IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/yor/hectdg/17-29.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

More Doctors, Better Health? Evidence from a Physician Distribution Policy

Author

Listed:
  • Carrillo, B.; Feres, J.;

Abstract

In 2013, the Brazilian government implemented one of the largest physician distribution programs on record. Using a difference-in-difference framework, we document that the number of physicians increased by 17 percent in treated areas, with effects that are substantially larger in magnitude for family doctors. This expansion increased doctor visits by 4.3 percent and prenatal care by physicians by 10 percent. Yet despite these improvements in physician supply and utilization of doctors, we find little evidence that the program led to better infant health, measured by low birth weight, prematurity and infant mortality.

Suggested Citation

  • Carrillo, B.; Feres, J.;, 2017. "More Doctors, Better Health? Evidence from a Physician Distribution Policy," Health, Econometrics and Data Group (HEDG) Working Papers 17/29, HEDG, c/o Department of Economics, University of York.
    • Handle: RePEc:yor:hectdg:17/29
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.york.ac.uk/media/economics/documents/hedg/workingpapers/1729.pdf
    File Function: Main text
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Richard K. Crump & V. Joseph Hotz & Guido W. Imbens & Oscar A. Mitnik, 2009. "Dealing with limited overlap in estimation of average treatment effects," Biometrika, Biometrika Trust, vol. 96(1), pages 187-199.
    2. James Heckman & Hidehiko Ichimura & Jeffrey Smith & Petra Todd, 1998. "Characterizing Selection Bias Using Experimental Data," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 66(5), pages 1017-1098, September.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Mattos, Enlinson & Mazetto, Débora, 2018. "Assessing the impact of More Doctors Program on health care indicators," Textos para discussão 494, FGV EESP - Escola de Economia de São Paulo, Fundação Getulio Vargas (Brazil).
    2. Joana Raquel Raposo Santos & Hellen Geremias Santos & Carlos Manuel Matias Dias & Alexandre Dias Porto Chiavegatto Filho, 2020. "Assessing the impact of a doctor in remote areas of Brazil," International Journal of Public Health, Springer;Swiss School of Public Health (SSPH+), vol. 65(3), pages 267-272, April.
    3. Joana Raquel Raposo Santos & Hellen Geremias Santos & Carlos Manuel Matias Dias & Alexandre Dias Porto Chiavegatto Filho, 0. "Assessing the impact of a doctor in remote areas of Brazil," International Journal of Public Health, Springer;Swiss School of Public Health (SSPH+), vol. 0, pages 1-6.
    4. Mattos, Enlinson & Mazetto, Debora, 2019. "Assessing the impact of more doctors’ program on healthcare indicators in Brazil," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 123(C), pages 1-1.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Dettmann, E. & Becker, C. & Schmeißer, C., 2011. "Distance functions for matching in small samples," Computational Statistics & Data Analysis, Elsevier, vol. 55(5), pages 1942-1960, May.
    2. Victor Chernozhukov & Iván Fernández‐Val & Blaise Melly, 2013. "Inference on Counterfactual Distributions," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 81(6), pages 2205-2268, November.
    3. Paweł Strawiński, 2013. "Controlling for overlap in matching," Working Papers 2013-10, Faculty of Economic Sciences, University of Warsaw.
    4. Alan de Brauw & Valerie Mueller & Tassew Woldehanna, 2018. "Does Internal Migration Improve Overall Well-Being in Ethiopia?," Journal of African Economies, Centre for the Study of African Economies, vol. 27(3), pages 367-367.
    5. Dettmann, Eva & Becker, Claudia & Schmeißer, Christian, 2010. "Is there a Superior Distance Function for Matching in Small Samples?," IWH Discussion Papers 3/2010, Halle Institute for Economic Research (IWH).
    6. Carlos A. Flores & Oscar A. Mitnik, 2009. "Evaluating Nonexperimental Estimators for Multiple Treatments: Evidence from Experimental Data," Working Papers 2010-10, University of Miami, Department of Economics.
    7. Guido W. Imbens & Jeffrey M. Wooldridge, 2009. "Recent Developments in the Econometrics of Program Evaluation," Journal of Economic Literature, American Economic Association, vol. 47(1), pages 5-86, March.
    8. Jeffrey Smith & Arthur Sweetman, 2016. "Viewpoint: Estimating the causal effects of policies and programs," Canadian Journal of Economics, Canadian Economics Association, vol. 49(3), pages 871-905, August.
    9. Chad D. Meyerhoefer & Muzhe Yang, 2011. "The Relationship between Food Assistance and Health: A Review of the Literature and Empirical Strategies for Identifying Program Effects," Applied Economic Perspectives and Policy, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 33(3), pages 304-344.
    10. Michael Lechner & Anthony Strittmatter, 2019. "Practical procedures to deal with common support problems in matching estimation," Econometric Reviews, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 38(2), pages 193-207, February.
    11. Marco Caliendo & Steffen Künn, 2015. "Getting back into the labor market: the effects of start-up subsidies for unemployed females," Journal of Population Economics, Springer;European Society for Population Economics, vol. 28(4), pages 1005-1043, October.
    12. W. Attavanich, 2016. "Did the Thai rice-pledging programme improve the economic performance and viability of rice farming?," Applied Economics, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 48(24), pages 2253-2265, May.
    13. de Brauw, Alan & Hoddinott, John, 2011. "Must conditional cash transfer programs be conditioned to be effective? The impact of conditioning transfers on school enrollment in Mexico," Journal of Development Economics, Elsevier, vol. 96(2), pages 359-370, November.
    14. Callaway, Brantly & Sant’Anna, Pedro H.C., 2021. "Difference-in-Differences with multiple time periods," Journal of Econometrics, Elsevier, vol. 225(2), pages 200-230.
    15. Ferraro, Paul J. & Miranda, Juan José, 2014. "The performance of non-experimental designs in the evaluation of environmental programs: A design-replication study using a large-scale randomized experiment as a benchmark," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 107(PA), pages 344-365.
    16. Huber, Martin, 2019. "An introduction to flexible methods for policy evaluation," FSES Working Papers 504, Faculty of Economics and Social Sciences, University of Freiburg/Fribourg Switzerland.
    17. Steven Lehrer & Gregory Kordas, 2013. "Matching using semiparametric propensity scores," Empirical Economics, Springer, vol. 44(1), pages 13-45, February.
    18. Zongwu Cai & Ying Fang & Ming Lin & Shengfang Tang, 2021. "A Nonparametric Test for Testing Heterogeneity in Conditional Quantile Treatment Effects," WORKING PAPERS SERIES IN THEORETICAL AND APPLIED ECONOMICS 202117, University of Kansas, Department of Economics, revised Aug 2021.
    19. Caliendo, Marco & Künn, Steffen, 2011. "Start-up subsidies for the unemployed: Long-term evidence and effect heterogeneity," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 95(3), pages 311-331.
    20. Martin Huber & Michael Lechner & Andreas Steinmayr, 2015. "Radius matching on the propensity score with bias adjustment: tuning parameters and finite sample behaviour," Empirical Economics, Springer, vol. 49(1), pages 1-31, August.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    primary care physicians; doctor utilization; infant health; policy evaluation;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • I12 - Health, Education, and Welfare - - Health - - - Health Behavior
    • I18 - Health, Education, and Welfare - - Health - - - Government Policy; Regulation; Public Health
    • I38 - Health, Education, and Welfare - - Welfare, Well-Being, and Poverty - - - Government Programs; Provision and Effects of Welfare Programs

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    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:yor:hectdg:17/29. 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.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with 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: Jane Rawlings (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/deyoruk.html .

    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.