Working Papers
"In Sickness and in Health: The Influence of State and Federal Health Insurance Coverage Mandates on Marriage of Young Adults in the USA" with Scott Barkowski. January 2018. Revise and Resubmit at Journal of Human Resources.
Abstract:
We study the interaction of state and federal dependent health insurance mandates on young adult marriages. Using a new dataset on state-level mandates, we show marriage restrictions of these laws reduced marriage rates by about two percentage points. When the Affordable Care Act (ACA) was enacted, its mandate ended marriage restrictions, encouraging marriage among those previously eligible for state mandates. However, among those ineligible for state mandates, it discouraged marrying to obtain insurance through spouses. The combination of these contrasting ACA effects eliminated the marriage rate gap. We also find these marriage effects resulted in corresponding impacts on out-of-wedlock births.
Working paper version here
Abstract:
We study the interaction of state and federal dependent health insurance mandates on young adult marriages. Using a new dataset on state-level mandates, we show marriage restrictions of these laws reduced marriage rates by about two percentage points. When the Affordable Care Act (ACA) was enacted, its mandate ended marriage restrictions, encouraging marriage among those previously eligible for state mandates. However, among those ineligible for state mandates, it discouraged marrying to obtain insurance through spouses. The combination of these contrasting ACA effects eliminated the marriage rate gap. We also find these marriage effects resulted in corresponding impacts on out-of-wedlock births.
Working paper version here
"Limited Legal Recourse for Older Women’s Intersectional Discrimination Under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act" March 2018. Accepted. The Elder Law Journal.
Abstract:
Older women compose a large share of labor force in the U.S. There are two federal statutes that can provide protection for older women against employers’ discriminatory behavior: the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA) and Title VII of the Civil Rights Act (Title VII). Theories and empirical evidence suggest that older women are more discriminated against for being old and female, but there is a concerning policy implication that current legislation does not provide adequate protection for older women. The main reason for this concern is that older women’s intersectional discrimination invokes age-plus-sex or sex-plus-age cause of action. However, the courts do not recognize this cause of action under the ADEA and they have mixed views on this issue under Title VII. This article discusses evidence of older women’s intersectional discrimination and the importance of recognizing this intersectionality in proof structure. It also reviews case laws and the effectiveness of the age discrimination laws on older women’s labor market outcomes. The findings indicate that the ADEA does not provide equal employment opportunities for older women. Older women’s legal recourse for their unique intersectional discrimination for being old and female is constrained under the ADEA and Title VII strictly due to legislative peculiarities in statutes intended to solve this exact problem.
Working paper version here
Abstract:
Older women compose a large share of labor force in the U.S. There are two federal statutes that can provide protection for older women against employers’ discriminatory behavior: the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA) and Title VII of the Civil Rights Act (Title VII). Theories and empirical evidence suggest that older women are more discriminated against for being old and female, but there is a concerning policy implication that current legislation does not provide adequate protection for older women. The main reason for this concern is that older women’s intersectional discrimination invokes age-plus-sex or sex-plus-age cause of action. However, the courts do not recognize this cause of action under the ADEA and they have mixed views on this issue under Title VII. This article discusses evidence of older women’s intersectional discrimination and the importance of recognizing this intersectionality in proof structure. It also reviews case laws and the effectiveness of the age discrimination laws on older women’s labor market outcomes. The findings indicate that the ADEA does not provide equal employment opportunities for older women. Older women’s legal recourse for their unique intersectional discrimination for being old and female is constrained under the ADEA and Title VII strictly due to legislative peculiarities in statutes intended to solve this exact problem.
Working paper version here
"Falling Between the Cracks: Discrimination Laws and Older Women" July 2018.
