Skip to main content
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Three essays on labor and health economics (Jun, 2019)

Review Guidelines

Causal Evidence Guidelines

Absence of conflict of interest. 

Citation

Jun, D. (2019). Three essays on labor and health economics (Document No. 22584570) [Doctoral dissertation, Michigan State University]. ProQuest Dissertations Publishing.

Highlights

  • The study's objective was to examine the impact of the intervention on job mobility and compensation. 

  • This study uses a difference-in-difference design to compare the job mobility and compensation of working fathers with children affected by the state and federal mandates and fathers with children that were not affected. This study uses the 2004 and 2008 Survey of Income and Program Participation (SIPP) panels which are linked to the Detailed Earnings Records (DER) and Business Registration (BR) data. This study uses statistical models to compare outcomes of fathers with eligible children to fathers without eligible children.  

  • Fathers with children eligible for health insurance saw a 0.9 percentage point lower probability of leaving an employer (job-lock) compared to fathers with ineligible children. There were no differences between groups in being pushed into a EPHI job, annual earnings, or total compensation.   

  • This study receives a moderate evidence rating.  This means we are somewhat confident that the estimated effects are attributable to the intervention, but other factors might also have contributed

Intervention Examined

Affordable Care Act (ACA)

Features of the Intervention

Seeking to increase health insurance coverage rates for young adults, state policymakers introduced mandates for health insurance companies to increase the age that children can remain covered under their parents' health insurance plans. The mandates were first implemented in 1995 but enacted as a more comprehensive version as part of the Affordable Care Act in 2010.  

Features of the Study

This study uses a difference-in-difference design to compare the job mobility and compensation of working fathers with children affected by the state and federal mandates and fathers with children that were not affected. The primary comparison of the study is between fathers whose youngest child's age is beneath the state mandate threshold and fathers whose youngest child's age is above the state mandate threshold before and after state and federal insurance age cap increases.  The sample is married fathers, who were 45-64 between 2004-2012, with a youngest child between 19-29 (but not 26), in states with an age limit provision less than 29. The treatment group includes fathers that were affected by the state and federal mandates at some point in the analysis (i.e., fathers whose youngest child was aged 19-25). The comparison group includes fathers that were not affected by the state and federal mandates (i.e., fathers whose youngest child was aged 27-29). This study uses the 2004 and 2008 Survey of Income and Program Participation (SIPP) panels which are linked to the Detailed Earnings Records (DER) and Business Registration (BR) data for 25 states. The study excludes states that had no age limit and states that extended the mandate to children aged 29. The study uses statistical models to compare outcomes of fathers with eligible children to fathers without eligible children.  

Findings

Employment 

  • Fathers with eligible children had 0.9 percentage points (ppts) lower probability of voluntarily leaving an employer. Voluntary job separation was concentrated among those with lower income (-0.7 ppts) and those with spouses without health insurance (-0.9 ppts). 

  • There were no statistically different probabilities of switching to an employer with EPHI between treatment and control groups. 

Earnings and Wages 

  • There was no statistically significant difference in annual earnings between the treatment and control groups.  

  • There was no statistically significant difference in total compensation between the treatment and control groups.   

Considerations for Interpreting the Findings

Non-discrimination laws may have prevented employees from being compensated differently due to their parental status. It is more likely that any adjustment by employers to help cover the additional insurance costs were transferred to all employees. This is noted by the author. 

Causal Evidence Rating

This study receives a moderate evidence rating. This means we are somewhat confident that the estimated effects are attributable to the intervention, and not to other factors. 

Reviewed by CLEAR

March 2023