Cited by 227Healthcare Policy and ManagementPrimary Care and Health OutcomesHealth disparities and outcomes

The war on poverty’s experiment in public medicine: Community health centers and the mortality of older Americans

Open access
Bailey, Martha J., Goodman-Bacon, Andrew·2015·American Economic Review

Abstract

This paper uses the rollout of the first Community Health Centers (CHCs) to study the longer-term health effects of increasing access to primary care. Within ten years, CHCs are associated with a reduction in age-adjusted mortality rates of 2 percent among those 50 and older. The implied 7 to 13 percent decrease in one-year mortality risk among beneficiaries amounts to 20 to 40 percent of the 1966 poor/non-poor mortality gap for this age group. Large effects for those 65 and older suggest that increased access to primary care has longer-term benefits, even for populations with near universal health insurance. (JEL H75, I12, I13, I18, I32, I38, J14).

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1257/aer.20120070

Cites

95 of 95 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • θ_bal_es(e;e') closely resembles the empirical practice of only reporting event-study-type coefficients for the event periods that do not suffer from compositional changes.

    “We note that θ bal es ( e ; e ′ ) closely resembles the empirical practice of only reporting event-studytype coefficients for the event periods that do not suffer from compositional changes, see, e.g., McCrary (2007) and Bailey and Goodman-Bacon (2015).”

    From Difference-in-Differences with multiple time periods (2021) · cites this paper as Bailey and Goodman-Bacon (2015)

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 6

  1. Bound John Brown Charles Mathiowetz Nancy 2001 Measurement Error in Survey Data Handbook in Econometrics 5 Heckman James J Leamer Edward 3707 3843 Amsterdam Elsevier
  2. Horowitz Joel L 2001 The Bootstrap Handbook of Econometrics 5 Heckman James J Leamer Edward 3159 228 Amsterdam Elsevier
  3. Manton Kenneth G Stallard Eric 1984 Recent Trends in Mortality Analysis: Studies in Population Orlando Academic Press
  4. Mickey Robert W 2012 Dr. StrangeRove; or, How Conservatives Learned to Stop Worrying and Love Community Health Centers The Health Care “Safety Net” in a Post-Reform World Hall Mark A Rosenbaum Sara 21 66 New Brunswick, NJ Rutgers University Press
  5. Newhouse Joseph P the Insurance Experiment Group 1993 Free for All? Lessons from the RAND Health Insurance Experiment Cambridge, MA Harvard University Press
  6. Sardell Alice 1988 The US Experiment in Social Medicine: The Community Health Center Program, 1965–1986 Pittsburgh University of Pittsburgh Press

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Bailey, M. J., & Goodman-Bacon, A.
Affiliations
University of Michigan (US)
Venue
American Economic Review
Published
2015-03-01
Volume
105
Issue
3
Pages
1067-1104
ISSN
0002-8282 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2095991313
Cited by
227
References
95
Citations by year
2026: 17 · 2025: 20 · 2024: 30 · 2023: 21 · 2022: 27 · 2021: 29 · 2020: 19 · 2019: 16 · 2018: 12 · 2017: 15 · 2016: 8 · 2015: 7 · 2014: 2 · 2013: 4
FWCI
33.71
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • American Economic Review (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
  • eScholarship (California Digital Library) (submittedVersion)
  • RePEc: Research Papers in Economics (submittedVersion)
Funders
  • U.S. Department of Health and Human Services
  • American Heart Association
  • U.S. Social Security Administration
  • University of Michigan (R24HD041028)
  • American Hospital Association
  • Australian Government
  • National Institutes of Health
  • Health Resources and Services Administration
  • Nutrition Obesity Research Center, University of North Carolina
  • National Institute on Aging (P30AG012839)
  • National Institute on Minority Health and Health Disparities (L60 MD003213)
  • Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development (R01HD070950, R24HD041028, R03HD066145, T32HD007339)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Economics, Econometrics and Finance › Economics and Econometrics › Healthcare Policy and Management
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Primary Care and Health Outcomes
  • Social Sciences › Health › Health disparities and outcomes
Keywords
War on Poverty, community health centers, primary care access, mortality, older adults, mortality gap, health insurance, public medicine, Medicare beneficiaries
MeSH terms
Aged, Aged, 80 and over, Community Health Centers, Forecasting, Humans, Middle Aged, Mortality, Poverty, Primary Health Care, Public Health, United States

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