arXiv subjects

Elizabeth M. Stone

Publications and source records attributed to Elizabeth M. Stone.

3 recordsLinked to original sources

arXiv2026

State policy heterogeneity analyses: considerations and proposals

State-level policy studies often conduct heterogeneity analyses that quantify how treatment effects vary across state characteristics. These analyses may be used to inform state-specific policy decisions, or to infer how the effect of a policy changes in combination with other state characteristics. However, in state-level settings with varied contexts and policy landscapes, multiple versions of similar policies, and differential policy implementation, the causal quantities targeted by these analyses may not align with the inferential goals. This paper clarifies these issues by distinguishing several causal estimands relevant to heterogeneity analyses in state-policy settings, including state-specific treatment effects (ITE), conditional average treatment effects (CATE), and controlled direct effects (CDE). We argue that the CATE is often the easiest to identify and estimate, but may not be the most policy relevant target of inference. Moreover, the widespread practice of coarsening distinct policies or implementations into a single indicator further complicates the interpretation of these analyses. Motivated by these limitations, we propose bounding ITEs as an alternative inferential goal, yielding ranges for each state's policy effect under explicit assumptions that quantify deviations from the ideal identifying conditions. These bounds target a well-defined and policy-relevant quantity, the effect for specific states. We develop this approach within a difference-in-differences framework and discuss how sensitivity parameters may be informed using pre-treatment data. Through simulations we demonstrate that bounding state-specific effects can more reliably determine the sign of the ITEs than CATE estimates. We then illustrate this method to examine the effect of the Affordable Care Act Medicaid expansion on high-volume buprenorphine prescribing.

stat.ME↗

arXiv2025

Choosing an analytic approach: Key study design considerations in state policy evaluation

This paper reviews and details methods for state policy evaluation to guide selection of a research approach based on evaluation setting and available data. We highlight key design considerations for an analysis, including treatment and control group selection, timing of policy adoption, expected effect heterogeneity, and data considerations. We then provide an overview of analytic approaches and differentiate between methods based on evaluation context, such as settings with no control units, a single treated unit, multiple treated units, or with multiple treatment cohorts. Methods discussed include interrupted time series models, difference-in-differences estimators, autoregressive models, and synthetic control methods, along with method extensions which address issues like staggered policy adoption and heterogenous treatment effects. We end with an illustrative example, applying the developed framework to evaluate the impacts of state-level naloxone standing order policies on overdose rates. Overall, we provide researchers with an approach for deciding on methods for state policy evaluations, which can be used to select study designs and inform methodological choices.

stat.ME↗

arXiv2023

Identifying Optimal Methods for Addressing Confounding Bias When Estimating the Effects of State-Level Policies

Background: Policy evaluation studies that assess how state-level policies affect health-related outcomes are foundational to health and social policy research. The relative ability of newer analytic methods to address confounding, a key source of bias in observational studies, has not been closely examined. Methods: We conducted a simulation study to examine how differing magnitudes of confounding affected the performance of four methods used for policy evaluations: (1) the two-way fixed effects (TWFE) difference-in-differences (DID) model; (2) a one-period lagged autoregressive (AR) model; (3) augmented synthetic control method (ASCM); and (4) the doubly robust DID approach with multiple time periods from Callaway-Sant'Anna (CSA). We simulated our data to have staggered policy adoption and multiple confounding scenarios (i.e., varying the magnitude and nature of confounding relationships). Results: Bias increased for each method: (1) as confounding magnitude increases; (2) when confounding is generated with respect to prior outcome trends (rather than levels), and (3) when confounding associations are nonlinear (rather than linear). The AR and ASCM have notably lower root mean squared error than the TWFE model and CSA approach for all scenarios; the exception is nonlinear confounding by prior trends, where CSA excels. Coverage rates are unreasonably high for ASCM (e.g., 100%), reflecting large model-based standard errors and wide confidence intervals in practice. Conclusions: Our simulation study indicated that no single method consistently outperforms the others. But a researcher's toolkit should include all methodological options. Our simulations and associated R package can help researchers choose the most appropriate approach for their data.

stat.ME↗