Children eligible for expanded Medicaid contribute more in taxes as adults

Children eligible for expanded Medicaid contribute more in taxes as adults
A new study examined the long-term impact of expanded Medicaid benefits for children. Credit: Yale University

A new study finds that children who received expanded Medicaid benefits in the 1980s and 1990s contributed more to the U.S. tax system as adults. They also were more likely to attend college and less likely to die prematurely in adulthood.

The study is based on an analysis of for nearly all born in the United States from 1981 to 1984. It compared children from similar backgrounds who were eligible for Medicaid for different lengths of time, depending on where and when they were born.

Medicaid, which began in 1965, is a public for low-income people. It expanded dramatically in the 1980s and again in the 1990s, with the establishment of the State Children's Health Insurance Program. Historically, states have set different eligibility thresholds for Medicaid.

Yale University economist Amanda Kowalski, one of the study's co-authors, said the research has implications for today's Medicaid landscape, as well. "Although it will take years to know the long-term impact of current expansions of Medicaid undertaken as part of the Affordable Care Act, this study shows that the investments that the government made in Medicaid in the 1980s and 1990s are paying off in the form of higher now," Kowalski said.

According to the study, the federal government recouped 14 cents for each dollar spent on childhood Medicaid by the time the children reached age 28. Assuming these higher tax payments persist, the federal government would recoup 56 cents on each dollar by the time these children reach age 60.

Children eligible for more years of Medicaid made higher combined income and payroll tax payments as adults, the study found. They also collected less from the Earned Income Tax Credit, and females had higher cumulative wages.

In addition to Kowalski, who also is affiliated with the National Bureau of Economic Research (NBER), the study's co-authors are David Brown and Ithai Lurie, from the Office of Tax Analysis at the U.S. Department of the Treasury. The study was released Jan. 12 as an NBER Working Paper.

The findings, interpretations, and conclusions expressed in the study are entirely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent the views of the U.S. Department of the Treasury.


Explore further

State medicaid expansions did not erode perceived access to care or increase emergency services

Provided by Yale University
Citation: Children eligible for expanded Medicaid contribute more in taxes as adults (2015, January 12) retrieved 15 September 2019 from https://phys.org/news/2015-01-children-eligible-medicaid-contribute-taxes.html
This document is subject to copyright. Apart from any fair dealing for the purpose of private study or research, no part may be reproduced without the written permission. The content is provided for information purposes only.
520 shares

Feedback to editors

User comments

Jan 12, 2015
Everyone loved FDR and the new deal and our welfare programs. That is until the civil rights movement and blacks could suddenly qualify, then all of sudden it was socialism for "lazy" people, and the republican party was born.
They should just pull themselves up by the boot straps, borrow some money from their parents and maybe someday they could be as awesome and great as Mitt Romney.

Jan 12, 2015
Children eligible for expanded Medicaid contribute more in taxes as adults


sound like bullshit to me. especially since expanded Medicaid is only, at most, 4 years old.

stupid progressives.

cjn
Jan 12, 2015
Not science, and a misleading headline.

FTA: "According to the study, the federal government recouped 14 cents for each dollar spent on childhood Medicaid by the time the children reached age 28. Assuming these higher tax payments persist, the federal government would recoup 56 cents on each dollar by the time these children reach age 60."

So children in the "study" contribute more as adults, than those who in a situation estimated to be similar who didn't receive Medicaid. The "good" is that these recipients are working members of society (which is very good); the "bad" is that either they, as a group, they are still not achieving a very high level of success (as Medicaid payments are not exactly generous) or programmatic costs are so high as to make a neutral ROI impossible. I would be interested to know which if the program cost attributed to the individual is the explicit benefit they received, or the per capita average of recipients from total program costs.

Jan 12, 2015
Not science

1) It's in the medicine& health section
2) it's a statistical analysis - hence it IS science.

Jan 12, 2015
'Contribute'?
Plundered is a better term.
But, the value of taxes plundered later have less value due to the govt's built in inflation.

Jan 12, 2015
Look at the hateful conservatives, SCARED they will have to pay their fair share of taxes, and somebody else is NOT, just because they have no money!

Conservative Character is an oxymoron.

Jan 12, 2015
Why not study how children who were raised in two parent home, with a mother who stayed home with younger children, and the family income was sufficient not to be on welfare and the cost of medical care was low and high quality?
But their is no incentive to do such research as it would not support an expanded welfare state.

