Literature DB >> 25530705

Using propensity scores in difference-in-differences models to estimate the effects of a policy change.

Elizabeth A Stuart1, Haiden A Huskamp2, Kenneth Duckworth3, Jeffrey Simmons3, Zirui Song2, Michael Chernew2, Colleen L Barry1.   

Abstract

Difference-in-difference (DD) methods are a common strategy for evaluating the effects of policies or programs that are instituted at a particular point in time, such as the implementation of a new law. The DD method compares changes over time in a group unaffected by the policy intervention to the changes over time in a group affected by the policy intervention, and attributes the "difference-in-differences" to the effect of the policy. DD methods provide unbiased effect estimates if the trend over time would have been the same between the intervention and comparison groups in the absence of the intervention. However, a concern with DD models is that the program and intervention groups may differ in ways that would affect their trends over time, or their compositions may change over time. Propensity score methods are commonly used to handle this type of confounding in other non-experimental studies, but the particular considerations when using them in the context of a DD model have not been well investigated. In this paper, we describe the use of propensity scores in conjunction with DD models, in particular investigating a propensity score weighting strategy that weights the four groups (defined by time and intervention status) to be balanced on a set of characteristics. We discuss the conceptual issues associated with this approach, including the need for caution when selecting variables to include in the propensity score model, particularly given the multiple time point nature of the analysis. We illustrate the ideas and method with an application estimating the effects of a new payment and delivery system innovation (an accountable care organization model called the "Alternative Quality Contract" (AQC) implemented by Blue Cross Blue Shield of Massachusetts) on health plan enrollee out-of-pocket mental health service expenditures. We find no evidence that the AQC affected out-of-pocket mental health service expenditures of enrollees.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Mental health spending; causal inference; natural experiment; non-experimental study; policy evaluation

Year:  2014        PMID: 25530705      PMCID: PMC4267761          DOI: 10.1007/s10742-014-0123-z

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Health Serv Outcomes Res Methodol        ISSN: 1387-3741


  10 in total

1.  Too much ado about two-part models and transformation? Comparing methods of modeling Medicare expenditures.

Authors:  Melinda Beeuwkes Buntin; Alan M Zaslavsky
Journal:  J Health Econ       Date:  2004-05       Impact factor: 3.883

2.  Stratification and weighting via the propensity score in estimation of causal treatment effects: a comparative study.

Authors:  Jared K Lunceford; Marie Davidian
Journal:  Stat Med       Date:  2004-10-15       Impact factor: 2.373

3.  Applying a propensity score-based weighting model to interrupted time series data: improving causal inference in programme evaluation.

Authors:  Ariel Linden; John L Adams
Journal:  J Eval Clin Pract       Date:  2010-10-25       Impact factor: 2.431

4.  Matching methods for causal inference: A review and a look forward.

Authors:  Elizabeth A Stuart
Journal:  Stat Sci       Date:  2010-02-01       Impact factor: 2.901

5.  The design versus the analysis of observational studies for causal effects: parallels with the design of randomized trials.

Authors:  Donald B Rubin
Journal:  Stat Med       Date:  2007-01-15       Impact factor: 2.373

6.  The 'Alternative Quality Contract,' based on a global budget, lowered medical spending and improved quality.

Authors:  Zirui Song; Dana Gelb Safran; Bruce E Landon; Mary Beth Landrum; Yulei He; Robert E Mechanic; Matthew P Day; Michael E Chernew
Journal:  Health Aff (Millwood)       Date:  2012-07-11       Impact factor: 6.301

7.  Clinician screening and treatment of alcohol, drug, and mental problems in primary care: results from healthcare for communities.

