Reading Notes - Randomized trial shows healthcare payment reform has equal-sized spillover effects on patients not targeted by reform

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

My Reading Notes

Paper: Randomized trial shows healthcare payment reform has equal-sized spillover effects on patients not targeted by reform

Paper By Liran Einav, Amy Finkelstein, Yunan Ji, and Neale Mahoney

What is this paper about?

  • Spillovers in health care

  • Medicare changes how they pay for something to one group, that affects a different group

    • Changes for traditional Medicare affect Medicare Advantage patients

    • At similar magnitude

  • Possible reasons:

    • High fixed cost, low marginal cost technological innovation

      • New computer system built for traditional Medicare might be easy to extend to MA

      • (this is the reason they think is most likely - since their effects are biggest in hospitals where there are a lot of directly affected patients, and their survey of hospital admin suggests this is how the admin adjusted to the changes)

    • Provider constraints: not knowing insurance type and/or having preferences

What gap is this paper filling?

  1. Policies that ignore spillovers miss a big part of the effect of the policy
  2. Any study that looks at the direct effects only may be biased since the “control group” might also be experiencing the treatment effect
  3. Designing payment policies in the presence of spillovers is different depending on the number of insurance providers.

What makes this paper interesting?

  • The TM to MA spillover effects are an important piece of the healthcare market

  • This shows how to do spillover studies in general and in health care

  • Spillover effects are important for general equilibrium understanding

  • The use of the national randomization of the Traditional Medicare Spending change - cool natural experiment

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

What are the results?

Targeting traditional medicare patients with a payment reform that changes payment from fee-for-service to a bundled comprehensive payment reduces discharges to post acute care facilities for both the targeted traditional medicare patients and non-targeted Medicare Advantage patients, who are presumably only seeing any impact because of spillover effects. The impacts are roughly the same for both groups (about 3 percentage points).

What assumptions are being made?

  • Randomization worked

    • “the (admittedly strong) identifying assumption is that, conditional on the covariates, there are no hospital-specific time trends, and thus any heterogeneity in the change in outcomes across hospitals reflects heterogeneous treatment effects.”

    • “To probe the sensitivity to this assumption, we estimate an alternative specification where we include hospital-specific linear time trends as controls. These time trends are identified from the hospital-specific outcomes in 2013 and 2014. In this specification, the identifying assumption is that, conditional on covariates, there are no hospital-specific deviations from the time trend”

  • Non-targeted patients did not get anything directly from the program

  • Enough targeted patients to potentially affect non-targeted as well

Other Ideas

  • Given more granular (at the time level) data, I think they could have shown the time trend analysis for both groups.
<!-- -->
  • Maybe could use a bordering MSA design to test what happens in non-selected MSAs that border selected MSAs

  • Causal forest to see which covariates predict bigger treatment effects

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

What is the Tweet?

Spillover effects in health care are fascinating. These authors looked at the spillover effects of an MSA-level randomized Medicare program aimed at reducing spending for traditional Medicare enrollees on the non-targeted Medicare Advantage enrollees. Both groups reduced share discharged to postacute care centers by ~3.3pp.

#