The pivotal alternative to Obamacare . . .
Priceless: Curing the Healthcare Crisis, by John C. Goodman. Order Today!

How Much Does Health Insurance Affect Health? Some Surprising Answers



There have been a number of claims that lack of insurance is life threatening. The most recent and well known is an Institute of Medicine (IOM) study claiming that 18,000 people die every year because they do not have health insurance.[1] Using a similar methodology, a study for the Physicians for a National Health Program expanded that number to 44,789.[2] Families USA, a nonprofit advocacy group, went as far as to predict the number of deaths by state.[3] “More than eight people die each day in California because they don’t have health insurance,” the organization asserts.[4] Careful analysis by such scholars as the former Congressional Budget Office director June O’Neill[5] and health economist Linda Gorman[6] find these studies are defective.

Helen Levy and David Meltzer, scholars with an interest in healthcare, found that most studies that attempt to find a causal link between health insurance and health status were poorly designed. They conclude that, although health insurance can make a difference to selected subpopulations of people, for most people, the effect is very modest.[7] In a more thorough study, former Clinton adviser Richard Kronick found that insurance had virtually no effect on mortality rates.[8]

Moreover, in the decision about where to invest finite resources to improve health outcomes, universal coverage may not be the low-hanging fruit. Michael Cannon, the director of health policy studies at the Cato Institute, points out that if improving health status is the primary goal, there is no evidence that universal coverage would accomplish this any better than, say, boosting education or expanding community health centers. If saving lives is the primary goal, the IOM’s own estimates suggest that reducing preventable medical errors would save far more lives than boosting health coverage.[9]

As I discuss in my new book Priceless: Curing the Healthcare Crisis, the conventional wisdom among health experts across the ideological spectrum is that people need health insurance to get good healthcare. Indeed, to some politicians the terms “no healthcare” and “no health insurance” are interchangeable. Almost as widely accepted is the view that some health plans are a ticket to better healthcare than others. But a RAND Corporation study shatters those assumptions:[10]

  • Among people who seek care (actually see a doctor), RAND researchers found virtually no difference in the quality of care received by the insured and uninsured.
  • They also found very little difference in the care provided by different types of insurance—Medicaid, managed care, fee-for-service, and so forth.

Unfortunately, the care everyone received was less than ideal. The study concluded that patients received recommended care only about half the time.

The implication is that reforming the supply side of the medical marketplace is far more important than getting everyone on the demand side insured.

For people who have a hard time imagining a world in which health insurance does not matter, consider the case of Parkland Memorial Hospital in Dallas, Texas. Both uninsured and Medicaid patients enter the same emergency room door and see the same doctors. The hospital rooms are the same, the beds are the same, and the care is the same. As a result, patients have no reason to fill out the lengthy forms and answer the intrusive questions that Medicaid enrollment so often requires.

Furthermore, the doctors and nurses who treat these patients are paid the same, regardless of patients’ enrollment in an insurance plan. Therefore, they tend to be indifferent about who is insured by whom, or if they’re even insured at all. In fact, the only people concerned about who is or is not enrolled in what plan are hospital administrators, who worry about how they will cover the hospital’s costs.

[1] Committee on the Consequences of Uninsurance, Board on Healthcare Services, Institute of Medicine, Care Without Coverage: Too Little, Too Late (consensus report, Washington DC: National Academy Press, 2002), http://books.nap.edu/openbook .php?record_id=10367.

[2] Andrew Wilper et al., “Health Insurance and Mortality in US Adults,” American Journal of Public Health 99, (2009), http://www.pnhp.org/excessdeaths/health -insurance-and-mortality-in-US-adults.pdf.

[3] “Dying for Coverage,” Families USA, April 2008, http://www.familiesusa.org/issues/ uninsured/publications/dying-for-coverage.html.

[4] “New Report Shows How Many People Are Likely to Die in California Due to Lack of Health Coverage,” Families USA, Press Release, April 3, 2008, http://www .familiesusa.org/resources/newsroom/press-releases/2008-press-releases/dying-for -coverage-ca.html.

[5] June E. O’Neill and Dave M. O’Neill, “Who Are the Uninsured?” Employment Policies Institute, June, 2009. http://www.epionline.org/studies/oneill_06-2009.pdf

[6] Linda Gorman, “Dying for (Media) Coverage,” John Goodman’s Health Policy Blog, May 2, 2008, http://healthblog.ncpa.org/dying-for-media-coverage/; Linda Gorman and John C. Goodman, “Does Lack of Insurance Cause Premature Death? Probably Not,” John Goodman’s Health Policy Blog, November 2, 2009, http://healthblog.ncpa .org/does-lack-of-insurance-cause-premature-death-probably-not/.