Authors:  Mark J Edlund; Jürgen Unützer; Kenneth B Wells
Journal:  Med Care       Date:  2004-12       Impact factor: 2.983

8.  A tutorial on propensity score estimation for multiple treatments using generalized boosted models.

Authors:  Daniel F McCaffrey; Beth Ann Griffin; Daniel Almirall; Mary Ellen Slaughter; Rajeev Ramchand; Lane F Burgette
Journal:  Stat Med       Date:  2013-03-18       Impact factor: 2.373

9.  Impact of public reporting on quality of postacute care.

Authors:  Rachel M Werner; R Tamara Konetzka; Elizabeth A Stuart; Edward C Norton; Daniel Polsky; Jeongyoung Park
Journal:  Health Serv Res       Date:  2009-03-31       Impact factor: 3.734

10.  Risk adjustment of Medicare capitation payments using the CMS-HCC model.

Authors:  Gregory C Pope; John Kautter; Randall P Ellis; Arlene S Ash; John Z Ayanian; Lisa I Lezzoni; Melvin J Ingber; Jesse M Levy; John Robst
Journal:  Health Care Financ Rev       Date:  2004
  10 in total
  93 in total

1.  Green House Adoption and Nursing Home Quality.

Authors:  Christopher C Afendulis; Daryl J Caudry; A James O'Malley; Peter Kemper; David C Grabowski
Journal:  Health Serv Res       Date:  2016-01-06       Impact factor: 3.402

2.  Oregon's Medicaid Reform And Transition To Global Budgets Were Associated With Reductions In Expenditures.

Authors:  K John McConnell; Stephanie Renfro; Richard C Lindrooth; Deborah J Cohen; Neal T Wallace; Michael E Chernew
Journal:  Health Aff (Millwood)       Date:  2017-03-01       Impact factor: 6.301

3.  Early Performance in Medicaid Accountable Care Organizations: A Comparison of Oregon and Colorado.

Authors:  K John McConnell; Stephanie Renfro; Benjamin K S Chan; Thomas H A Meath; Aaron Mendelson; Deborah Cohen; Jeanette Waxmonsky; Dennis McCarty; Neal Wallace; Richard C Lindrooth
Journal:  JAMA Intern Med       Date:  2017-04-01       Impact factor: 21.873

4.  Matching and Regression to the Mean in Difference-in-Differences Analysis.

Authors:  Jamie R Daw; Laura A Hatfield
Journal:  Health Serv Res       Date:  2018-06-29       Impact factor: 3.402

5.  A Community Health Worker Intervention to Increase Childhood Disease Treatment Coverage in Rural Liberia: A Controlled Before-and-After Evaluation.

Authors:  Emily E White; Jordan Downey; Vidiya Sathananthan; Zahir Kanjee; Avi Kenny; Ami Waters; Jenny Rabinowich; Mallika Raghavan; Lorenzo Dorr; Amal Halder; Joseph Nyumah; Derry Duokie; Tamba Boima; Raj Panjabi; Mark J Siedner; John D Kraemer
Journal:  Am J Public Health       Date:  2018-07-19       Impact factor: 9.308

6.  Study Designs and Statistical Methods for Studies of Child and Adolescent Health Policies.

Authors:  Benjamin French; Elizabeth A Stuart
Journal:  JAMA Pediatr       Date:  2020-10-01       Impact factor: 16.193

7.  Does emission trading scheme have spillover effect on industrial structure upgrading? Evidence from the EU based on a PSM-DID approach.

Authors:  Jianing Zang; Liang Wan; Zejun Li; Chengyuan Wang; Shanyong Wang
Journal:  Environ Sci Pollut Res Int       Date:  2020-01-28       Impact factor: 4.223

8.  Population-Based System of Parenting Support to Reduce the Prevalence of Child Social, Emotional, and Behavioural Problems: Difference-In-Differences Study.

Authors:  Orla Doyle; Mary Hegarty; Conor Owens
Journal:  Prev Sci       Date:  2018-08

9.  A Natural Experiment to Evaluate the Nutritional Content of Restaurant Meal Purchases After Calorie Labeling.

Authors:  Joshua Petimar; Alyssa J Moran; Maricelle Ramirez; Jason P Block
Journal:  J Acad Nutr Diet       Date:  2020-08-29       Impact factor: 4.910

10.  The effects of integrating behavioral health into primary care for low-income children.

Authors:  Megan B Cole; Qiuyuan Qin; Radley C Sheldrick; Debra S Morley; Megan H Bair-Merritt
Journal:  Health Serv Res       Date:  2019-12       Impact factor: 3.402

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.