IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/nbr/nberwo/16593.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Accounting for Anticipation Effects: An Application to Medical Malpractice Tort Reform

Author

Listed:
  • Anup Malani
  • Julian Reif

Abstract

While conducting empirical work, researchers sometimes observe changes in outcomes before adoption of a new treatment program. The conventional diagnosis is that treatment is endogenous. Observing changes in outcomes prior to treatment is also consistent, however, with anticipation effects. This paper provides a framework for comparing the different methods for estimating anticipation effects and proposes a new set of instrumental variables that can address the problem that subjects' expectations are unobservable. The paper uses this framework to analyze the effect of tort reform on physician supply and finds that accounting for anticipation effects doubles the estimated effect of tort reform.

Suggested Citation

  • Anup Malani & Julian Reif, 2010. "Accounting for Anticipation Effects: An Application to Medical Malpractice Tort Reform," NBER Working Papers 16593, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
  • Handle: RePEc:nbr:nberwo:16593
    Note: HC HE
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.nber.org/papers/w16593.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    Citations

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


    Cited by:

    1. Yoshino, Naoyuki & Abidhadjaev, Umid, 2017. "An impact evaluation of investment in infrastructure: The case of a railway connection in Uzbekistan," Journal of Asian Economics, Elsevier, vol. 49(C), pages 1-11.
    2. Katherine Baicker & Theodore Svoronos, 2019. "Testing the Validity of the Single Interrupted Time Series Design," CID Working Papers 364, Center for International Development at Harvard University.
    3. Beatrice Brunner & Andreas Kuhn, 2014. "Announcement effects of health policy reforms: evidence from the abolition of Austria’s baby bonus," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 15(4), pages 373-388, May.
    4. Cristina Hernández-Izquierdo & Beatriz González López-Valcárcel & Stephen Morris & Mariya Melnychuk & Ignacio Abásolo Alessón, 2019. "The effect of a change in co-payment on prescription drug demand in a National Health System: The case of 15 drug families by price elasticity of demand," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 14(3), pages 1-39, March.
    5. Katherine Baicker & Theodore Svoronos, 2019. "Testing the Validity of the Single Interrupted Time Series Design," NBER Working Papers 26080, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    6. Ity Shurtz, 2014. "Malpractice Law, Physicians' Financial Incentives, and Medical Treatment: How Do They Interact?," Journal of Law and Economics, University of Chicago Press, vol. 57(1), pages 1-29.
    7. Sangeetha Gunasekar & Jayati Sarkar, 2019. "Does Autonomy Matter in State Owned Enterprises? Evidence from Performance Contracts in India," Economics of Transition and Institutional Change, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 27(3), pages 763-800, July.
    8. Sangeetha Gunasekar & Jayati Sarkar, 2014. "Does autonomy matter in state owned enterprises? Evidence from performance contracts in India," Indira Gandhi Institute of Development Research, Mumbai Working Papers 2014-034, Indira Gandhi Institute of Development Research, Mumbai, India.
    9. Andrew I. Friedson, 2017. "Medical Malpractice Damage Caps and Provider Reimbursement," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 26(1), pages 118-135, January.

    More about this item

    JEL classification:

    • C50 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Econometric Modeling - - - General
    • I18 - Health, Education, and Welfare - - Health - - - Government Policy; Regulation; Public Health
    • J20 - Labor and Demographic Economics - - Demand and Supply of Labor - - - General
    • K13 - Law and Economics - - Basic Areas of Law - - - Tort Law and Product Liability; Forensic Economics

    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:16593. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: . General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/nberrus.html .

    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: (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 hosted by the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis . RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.