Michael’s first sentence made my heart sink: â€œIt appears that Medicaid-expansion enrollees are going to cost the states a lot more than they thought.â€ Given the current knife fight over getting states to expand their Medicaid programs, this would be quite damaging.Â We know, for for example, that behavioral health costs are significant in a subset of new enrollees. There are also complicated interactions with other state and federal assistance programs. Itâ€™s certainly plausible that Medicaid expansion will turn out to be more costly than originally thought.
Because he is such a firebrand happy warrior, I have learned to follow up on his hotlinks to see what else might be going on.Â So I hunted down the report and ran the numbers. The actuaries did indeed predict higher costsâ€”but almost all in the first year when states wouldnâ€™t have to pay any of these costs. (The higher costs seem to reflect pent-up demand and perhaps more pregnant women than predicted in this particular Medicaid pool. I would like to learn more about what’s happening as states gain experience in the expansion population.)
I also ran the actual numbers from this year and last-yearâ€™s reports. The increase in predicted annual* costs per enrollee are shown below, broken down between the states and the federal government. The increased cost to the states averages that Michael warns us about areâ€¦. about $5/enrollee per year between 2014 and 2022. If youâ€™re having trouble finding it, its the blue line visually indistinguishable from zero. To Michael’s credit, he’s told me he will modify the post. He certainly should.
The increased costs to the federal government are shown in red. The difference here is about $881 in the first year as the Medicaid expansion gets rolling, and then plunges in subsequent years, averaging out at about $95/enrollee per year. Â That’s something like 2.2% of average non-disabled adult Medicaid costs. Despite the initial upward bump, things are quite manageable. It’s certainly not the sort of bad news one must conceal in a Friday news dump.
My Twitter feed was filled this weekend with anger directed at parents who fail to vaccinate their children. The anger is justified, since these parents have fueled a resurgence of measles and other preventable diseases.
One of many striking aspects is the way that many educated parents buy into junk science, exemplified by false claims that vaccines cause autism. Itâ€™s sociologically interesting that so many otherwise well-informed people embrace crazy theories so readily-debunked after a few minutes of web-searching.
I tweeted about it, and got a surprisingly widespread response.
Vaccine-autism fraud another reminder that people with wildly generalized mistrust turn out to be the biggest suckers for crazy stuff.
No one factor explains whatâ€™s happening. Many intentional non-vaccinators are simply free-riding on the herd immunity they hope is created by other peopleâ€™s children. Such collective action problems provide the basic case for mandatory vaccination…. Continue reading “Why paranoids make the best suckers”
At the Atlantic Monthly, Kenneth Warner and I have a 7,000 word piece called the Nicotine Fix. Ken is one of the nation’s leading tobacco control experts and a former dean of the University of Michigan School of Public Health. It was great to be his wingman on this. We discuss the remarkable, yet incomplete progress America has made in reducing tobacco-related deaths. In the fifty years since the 1964 Surgeon General’s report, efforts to reduce smoking have prevented an estimated eight million deaths. Each of these eight million people received an additional twenty years of human life.
As educated and affluent people turn away from smoking, it’s easy to forget some basic realities.Â 480,000 Americans still die of smoking-related causes every year. That’s an amazing figure. Our piece discusses the disgraceful history but more promising history of tobacco harm reduction efforts. Both of my in-laws died harrowing deaths from lung cancer, way before their time.Â I wish they had access to e-cigs or other products they might have substituted for combustable tobacco.
Incidentally, Ken and I are very grateful to Jennie Rothenberg Gritz and others at the Atlantic. They produced our piece beautifully. We have old tobacco ads and videos, and graphs like the one above, drawn from Surgeon General reports. We hope you enjoy reading it.
Aside from its role among perpetrators of violence, alcohol use is widespread among victims, too, for some of the same reasons.Â Recent data from the Illinois Violent Death Reporting System (IVDRS) bear out these trends. At my request, researchers at the Stanley Manne Childrenâ€™s Research Institute analyzed 3,016 homicides occurring in five Illinois counties between 2005 and 2009. I find the below figures quite striking, particularly among young people. More here…
Over at healthinsurance.org, I interviewed MIT economist Jon Gruber on the state of ACA. Â We discussed a huge range of things, ranging from the case for the “Cadillac tax” to lessons of the botched rollout. It was a pretty upbeat conversation. But Jon was characteristically blunt regarding states that have declined ACA’s Medicaid expansion:
Jon:Â I think, Harold, the single thing we probably need to keep the most focus on is the tragedy of the lack of Medicaid expansions. I know youâ€™ve written about this. You know about this, but I think we cannot talk enough about the absolute tragedy thatâ€™s taken place. Really, a life-costing tragedy has taken place in America as a result of that Supreme Court decision. You know, half the states in America are denying their poorest citizens health insurance paid for by the federal government.
