Review of Economics of the Household

, Volume 10, Issue 4, pp 541–556 | Cite as

The effect of the original introduction of Medicaid on welfare participation and female labor supply

Article

Abstract

This paper uses the fact that states introduced Medicaid programs at different times between 1966 and 1972 to estimate Medicaid’s effect on Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC) participation. Using state-level data, we find that the introduction of Medicaid accounted for approximately 10% of growth in AFDC caseloads from 1964 to 1974, a time period during which there was thought to be significant unexplained growth in caseloads. Analysis of individual-level data indicates that Medicaid’s effect on AFDC participation occurred through its effect in increasing the number of eligibles who participated in the program, and not because of increases in eligibility or reductions in workforce participation.

Keywords

Medicaid Welfare AFDC Labor supply 

References

  1. Blank, R. M. (1989). The effect of medical need and Medicaid on AFDC participation. Journal of Human Resources, 24, 54–87.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Decker, S. L. (2000). Medicaid, AFDC and family formation. Applied Economics, 32(15), 1947–1956.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Donald, S. G., & Lang, K. (2007). Inferences with difference in differences and other panel data. The Review of Economics and Statistics, 89(2), 221–233.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Ham, J. C., & Shore-Sheppard, L. D. (2005). Did expanding Medicaid affect welfare participation? Industrial and Labor Relations Review, 58(3), 452–470.Google Scholar
  5. Hoynes, H. W. (1997). Does welfare play any role in female headship decisions? Journal of Public Economics, 65(2), 89–117.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Klemm, J. D. (2000). Medicaid spending: A brief history. Health Care Financing Review, 22(1), 105–112.Google Scholar
  7. Meyer B. D., & Rosenbaum D. T. (2001). Welfare, the earned income tax credit, and the labor supply of single mothers. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 116, 1063–1114.Google Scholar
  8. Michel, R. C. (1980). Participation rates in the aid to families with dependent children program Part I: National trends from 1967 to 1977. Washington D.C: The Urban Institute.Google Scholar
  9. Moffitt, R. (1983). An economic model of welfare stigma. American Economic Review, 73, 1023–1035.Google Scholar
  10. Moffitt, R. (1986). Trends in AFDC participation over time: Evidence on structural change. Institute for Research on Poverty Special Report Number 41, Madison, WI.Google Scholar
  11. Moffitt, R. (1987). Historical growth in participation in aid to families with dependent children: Was there a structural shift? Journal of Post Keynesian Economics, 9, 347–363.Google Scholar
  12. Moffitt, R. (1990). Has state redistribution policy grown more conservative? National Tax Journal, 43(2), 123–142.Google Scholar
  13. Moffitt, R. (1994). Welfare effects on female headship with area effects. Journal of Human Resources, 29(2), 621–636.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Moffitt, R. (2002). Welfare programs and labor supply. Handbook of Public Economics, 4, 2393–2430.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Moffitt, R., & Wolfe, B. (1992). The effect of the Medicaid program on welfare participation and labor supply. Review of Income and Statistics, 74, 615–641.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Montgomery, E., & Navin, J. C. (2000). Cross-state variation in Medicaid programs and female labor supply. Economic Inquiry, 38(3), 402–418.Google Scholar
  17. Moore J. D., & Smith, D. G. (2005–2006). Legislating Medicaid: Considering Medicaid and its origins. Health Care Financing Review, 27(2), 45–52.Google Scholar
  18. Moulton, B. R. (1990). An illustration of a pitfall in estimating the effects of aggregate variables in micro units. Review of Economics and Statistics, 72(2), 334–338.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. National Center for Social Statistics (NCSS). (1971) Findings of the 1971 AFDC study, Part I: Demographic and program characteristics. Department of Health, Education and Welfare Publication No. (SRS) 72-03756, NCSS Report AFDC-1 (71), Washington D.C.Google Scholar
  20. National Center for Social Statistics. (1972) Medical assistance financed under the public assistance titles of the Social Security Act. US Department of Health, Education and Welfare, Washington D.C.Google Scholar
  21. Ruggles, P., & Michel, R. C. (1987). Participation rates in the aid to families with dependent children program: Trends for 1967 through 1984. Working Paper, The Urban Institute, Washington D.C.Google Scholar
  22. Strumpf, E. (2011). Medicaid’s effect on single women’s labor supply: Evidence from the introduction of Medicaid. Journal of Health Economics., 30(3), 531–548.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. US Department of Commerce. (Various years). Bureau of economic analysis: State annual personal income. Available at: http://bea.gov/regional/spi/Accessed 31 Dec 2010.
  24. US Department of Health and Human Services (HHS). (2010). Administration for children and families caseload data 19601999. Available at: http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/ofa/data-reports/caseload/caseload_archive.html. Accessed on 18 Aug 2010.
  25. US House of Representatives. (1989). Background materials and data on programs within the jurisdiction of the committee on ways and means. Government Printing Office, Washington D.C.Google Scholar
  26. US Social Security Administration. (1966). Social security bulletin.Google Scholar
  27. Winkler, A. E. (1991). The incentive effects of Medicaid on women’s labor supply. Journal of Human Resources, 26, 308–337.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Yelowitz, A. (1995). The Medicaid notch, labor supply and welfare participation: Evidence from eligibility expansions. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 110, 909–939.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Yelowitz, A. (1998). Will extending Medicaid to two-parent families encourage marriage? Journal of Human Resources, 33(4), 833–865.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC (outside the USA)  2011

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.National Center for Health StatisticsCenters for Disease Control and PreventionHyattsvilleUSA
  2. 2.Bloomberg School of Public HealthJohns Hopkins UniversityBaltimoreUSA

Personalised recommendations