In 2008, the state of Oregon decided to do something no state had done before.

It expanded its Medicaid program through a lottery, selecting names from a waiting list

to fill a limited number of available spots.

Oregon did this because it couldn't cover everyone, and a lottery seemed like the fairest

way to allocate resources.

But in doing so, by chance, it also set the stage for one of a kind health insurance

experiment.

My next door office neighbor at the National Bureau of Economic Research was Amy Finkelstein.

She came into my office and said, have you heard about this Oregon lottery?

That sounds like a randomized controlled trial, so we were off to the racists.

It's health economist Kate Baker.

She's dean of the University of Chicago's School of Public Policy.

So what was so special about the Oregon Medicaid lottery?

This was an unprecedented chance to look at the effective Medicaid in a group of people

where everything else about them was the same.

And some, by luck of the draw, get access to the health insurance plan and others don't.

This experiment allowed Kate, Amy and their colleagues to answer what may be the most

fundamental question in the field of health policy.

A question that had never before been tested in a randomized controlled trial.

And which is more relevant now than ever, as the share of US adults that are uninsured

is at a record low.

Does health insurance make us healthier?

...