[barry-cotter]

Not that much. we could cut healthcare spending in half with very few noticeable effects on outcomes.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RAND_Health_Insurance_Experime.... An early paper with interim results from the RAND HIE concluded that health insurance without coinsurance "leads to more people using services and to more services per user," referring to both outpatient and inpatient services.[5] Subsequent RAND HIE publications "rule[d] out all but a minimal influence, favorable or adverse, of free care for the average participant"[6] but determined that a "low income initially sick group assigned to the HMO... [had a] greater risk of dying" than those assigned to fee-for-service (FFS) care.[7] The experiment also demonstrated that cost sharing reduced "appropriate or needed" medical care as well as "inappropriate or unnecessary" medical care. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oregon_Medicaid_health_experim.... Approximately two years after the lottery, researchers found that Medicaid had no statistically significant impact on physical health measures, but "it did increase use of health care services, raise rates of diabetes detection and management, lower rates of depression, and reduce financial strain."[4][5]

[Amygaz]

That Oregon study was too limited in scope, variables, population, and time. It just wasn’t well done. Now if your goal is to decrease state spending shorterm, then this is definitely a dumb move, and we didn’t even need that “experiment”.

It’s about how you value your population and the type of society you are trying to develop.