Research

This paper examines how over-the-counter drug labels influence consumer perceptions of efficacy, distort decision-making, and shape equilibrium outcomes under counterfactual regulatory scenarios. It addresses a key identification challenge—the unobservability of perceived efficacy under different information structures—by conducting a randomized controlled trial and integrating its findings into a structural model. Using data from a control group and three treatment arms, I construct product-level measures of perceived efficacy beliefs based on pairwise product comparisons. Leveraging control group data supplemented with NielsenIQ data, I estimate a structural demand model that isolates the role of efficacy beliefs while accounting for heterogeneous preferences. I then incorporate updated beliefs to assess equilibrium effects under each information treatment. In equilibrium, the most effective intervention—emphasizing equivalent efficacy—increases substitution between biologically equivalent products by 26%, reduces consumer spending by 12%, but also introduces second-degree price discrimination driven by symptom-label preferences.

This case-control study evaluates the impact of a hospitalization on credit scores for Medicaid beneficiaries in Louisiana stratified by sex, race, and ethnicity.

Hospitalizations can impose financial hardships on families,1,2 contributing to lower credit scores3 and reducing access to credit.1 Non-Hispanic Black and Hispanic patients may struggle more with hospitalization costs due to lower wealth compared with non-Hispanic White patients.

We evaluated the impact of a hospitalization on credit scores for Medicaid beneficiaries in Louisiana, examining effects by sex, race, and ethnicity. Louisiana is a setting well-suited for this research given that it is a Medicaid expansion state, has relatively high levels of personal debt (which inform credit scores), and has a relatively diverse population.

Could policy changes boost economic growth enough and at a low enough cost to meaningfully reduce federal budget deficits? We assess seven areas of economic policy: immigration of high-skilled workers, housing regulation, safety net programs, regulation of electricity transmission, government support for research and development, tax policy related to business investment, and permitting of infrastructure construction. We find that growth-enhancing policies almost certainly cannot stabilize federal debt on their own, but that such policies can reduce the explicit tax hikes, spending cuts, or both that are needed to stabilize debt. We also find a dearth of research on the likely impacts of potential growth-enhancing policies and on ways to design such policies to restrain federal debt, and we offer suggestions for ways to build a larger base of evidence.