We previously wrote on the results of a closely-watched Medicaid study in Oregon. Avik Roy has taken a second look at the results (we linked to his earlier piece also). He’s not encouraged.

. . . the Oregon findings are even worse than they look. Here’s why.

1. 40 percent of those who ‘won’ the Oregon Medicaid lottery didn’t bother to sign up . . .
2. Medicaid enrollees experienced a substantial placebo effect . . .
3. Oregon’s Medicaid program is actually better than most states’. . .
4. Medicaid will cost $7.4 trillion over the next decade alone . . .

Where I put an ellipsis, he provides useful information about the implications of those considerations. It’s worth a read.

For a more optimistic reading of the study, see Jonathan Cohn’s article in the New Republic.

Finally, Megan McArdle provides these useful insights from Jim Manzi. who discusses the experimental limitations affecting the Oregon study and much other policy research. His conclusion:

I don’t know how to reform American health care, and I don’t think this experiment holds any secret key to the debate. But I do think this experiment should make everybody who is confident that “roll out something like our current system via an insurance mandate” is a good answer more humble about that belief, if it is premised even in part on the idea that this reform will make more sick people well. I think we remain ignorant about what the real effects of proposed reforms would be. As Ezra Klein argued, one of the things that this study shows (to beat my own drum) is that we would likely make much better decisions on this subject if we did a lot more such experiments.

True, but for a host of reasons, unlikely.