IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/wly/hlthec/v12y2003i3p171-186.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

An exploratory instrumental variable analysis of the outcomes of localized breast cancer treatments in a medicare population

Author

Listed:
  • Jack Hadley
  • Daniel Polsky
  • Jeanne S. Mandelblatt
  • Jean M. Mitchell
  • Jane C. Weeks
  • Qin Wang
  • Yi‐Ting Hwang
  • OPTIONS Research Team

Abstract

This study is motivated by the potential problem of using observational data to draw inferences about treatment outcomes when experimental data are not available. We compare two statistical approaches, ordinary least‐squares (OLS) and instrumental variables (IV) regression analysis, to estimate the outcomes (three‐year post‐treatment survival) of three treatments for early stage breast cancer in elderly women: mastectomy (MST), breast conserving surgery with radiation therapy (BCSRT), and breast conserving surgery only (BCSO). The primary data source was Medicare claims for a national random sample of 2907 women (age 67 or older) with localized breast cancer who were treated between 1992 and 1994. Contrary to randomized clinical trial (RCT) results, analysis with the observational data found highly significant differences in survival among the three treatment alternatives: 79.2% survival for BCSO, 85.3% for MST, and 93.0% for BCSRT. Using OLS to control for the effects of observable characteristics narrowed the estimated survival rate differences, which remained statistically significant. In contrast, the IV analysis estimated survival rate differences that were not significantly different from 0. However, the IV‐point estimates of the treatment effects were quantitatively larger than the OLS estimates, unstable, and not significantly different from the OLS results. In addition, both sets of estimates were in the same quantitative range as the RCT results. We conclude that unadjusted observational data on health outcomes of alternative treatments for localized breast cancer should not be used for cost‐effectiveness studies. Our comparisons suggest that whether one places greater confidence in the OLS or the IV results depends on at least three factors: (1) the extent of observable health information that can be used as controls in OLS estimation, (2) the outcomes of statistical tests of the validity of the instrumental variable method, and (3) the similarity of the OLS and IV estimates. In this particular analysis, the OLS estimates appear to be preferable because of the instability of the IV estimates. Copyright © 2002 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Suggested Citation

  • 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.
    • Handle: RePEc:wly:hlthec:v:12:y:2003:i:3:p:171-186
    DOI: 10.1002/hec.710
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1002/hec.710
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1002/hec.710?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Douglas Staiger & James H. Stock, 1997. "Instrumental Variables Regression with Weak Instruments," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 65(3), pages 557-586, May.
    2. Davidson, Russell & MacKinnon, James G., 1993. "Estimation and Inference in Econometrics," OUP Catalogue, Oxford University Press, number 9780195060119.
    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. Budi Hidayat & Subhash Pokhrel, 2009. "The Selection of an Appropriate Count Data Model for Modelling Health Insurance and Health Care Demand: Case of Indonesia," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 7(1), pages 1-19, December.
    2. Anirban Basu & James J. Heckman & Salvador Navarro-Lozano & Sergio Urzua, 2007. "Use of instrumental variables in the presence of heterogeneity and self-selection: An application in breast cancer patients," Health, Econometrics and Data Group (HEDG) Working Papers 07/07, HEDG, c/o Department of Economics, University of York.
    3. Maffioli, Elisa M., 2021. "The political economy of health epidemics: Evidence from the Ebola outbreak," Journal of Development Economics, Elsevier, vol. 151(C).
    4. Daniel Polsky & Anirban Basu, 2012. "Selection Bias in Observational Data," Chapters, in: Andrew M. Jones (ed.), The Elgar Companion to Health Economics, Second Edition, chapter 46, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    5. 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.
    6. Anirban Basu & James J. Heckman & Salvador Navarro‐Lozano & Sergio Urzua, 2007. "Use of instrumental variables in the presence of heterogeneity and self‐selection: an application to treatments of breast cancer patients," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 16(11), pages 1133-1157, November.
    7. Ertefaie Ashkan & Small Dylan & Flory James & Hennessy Sean, 2016. "Selection Bias When Using Instrumental Variable Methods to Compare Two Treatments But More Than Two Treatments Are Available," The International Journal of Biostatistics, De Gruyter, vol. 12(1), pages 219-232, May.
    8. Pedro Saramago & Karl Claxton & Nicky J. Welton & Marta Soares, 2020. "Bayesian econometric modelling of observational data for cost‐effectiveness analysis: establishing the value of negative pressure wound therapy in the healing of open surgical wounds," Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series A, Royal Statistical Society, vol. 183(4), pages 1575-1593, October.
    9. Anirban Basu & James J. Heckman & Salvador Navarro-Lozano & Sergio Urzua, 2007. "Use of instrumental variables in the presence of heterogeneity and self-selection: an application to treatments of breast cancer patients," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 16(11), pages 1133-1157.

