FWIW, the methodology that produced this particular result is known to have significant issues. The claimed effect disappears after correcting for them. It also isn't the first time that these authors have published similar studies with these issues. They are not a credible source.
Universal health coverage may save lives and money but this study doesn't provide actual evidence for it.
ok so we're just dismissing the paper with zero substantive counterclaims then?
> result is known to have significant issues.
So well known you neglected to state or cite them? I'd invite you to do so now.
Please cite and explain what those significant issues are. As it is your post is a "trust me bro", and is not contributing to the conversation.
"known" by whom, and documented where? if you're going to just parachute in and say this paper by domain experts is dead wrong, at least link to what you believe shows this to be the case.