Jan 12, 2015
sound like bullshit to me. especially since expanded Medicaid is only, at most, 4 years old.
stupid progressives.
@shooty
besides the first sentence, the third paragraph has this
It expanded dramatically in the 1980s and again in the 1990s, with the establishment of the State Children's Health Insurance Program. Historically, states have set different eligibility thresholds for Medicaid
it took between 1-3 minutes to read the article and another 30 seconds - 1 minute to verify with Google and two other search engines that the information is correct

you usually only troll the Climate threads
whats up with that?

Jan 12, 2015
So which school of economics considers a Return on Investment (ROI) of 14% over 28 years - or 56% over 60 years to be a worthwhile investment?
Just asking...

Jan 12, 2015
So which school of economics considers a Return on Investment (ROI) of 14% over 28 years - or 56% over 60 years to be a worthwhile investment?

The 'school of economics' where life and happiness trumps dollars. But I guess that's something some people will never understand.

Jan 12, 2015
life and happiness trumps dollars.

'Dollars' equal food, water, shelter.
Socialists seem to believe food, shelter, water are freely provided by Mother Earth with no effort, no work.
When everyone becomes a socialist, no one will do the work needed to earn the wealth needed survive.
The Puritans who settled in Massachusetts quickly discovered even they wouldn't survive under socialism. Once they abolished the socialist contract, they could raise enough food to feed themselves, and more.

Jan 13, 2015
The 'school of economics' where life and happiness trumps dollars. But I guess that's something some people will never understand.
@antialias_physorg
SOME people learn this
not many... but some of us do

Socialists seem to believe food, shelter, water are freely provided by Mother Earth with no effort, no work
@Rygtard
nope... this would be survivalists, not socialists

you are confusing communism and socialism again (or still)

Jan 13, 2015
I've looked at this over and over - and it's never mentioned WHO their comparing to.

"contributed more to the U.S. tax system as adults" More than Whom?

Who was the Control Group? Without that information, these numbers are just made up.

I have to agree. The only way I can see to interpret that sentence is that they were paying higher taxes as adults than they were as children, which is hardly shocking news.

Jan 13, 2015
So children in the "study" contribute more as adults, than those who in a situation estimated to be similar who didn't receive Medicaid. The "good" is that these recipients are working members of society (which is very good); the "bad" is that either they, as a group, they are still not achieving a very high level of success (as Medicaid payments are not exactly generous) or programmatic costs are so high as to make a neutral ROI impossible.

An extremely short-sighted view to be sure. The point is, the cycle of poverty has been broken for these families. The results won't disappear at the end of one generation; the next generation will do even better.

Jan 13, 2015
Socialists seem to believe food, shelter, water are freely provided by Mother Earth with no effort, no work.

Funnily enough: they are. Water flows freely and food grows freely. The optimization of the process requires work and that is the part of businesses.

The government, however, is not a business. It is there to provide the things businesses can't (police, healthcare, social security, any kind of service neede in case of a catastrophe, infrastructure, ...). If you think government is supposed to be a profit oriented venture then you need to go back to elementary school.

When everyone becomes a socialist, no one will do the work needed to earn the wealth needed survive.

Funnily enough some of those countries you decry as 'socialist' are starting to pay their national debts back. So they seem to be handling their money better than the capitalist ones.


Jan 13, 2015
Water flows freely and food grows freely.

Where?

Ever see a show called "Naked and Afraid"? Two people, naked, try to survive in nature for 21 days. Most don't do very well.

The government, however, is not a business.

It's a monopoly on violence. Why should such a monopoly be tasked or trusted to provide health care?

Jan 13, 2015
I've looked at this over and over - and it's never mentioned WHO their comparing to.

"contributed more to the U.S. tax system as adults" More than Whom?

Who was the Control Group? Without that information, these numbers are just made up.

I have to agree. The only way I can see to interpret that sentence is that they were paying higher taxes as adults than they were as children, which is hardly shocking news.


For those with difficulty figuring it out, the control group is children who did not qualify for Medicare extended benefits, comparing the amount they paid in taxes as adults to the amount paid in taxes by adults who had received extended Medicare benefits as children.

Jan 13, 2015
"Less than half of U.S children under the age of 18 live at home with two married, heterosexual parents in their first marriage, new research has revealed."
http://www.dailym...als.html

Please sign in to add a comment. Registration is free, and takes less than a minute. Read more