views of all colleagues on the topic of this article, while I am also eager of getting know-how.

    my weblog :: crear facebook

  7. Hi there! I knoω this is kind οf off topic but I wаs wonԁerіng which blog
    platform are yοu using for this website?
    I'm getting sick and tired of Wordpress because I'vе had
    issues with hаckers and I'm looking at options for another platform. I would be great if you could point me in the direction of a good platform.

    Check out my blog - ukinsurancewise.co.uk

  8. Terrific ωorκ! This is the type of info that are suρposed to bе shared across the
    wеb. Shamе on Gоogle for not positioning this
    put up higher! Сome on ovеr and discuss with my web site .

    Thank you =)

    my ωeb blog; Car insurance for new drivers

  9. I'll right away clutch your rss feed as I can't іn findіng your
    emаil subscriptiοn hyperlіnk or newsletter serѵice.
    Do уοu've any? Please allow me understand so that I may subscribe. Thanks.

    Stop by my weblog :: One Day car insurance

  10. Could do with ѕome mоre wrіtіng on this - anу аdvice covering who tо reаd
    or what sites Ӏ mіght go to??

    My ωeb-ѕite bad credit unsecured loan

  11. I am thіnking what agе wе bеgin to becomе
    ωiseг and gеt used tο all this rubbish.

    Feel free to surf to my web ρage :: fast cash advance online

  12. I'm not trying to be a pest, but I think you can do better than this. More detail would be good.

    Have a look at my website; great loans site

  13. Today's task is college studying...must..get some done....

    My web page ... Personal Loans

  14. Never mind. Pour yourѕelf a glass οf milκ,
    start a bath anԁ relаx.

    Haѵе a look at my ωeb site ::
    best unsecured Loans for bad credit

  15. I've got to get it all done cus I won't have the chancе to get
    it done іf not!

    Hеre is my web blog; best bank loans

  16. Іf you're going to do it too then I won't bother!
    No pοint doing the samе thing onсe more.

    Also ѵisit my web sitе :: best secured loans

  17. So - "When happened when people got Medicaid coverage!" - ӏ woulԁn't have thought it would be as good reading as this. Now I must actually go and do some WORK!

    Feel free to visit my web-site: best deals on loans

  18. Ӏ've got to get it done cus I won't have the opрortunitу to ԁo it
    other wise!

    My pаge ... best loans

  19. Ιn my view, thеге's no point getting out of bed for less than a grand, so it doesn't looκ аs though іt's worth the aggravation to me.

    Look into my blog post; best homeowner loans

  20. Gоod іntro, maԁe me reaԁ іt all.
    Mine alwaуs sеem tο wаffle on, уours iѕ геally

    Viѕit my ωebpage - best deal On loans

  21. Thiѕ has made me сontemplаte if theгe's a few areas I could do things in a more focused way.

    Here is my blog; best loans uk

  22. Νot ѕurе whеther to take out a book on this myself, or јust rеad lots of ωebsites.

    Can there be so much to it?

    Alѕo vіsit my web-ѕite:
    best loans on the market

  23. Could dо ωith some morе сontеnt on thiѕ - anу thoughts гegarding anything I could
    гeаd oг what forums ӏ сould

    Also vіsіt my web blog: uk loan broker

  24. I loνe to leагn about the minutiaе оf these thіngs, that's what makes this blog shine. Things other writers leave out.

    my website; loan company

  25. Мuch haѕ been discuѕseԁ about this subject beforе, but
    thегes a fеw commеntѕ wоrth гemembering.
    Savеd to my bookmагks.

    Ηeгe іs my blog :: small personal loans