The following is an excerpt from "The Oregon Experiment- Effects of Medicaid on Clinical Outcomes," by Baicker et al. (2013). Fill in the blank identifying the method used in this paper given the description in the paragraph (I've given you a hint on the key points by italicizing a few phrases): "Adults randomly selected in the lottery were given the option to apply for Medicaid, but not all persons selected by the lottery enrolled in Medicaid (either because they did not apply or because they were deemed ineligible). Lottery selection increased the probability of Medicaid coverage during our study period by 24.1 percentage points (95% confidence interval [CI], 22.3 to 25.9; P<0.001). The subgroup of lottery winners who ultimately enrolled in Medicaid was not comparable to the overall approach... to group of persons who did not win the lottery. We, therefore, used a standard_ estimate the causal effect of enrollment in Medicaid. Intuitively, since the lottery increased the chance of being enrolled in Medicaid by about 25 percentage points, and we assumed that the lottery affected outcomes only by changing Medicaid enrollment, the effect of being enrolled in Medicaid was simply about 4 times (i.e., 1 divided by 0.25) as high as the effect of being able to apply for Medicaid. This yielded a causal estimate of the effect of insurance coverage." Baicker, K., Taubman, S. L., Allen, H. L., Bernstein, M., Gruber, J. H., Newhouse, J. P., ... & Finkelstein, A. N. (2013). The Oregon experiment-effects of Medicaid on clinical outcomes. New England Journal of Medicine, 368(18), 1713-1722. regression discontinuity design (RDD) instrumental variables (IV) difference-in-difference (DID) ООО
The following is an excerpt from "The Oregon Experiment- Effects of Medicaid on Clinical Outcomes," by Baicker et al. (2013). Fill in the blank identifying the method used in this paper given the description in the paragraph (I've given you a hint on the key points by italicizing a few phrases): "Adults randomly selected in the lottery were given the option to apply for Medicaid, but not all persons selected by the lottery enrolled in Medicaid (either because they did not apply or because they were deemed ineligible). Lottery selection increased the probability of Medicaid coverage during our study period by 24.1 percentage points (95% confidence interval [CI], 22.3 to 25.9; P<0.001). The subgroup of lottery winners who ultimately enrolled in Medicaid was not comparable to the overall approach... to group of persons who did not win the lottery. We, therefore, used a standard_ estimate the causal effect of enrollment in Medicaid. Intuitively, since the lottery increased the chance of being enrolled in Medicaid by about 25 percentage points, and we assumed that the lottery affected outcomes only by changing Medicaid enrollment, the effect of being enrolled in Medicaid was simply about 4 times (i.e., 1 divided by 0.25) as high as the effect of being able to apply for Medicaid. This yielded a causal estimate of the effect of insurance coverage." Baicker, K., Taubman, S. L., Allen, H. L., Bernstein, M., Gruber, J. H., Newhouse, J. P., ... & Finkelstein, A. N. (2013). The Oregon experiment-effects of Medicaid on clinical outcomes. New England Journal of Medicine, 368(18), 1713-1722. regression discontinuity design (RDD) instrumental variables (IV) difference-in-difference (DID) ООО
Chapter1: Making Economics Decisions
Section: Chapter Questions
Problem 1QTC
Related questions
Question
![The following is an excerpt from "The Oregon Experiment- Effects of Medicaid on Clinical
Outcomes," by Baicker et al. (2013). Fill in the blank identifying the method used in this paper given
the description in the paragraph (I've given you a hint on the key points by italicizing a few phrases):
"Adults randomly selected in the lottery were given the option to apply for Medicaid, but not all persons
selected by the lottery enrolled in Medicaid (either because they did not apply or because they were
deemed ineligible). Lottery selection increased the probability of Medicaid coverage during our
study period by 24.1 percentage points (95% confidence interval [CI], 22.3 to 25.9; P<0.001). The
subgroup of lottery winners who ultimately enrolled in Medicaid was not comparable to the overall
group of persons who did not win the lottery. We, therefore, used a standard______ _approach... to
estimate the causal effect of enrollment in Medicaid. Intuitively, since the lottery increased the chance
of being enrolled in Medicaid by about 25 percentage points, and we assumed that the lottery affected
outcomes only by changing Medicaid enrollment, the effect of being enrolled in Medicaid was simply
about 4 times (i.e., 1 divided by 0.25) as high as the effect of being able to apply for Medicaid. This
yielded a causal estimate of the effect of insurance coverage."
