This article questions the originally widely praised concept of the famous Oregon experiment; a study conducted in 2011 stating that having Medicaid was significantly better than being uninsured, which directly refuted various studies stating that individuals are no better off or worse off with Medicaid than without it. The public response to the preliminary, fragile and uncertain 2011 results was driven by media hype and premature enthusiasm: headlines like “Rigorous new Oregon study confirms that Medicaid actually saves lives” (Roy) and “What we found in a nutshell is that having Medicaid makes a big difference in people's lives” (Roy) flooded the front pages; the Oregon experiment had ignited a growing nationwide confidence in Obamacare that had never been seen before. The day before this article was published, May 1, 2013, the authors of the original Oregon study released updated two-year results: “Medicaid did not generate significant improvements in measured physical health outcomes.” This article analyzes the puzzling results, criticizes the experimental methods used, and questions the $450 billion spent annually on a seemingly futile program. Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on "Why Violent Video Games Shouldn't Be Banned"? Get an Original Essay The design of the Oregon study focused on comparing the health outcomes of individuals enrolled in Medicaid to the health outcomes of the uninsured. The outcomes examined for comparison were elevated blood pressure levels, high cholesterol, elevated HbA1c levels, and long-term cardiovascular risk (measured by Framingham scores). The main question the authors wanted to answer: Has Medicaid improved the health of its enrollees? Before analyzing the statistical data of the experiment, it is crucial to understand the flawed structural setup that introduced huge biases and perhaps even skewed the results. The Medicaid population was partially self-selected, making it an imprecise representative sample of the general population. Medicaid users were knowingly and consciously aware that they were receiving Medicaid benefits, and the uninsured were well aware that they were uninsured – this concept could potentially favor the Medicaid population due to prevailing misconceptions. In much more careful clinical trials, both the doctor and the patient would not have to be aware of whether the patient received the placebo or the test drug to obtain an accurate and unbiased response. The Oregon authors also measured only the baseline health status of the uninsured group, not the baseline health values ​​of the Medicaid group. This huge flaw does not allow for accurate results within the Medicaid group as it offers no definitive method of comparison when analyzing the data. The process of creating the Medicaid group was also driven by enormous bias. Of the 35,169 residents who “won” the lottery to qualify for Medicaid, only about 30% actually signed up, and 60% of those selected physically filled out the forms to receive benefits. The 60% who signed up are clearly more likely to need the care and benefits than the remaining 40%, who didn't bother filling out the paperwork. (Roy) Those who chose to enlist were therefore sicker and more in need of care; making them more likely to benefit from the treatment than the control group or the uninsured. The last element of distortion introduced, and perhaps the most?