News and analysis from The Center for Michigan • http://thecenterformichigan.net
©2014 Bridge Michigan. All Rights Reserved. • Join us online at http://bridgemi.com

Original article URL: http://bridgemi.com/2013/05/oregon-medicaid-study-shows-value-of-investment-in-mental-health/

Brunch with Bridge

Welcome to Brunch with Bridge!
Every Sunday, you'll find in this space one or more guest columns by interesting Michigan residents with something interesting to say about life in our state. We hope you'll find it a place to stop by regularly, read, and comment.

Oregon Medicaid study shows value of investment in mental health

CELEBRATE MENTAL HEALTH: Little of the coverage of the Oregon Medicaid study has noted the huge improvements in mental health for the insured vs. the uninsured, notes Marianne Udow-Phillips of the Center for Healthcare Research & Transformation. (courtesy photo/used under Creative Commons license)

CELEBRATE MENTAL HEALTH: Little of the coverage of the Oregon Medicaid study has noted the huge improvements in mental health for the insured vs. the uninsured, notes Marianne Udow-Phillips of the Center for Healthcare Research & Transformation. (courtesy photo/used under Creative Commons license)

Recent reports about a Medicaid experiment in Oregon reveal a major disconnect we have in the health care world: we make a historic — and unwarranted — distinction between “physical health” and “mental health.” Worse, that distinction actually interferes with both our investment in mental health treatment and patients’ willingness to seek treatment.

The Oregon Medicaid study is about the impact that Medicaid coverage has had on a group of low-income individuals who obtained health insurance coverage for the first time several years ago. Researchers have been studying Oregon because of a unique set of circumstances that resulted in some uninsured adults being randomly selected to receive access to Medicaid, while others were not. That circumstance enabled a randomized controlled trial to be done in the “real world” — a rarity in health services research.

The experiment’s initial set of results, which relied on self-reports by the participants, were released last year. In the first year of the study, those with Medicaid coverage reported better health than those who were in the control group. In the most recent report, which includes second-year findings, researchers used actual health measures for cholesterol, high blood pressure, diabetes, and depression. This second set of data resulted in a more nuanced and complicated conclusion than the first-year report.

Specifically, the researchers found no impact in the two years with regard to cholesterol and high blood pressure; an increase in diagnosis and treatment of diabetes but no impact on blood sugar levels; a significant reduction in depression; and a significant improvement in financial stability for those with Medicaid coverage compared to the control group.

Because these findings were released while many states are still considering whether or not to expand Medicaid, the Oregon story was reported across multiple media outlets. Headlines ranged from the fairly neutral (New York Times: “Medicaid Access Increases Use of Care, Study Finds”) to the more judgmental (Forbes Magazine: “Oregon Study: Medicaid ‘Had No Significant Effect’ On Health Outcomes vs. Being Uninsured”). Some commentators have said that the study and resulting headlines were almost like a Rorschach test about what one believes about the Affordable Care Act and the Medicaid expansion. But, even articles and publications that are generally favorable to the Medicaid expansion often reported that the study showed that the Oregon experiment had no impact on health.

These headlines are stunning in several ways. First of all, they generalize a few measures over a relatively short period of time to a sweeping conclusion about health insurance. But, beyond that, they seem to entirely discount the improvements in mental health as a “health outcome.”

Mental health is ‘health,’ too

In the Oregon Medicaid experiment, the rate of depression dropped by more than 9 percentage points and the relative improvement compared to the control group was 30 percent. Why is it that we don’t identify the significantly lower rates of depression as a significant health outcome?

For years, we have had research on the causes of depression and other mental health conditions. While the causes are likely multifactorial, including a combination of genetics, environment, biology and psychology, the National Institute of Mental Health describes “depressive illness” as a “disorder of the brain” —not a personal weakness.

More than 10 years ago, visionaries at the University of Michigan, under the leadership of Dr. John Greden, established the country’s first Depression Center. Dr. Greden reasoned that until we treat depression like we do cancer — as a disease that requires focused, team-based research and collaboration — we will not make the kind of progress in understanding this disease that we need to. Today there is a National Network of Depression Centers that includes 21 of the nation’s top academic institutions.

It is disappointing to realize that 10 years of this kind of work has not erased the distinction between “physical” and “mental” health. If we had, the headlines about the Oregon experiment would have been something like this, “Medicaid coverage shown to have significantly improve health relative to being uninsured.”  We should only be so lucky to find a health impact as large as this in other areas of the Oregon health experiment.

Marianne Udow-Phillips is director of the Center for Healthcare Research & Transformation and a former director of the Michigan Department of Human Services.

2 comments from Bridge readers.Add mine!

  1. Charles Richards

    Ms. Udow-Phillips to the contrary we did not invest in mental health in Oregon. We relieved those who were selected to receive Medicaid of the mental stress of worrying about the expense of catastrophic medical problems. That was simply a matter of transferring resources to them. Can we afford to improve mental health by relieving people of all stress? Is that an efficient way of improving mental health? Doubtless, mental health is important, but is it as important as saving lives and relieving severe physical medical problems?

  2. susan c brown

    We in Kalamazoo have been active and involved in mental health and the critical lack of mental health facilities that are available not just to the medicaid participants but to the business class who can afford mental health aid but who do not know where to go for help and avoid talking about it to others because they think is shows a weakness they want to hide.Removing the stigma of depression and including mental health as a part of general health at yearly examinations so many of us religiously have is something that many of our internists now include. In fact, we are hoping to get the state government to allocate monies to our programs as a pilot program. A large part of the challenge,however, is to have psychiatrists available here to treat those who have a”disorder of the brain”-this is a very real problem and impossible to readily fix.

Leave your comment...

Your email address will not be published.

Invest in non-partisan journalism.

Donate to The Center for Michigan. Find out why.