by Steve Buckstein
A new report by Cascade Policy Institute looks at how well the Oregon Health Plan met its promised goals. Launched in 1994, the Oregon Health Plan sought to use a prioritized list of conditions and treatments to simultaneously expand coverage, control costs and foster provider participation in the state’s Medicaid system for low-income residents. By explicitly rationing care, the plan was called a “bold experiment” and was supported by political leaders of both major parties.
Now, sixteen years later, the report’s authors find that:
“[L]ike the experimental drug that performs no better than a placebo, the Oregon Health Plan has produced results that are not significantly different from the outcomes seen by the U.S. as a whole.”
It’s safe to say that if we showed a knowledgeable observer the results of five random states’ Medicaid programs, they would not be able to pick Oregon out of the crowd.
Cascade’s report explains why the Plan failed to achieve any of its primary goals. These failures should warn politicians who want to duplicate the Plan’s approach in other areas. Gubernatorial candidate and chief architect of the Oregon Health Plan, John Kitzhaber, recently announced he wants to apply the Plan’s rationing approach to provision of other state social services. But given this approach’s failure so far, Oregonians might be wary about trying it again.
Steve Buckstein is founder and Senior Policy Analyst at Cascade Policy Institute, Oregon’s free market public policy research organization.
Download PDF
If we could get them to agree that patients should be able to designate nutritionists, acupuncturists, naturpaths, etc., as gatekeepers, at lease we might be able to move in a direction of reducing diseases attributable to poor diet and lifestyle. These diseases contribute to disability and death at a higher rate than they might otherwise. What’s more, the costs in lost productivity and quality of life are also greater when iatrogenic illness is increased by the greater side-effect events with many conventional medicines.
I just returned from a session on this at Adventist that drew researchers from around the country. Information on reversing chronic conditions is fascinating. One of the speakers was an expert witness for Oprah when she and Howard Lyman were sued in a Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation (SLAPP).
SLAPP’s are as toxic to free speech as some larded foods are to arteries.
Mary Saunders
Oops. I meant at least rather than at lease…
Good comment Mary.
I have what is normally a should be dead already condition. I used an MD’s service to cure the condition but to increase my chances I also used nutritional and herbal consulting.
Fortunately my doctor believes in any rout to health and was supportive of my nontraditional efforts. I was able through his help to use my “health savings account” to offset the cost of the nontraditional therapies.
The proof is in the pudding as they say. I am still around 10 years after being told I was on limited time and start wrapping up my affairs.
Under John Kitzhaber rules and obama care I would have probably never been given the chance to attend my childrens completion of High School or had the pleasure of being a soccer, basketball coach, class room helper, run a church nursery and be a political activist while under treatment.
Oregon’s legislative action in harassing the health insurance industry with a list of 35 must cover with no choice by the consumer conditions is irresponsible and I firmly believe in buy what you want. I am a 57 year old non smoker. Why should I have to buy a policy that covers conditions I will never use? Let me pick my insurance coverage and be able to purchase from anybody I want.