IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/yor/hectdg/12-08.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Average and quantile treatment effects of the American Folic Acid Fortification: an evaluation in a quasi-experimental framework

Author

Listed:
  • Elena Fumagalli;

Abstract

The American program of folic acid fortification is generally thought to have increased the average amount of serum folate in the population and, hence, widely considered as a successful public health intervention. We use several waves of the “National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey†(NHANES) to evaluate the causal impact of the fortification of ready-to-eat cereals on serum folate concentration, using a quasi experimental framework. First, we compute the average treatment effect by using matching methods to solve the problem of selection on observables, finding a strong selection into treatment mainly based on race-ethnicity and education. Second, we assess the distributional impact of the fortification by computing quantile treatment effects, under different assumptions on the dependence between the distributions of potential outcomes, and we find significant variation in the impact of fortification across the population, thus rejecting the common effects model. Fortification appears to have had the least (though still modestly beneficial) impact among those that most needed it and the biggest impact among those that needed it least, thus suggesting the presence of folate over-consumption in the latter group, with potential adverse health effects. Third, by controlling our estimates for the concentration of beta-carotene, we find support for the hypothesis that part of the increase in serum folate concentration can be explained by changes in diet, leaving a smaller attributable effect to the fortification itself.

Suggested Citation

  • Elena Fumagalli;, 2012. "Average and quantile treatment effects of the American Folic Acid Fortification: an evaluation in a quasi-experimental framework," Health, Econometrics and Data Group (HEDG) Working Papers 12/08, HEDG, c/o Department of Economics, University of York.
  • Handle: RePEc:yor:hectdg:12/08
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.york.ac.uk/media/economics/documents/herc/wp/12_08.pdf
    File Function: Main text
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Marianne P. Bitler & Jonah B. Gelbach & Hilary W. Hoynes, 2006. "What Mean Impacts Miss: Distributional Effects of Welfare Reform Experiments," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 96(4), pages 988-1012, September.
    2. Grosse, S.D. & Waitzman, N.J. & Romano, P.S. & Mulinare, J., 2005. "Reevaluating the benefits of folic acid fortification in the United States: Economic analysis, regulation, and public health," American Journal of Public Health, American Public Health Association, vol. 95(11), pages 1917-1922.
    3. Markus Frolich & Blaise Melly, 2010. "Estimation of quantile treatment effects with Stata," Stata Journal, StataCorp LP, vol. 10(3), pages 423-457, September.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    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. Damian Clarke & Manuel Llorca Jaña & Daniel Pailañir, 2023. "The use of quantile methods in economic history," Historical Methods: A Journal of Quantitative and Interdisciplinary History, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 56(2), pages 115-132, April.
    2. Ozkan Eren & Serkan Ozbeklik, 2014. "Who Benefits From Job Corps? A Distributional Analysis Of An Active Labor Market Program," Journal of Applied Econometrics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 29(4), pages 586-611, June.
    3. Sandra Kendo & Josephine Tchakounte, 2022. "Impact of asset size on performance and outreach using panel quantile regression with non-additive fixed effects," Empirical Economics, Springer, vol. 62(1), pages 65-92, January.
    4. Simone Balestra & Uschi Backes-Gellner, 2014. "Heterogeneous effects of pupil-to-teacher ratio policies - A look at class size reduction and teacher aide," Economics of Education Working Paper Series 0102, University of Zurich, Department of Business Administration (IBW), revised Apr 2017.
    5. Burt S. Barnow & Jeffrey Smith, 2015. "Employment and Training Programs," NBER Chapters, in: Economics of Means-Tested Transfer Programs in the United States, Volume 2, pages 127-234, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    6. Caroline Danielson & Deborah Reed & Qian Li & Jay Liao, "undated". "Sanctions and Time Limits in California's Welfare Program," Mathematica Policy Research Reports 09550879b2754a38b32e03488, Mathematica Policy Research.
    7. Pedro H. C. Sant'Anna & Xiaojun Song & Qi Xu, 2022. "Covariate distribution balance via propensity scores," Journal of Applied Econometrics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 37(6), pages 1093-1120, September.
    8. Elizabeth O. Ananat & Guy Michaels, 2008. "The Effect of Marital Breakup on the Income Distribution of Women with Children," Journal of Human Resources, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 43(3), pages 611-629.
    9. Okeke, Edward N. & Adepiti, Clement A. & Ajenifuja, Kayode O., 2013. "What is the price of prevention? New evidence from a field experiment," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 32(1), pages 207-218.
    10. Steven F. Lehrer & R. Vincent Pohl & Kyungchul Song, 2016. "Targeting Policies: Multiple Testing and Distributional Treatment Effects," NBER Working Papers 22950, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    11. repec:aer:wpaper:323 is not listed on IDEAS
    12. Cid, Alejandro & Ferrés, Daniel, 2010. "The coexistence of Degree-Premium and High-Dropout Rates in the Uruguayan Secondary Education: an Incentives Problem," MPRA Paper 39912, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    13. Tymon Słoczyński, 2022. "Interpreting OLS Estimands When Treatment Effects Are Heterogeneous: Smaller Groups Get Larger Weights," The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press, vol. 104(3), pages 501-509, May.
    14. Richard K. Crump & V. Joseph Hotz & Guido W. Imbens & Oscar A. Mitnik, 2008. "Nonparametric Tests for Treatment Effect Heterogeneity," The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press, vol. 90(3), pages 389-405, August.
    15. Sakos, Grayson & Cerulli, Giovanni & Garbero, Alessandra, 2021. "Beyond the ATE: Idiosyncratic Effect Estimation to Uncover Distributional Impacts Results from 17 Impact Evaluations," 2021 Annual Meeting, August 1-3, Austin, Texas 314017, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    16. Undral Byambadalai & Tatsushi Oka & Shota Yasui, 2024. "Estimating Distributional Treatment Effects in Randomized Experiments: Machine Learning for Variance Reduction," Papers 2407.16037, arXiv.org.
    17. Sungwon Lee & Joon H. Ro, 2020. "Nonparametric Tests for Conditional Quantile Independence with Duration Outcomes," Working Papers 2013, Nam Duck-Woo Economic Research Institute, Sogang University (Former Research Institute for Market Economy).
    18. Maier, Michael, 2011. "Tests for distributional treatment effects under unconfoundedness," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 110(1), pages 49-51, January.
    19. Michael J. Kottelenberg & Steven F. Lehrer, 2017. "Targeted or Universal Coverage? Assessing Heterogeneity in the Effects of Universal Child Care," Journal of Labor Economics, University of Chicago Press, vol. 35(3), pages 609-653.
    20. Firpo, Sergio & Galvao, Antonio F. & Kobus, Martyna & Parker, Thomas & Rosa-Dias, Pedro, 2020. "Loss Aversion and the Welfare Ranking of Policy Interventions," IZA Discussion Papers 13176, Institute of Labor Economics (IZA).
    21. Sloczynski, Tymon, 2018. "A General Weighted Average Representation of the Ordinary and Two-Stage Least Squares Estimands," IZA Discussion Papers 11866, Institute of Labor Economics (IZA).

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Folic acid fortification; quantile treatment effect; matching; policy evaluation;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • C21 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Single Equation Models; Single Variables - - - Cross-Sectional Models; Spatial Models; Treatment Effect Models
    • I12 - Health, Education, and Welfare - - Health - - - Health Behavior
    • I18 - Health, Education, and Welfare - - Health - - - Government Policy; Regulation; Public Health

    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:12/08. 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.