{"title":"将差分距离作为工具变量:替代形式、估计器和规格。","authors":"Donghoon Lee, Anirban Basu","doi":"10.1002/hec.70003","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Despite well-established econometric theory, less attention is paid to the type of treatment effects being estimated using alternate instrumental variable (IV) approaches and the support for IV in the health literature. We illustrate this case using a commonly used IV-differential distance (DD). We summarize the literature and find that DD was used as an IV in various forms and approaches in the literature, leading to the estimation of different identified parameters, which were not always explained. We illustrate the sources of these differences using theoretical reasoning and a case study to evaluate the causal effects of going to a for-profit (FP) hospital versus a not-for-profit (NFP) hospital on the total cost of psychiatric inpatient stay. We find that estimates of treatment effects differ considerably when using two-stage least squares with binary versus continuous DD. In contrast, two-stage residual inclusion (2SRI) approaches using binary or continuous DD yield similar estimates of the treatment effects when we adequately model the control function. Both the 2SRI estimates are close to the average treatment effect estimate generated by local IV approaches, which can illustrate the extent of selection into FP versus NFP hospitals through marginal treatment effect heterogeneity.</p>","PeriodicalId":12847,"journal":{"name":"Health economics","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.4000,"publicationDate":"2025-06-29","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Deploying Differential Distance as an Instrumental Variable: Alternative Forms, Estimators, and Specifications.\",\"authors\":\"Donghoon Lee, Anirban Basu\",\"doi\":\"10.1002/hec.70003\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>Despite well-established econometric theory, less attention is paid to the type of treatment effects being estimated using alternate instrumental variable (IV) approaches and the support for IV in the health literature. We illustrate this case using a commonly used IV-differential distance (DD). We summarize the literature and find that DD was used as an IV in various forms and approaches in the literature, leading to the estimation of different identified parameters, which were not always explained. We illustrate the sources of these differences using theoretical reasoning and a case study to evaluate the causal effects of going to a for-profit (FP) hospital versus a not-for-profit (NFP) hospital on the total cost of psychiatric inpatient stay. We find that estimates of treatment effects differ considerably when using two-stage least squares with binary versus continuous DD. In contrast, two-stage residual inclusion (2SRI) approaches using binary or continuous DD yield similar estimates of the treatment effects when we adequately model the control function. Both the 2SRI estimates are close to the average treatment effect estimate generated by local IV approaches, which can illustrate the extent of selection into FP versus NFP hospitals through marginal treatment effect heterogeneity.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":12847,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Health economics\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.4000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-06-29\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Health economics\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1002/hec.70003\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"ECONOMICS\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Health economics","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1002/hec.70003","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"ECONOMICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
Deploying Differential Distance as an Instrumental Variable: Alternative Forms, Estimators, and Specifications.
Despite well-established econometric theory, less attention is paid to the type of treatment effects being estimated using alternate instrumental variable (IV) approaches and the support for IV in the health literature. We illustrate this case using a commonly used IV-differential distance (DD). We summarize the literature and find that DD was used as an IV in various forms and approaches in the literature, leading to the estimation of different identified parameters, which were not always explained. We illustrate the sources of these differences using theoretical reasoning and a case study to evaluate the causal effects of going to a for-profit (FP) hospital versus a not-for-profit (NFP) hospital on the total cost of psychiatric inpatient stay. We find that estimates of treatment effects differ considerably when using two-stage least squares with binary versus continuous DD. In contrast, two-stage residual inclusion (2SRI) approaches using binary or continuous DD yield similar estimates of the treatment effects when we adequately model the control function. Both the 2SRI estimates are close to the average treatment effect estimate generated by local IV approaches, which can illustrate the extent of selection into FP versus NFP hospitals through marginal treatment effect heterogeneity.
期刊介绍:
This Journal publishes articles on all aspects of health economics: theoretical contributions, empirical studies and analyses of health policy from the economic perspective. Its scope includes the determinants of health and its definition and valuation, as well as the demand for and supply of health care; planning and market mechanisms; micro-economic evaluation of individual procedures and treatments; and evaluation of the performance of health care systems.
Contributions should typically be original and innovative. As a rule, the Journal does not include routine applications of cost-effectiveness analysis, discrete choice experiments and costing analyses.
Editorials are regular features, these should be concise and topical. Occasionally commissioned reviews are published and special issues bring together contributions on a single topic. Health Economics Letters facilitate rapid exchange of views on topical issues. Contributions related to problems in both developed and developing countries are welcome.