IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/yor/hectdg/08-11.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Use of propensity scores in non-linear response models: The case for health care expenditures

Author

Listed:
  • Basu, A
  • Polsky, D
  • Manning, W G

Abstract

Under the assumption of no unmeasured confounders, a large literature exists on methods that can be used to estimating average treatment effects (ATE) from observational data and that spans regression models, propensity score adjustments using stratification, weighting or regression and even the combination of both as in doubly-robust estimators. However, comparison of these alternative methods is sparse in the context of data generated via nonlinear models where treatment effects are heterogeneous, such as is in the case of healthcare cost data. In this paper, we compare the performance of alternative regression and propensity score-based estimators in estimating average treatment effects on outcomes that are generated via non-linear models. Using simulations, we find that in moderate size samples (n= 5000), balancing on estimated propensity scores balances the covariate means across treatment arms but fails to balance higher-order moments and covariances amongst covariates, raising concern about its use in non-linear outcomes generating mechanisms. We also find that besides inverse-probability weighting (IPW) with propensity scores, no one estimator is consistent under all data generating mechanisms. The IPW estimator is itself prone to inconsistency due to misspecification of the model for estimating propensity scores. Even when it is consistent, the IPW estimator is usually extremely inefficient. Thus care should be taken before naively applying any one estimator to estimate ATE in these data. We develop a recommendation for an algorithm which may help applied researchers to arrive at the optimal estimator. We illustrate the application of this algorithm and also the performance of alternative methods in a cost dataset on breast cancer treatment.

Suggested Citation

  • Basu, A & Polsky, D & Manning, W G, 2008. "Use of propensity scores in non-linear response models: The case for health care expenditures," Health, Econometrics and Data Group (HEDG) Working Papers 08/11, HEDG, c/o Department of Economics, University of York.
  • Handle: RePEc:yor:hectdg:08/11
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.york.ac.uk/media/economics/documents/herc/wp/08_11.pdf
    File Function: Main text
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    Other versions of this item:

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Manning, Willard G, et al, 1987. "Health Insurance and the Demand for Medical Care: Evidence from a Randomized Experiment," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 77(3), pages 251-277, June.
    2. Mullahy, John, 1998. "Much ado about two: reconsidering retransformation and the two-part model in health econometrics," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 17(3), pages 247-281, June.
    3. John Mullahy, 1998. "Much Ado About Two: Reconsidering Retransformation and the Two-Part Model in Health Economics," NBER Technical Working Papers 0228, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    4. Keisuke Hirano & Guido W. Imbens & Geert Ridder, 2003. "Efficient Estimation of Average Treatment Effects Using the Estimated Propensity Score," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 71(4), pages 1161-1189, July.
    5. Oaxaca, Ronald, 1973. "Male-Female Wage Differentials in Urban Labor Markets," International Economic Review, Department of Economics, University of Pennsylvania and Osaka University Institute of Social and Economic Research Association, vol. 14(3), pages 693-709, October.
    6. Nandita Mitra & Alka Indurkhya, 2005. "A propensity score approach to estimating the cost–effectiveness of medical therapies from observational data," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 14(8), pages 805-815, August.
    7. Heejung Bang & James M. Robins, 2005. "Doubly Robust Estimation in Missing Data and Causal Inference Models," Biometrics, The International Biometric Society, vol. 61(4), pages 962-973, December.
    8. Heckman, James J, 1990. "Varieties of Selection Bias," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 80(2), pages 313-318, May.
    9. repec:adr:anecst:y:2008:i:91-92:p:11 is not listed on IDEAS
    10. James Heckman & Salvador Navarro-Lozano, 2004. "Using Matching, Instrumental Variables, and Control Functions to Estimate Economic Choice Models," The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press, vol. 86(1), pages 30-57, February.
    11. James J. Heckman & Jeffrey A. Smith, 1998. "Evaluating the Welfare State," NBER Working Papers 6542, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    12. Dehejia, Rajeev H., 2005. "Program evaluation as a decision problem," Journal of Econometrics, Elsevier, vol. 125(1-2), pages 141-173.
    13. Manning, Willard G., 1998. "The logged dependent variable, heteroscedasticity, and the retransformation problem," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 17(3), pages 283-295, June.
    14. Jack Hadley & Daniel Polsky & Jeanne S. Mandelblatt & Jean M. Mitchell & Jane C. Weeks & Qin Wang & Yi‐Ting Hwang & OPTIONS Research Team, 2003. "An exploratory instrumental variable analysis of the outcomes of localized breast cancer treatments in a medicare population," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 12(3), pages 171-186, March.
    15. Joshua Angrist & Jinyong Hahn, 2004. "When to Control for Covariates? Panel Asymptotics for Estimates of Treatment Effects," The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press, vol. 86(1), pages 58-72, February.
    16. Blough, David K. & Madden, Carolyn W. & Hornbrook, Mark C., 1999. "Modeling risk using generalized linear models," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 18(2), pages 153-171, April.
    17. A. D. Roy, 1951. "Some Thoughts On The Distribution Of Earnings," Oxford Economic Papers, Oxford University Press, vol. 3(2), pages 135-146.
    18. Coyte, Peter C. & Young, Wendy & Croxford, Ruth, 2000. "Costs and outcomes associated with alternative discharge strategies following joint replacement surgery: analysis of an observational study using a propensity score," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 19(6), pages 907-929, November.
    19. Manning, Willard G. & Mullahy, John, 2001. "Estimating log models: to transform or not to transform?," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 20(4), pages 461-494, July.
    20. Daryl Pregibon, 1980. "Goodness of Link Tests for Generalized Linear Models," Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series C, Royal Statistical Society, vol. 29(1), pages 15-24, March.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

