Do people who can’t afford health insurance benefit  from regular health care when access is provided? You might think that the answer is obvious, but it’s been debated for decades. But now, due to a tough political decision made in Oregon a few years ago, we have an answer.

In The Oregonian, Joe Rojas Burke reports:

Oregon’s unintentional experiment on the impact of health insurance grabbed headlines across the nation Thursday. The experiment began in 2008, when state officials decided the fairest way to enroll additional people in Oregon’s cash-strapped Medicaid program would be by random lottery. That inadvertently set the stage for the equivalent of a randomized clinical trial measuring how health insurance changes the lives of people who gain coverage.

In a second article, he adds:

After one year, the experiment shows that gaining coverage makes an immediate difference in personal health and financial security. The newly insured, compared to their uninsured peers, were more likely to receive preventive services and to establish long-lasting ties to a trusted doctor. They were less likely to borrow money to pay medical bills or have unpaid bills sent to a collection agency.

Across the country, the report is being discussed. The New York Times story begins this way:

When poor people are given medical insurance, they not only find regular doctors and see doctors more often but they also feel better, are less depressed and are better able to maintain financial stability, according to a new, large-scale study that provides the first rigorously controlled assessment of the impact of Medicaid.

While the findings may seem obvious, health economists and policy makers have long questioned whether it would make any difference to provide health insurance to poor people.

You can read The Oregonian articles here and here, and the New York Times story here.

The impact is already huge, and timely as cuts to Medicaid are being considered. Research is still underway, and more findings will be released over time.