The cost of adherence mismeasurement in serious mental illness: a claims-based analysis.

OBJECTIVES: To quantify how adherence mismeasurement affects the estimated impact of adherence on inpatient costs among patients with serious mental illness (SMI). STUDY DESIGN: Proportion of days covered (PDC) is a common claims-based measure of medication adherence. Because PDC does not measure medication ingestion, however, it may inaccurately measure adherence. We derived a formula to correct the bias that occurs in adherence-utilization studies resulting from errors in claims-based measures of adherence. METHODS: We conducted a literature review to identify the correlation between gold-standard and claims-based adherence measures. We derived a bias-correction methodology to address claims-based medication adherence measurement error. We then applied this methodology to a case study of patients with SMI who initiated atypical antipsychotics in 2 large claims databases. RESULTS: Our literature review identified 6 studies of interest. The 4 most relevant ones measured correlations between 0.38 and 0.91. Our preferred estimate implies that the effect of adherence on inpatient spending estimated from claims data would understate the true effect by a factor of 5.3, if there were no other sources of bias. Although our procedure corrects for measurement error, such error also may amplify or mitigate other potential biases. For instance, if adherent patients are healthier than nonadherent ones, measurement error makes the resulting bias worse. On the other hand, if adherent patients are sicker, measurement error mitigates the other bias. CONCLUSIONS: Measurement error due to claims-based adherence measures is worth addressing, alongside other more widely emphasized sources of bias in inference.

The Generalized Roy Model and the Cost-Benefit Analysis of Social Programs.

The literature on treatment effects focuses on gross benefits from program participation. We extend this literature by developing conditions under which it is possible to identify parameters measuring the cost and net surplus from program participation. Using the generalized Roy model, we nonparametrically identify the cost, benefit, and net surplus of selection into treatment without requiring the analyst to have direct information on the cost. We apply our methodology to estimate the gross benefit and net surplus of attending college.

Estimating Marginal Returns to Education.

This paper estimates marginal returns to college for individuals induced to enroll in college by different marginal policy changes. The recent instrumental variables literature seeks to estimate this parameter, but in general it does so only under strong assumptions that are tested and found wanting. We show how to utilize economic theory and local instrumental variables estimators to estimate the effect of marginal policy changes. Our empirical analysis shows that returns are higher for individuals with values of unobservables that make them more likely to attend college. We contrast our estimates with IV estimates of the return to schooling.

Evaluating Marginal Policy Changes and the Average Effect of Treatment for Individuals at the Margin.

This paper develops methods for evaluating marginal policy changes. We characterize how the effects of marginal policy changes depend on the direction of the policy change, and show that marginal policy effects are fundamentally easier to identify and to estimate than conventional treatment parameters. We develop the connection between marginal policy effects and the average effect of treatment for persons on the margin of indifference between participation in treatment and nonparticipation, and use this connection to analyze both parameters. We apply our analysis to estimate the effect of marginal changes in tuition on the return to going to college.