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. 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.
    3. 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.
    4. 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.
    5. 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.
    6. Undral Byambadalai & Tatsushi Oka & Shota Yasui, 2024. "Estimating Distributional Treatment Effects in Randomized Experiments: Machine Learning for Variance Reduction," Papers 2407.16037, arXiv.org.
    7. Maier, Michael, 2011. "Tests for distributional treatment effects under unconfoundedness," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 110(1), pages 49-51, January.
    8. 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).
    9. 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).
    10. Bauer, Thomas K. & Grave, Barbara S., 2011. "Performance-related Funding of Universities: Does More Competition Lead to Grade Inflation?," IZA Discussion Papers 6073, Institute of Labor Economics (IZA).
    11. Abdullah Kumas & Daniel L. Millimet, 2018. "Reassessing the effects of bilateral tax treaties on US FDI activity," Journal of Economics and Finance, Springer;Academy of Economics and Finance, vol. 42(3), pages 451-470, July.
    12. Cairo, Sofie & Mahlstedt, Robert, 2023. "The disparate effects of information provision: A field experiment on the work incentives of social welfare," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 226(C).
    13. Balestra, Simone & Backes-Gellner, Uschi, 2017. "Heterogeneous returns to education over the wage distribution: Who profits the most?," Labour Economics, Elsevier, vol. 44(C), pages 89-105.
    14. Vincenzo Atella & Joanna Kopinska, 2011. "Body weight of Italians: the weight of Education," CEIS Research Paper 189, Tor Vergata University, CEIS, revised 23 Mar 2011.
    15. Shunyuan Zhang & Nitin Mehta & Param Vir Singh & Kannan Srinivasan, 2021. "Frontiers: Can an Artificial Intelligence Algorithm Mitigate Racial Economic Inequality? An Analysis in the Context of Airbnb," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 40(5), pages 813-820, September.
    16. Carlos Lamarche, 2013. "Industry-wide work rules and productivity: evidence from Argentine union contract data," IZA Journal of Labor & Development, Springer;Forschungsinstitut zur Zukunft der Arbeit GmbH (IZA), vol. 2(1), pages 1-25, December.
    17. Zaresani, Arezou & Olivo-Villabrille, Miguel, 2022. "Return-to-work policies’ clawback regime and labor supply in disability insurance programs," Labour Economics, Elsevier, vol. 78(C).
    18. Dipanwita Sarkar & Michael Kidd, 2016. "The impact of endogenous occupational attainment on native-migrant wage distributions," QuBE Working Papers 042, QUT Business School.
    19. Altmann, Steffen & Falk, Armin & Jäger, Simon & Zimmermann, Florian, 2018. "Learning about job search: A field experiment with job seekers in Germany," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 164(C), pages 33-49.
    20. Satimanon, Monthien, 2011. "Comparison of Approaches to Measuring the Causes of Income Inequality," 2011 Annual Meeting, July 24-26, 2011, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 103844, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.

    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.