As previously mentioned above, the assumption that is key the difference-in-differences framework on which we relied is the fact that CaliforniaвЂ™s expansion counties and all sorts of of this nonexpansion counties might have shown similar styles within the lack of the expansion. That presumption is violated, as an example, if Ca had experienced a job-market that is uniquely robust throughout the research duration. Having said that, our company is alert to no evidence that the job-market data recovery in Ca ended up being distinctive from the recovery in other states in a manner that would impact borrowing that is payday. But, more important, Appendix Exhibit A8 shows the time styles in numbers of loans both before and following the expansion. 16 Reassuringly, the display shows that there have been no observable differences when considering future expanding and nonexpanding counties in preexisting time styles, which validates the parallel-trends assumption that underlies our difference-in-differences approach. Especially, when you look at the twenty-four months before Medicaid expansion, we observed no preexisting differences when you look at the quantity of pay day loans which could confound the effect that is estimated of expansion once we later compared teams. In addition, the Appendix exhibit implies that an effect that is negative of Medicaid expansions in the amounts of loans started roughly 6 months after expansion, which appears credible considering that medical needs and medical bills accumulate slowly.
Medicaid expansion has enhanced usage of high-quality healthcare, increased the employment of outpatient and inpatient medical solutions, 15 , 19 and enhanced the private funds of low-income adults by reducing the quantity of medical bills susceptible to business collection agencies and also by enhancing credit ratings. 1 this research enhances the existing proof of the many benefits of Medicaid expansion by demonstrating so it reduced the application of pay day loans in Ca. Continue reading “We therefore discovered no proof that the parallel trends assumption had been violated”