MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2993286962 · doi:10.15353/rea.v12i1.1697

The Effects of Employer-Sponsored Health Insurance Premiums on Employment and Wages: Evidence from US Longitudinal Data.

2020· article· en· W2993286962 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Nicola Ciccarelli

Bibliographic record

VenueReview of Economic Analysis · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicHealthcare Policy and Management
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHealth insurancePaymentPanel dataDemographic economicsBusinessLabour economicsEconomicsActuarial scienceHealth careFinanceEconometricsEconomic growth

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We analyze the effect of employer-sponsored health insurance premiums on employment and annual wages in the US using a county-level panel dataset for the period 2005-2010. Using variation in medical malpractice payments and variation in medical malpractice legislation over time and within states as the source of identifying variation in the health insurance premiums, we estimate the causal effects of rising health insurance premiums on employment and annual wages. We find that a 10% increase in premiums reduces employment by 1.1 percentage points, and leads to a statistically insignificant reduction of annual wages. Since US counties are characterized by a varying degree of private health insurance coverage, we also test whether the private health insurance coverage is a moderating variable for the relationship between the health insurance premiums and the labor market outcomes analyzed in this study. We find that rising premiums negatively affect the labor market conditions faced by US workers, especially in areas that are characterized by high private health insurance coverage.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.257
Threshold uncertainty score0.998

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.121
GPT teacher head0.342
Teacher spread0.221 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreReview

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueReview of Economic AnalysisSame topicHealthcare Policy and ManagementFrench-language works237,207