Who Increases Emergency Department Use? New Insights from the Oregon Health Insurance Experiment

We provide new insights regarding the headline result that Medicaid increased emergency department (ED) use from the Oregon experiment. We find meaningful heterogeneous impacts of Medicaid on ED use using causal machine learning methods. The individualized treatment effect distribution includes a wide range of negative and positive values, suggesting the average effect masks substantial heterogeneity. A small group-about 14% of participants-in the right tail of the distribution drives the overall effect. We identify priority groups with economically significant increases in ED usage based on demographics and previous utilization. Intensive margin effects are an important driver of increases in ED utilization.

[1]  Amanda E. Kowalski.  Reconciling Seemingly Contradictory Results from the Oregon Health Insurance Experiment and the Massachusetts Health Reform , 2018, Review of Economics and Statistics.

[2]  T. Giannouchos,et al.  Association of Medicaid Expansion With Emergency Department Visits by Medical Urgency , 2022, JAMA network open.

[3]  A. Sabbatini,et al.  Medicaid Expansion and Avoidable Emergency Department Use-Implications for US National and State Government Spending. , 2022, JAMA Network Open.

[4]  Tymon Sloczy'nski,et al.  When Should We (Not) Interpret Linear IV Estimands as Late? , 2020, SSRN Electronic Journal.

[5]  Stefan Wager,et al.  Policy Learning With Observational Data , 2017, Econometrica.

[6]  P. Marx.  Sharp bounds in the latent index selection model , 2020, Journal of Econometrics.

[7]  S. Weiner,et al.  Medicaid Expansion Reduced Emergency Department Visits by Low-income Adults Due to Barriers to Outpatient Care , 2020, Medical care.

[8]  Michael Lechner,et al.  Machine Learning Estimation of Heterogeneous Causal Effects: Empirical Monte Carlo Evidence , 2018, The Econometrics Journal.

[9]  Lindsey Woodworth.  Swamped: Emergency Department Crowding and Patient Mortality. , 2019, Journal of health economics.

[10]  Matthew J. Notowidigdo,et al.  All Medicaid Expansions Are Not Created Equal: The Geography and Targeting of the Affordable Care Act , 2019, Brookings Papers on Economic Activity.

[11]  Susan Athey,et al.  Machine Learning Methods That Economists Should Know About , 2019, Annual Review of Economics.

[12]  S. Athey,et al.  Generalized random forests , 2016, The Annals of Statistics.

[13]  John A. List,et al.  Multiple hypothesis testing in experimental economics , 2016, Experimental Economics.

[14]  Alwyn Young.  Channeling Fisher: Randomization Tests and the Statistical Insignificance of Seemingly Significant Experimental Results* , 2018, The Quarterly Journal of Economics.

[15]  Stefan Wager,et al.  Estimation and Inference of Heterogeneous Treatment Effects using Random Forests , 2015, Journal of the American Statistical Association.

[16]  J. Robins,et al.  Double/Debiased Machine Learning for Treatment and Structural Parameters , 2017 .

[17]  B. Sommers,et al.  Health Insurance and Emergency Department Use - A Complex Relationship. , 2017, The New England journal of medicine.

[18]  S. Taubman,et al.  Effect of Medicaid Coverage on ED Use - Further Evidence from Oregon's Experiment. , 2016, The New England journal of medicine.

[19]  Harvard T. H. Chan,et al.  Changes in Utilization and Health Among Low-Income Adults After Medicaid Expansion or Expanded Private Insurance. , 2016, JAMA internal medicine.

[20]  Toru Kitagawa,et al.  Who should be Treated? Empirical Welfare Maximization Methods for Treatment Choice , 2015 .

[21]  Katherine Baicker,et al.  Medicaid Increases Emergency-Department Use: Evidence from Oregon's Health Insurance Experiment , 2014, Science.

[22]  S. Taubman,et al.  The Oregon health insurance experiment: when limited policy resources provide research opportunities. , 2013, Journal of health politics, policy and law.

[23]  A. Zaslavsky,et al.  The Oregon experiment--effects of Medicaid on clinical outcomes. , 2013, The New England journal of medicine.

[24]  James G. Adams.  Emergency department overuse: perceptions and solutions. , 2013, JAMA.

[25]  Stephen P. Ryan,et al.  Selection on Moral Hazard in Health Insurance , 2011, The American economic review.

[26]  Arthur Lewbel,et al.  Comparing Features of Convenient Estimators for Binary Choice Models with Endogenous Regressors (Comparaison Des Caractéristiques Des Estimateurs Pratiques Pour Les Modèles De Choix Binaires Avec Régresseurs Endogènes) , 2012 .

[27]  Sarah Miller,et al.  The Effect of Insurance on Emergency Room Visits: An Analysis of the 2006 Massachusetts Health Reform , 2012 .

[28]  Donglin Zeng,et al.  Estimating Individualized Treatment Rules Using Outcome Weighted Learning , 2012, Journal of the American Statistical Association.

[29]  Jörg Stoye.  Minimax regret treatment choice with covariates or with limited validity of experiments , 2012 .

[30]  Sebastian Vollmer,et al.  Testing for heterogeneous treatment effects in experimental data: false discovery risks and correction procedures , 2014 .

[31]  A. Chandra,et al.  Perspective: Massachusetts' Health Care Reform and Emergency Department Utilization , 2011 .

[32]  Ralph Gonzales,et al.  Trends and characteristics of US emergency department visits, 1997-2007. , 2010, JAMA.

[33]  S. Taubman,et al.  What the Oregon health study can tell us about expanding Medicaid. , 2010, Health affairs.

[34]  Angus Deaton.  Instruments, Randomization, and Learning about Development , 2010 .

[35]  Jörg Stoye,et al.  Minimax regret treatment choice with finite samples , 2009 .

[36]  Joseph Sexton,et al.  Standard errors for bagged and random forest estimators , 2009, Comput. Stat. Data Anal..

[37]  K. Hirano,et al.  Asymptotics for Statistical Treatment Rules , 2009 .

[38]  D. Ruppert.  The Elements of Statistical Learning: Data Mining, Inference, and Prediction , 2004 .

[39]  Leo Breiman,et al.  Random Forests , 2001, Machine Learning.

[40]  J. Angrist.  Treatment Effect Heterogeneity in Theory and Practice , 2003 .

[41]  C. Manski.  Statistical treatment rules for heterogeneous populations , 2003 .

[42]  Alberto Abadie.  Semiparametric instrumental variable estimation of treatment response models , 2003 .

[43]  Jeffrey M. Woodbridge.  Econometric Analysis of Cross Section and Panel Data , 2002 .

[44]  Rajeev H. Dehejiaa,et al.  Program evaluation as a decision problem , 2002 .

[45]  Michael Wooldridge,et al.  Econometric Analysis of Cross Section and Panel Data, 2nd Edition , 2001 .

[46]  J. Heckman,et al.  Making the Most out of Programme Evaluations and Social Experiments: Accounting for Heterogeneity in Programme Impacts , 1997 .

[47]  Joshua D. Angrist,et al.  Identification of Causal Effects Using Instrumental Variables , 1993 .

[48]  J. Angrist,et al.  Identification and Estimation of Local Average Treatment Effects , 1994 .