My Account Log in

1 option

Medical Innovation and Health Disparities / Barton Hamilton, Andrés Hincapié, Emma C. Kalish, Nicholas W. Papageorge.

NBER Working papers Available online

View online
Format:
Book
Author/Creator:
Hamilton, Barton.
Contributor:
National Bureau of Economic Research.
Hincapié, Andrés.
Kalish, Emma C.
Papageorge, Nicholas W.
Series:
Working Paper Series (National Bureau of Economic Research) no. w28864.
NBER working paper series no. w28864
Language:
English
Physical Description:
1 online resource: illustrations (black and white);
Place of Publication:
Cambridge, Mass. National Bureau of Economic Research 2021.
Summary:
Health-maximizing and welfare-maximizing behaviors can be at odds, especially among disadvantaged groups, which can contribute to health disparities. To investigate this point, we estimate a lifecycle model of medication and labor supply decisions using data on HIV-positive men. We use the model to evaluate the disparate consequences of an effective HIV treatment innovation that had harsh side effects: HAART. Measured in lifetime utility gains, HAART disproportionately benefited patients with more education. Lower-educated men were more likely to avoid HAART due to its side effects that interfered with work. To illustrate the wedge between health and welfare, we simulate the effects of a HAART treatment mandate, which mimics assignment to treatment in a clinical trial. The mandate improves health, which would be viewed as a success in a randomized trial. However, clinical trials, which often focus solely on health outcomes, can mask downsides of the treatment including its distributional consequences: the mandate increases inequality as measured by lifetime welfare because lower-educated men are more likely to stop working due to HAART-induced side effects. In contrast, a counterfactual policy simulation that provides a non-labor income subsidy increases HAART adoption and improves health, especially among lower-education individuals. Broadly, our study illustrates that the evaluation of medical innovations may be incomplete absent an understanding of their distributional consequences across different groups of patients.
Notes:
Print version record
May 2021.

The Penn Libraries is committed to describing library materials using current, accurate, and responsible language. If you discover outdated or inaccurate language, please fill out this feedback form to report it and suggest alternative language.

Find

Home Release notes

My Account

Shelf Request an item Bookmarks Fines and fees Settings

Guides

Using the Find catalog Using Articles+ Using your account