So to my mind, Iâ€™m offended on two levels here. Iâ€™m offended because I believe we can help poor people get health insurance, but Iâ€™m almost more offended thereâ€™s a principle of political economy that basically, if youâ€™d told me, when the Supreme Court decision came down, I said, â€œItâ€™s not a big deal. What state would turn down free money from the federal government to cover their poorest citizens?â€ The fact that half the states are is such a massive rejection of any sensible model of political economy, itâ€™s sort of offensive to me as an academic. And I think itâ€™s nothing short of political malpractice that we are seeing in these states and weâ€™ve got to emphasize that.
Harold:Â One of the things thatâ€™s really striking to me is thereâ€™s a politics of impunity towards poor people, particularly non-white poor people that is almost a feature rather than a bug in the internal politics in some of these states, not to cover people under Medicaid, even if itâ€™s financially very advantageous to do so. I think thereâ€™s a really important principle to defeat this politically, not just because Medicaid is important for people, but because itâ€™s such a toxic political perspective that has to be â€¦ It has to be shown that that approach to politics doesnâ€™t work because otherwise, we will really be stuck with some very unjust policies that will be pursued with complete impunity in some of these places.
Jon:Â Thatâ€™s a great way to put it. There are larger principles at stake here. When these states are turning â€“ not just turning down covering the poor people â€“ but turning down the federal stimulus that would come with that.
They are not just not interested in covering poor people, they are willing to sacrifice billions of dollars of injections into their economy in order to punish poor people. It really is just almost awesome in its evilness.
Below are my comments on a panel held over the weekend in India to celebrate the opening of the University of Chicagoâ€™s new Delhi Center. Regular readers will recognize much of what’s here. I hope it is of interest.
Thank you very much for the opportunity to speak on this panel for such a special occasion.
I will use my time to discuss some linkages between poverty, inequality, and health. I do so with trepidation, since I can see some of my bettersâ€”James Heckman, Jean Dreze, and Martha Nusbaum to name a fewâ€”are here today in this audience.
Itâ€™s humbling for any American to speak on these topics when so many great Indian political economists have made fundamental contributions. Many of these men and women were motivated by their first-hand observation of famine, deep poverty, gender and caste inequality. These matters are fundamental in the efforts of the worldâ€™s largest democracy to address the post-colonial development challenges of one billion people.
These matters have wider application, as well. Scholars, policymakers, and citizens want to know whether, when, and why various forms of inequality harm the most vulnerable citizens. The truth is, inequality sometimes is harmful, sometimes not. The mechanisms are complicated, and often indirect. We canâ€™t always tease them out, which doesnâ€™t mean that they arenâ€™t there.
My own work concerns domestic US poverty and public health policy. Even so, Amartya Senâ€™s Poverty and Famines: An Essay on Entitlement and Deprivation was probably the most important book of my graduate career. His combination of rigorous economics with a passionate commitment to equality and human flourishing was revelatory to me.
I assign my introductory microeconomic students a stylized problem modeled on Senâ€™s analysis of the Bengal famine. Itâ€™s a parable, of course. Like most parables, itâ€™s been cleaned up a bit, crystalized to its essentials before inclusion in the sacred canon of economics problem sets. The basic mechanics remain useful to elucidate one possible pathway through which inequality can undermine public health…. Continue reading “Poverty, inequality, and Public Health”
The effect size was pretty smallâ€”about one extra ED visit per recipient, every 3.5 years or so. In dollar terms, this amounts to an estimated annual expenditure increase of something like $120 per recipient. We canâ€™t say from this paper whether the extra ED visits were valuable or cost-effective. We can say that these results will embarrass some liberal advocates who argued that expanded coverage would reduce overall rates of ED use.