    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. Marjan Petreski, 2010. "An Overhaul of a Doctrine: Has Inflation Targeting Opened a New Era in Developing-country Peggers?," FIW Working Paper series 057, FIW.
    2. Sabine Herrmann & Joern Kleinert, 2014. "Lucas Paradox and Allocation Puzzle - Is the euro area different?," Graz Economics Papers 2014-01, University of Graz, Department of Economics.
    3. Doko Tchatoka, Firmin & Dufour, Jean-Marie, 2020. "Exogeneity tests, incomplete models, weak identification and non-Gaussian distributions: Invariance and finite-sample distributional theory," Journal of Econometrics, Elsevier, vol. 218(2), pages 390-418.
    4. Christopher F Baum & Mark E. Schaffer & Steven Stillman, 2007. "Enhanced routines for instrumental variables/generalized method of moments estimation and testing," Stata Journal, StataCorp LP, vol. 7(4), pages 465-506, December.
    5. Guilhem Bascle, 2008. "Controlling for endogeneity with instrumental variables in strategic management research," Post-Print hal-00576795, HAL.
    6. Erik Biørn, 2002. "Handling the measurement error problem by means of panel data: Moment methods applied on firm data," 10th International Conference on Panel Data, Berlin, July 5-6, 2002 B6-1, International Conferences on Panel Data.
    7. Ormosi, Peter L., 2012. "Claim efficiencies or offer remedies? An analysis of litigation strategies in EC mergers," International Journal of Industrial Organization, Elsevier, vol. 30(6), pages 578-592.
    8. Maurice J.G. Bun & Teresa D. Harrison, 2014. "OLS and IV estimation of regression models including endogenous interaction terms," UvA-Econometrics Working Papers 14-02, Universiteit van Amsterdam, Dept. of Econometrics.
    9. Christopher F Baum & Mark E. Schaffer & Steven Stillman, 2003. "Instrumental variables and GMM: Estimation and testing," Stata Journal, StataCorp LP, vol. 3(1), pages 1-31, March.
    10. Kenneth Bollen & Stanislav Kolenikov & Shawn Bauldry, 2014. "Model-Implied Instrumental Variable—Generalized Method of Moments (MIIV-GMM) Estimators for Latent Variable Models," Psychometrika, Springer;The Psychometric Society, vol. 79(1), pages 20-50, January.
    11. Russell Davidson & Victoria Zinde‐Walsh, 2017. "Advances in specification testing," Canadian Journal of Economics/Revue canadienne d'économique, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 50(5), pages 1595-1631, December.
    12. Jean-Marie Dufour, 2003. "Identification, weak instruments, and statistical inference in econometrics," Canadian Journal of Economics, Canadian Economics Association, vol. 36(4), pages 767-808, November.
    13. Frank Windmeijer & Helmut Farbmacher & Neil Davies & George Davey Smith, 2019. "On the Use of the Lasso for Instrumental Variables Estimation with Some Invalid Instruments," Journal of the American Statistical Association, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 114(527), pages 1339-1350, July.
    14. Wong, Ka-fu, 1996. "Bootstrapping Hausman's exogeneity test," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 53(2), pages 139-143, November.
    15. Lynda Khalaf & Maral Kichian, 2000. "Testing the Pricing-to-Market Hypothesis: Case of the Transportation Equipment Industry," Staff Working Papers 00-8, Bank of Canada.
    16. T. W. Anderson & Naoto Kunitomo & Yukitoshi Matsushita, 2008. "On Finite Sample Properties of Alternative Estimators of Coefficients in a Structural Equation with Many Instruments," CIRJE F-Series CIRJE-F-577, CIRJE, Faculty of Economics, University of Tokyo.
    17. Theodossiou, I. & Vasileiou, E., 2007. "Making the risk of job loss a way of life: Does it affect job satisfaction?," Research in Economics, Elsevier, vol. 61(2), pages 71-83, June.
    18. Berkowitz, Daniel & Caner, Mehmet & Fang, Ying, 2008. "Are "Nearly Exogenous Instruments" reliable?," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 101(1), pages 20-23, October.
    19. Zivot, Eric & Startz, Richard & Nelson, Charles R, 1998. "Valid Confidence Intervals and Inference in the Presence of Weak Instruments," International Economic Review, Department of Economics, University of Pennsylvania and Osaka University Institute of Social and Economic Research Association, vol. 39(4), pages 1119-1146, November.
    20. Christopher F Baum & Mark E. Schaffer & Steven Stillman, 2007. "Enhanced routines for instrumental variables/GMM estimation and testing," Boston College Working Papers in Economics 667, Boston College Department of Economics, revised 05 Sep 2007.

    More about this item

    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:wly:hlthec:v:12:y:2003:i:3:p:171-186. 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: Wiley Content Delivery (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/cgi-bin/jhome/5749 .

    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.