Abstract:
Theories and evidence suggest that older women may experience unique discrimination for being both old and female in the workplace. To provide remedy for this type of discrimination – known as intersectional discrimination – legal scholars argue that age and sex discrimination laws must be used jointly and acknowledge intersectional discrimination (age-plus-sex or sex-plus-age discrimination) as a separate cause of action. Nonetheless, in general, courts have declined to do so even though older women are protected under both age and sex discrimination laws. This raises a concern that age discrimination laws may be ineffective, or less effective in protecting older women. I test this implication by estimating the differential effect of age discrimination laws on labor market outcomes between older women and older men. My findings show that age discrimination laws did far less to improve labor market outcomes for older women than for older men. This may explain one reason for persistent discrimination against older women found in existing literature and supports the legal scholars’ argument that older women’s intersectional discrimination must be recognized as a separate cause of action.
Working paper version here
Abstract:
Theories and evidence suggest that older women may experience unique discrimination for being both old and female in the workplace. To provide remedy for this type of discrimination – known as intersectional discrimination – legal scholars argue that age and sex discrimination laws must be used jointly and acknowledge intersectional discrimination (age-plus-sex or sex-plus-age discrimination) as a separate cause of action. Nonetheless, in general, courts have declined to do so even though older women are protected under both age and sex discrimination laws. This raises a concern that age discrimination laws may be ineffective, or less effective in protecting older women. I test this implication by estimating the differential effect of age discrimination laws on labor market outcomes between older women and older men. My findings show that age discrimination laws did far less to improve labor market outcomes for older women than for older men. This may explain one reason for persistent discrimination against older women found in existing literature and supports the legal scholars’ argument that older women’s intersectional discrimination must be recognized as a separate cause of action.
Working paper version here
"A Reevaluation of the Effects of State and Federal Dependent Coverage Mandates on Health Insurance Coverage" with Scott Barkowski and Alex Ray. July 2018.
Abstract:
State governments have been passing laws mandating insurers to allow young adults to stay on their parents' health insurance plans past the age of 19 since the 1970s. These laws were intended to increase coverage, but research has been inconclusive on whether they were successful. We reconsider the issue with an improved approach featuring three key elements: a new, accurate dataset on state mandates; recognition that effects could differ greatly by age due to take up rate differences; and avoidance of endogenous characteristics when identifying mandate eligible young adults. We find the impact of the state mandates was concentrated among the 19 to 22 age group, for which dependent coverage increased sharply by about 6 percentage points. Overall coverage increased by almost 3 percentage points, with the difference explained by crowd out of public insurance. Crowd out of coverage through young adults own jobs was negligible. For those above age 22, we find little evidence of changes in coverage. We incorporate these insights into analysis of the Affordable Care Act (ACA) dependent coverage mandate, showing its effects were focused among those whom were previously ineligible for state mandates, or were eligible but older than 22. We argue the ACA's impact was broader because it had fewer eligibility conditions that implied parental dependence; young adults could be on their parents' insurance but still be relatively independent.
Working paper version here
Abstract:
State governments have been passing laws mandating insurers to allow young adults to stay on their parents' health insurance plans past the age of 19 since the 1970s. These laws were intended to increase coverage, but research has been inconclusive on whether they were successful. We reconsider the issue with an improved approach featuring three key elements: a new, accurate dataset on state mandates; recognition that effects could differ greatly by age due to take up rate differences; and avoidance of endogenous characteristics when identifying mandate eligible young adults. We find the impact of the state mandates was concentrated among the 19 to 22 age group, for which dependent coverage increased sharply by about 6 percentage points. Overall coverage increased by almost 3 percentage points, with the difference explained by crowd out of public insurance. Crowd out of coverage through young adults own jobs was negligible. For those above age 22, we find little evidence of changes in coverage. We incorporate these insights into analysis of the Affordable Care Act (ACA) dependent coverage mandate, showing its effects were focused among those whom were previously ineligible for state mandates, or were eligible but older than 22. We argue the ACA's impact was broader because it had fewer eligibility conditions that implied parental dependence; young adults could be on their parents' insurance but still be relatively independent.
Working paper version here