For both our main and secondary outcomes, we used a regular analysis that is difference-in-differences of results that covered approximately twenty-four months before and twenty-four months following the 2011вЂ“2012 Ca Medicaid expansions.
As noted above, we compared 43 Ca very early expansion counties to 924 nonexpansion counties (like the 4 mentioned before nonexpansion California counties) within the nationwide data set, with standard mistakes clustered in the county degree. We stratified our findings by the chronilogical age of the borrowerвЂ”focusing on individuals younger than age sixty-five, who does have been almost certainly become impacted by Medicaid expansion. Being a sensitiveness test (see Appendix display A7), 16 we examined borrowers over the age of age sixty-five and utilized a triple-differences approach during the level that is county-month-age.
To exclude preexisting that is systemic trends which could have undermined our difference-in-differences approach, we estimated an вЂњevent studyвЂќ regression associated with aftereffect of Medicaid expansion in the wide range of loans. This tested the legitimacy of y our presumption that payday borrowing will have had comparable styles in expansion and nonexpansion counties if none regarding the counties had expanded Medicaid. The regression included a set impact for each and every county, a hard and fast impact for each month, and indicators for four six-month periods before Medicaid expansion and three six-month periods after expansion (see Appendix Exhibit A8). 16