essays in public finance and industrial organization a dissertation ...
essays in public finance and industrial organization a dissertation ...
essays in public finance and industrial organization a dissertation ...
Create successful ePaper yourself
Turn your PDF publications into a flip-book with our unique Google optimized e-Paper software.
CHAPTER 1. BANKRUPTCY 28<br />
to seizable assets is 0.56. Includ<strong>in</strong>g controls for household demographics <strong>and</strong> uti-<br />
lization reduces this coefficient to 0.22 (column 2). Controll<strong>in</strong>g for wealth has little<br />
<strong>in</strong>cremental effect (column 3).<br />
The 2SLS estimates us<strong>in</strong>g the basel<strong>in</strong>e <strong>in</strong>strument are shown <strong>in</strong> columns 4 to 6,<br />
add<strong>in</strong>g controls <strong>in</strong> the same manner as columns 1 to 3. With controls, the 2SLS<br />
po<strong>in</strong>t estimates are slightly larger than the correspond<strong>in</strong>g OLS specifications. In the<br />
preferred specification with controls for demographics <strong>and</strong> utilization (column 5), the<br />
elasticity of out-of-pocket payments with respect to seizable assets is 0.37. As before,<br />
controll<strong>in</strong>g for wealth (column 6) has little effect.<br />
1.6.2 Sensitivity Analysis<br />
Table 1.9 exam<strong>in</strong>es the sensitivity of these results to concerns about potential bias<br />
from endogenous asset exemptions. Column 1 adds controls for hospital <strong>and</strong> state<br />
characteristics. Because hospitals with different ownership structures may have differ-<br />
ent <strong>in</strong>centives <strong>and</strong> preferences for charity care, I <strong>in</strong>clude controls for the share of <strong>public</strong><br />
<strong>and</strong> nonprofit hospitals <strong>in</strong> each state (private hospitals are the omitted category). I<br />
control for Disproportionate Share Hospital (DSH) payments per 1,000 residents as<br />
these may affect <strong>in</strong>centives to provide unpaid care, the presence of state charity care<br />
pools, <strong>and</strong> the number of Federally Qualified Health Centers per 100,000 people. The<br />
parameters of <strong>in</strong>terest are virtually unchanged <strong>in</strong> these specifications <strong>and</strong> none of the<br />
covariates have coefficients that are statistically dist<strong>in</strong>guishable from zero.<br />
Column 2 uses the <strong>in</strong>strument that isolates variation due to contemporaneous<br />
homestead exemptions <strong>and</strong> column 3 uses the <strong>in</strong>strument that isolates variation due<br />
to exemptions for non-homestead assets with no effect on the parameter of <strong>in</strong>ter-<br />
est. Column 4 applies the <strong>in</strong>strument that isolates variation due to 1920 homestead<br />
exemptions. Us<strong>in</strong>g this source of variation addresses concerns that contemporane-<br />
ous asset exemptions may be <strong>in</strong>fluenced by unobserved state-level factors such as<br />
the strength of the hospital lobby or state-level attitudes towards charity care. The<br />
estimates are very similar with this <strong>in</strong>strument.