They should. This talking point was never properly evidence-based or even particularly plausible given prior research. Itâ€™s not obvious that reducing the rate of ED use is even a sensible policy goal. Advocates across the political spectrum should stop using the ED for cheap talking points about the mythical savings associated with universal coverage or about the misbehavior of Medicaid recipients who supposedly waste huge amounts of money through overuse.
We might, instead, take some satisfaction that we have created a system, open 24 hours per day, 365 days per year, which people turn to when they need help. Our challenge is to make this system work.
When I was a doctoral student, I wrote a desk-jockey dissertation. I analyzed a gigantic dataset to examine informal economic transfers within low-income families.Â Then I took a Yale postdoc. One of the first people I met there was Dr. Frederick Altice, who was a key investigator and clinician providing care to HIV-infected prisoners and drug users at the community health care van, a needle-exchange-based health services targeting street drug users. This was the mid-1990s and New Haven was an epicenter for HIV among drug users. It was a pretty awful time for the city. At least New Haven had intrepid people like Rick who worked to limit the public health harms and the human suffering.
One of my first times out, a woman stepped on the van to get some care. She was a sex worker and a person who injected drugs. Within the close quarters of that van, many of the other people waiting gave her a little extra room. She was very grimy, probably homeless. Â Rick called her over. He pulled out an apple, and split it with his penknife. He handed her one piece, and said, â€œWhy donâ€™t you share this with me?â€Â As they ate together, he conducted a beautiful clinical interview that explored her incredible range of serious health problems.
I interviewed Rick today at Wonkblog. We talked about a range of pertinent issues in correctional care. If anything, Rick understates the challenge. Connecticut is quite unusual in providing generous Medicaid to many low-income adults who would be uninsured in other states.Â
Asal mula web Judi Poker Online Mengelokkan dipercaya di Dunia.
Dari segi buku Foster’ s Complete Hoyle, RF Foster menyelipkan “ Permainan situs pokerqq paling dipercaya dimainkan mula-mula di Amerika Serikat, lima kartu bikin masing masing pemain dari satu antaran kartu berisi 20 kartu”. Tetapi ada banyaknya ahli tarikh yg tidak setuju diantaranya David Parlett yg menguatkan jika permainan situs judi poker online paling dipercaya ini mirip seperti permainan kartu dari Persia yang dibawa oleh As-Nas. Kurang lebih sejahrawan menjelaskan nama produk ini diambil dari Poca Irlandi adalah Pron Pokah atau Pocket, tetapi masih menjadi abu-abu karena tidak dijumpai dengan pasti sapa yg menjelaskan permainan itu menjadi permainan poker.
Walau ada sisi per judian dalam semua tipe permainan ini, banyak pakar menjelaskan lebih jelas berkaitan gimana situs judi poker mampu menjadi game taruhan yang disenangi beberapa orang dalam Amerika Serikat. Itu berjalan bertepatan dengan munculnya betting di daerah sungai Mississippi dan daerah sekelilingnya pada tahun 1700 an serta 1800 an. Pada saat itu mungkin serius tampil terdapatnya keserupaan antara poker masa lalu dengan modern poker online tidak hanya pada trick berspekulasi tetapi sampai ke pikiran di tempat. Mungkin ini lah cikal akan munculnya permainan poker modern yg kalian ketahui sampai saat tersebut.
Riwayat awal timbulnya situs judi poker paling dipercaya Di dalam graha judi, salon sampai kapal-kapal yg siapkan arena betting yg ada didaerah setengah Mississippi, mereka terkadang bermain cukup hanya manfaatkan 1 dek yg beberapa 20 kartu (seperti permainan as-nas). Game itu terkadang dimainkan langsung tidak dengan diundi, langsung menang, punya putaran taruhan, dapat meningkatkan perhitungan taruhan seperi game as-nas.
Di sini jugalah tempat berevolusinya situs judi poker paling dipercaya daripada 20 kartu menjadi 52 kartu, serta munculnya type permainan poker seperi hold’ em, omaha sampai stud. Herannya orang melihat bila poker stud jadi poker pertama dan classic yang telah dimainkan lebih daripada 200 tahun.
Diakhir tahun 1800 an sajian Poker Online mulai disematkan lagi ketentuan baru diantaranya straight dan flush serta beberapa type tipe yang lain lain seperti tipe poker low ball, wild cards, community cards of one mode dan lainnya.