[7] Helen Levy and David Meltzer, “The Impact of Health Insurance on Health,” Annual Review of Public Health 29 (2008): 399–409­

[8] Richard Kronick, “Health Insurance Coverage and Mortality Revisited,” Health Services Research 44, No. 4 (2009): 1,211–1,231.

[9] Michael F. Cannon, “Perspectives on an Individual Mandate,” Cato Institute, October 17, 2008, http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=9722.

[10] Steven M. Aschet et al., “Who Is at Greatest Risk for Receiving Poor-Quality Healthcare?” New­ England ­Journal of Medicine 354 (2006): 1147–1156.

Note: Cross-posted at Psychology Today blog, “Curing the Healthcare Crisis.”

8 Comment(s)

  1. I’ve worked in a Catholic hospital twice, with both periods of employment separated by about 15 years, and no one was ever denied treatment due to not having insurance.

    Paul | Jul 31, 2012 | Reply

  2. “The study concluded that patients received recommended care only about half the time.”

    I posted about this a few days ago. The simple explanation is mediocre medical education and training that has worsened over the past four decades. What is most aggravating (to this former medical educator) is that many deans, chancellors, residency program directors, etc. KNOW that the medical education and training system is inadequate but do nothing to change it.

    MingoV | Jul 31, 2012 | Reply

  3. If I were King I would do the following to straighten out the “Health Care Crisis” in America. 1st. Pass a Constitutional Amendment, on the Federal level,separating medicine from the State except in the area of testing for competency. 2nd. Phase out Medicare and Medicaid within 3 years of passing the above Constitutional Amendment. 3rd. Have fee for service the law of the land. 4th. Have private Hospitalization and Major Medical Insurance available to anyone who is qualified in any State with cross State purchases allowed.This Insurance would be paid directly by the policy holder.Premiums to be decided on a case by case basis between the Insurance Co. and the Policy Holder. 5th. Encourage religious,charity and volunteer hospitals for serving those with moderate means. 6th. Encourage volunteer doctors to donate their time to low cost charity clinics to serve those of moderate means. 7th. Greatly reform the Tort System and prosecute fraudulent tort claims. 8th. Reduce the time needed to obtain a Medical Doctor Diploma by eliminating “premed” college costs and having a 5 year Medical Doctor’s Degree 5 years out of High School. 9th. Implementation of this plan to be put into full effect within 3 years of starting.

    libertarian jerry | Jul 31, 2012 | Reply

  4. @libertarian jerry: 8th idea

    This was tried in NYC (City College and SUNY Downstate Medical Center) in the 1970s. There were high school students (some of whom had skipped one or two grades) who were accepted into a 6-year program of 2 years of college followed by medical school. The program was not successful. Most of the students started medical school at age 18 or 19. Most did not have a solid understanding of the scientific method (too few science lab courses in college). Most had no life experience outside of schools and their upper middle class homes. Most had never held a job. Most had never lived on their own. They lacked the maturity and experience necessary to interact with patients. They couldn’t handle taking medical histories from gay men with HIV. They couldn’t understand why a woman supporting her family by working at menial jobs couldn’t ask for half a day off to bring her child to a clinic. They couldn’t understand why many African-Americans avoided medical care from white doctors (the Tuskegee debacle and drug experiments on mostly African-American convicts). Based on my observations, I believe that no one under 20 should be admitted to medical school.

    MingoV | Jul 31, 2012 | Reply

  5. MingoV.................Some couldn’t some could. People mature at different ages. Some adults never mature. I’m sure there are Doogie Housers out there able to do the job.

    libertarian jerry | Aug 1, 2012 | Reply

  6. I am against OBAMACARE or whatever you want to call it because it is pure Socialism. This Country is a Republic, we are free to work for what we want and then go buy it. So, buy health insurance and if you can’t afford it I don’t mind my tax dollars being used to help you at the ER of any hospital in America. If you get injured and need Disability I don’t mind my tax dollars providing that for you. Just don’t take away your (and my) freedom to choose and I do not want the government telling me what medical assistance I can or cannot have. I will take care of my own business with the government controlling my life. Thanks for listening. Nothing is free and you are betting your life that it might be.
    THINK.

    Kathleen C | Aug 2, 2012 | Reply

  7. That is “withOUT” government, etc.

    Kathleen C | Aug 2, 2012 | Reply

  8. Jerry,
    Your plan would make a dent, but misses the lowest of low-hanging fruit ripe for the picking: Declare the AMA what it is – a political lobbying group – and ban it from limiting health care options. This would open up mainstream health care options to chiropractic, homeopathy, traditional Chinese medicine and other proven effective approaches. As implied by your moniker “libertarian jerry”, the increased competition would bring about lower costs from mainstream medical doctors and also lower insurance premiums. Having the option to avail themselves of options beyond the AMA’s cut-burn-and-poison approach would be “just what the doctor ordered” to cure our health-care malaise.

    sandy | Aug 5, 2012 | Reply

Post a Comment