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


    Cited by:

    1. Wei-Jhih Wang & Aasthaa Bansal & Caroline Savage Bennette & Anirban Basu, 2023. "Mimicking Clinical Trials Using Real-World Data: A Novel Method and Applications," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 43(3), pages 275-287, April.
    2. Noémi Kreif & Richard Grieve & M. Zia Sadique, 2013. "Statistical Methods For Cost‐Effectiveness Analyses That Use Observational Data: A Critical Appraisal Tool And Review Of Current Practice," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 22(4), pages 486-500, April.
    3. Marlon R. Tracey & Solomon W. Polachek, 2020. "Heterogeneous Layoff Effects of the US Short‐Time Compensation Program," LABOUR, CEIS, vol. 34(4), pages 399-426, December.
    4. Jasjeet Singh Sekhon & Richard D. Grieve, 2012. "A matching method for improving covariate balance in cost‐effectiveness analyses," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 21(6), pages 695-714, June.
    5. Albert Okunade & Andrew Hussey & Mustafa Karakus, 2009. "Overweight Adolescents and On-time High School Graduation: Racial and Gender Disparities," Atlantic Economic Journal, Springer;International Atlantic Economic Society, vol. 37(3), pages 225-242, September.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Jones, A.M, 2010. "Models For Health Care," Health, Econometrics and Data Group (HEDG) Working Papers 10/01, HEDG, c/o Department of Economics, University of York.
    2. Guido W. Imbens & Jeffrey M. Wooldridge, 2009. "Recent Developments in the Econometrics of Program Evaluation," Journal of Economic Literature, American Economic Association, vol. 47(1), pages 5-86, March.
    3. Keane, Michael & Stavrunova, Olena, 2016. "Adverse selection, moral hazard and the demand for Medigap insurance," Journal of Econometrics, Elsevier, vol. 190(1), pages 62-78.
    4. Jay Dev Dubey, 2021. "Measuring Income Elasticity of Healthcare-Seeking Behavior in India: A Conditional Quantile Regression Approach," Journal of Quantitative Economics, Springer;The Indian Econometric Society (TIES), vol. 19(4), pages 767-793, December.
    5. Manning, Willard G. & Basu, Anirban & Mullahy, John, 2005. "Generalized modeling approaches to risk adjustment of skewed outcomes data," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 24(3), pages 465-488, May.
    6. Kathleen Carey & Theodore Stefos, 2011. "Measuring the cost of hospital adverse patient safety events," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 20(12), pages 1417-1430, December.
    7. Oscar Mitnik, 2008. "How do Training Programs Assign Participants to Training? Characterizing the Assignment Rules of Government Agencies for Welfare-to-Work Programs in California," Working Papers 0907, University of Miami, Department of Economics.
    8. Keane, Michael & Stavrunova, Olena, 2016. "Adverse selection, moral hazard and the demand for Medigap insurance," Journal of Econometrics, Elsevier, vol. 190(1), pages 62-78.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Propensity score; Non-linear regression; average treatment effect; Healthcare costs;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • C01 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - General - - - Econometrics
    • C21 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Single Equation Models; Single Variables - - - Cross-Sectional Models; Spatial Models; Treatment Effect Models
    • I10 - Health, Education, and Welfare - - Health - - - General

    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:yor:hectdg:08/11. 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.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with 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: Jane Rawlings (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/deyoruk.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.