Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by martyb on Friday June 30 2017, @11:44AM   Printer-friendly
from the Pump-It-Up! dept.

In the years after health insurance coverage under the Affordable Care Act unfurled in Multnomah County, Oregon, cardiac arrests among those newly covered fell 17 percent, researchers report this week in the Journal of the American Heart Association.

The pilot study, led by researchers at Oregon Health & Science University and the Heart Institute of Cedars-Sinai Medical Center in Los Angeles, is just an observational study—it can't determine causation—and it only looked at the one county. But, the authors argue, the data begs for follow-up.

[...] The correlation doesn't mean that the insurance coverage caused the change, the authors stress. And even if it did, it's not clear from the data how insurance affected cardiac arrest rates. It's possible that with improved diagnoses and preventative care, heart health could improve in this age range. Interventions like smoking cessation programs and medications for cholesterol and atherosclerosis could all improve health, the authors speculate. But more and larger studies are needed to determine if this is true.

Ars Technica coverage: https://arstechnica.com/science/2017/06/after-aca-arrived-in-an-oregon-county-there-was-a-17-drop-in-cardiac-arrest/
The study in question: http://jaha.ahajournals.org/content/6/7/e005667


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 2) by BsAtHome on Friday June 30 2017, @12:43PM (5 children)

    by BsAtHome (889) on Friday June 30 2017, @12:43PM (#533397)

    With the current administration going backwards, I would think there is ample possibility to establish or reject causation. When the ACA is repealed, then, after 3..4 years, one can again look at the numbers and see if they have changed.

    Using the general population as test-subjects should be quite familiar with the government. This must be a fantastic opportunity for science to establish the facts once and for all. For the government at least, it is a net negative business to have too many old people in the country. Maybe they should create a new law demanding 65+'s insurance to be used solely for someone under 65 (but paid by 65+). Then, the younger probably survive (pay taxes) and the old ones are removed from the pool a bit earlier. Looks like balancing the demographics can be done by healthcare and clever governmental planning...

    (/s, with a serious but troubling wink)

    Starting Score:    1  point
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  

    Total Score:   2  
  • (Score: 3, Insightful) by realDonaldTrump on Friday June 30 2017, @01:44PM (1 child)

    by realDonaldTrump (6614) on Friday June 30 2017, @01:44PM (#533423) Homepage Journal

    I promised not to cut Social Security. When we repeal we can save $3 billion on Social Security, without cutting it. By having less recipients, not cutting payments. That's from the CBO estimate, folks. A promise kept. If we repeal. Terrific! Very important that we repeal ASAP! #PromisesKept [twitter.com]

    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday June 30 2017, @05:43PM

      by Anonymous Coward on Friday June 30 2017, @05:43PM (#533579)

      I look on in awe.

  • (Score: 2) by kaszz on Friday June 30 2017, @02:38PM (2 children)

    by kaszz (4211) on Friday June 30 2017, @02:38PM (#533460) Journal

    The problem is market signaling. When young people figure out that they will be screwed or abandoned when they get 65 years old. They will plan accordingly and the system will bear the consequences.

    • (Score: 2) by JoeMerchant on Friday June 30 2017, @10:11PM (1 child)

      by JoeMerchant (3937) on Friday June 30 2017, @10:11PM (#533730)

      I have been a relatively valued member of the US economy since 1990, judging by the speed with which people give me jobs and the relatively high wages they pay me.

      In 1990, and again around 1997, I seriously considered relocation to another country to improve _my_ quality of life, and again in 2010 for my entire family. I can get the permission to work "over there" in any number of places, if the benefits of "being an American" deteriorate much further it may tip the balance at the next decision point.

      --
      🌻🌻 [google.com]
      • (Score: 2) by kaszz on Saturday July 01 2017, @04:46AM

        by kaszz (4211) on Saturday July 01 2017, @04:46AM (#533819) Journal

        Where is "over there" ? Japan? Europe?

        And what are the circumstances that makes "being an American" soon to be of negative value on a individual level?
        Are your wife/family also into graduate level job market?