Baicker, K., Taubman, S. L., Allen, H. L., Bernstein, M., Gruber, J. H., Newhouse, J. P., ... & Finkelstein, A.
N. (2013). The Oregon experiment-effects of Medicaid on clinical outcomes. New England Journal of
Medicine, 368(18), 1713-1722.
regression discontinuity design (RDD)
instrumental variables (IV)
difference-in-difference (DID)
O](/v2/_next/image?url=https%3A%2F%2Fcontent.bartleby.com%2Fqna-images%2Fquestion%2F92d13e7a-55ed-4295-b91a-cbfac319b8b3%2Fcb2d3df5-9c50-4d4e-80cc-2a54b3fd685f%2Fn493nd6_processed.jpeg&w=3840&q=75)
Transcribed Image Text:The following is an excerpt from "The Oregon Experiment- Effects of Medicaid on Clinical
Outcomes," by Baicker et al. (2013). Fill in the blank identifying the method used in this paper given
the description in the paragraph (I've given you a hint on the key points by italicizing a few phrases):
"Adults randomly selected in the lottery were given the option to apply for Medicaid, but not all persons
selected by the lottery enrolled in Medicaid (either because they did not apply or because they were
deemed ineligible). Lottery selection increased the probability of Medicaid coverage during our
study period by 24.1 percentage points (95% confidence interval [CI], 22.3 to 25.9; P<0.001). The
subgroup of lottery winners who ultimately enrolled in Medicaid was not comparable to the overall
group of persons who did not win the lottery. We, therefore, used a standard______ _approach... to
estimate the causal effect of enrollment in Medicaid. Intuitively, since the lottery increased the chance
of being enrolled in Medicaid by about 25 percentage points, and we assumed that the lottery affected
outcomes only by changing Medicaid enrollment, the effect of being enrolled in Medicaid was simply
about 4 times (i.e., 1 divided by 0.25) as high as the effect of being able to apply for Medicaid. This
yielded a causal estimate of the effect of insurance coverage."
Baicker, K., Taubman, S. L., Allen, H. L., Bernstein, M., Gruber, J. H., Newhouse, J. P., ... & Finkelstein, A.
N. (2013). The Oregon experiment-effects of Medicaid on clinical outcomes. New England Journal of
Medicine, 368(18), 1713-1722.
regression discontinuity design (RDD)
instrumental variables (IV)
difference-in-difference (DID)
O
Expert Solution
This question has been solved!
Explore an expertly crafted, step-by-step solution for a thorough understanding of key concepts.
This is a popular solution!
Trending now
This is a popular solution!
Step by step
Solved in 4 steps with 5 images
Knowledge Booster
Learn more about
Need a deep-dive on the concept behind this application? Look no further. Learn more about this topic, economics and related others by exploring similar questions and additional content below.Recommended textbooks for you
Principles of Economics (12th Edition)
Economics
ISBN:
9780134078779
Author:
Karl E. Case, Ray C. Fair, Sharon E. Oster
Publisher:
PEARSON
Engineering Economy (17th Edition)
Economics
ISBN:
9780134870069
Author:
William G. Sullivan, Elin M. Wicks, C. Patrick Koelling
Publisher:
PEARSON
Principles of Economics (12th Edition)
Economics
ISBN:
9780134078779
Author:
Karl E. Case, Ray C. Fair, Sharon E. Oster
Publisher:
PEARSON
Engineering Economy (17th Edition)
Economics
ISBN:
9780134870069
Author:
William G. Sullivan, Elin M. Wicks, C. Patrick Koelling
Publisher:
PEARSON
Principles of Economics (MindTap Course List)
Economics
ISBN:
9781305585126
Author:
N. Gregory Mankiw
Publisher:
Cengage Learning
Managerial Economics: A Problem Solving Approach
Economics
ISBN:
9781337106665
Author:
Luke M. Froeb, Brian T. McCann, Michael R. Ward, Mike Shor
Publisher:
Cengage Learning
Managerial Economics & Business Strategy (Mcgraw-…
Economics
ISBN:
9781259290619
Author:
Michael Baye, Jeff Prince
Publisher:
McGraw-Hill Education