IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/ucp/jlawec/doi10.1086-722461.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Did the Dependent Coverage Mandate Reduce Crime?

Author

Listed:
  • Zachary S. Fone
  • Andrew I. Friedson
  • Brandy J. Lipton
  • Joseph J. Sabia

Abstract

The Affordable Care Act’s dependent coverage mandate (DCM) induced approximately 2 million young adults to join parental employer-sponsored health insurance plans. This study is the first to explore the impact of the DCM on crime, a potentially important externality. Using data from the National Incident-Based Reporting System, we find that the DCM induced a 2–5 percent reduction in property crime incidents involving young adult arrestees ages 22–25 relative to those ages 27–29. This finding is supported by supplemental analysis using data from the Uniform Crime Reports. An examination of the underlying mechanisms suggests that declines in large out-of-pocket expenditures for health care, increased educational attainment, and increases in cohabitation of parents and adult children may explain these declines in crime. Back-of-the-envelope calculations suggest that the DCM generated approximately $371–$512 million in annual social benefits from crime reduction among young adults.

Suggested Citation

  • Zachary S. Fone & Andrew I. Friedson & Brandy J. Lipton & Joseph J. Sabia, 2023. "Did the Dependent Coverage Mandate Reduce Crime?," Journal of Law and Economics, University of Chicago Press, vol. 66(1), pages 143-182.
    • Handle: RePEc:ucp:jlawec:doi:10.1086/722461
    DOI: 10.1086/722461
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.1086/722461
    Download Restriction: Access to the online full text or PDF requires a subscription.
    File URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.1086/722461
    Download Restriction: Access to the online full text or PDF requires a subscription.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1086/722461?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:ucp:jlawec:doi:10.1086/722461. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Journals Division (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.journals.uchicago.edu/JLE .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.