The DOI matches its Crossref record; 26 of the 26 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Using propensity scores in difference-in-differences models to estimate the effects of a policy change
Open accessAbstract
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.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
The central role of the propensity score in observational studies for causal effects
ROSENBAUM, P. R., & RUBIN, D. B. (1983) · Biometrika · doi:10.1093/biomet/70.1.41 · Cited by 31,241
(2002) · Cited by 13,211
Matching Methods for Causal Inference: A Review and a Look Forward
Stuart, E. A. (2010) · Statistical Science · doi:10.1214/09-sts313 · Cited by 5,478
Self-citationStatistics and Causal Inference
Holland, P. W. (1986) · Journal of the American Statistical Association · doi:10.1080/01621459.1986.10478354 · Cited by 5,293
Recent Developments in the Econometrics of Program Evaluation
Imbens, G. W., & Wooldridge, J. M. (2009) · Journal of Economic Literature · doi:10.1257/jel.47.1.5 · Cited by 4,926
Matching as Nonparametric Preprocessing for Reducing Model Dependence in Parametric Causal Inference
Ho, D. E., Imai, K., King, G., & Stuart, E. A. (2007) · Political Analysis · doi:10.1093/pan/mpl013 · Cited by 4,205
Self-citationSemiparametric Difference-in-Differences Estimators
Abadie, A. (2005) · The Review of Economic Studies · doi:10.1111/0034-6527.00321 · Cited by 2,286
Card, D., & Krueger, A. B. (2000) · American Economic Review · doi:10.1257/aer.90.5.1397 · Cited by 2,206
The role of the propensity score in estimating dose-response functions
Imbens, G. (2000) · Biometrika · doi:10.1093/biomet/87.3.706 · Cited by 1,776
The Impact of the Mariel Boatlift on the Miami Labor Market
Card, D. (1990) · ILR Review · doi:10.1177/001979399004300205 · Cited by 1,704
Cited by
Matching and Regression to the Mean in Difference‐in‐Differences Analysis
Daw, J. R., & Hatfield, L. A. (2018) · Health Services Research · doi:10.1111/1475-6773.12993 · Cited by 270
Confounding and regression adjustment in difference‐in‐differences studies
Zeldow, B., & Hatfield, L. A. (2021) · Health Services Research · doi:10.1111/1475-6773.13666 · Cited by 153
Qato, D. M., Alexander, G. C., Chakraborty, A., Guadamuz, J. S., & Jackson, J. W. (2019) · JAMA Network Open · doi:10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2019.2606 · Cited by 72
Difference-in-Differences for Health Policy and Practice: A Review of Modern Methods
Feng, S., Ganguli, I., Lee, Y., Poe, J., Ryan, A., & Bilinski, A. (2025) · Statistics in Medicine · doi:10.1002/sim.70247 · Cited by 16
Patterns of Effects and Sensitivity Analysis for Differences-in-Differences
Keele, L. J., Small, D. S., Hsu, J. Y., & Fogarty, C. B. (2019) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.1901.01869 · Cited by 10
Metadata
- Authors
- Stuart, E. A., Huskamp, H. A., Duckworth, K., Simmons, J., Song, Z., Chernew, M. E., & Barry, C. L.
- Venue
- Health Services and Outcomes Research Methodology
- Published
- 2014-08-07
- Volume
- 14
- Issue
- 4
- Pages
- 166-182
- ISSN
- 1387-3741 (ISSN-L)
- 1572-9400
- OpenAlex
- W1986684678
- Cited by
- 532
- References
- 26
- FWCI
- 10.31
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
- Licence
- www.springer.com/tdm (tdm)
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Using propensity scores in difference-in-differences models to estimate the effects of a policy change. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1007/s10742-014-0123-z
- The paper
- Stuart, E. A., Huskamp, H. A., Duckworth, K., Simmons, J., Song, Z., Chernew, M. E., & Barry, C. L. (2014). Using propensity scores in difference-in-differences models to estimate the effects of a policy change. Health Services and Outcomes Research Methodology. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10742-014-0123-z
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.