IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/nbr/nberwo/28064.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Choices and Outcomes in Assignment Mechanisms: The Allocation of Deceased Donor Kidneys

Author

Listed:
  • Nikhil Agarwal
  • Charles Hodgson
  • Paulo Somaini

Abstract

While the mechanism design paradigm emphasizes notions of efficiency based on agent preferences, policymakers often focus on alternative objectives. School districts emphasize educational achievement, and transplantation communities focus on patient survival. It is unclear whether choice-based mechanisms perform well when assessed based on these outcomes. This paper evaluates the assignment mechanism for allocating deceased donor kidneys on the basis of patient life-years from transplantation (LYFT). We examine the role of choice in increasing LYFT and compare equilibrium assignments to benchmarks that remove choice. Our model combines choices and outcomes in order to study how selection affects LYFT. We show how to identify and estimate the model using instruments derived from the mechanism. The estimates suggest that the design in use selects patients with better post-transplant survival prospects and matches them well, resulting in an average LYFT of 8.78, which is 0.92 years more than a random assignment. However, the maximum aggregate LYFT is 13.84. Realizing the majority of the gains requires transplanting relatively healthy patients, who would have longer life expectancies even without a transplant. Therefore, a policymaker faces a dilemma between transplanting patients who are sicker and those for whom life will be extended the longest.

Suggested Citation

  • Nikhil Agarwal & Charles Hodgson & Paulo Somaini, 2020. "Choices and Outcomes in Assignment Mechanisms: The Allocation of Deceased Donor Kidneys," NBER Working Papers 28064, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
  • Handle: RePEc:nbr:nberwo:28064
    Note: AG EH
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.nber.org/papers/w28064.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Michael Bates & Michael Dinerstein & Andrew C. Johnston & Isaac Sorkin, 2022. "Teacher Labor Market Equilibrium and Student Achievement," CESifo Working Paper Series 9551, CESifo.
    2. Christopher Neilson & Adam Kapor & Mohit Karnani, 2020. "Aftermarket Frictions and the Cost of Off-Platform Options in Centralized Assignment Mechanisms," Working Papers 635a, Princeton University, Department of Economics, Industrial Relations Section..
    3. Itai Ashlagi & Alvin E. Roth, 2021. "Kidney Exchange: An Operations Perspective," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 67(9), pages 5455-5478, September.
    4. Stephanie De Mel & Kaivan Munshi & Soenje Reiche & Hamid Sabourian, 2021. "Herding with Heterogeneous Ability: An Application to Organ Transplantation," Cowles Foundation Discussion Papers 2308, Cowles Foundation for Research in Economics, Yale University.
    5. Nikhil Agarwal & Eric Budish, 2021. "Market Design," NBER Working Papers 29367, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    6. Mariana Laverde & Elton Mykerezi & Aaron Sojourner & Aradhya Sood, 2023. "Gains from Reassignment: Evidence from A Two-Sided Teacher Market," Upjohn Working Papers 23-392, W.E. Upjohn Institute for Employment Research.
    7. Christopher Neilson & Adam Kapor & Mohit Karnani, 2020. "Aftermarket Frictions and the Cost of Off-Platform Options in Centralized Assignment Mechanisms," Working Papers 635a, Princeton University, Department of Economics, Industrial Relations Section..
    8. Jiafeng Chen, 2021. "Nonparametric Treatment Effect Identification in School Choice," Papers 2112.03872, arXiv.org, revised Oct 2023.

    More about this item

    JEL classification:

    • C36 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Multiple or Simultaneous Equation Models; Multiple Variables - - - Instrumental Variables (IV) Estimation
    • D47 - Microeconomics - - Market Structure, Pricing, and Design - - - Market Design
    • I14 - Health, Education, and Welfare - - Health - - - Health and Inequality

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:nbr:nberwo:28064. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: the person in charge (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/nberrus.html .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.