将差分距离作为工具变量:替代形式、估计器和规格。

IF 2.4 3区 医学 Q2 ECONOMICS
Health economics Pub Date : 2025-06-29 DOI:10.1002/hec.70003
Donghoon Lee, Anirban Basu
{"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}
引用次数: 0

摘要

尽管有完善的计量经济学理论,但较少关注使用替代工具变量(IV)方法估计的治疗效果类型以及卫生文献中对IV的支持。我们使用常用的iv差分距离(DD)来说明这种情况。我们总结了文献,发现DD在文献中以各种形式和方法被用作IV,导致估计不同的识别参数,这些参数并不总是得到解释。我们使用理论推理和案例研究来说明这些差异的来源,以评估去营利性(FP)医院与非营利性(NFP)医院对精神病人住院总成本的因果影响。我们发现,当使用二元最小二乘与连续DD的两阶段最小二乘时,对治疗效果的估计差异很大。相反,当我们充分建模控制函数时,使用二元或连续DD的两阶段残差包含(2SRI)方法对治疗效果的估计相似。两个2SRI估计值都接近由局部静脉注射方法产生的平均治疗效果估计值,这可以说明通过边际治疗效果异质性选择FP和NFP医院的程度。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
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.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Health economics
Health economics 医学-卫生保健
CiteScore
3.60
自引率
4.80%
发文量
177
审稿时长
4-8 weeks
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.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信