Government-Sponsored Health Care Saves Lives, But at What Cost?

RomneyCare is a government-sponsored program for health insurance coverage in the state of Massachusetts. Former Governor Mitt Romney instituted the program in 2006, and a new study found that it helped save more lives, but at a high cost.

Researchers from Harvard University and the Urban Institute published their study, "Changes in Mortality After Massachusetts Health Care Reform: A Quasi-experimental Study," today in the journal Annals of Internal Medicine. They sought to find out if the Massachusetts health care reform altered mortality rates since its inception.

The study focused on adults aged 20 to 64 years old in Massachusetts and was compared to a control group with similar demographics and economic conditions. The researchers found that compared to the control group, the health care reform in Massachusetts was associated with a 2.9% drop in mortality rates among the adults as well as a 4.5% drop in mortality rates from cases treatable by medical care.

However, the lives saved as a result of the new health care system were very costly, according to the study's findings. They estimated that for about every 830 adults who received RomneyCare, there was one fewer death annually. This indicates that the cost of the 830 new enrollees equates to the cost of one saved life. In this case, at about $5,000 per new RomneyCare plan, it was approximately $4 million per life saved. It's too early to determine if Obamacare will have the same effect, but the World Health Organization does not consider this to be cost-effective.

In order for it to be cost-effective, RomneyCare would have to save each person an average of 30 additional years of life. The current cost per saved life is more than the WHO's recommended three-times the nation's per-capita GDP. According to World Bank data, as of 2012 the U.S. per capita GDP was $51,749, so the threshold for RomneyCare to be effective would have to equal $155,247 per life saved.

The numbers were determined after studying Massachusetts counties pre-reform between 2001-2005 and post-reform between 2007-2010. Such research is considered plentiful because this is a more comprehensive aspect of government-funded healthcare, unlike Medicare, which past studies examined and could not find sufficient data or results.

Once Obamacare gets the ball rolling in the near future, it could become a big issue if an excessive amount of money is being spent to only marginally reduce mortality rates.