A newer version of this project is available. See below for other available versions.
ECIN Replication Package for "A closer look at Doleac and Mukherjee (2022) and the effects of naloxone access laws on opioid ER admissions"
Principal Investigator(s): View help for Principal Investigator(s) Sergey Alexeev
Version: View help for Version V4
| Name | File Type | Size | Last Modified |
|---|---|---|---|
|
|
application/x-stata-dta | 18.7 MB | 11/15/2024 05:35:PM |
|
|
text/plain | 58.3 KB | 01/13/2025 01:22:PM |
|
|
application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.spreadsheetml.sheet | 2.2 MB | 11/14/2024 02:37:PM |
|
|
application/vnd.ms-excel | 1.8 MB | 11/14/2024 02:03:PM |
|
|
application/x-stata-dta | 1.8 MB | 11/14/2024 02:03:PM |
|
|
application/x-stata-dta | 98.3 KB | 11/14/2024 02:35:PM |
|
|
application/pdf | 132.7 KB | 01/10/2025 01:40:PM |
Project Citation:
Alexeev, Sergey. ECIN Replication Package for “A closer look at Doleac and Mukherjee (2022) and the effects of naloxone access laws on opioid ER admissions.” Ann Arbor, MI: Inter-university Consortium for Political and Social Research [distributor], 2025-01-13. https://doi.org/10.3886/E211161V4
Project Description
Summary:
View help for Summary
The replication materials provided here are associated with the study with the following abstract:
Doleac and Mukherjee (2022) conclude that broadening access to a life-saving drug – naloxone – does not reduce opioid-related mortality as the drug simultaneously encourages riskier drug use. I show issues with their data, design, and estimation methods. For example, their Google Search data has an unverifiable origin, the law timing is incorrect, and the statistical inference is invalid. Correcting these issues within a triple difference design shows that naloxone, contrary to their findings, does not increase ER opioid admissions. I conclude that the moral hazard (and the ensuing adverse consequences) of naloxone use lacks empirical support.
Doleac and Mukherjee (2022) conclude that broadening access to a life-saving drug – naloxone – does not reduce opioid-related mortality as the drug simultaneously encourages riskier drug use. I show issues with their data, design, and estimation methods. For example, their Google Search data has an unverifiable origin, the law timing is incorrect, and the statistical inference is invalid. Correcting these issues within a triple difference design shows that naloxone, contrary to their findings, does not increase ER opioid admissions. I conclude that the moral hazard (and the ensuing adverse consequences) of naloxone use lacks empirical support.
Scope of Project
Subject Terms:
View help for Subject Terms
Naloxone;
Public health;
Opioids;
Moral hazard;
Replication
JEL Classification:
View help for JEL Classification
C31 Multiple or Simultaneous Equation Models: Cross-Sectional Models; Spatial Models; Treatment Effect Models; Quantile Regressions; Social Interaction Models
H51 National Government Expenditures and Health
I12 Health Behavior
I18 Health: Government Policy; Regulation; Public Health
K32 Energy, Environmental, Health, and Safety Law
C31 Multiple or Simultaneous Equation Models: Cross-Sectional Models; Spatial Models; Treatment Effect Models; Quantile Regressions; Social Interaction Models
H51 National Government Expenditures and Health
I12 Health Behavior
I18 Health: Government Policy; Regulation; Public Health
K32 Energy, Environmental, Health, and Safety Law
Manuscript Number:
View help for Manuscript Number
ECIN-Jan-2024-0045.R1
Geographic Coverage:
View help for Geographic Coverage
United States
Time Period(s):
View help for Time Period(s)
2005 – 2018
Methodology
Data Source:
View help for Data Source
- Healthcare Cost and Utilization Project (HCUP). 2024a. “Quarterly and Annual Rates for Opioid-Related Hospital Use.” Link
- Healthcare Cost and Utilization Project (HCUP). 2024b. “State Trends in Emergency Department Visits by Payer.” Link
- Doleac, Jennifer L., and Anita Mukherjee. 2022. “The Effects of Naloxone Access Laws on Opioid Abuse, Mortality, and Crime.” The Journal of Law and Economics 65 (2): 211–238. Supplementary data: Link
Related Publications
Published Versions
Report a Problem
Found a serious problem with the data, such as disclosure risk or copyrighted content? Let us know.
This material is distributed exactly as it arrived from the data depositor. ICPSR has not checked or processed this material. Users should consult the investigator(s) if further information is desired.