Endogenous treatment effects for count data models with endogenous participation or sample selection

Health Economics

Volumn 20, Issue 9, 2011, Pages 1090-1109

  Bratti, Massimiliano ^a   Miranda, Alfonso ^b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF MILAN   (Italy)

^b UNIVERSITY OF LONDON   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

count data; drinking; endogenous participation; maximum simulated likelihood; sample selection; treatment effects

Indexed keywords

ALCOHOL CONSUMPTION; ARTICLE; DRINKING BEHAVIOR; HUMAN; MATHEMATICAL MODEL; MAXIMUM LIKELIHOOD METHOD; MONTE CARLO METHOD; PATIENT GUIDANCE; PATIENT PARTICIPATION; PHYSICIAN; PRIORITY JOURNAL; SAMPLING; SAMPLING ERROR; SYSTEMATIC ERROR; THERAPY EFFECT;

ADULT; AGED; ALCOHOL DRINKING; COUNSELING; HEALTH BEHAVIOR; HEALTH STATUS; HUMANS; LIKELIHOOD FUNCTIONS; MIDDLE AGED; MULTIVARIATE ANALYSIS; OFFICE VISITS; PATIENT ACCEPTANCE OF HEALTH CARE; PHYSICIAN'S PRACTICE PATTERNS; POISSON DISTRIBUTION;

EID: 80051675514     PISSN: 10579230     EISSN: 10991050     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1002/hec.1764     Document Type: Article

References (31)

1. Cameron A, Trivedi P., 2005. Microeconometrics: Methods and Applications. Cambridge University Press: New York.
2. Carneiro P, Hansen K, Heckman J., 2003. Estimating distributions of treatment effects with an aplication to the returns to schooling and measurement of the effects of uncertainty on college choice. International Economic Review 44 (2): 361-422. (Pubitemid 36831907)
3. Chamberlain G., 1980. Analysis of covariance with qualitative data. The Review of Economic Studies 47 (1): 225-238.
4. Cox D, Wermuth N., 1996. Multivariate Dependencies: Models, Analysis and Interpretation. Monographs on Statistics and Applied Probability, vol. 67. Chapman & Hall: London.
5. Cragg J., 1971. Some statistical models for limited dependent variables with application to the demand for durable goods. Econometrica 39: 829-844.
6. Deb P, Trivedi P., 2006. Specification and simulated likelihood estimation of a non-normal treatment-outcome model with selection: applications to health care utilization. Econometrics Journal 9 (2): 307-331. (Pubitemid 43983841)
7. Gourieroux C., 2000. Econometrics of Qualitative Dependent Variables. Cambridge University Press: New York.
8. Gourieroux C, Monfort A., 1993. Simulation-based inference: a survey with special reference to panel data models. Journal of Econometrics 59 (1-2): 5-33.
9. Greene W., 1997. FIML Estimation of Sample Selection Models for Count Data. Stern School of Business: New York University: New York. Manuscript.
10. Greene W., 2009. Models for count data with endogenous participation. Empirical Economics 36 (1): 133-173.
11. Jones A., 1989. A double-hurdle model for cigarette consumption. Journal of Applied Econometrics 4 (1): 23-39.
12. Keane M., 1992. A note on identification in the multinomial probit model. Journal of Business and Economic Statistics 10 (2): 192-200.
13. Kenkel D, Terza J., 2001. The effect of physician advice on alcohol consumption: count regression with an endogenous treatment effect. Journal of Applied Econometrics 16 (2): 165-184.
14. Li Q, Trivedi P., 2009. Impact of prescription drug coverage on drug expenditure of the elderly-evidence from a two-part model with endogeneity. Mimeo. (Available from: http://mypage.iu.edu/~trivedi/drug-all-0609.pdf.)
15. Melkersson M, Rooth D., 2000. Modeling female fertility using inflated count data models. Journal of Population Economics 13 (2): 189-203.
16. Miranda A., 2004. FIML estimation of an endogenous switching model for count data. The Stata Journal 4 (1): 40-49.
17. Miranda A, Rabe-Hesketh S., 2006. Maximum likelihood estimation of endogenous switching and sample selection models for binary, ordinal, and count variables. The Stata Journal 6 (3): 285-308. (Pubitemid 44505048)
18. Monfardini C, Radice R., 2008. Testing exogeneity in the bivariate probit model: a Monte Carlo study. Oxford Bulletin of Economics and Statistics 70 (2): 271-282.
19. Mullahy J., 1986. Specification and testing of some modified count data models. Journal of Econometrics 33 (3): 341-365.
20. Mullahy J., 1998. Much ado about two: reconsidering retransformation and the two-part model in health econometrics. Journal of Health Economics 17 (3): 247-281. (Pubitemid 28300216)
21. Mundlak Y., 1978. On the pooling of time series and cross section data. Econometrica 46 (1): 69-85.
22. Puhani P., 2000. The Heckman correction for sample selection and its critique. Journal of Economics Surveys 14 (1): 53-68. (Pubitemid 30137406)
23. Riphahn R, Wambach A, Million A., 2003. Incentive effects in the demand for health care: a bivariate panel count data estimation. Journal of Applied Econometrics 4 (18): 387-405. (Pubitemid 37282620)
24. Terza JV., 1985. A tobit-type estimator for the censored poisson regression model. Economics Letters 18 (4): 361-365.
25. Terza JV., 1998. Estimating count data models with endogenous switching: sample selection and endogenous treatment effects. Journal of Econometrics 84 (4): 129-154. (Pubitemid 128393269)
26. Terza JV., 2009. Parametric nonlinear regression with endogenous switching. Econometric Reviews 28 (6): 555-580.
27. Terza JV, Kenkel DS, Lin T-F, Sakata S., 2008. Care-giver advice as a preventive measure for drinking during pregnancy: zeros, categorical outcome responses, and endogeneity. Health Economics 17 (1): 41-54. (Pubitemid 351227525)
28. Train K., 2003. Discrete Choice Methods With Simulation. Cambridge University Press: Cambridge (UK).
29. Windmeijer F, Santos Silva J., 1997. Endogeneity in count data models: an application to demand for health care. Journal of Applied Econometrics 12 (3): 281-294.
30. Winkelmann R., 1998. Count data models with selectivity. Econometric Reviews 17 (4): 339-359.
31. Winkelmann R., 2008. Econometric Analysis of Count Data (5th edn). Springer: Berlin, Heidelberg, New York.