Using propensity scores in difference-in-differences models to estimate the effects of a policy change

Abstract

Difference-in-difference (DD) methods are a common strategy for evaluating the effects of policies or programs that are instituted at a particular point in time, such as the implementation of a new law. The DD method compares changes over time in a group unaffected by the policy intervention to the changes over time in a group affected by the policy intervention, and attributes the “difference-in-differences” to the effect of the policy. DD methods provide unbiased effect estimates if the trend over time would have been the same between the intervention and comparison groups in the absence of the intervention. However, a concern with DD models is that the program and intervention groups may differ in ways that would affect their trends over time, or their compositions may change over time. Propensity score methods are commonly used to handle this type of confounding in other non-experimental studies, but the particular considerations when using them in the context of a DD model have not been well investigated. In this paper, we describe the use of propensity scores in conjunction with DD models, in particular investigating a propensity score weighting strategy that weights the four groups (defined by time and intervention status) to be balanced on a set of characteristics. We discuss the conceptual issues associated with this approach, including the need for caution when selecting variables to include in the propensity score model, particularly given the multiple time point nature of the analysis. We illustrate the ideas and method with an application estimating the effects of a new payment and delivery system innovation (an accountable care organization model called the “Alternative Quality Contract” (AQC) implemented by Blue Cross Blue Shield of Massachusetts) on health plan enrollee out-of-pocket mental health service expenditures. We find no evidence that the AQC affected out-of-pocket mental health service expenditures of enrollees.

The Early Impact Of The ‘Alternative Quality Contract’ On Mental Health Service Use And Spending In Massachusetts

“…[21] In particular, “inverse probability of treatment weights” were created for each calendar year, equating the AQC risk, AQC no-risk, and comparison groups on observed covariates in each year. [22] Covariates in the propensity score models were age group, sex, and the risk score. Analyses using the mental health service users only used weights estimated among that subgroup.…”

Relationship between initiation of 340B participation and hospital safety‐net engagement

“…Table presents a balancing test of our propensity score model. After reweighting, we found standardized differences <0.10, indicating no difference 47 …”

Automatic Promotion and Student Dropout: Evidence from Uganda, Using Propensity Score in Difference in Differences Model

“…The effect of AP on students' dropout rate was estimated using propensity score in difference in differences (DID) technique, as proposed by Stuart et al (2014) (Note 1). The two-stage strategy is justified because of its ability to address biases resulting from the selection of individuals, as well as from common trends over time, and from permanent latent differences between the treatment and control groups.…”