The experiment included 3,000 lower-income Americans aged 21 to 40, drawn from 19 counties in the Dallas and Chicago areas, with an average household income of just under $30,000. Two-thirds of the people were randomly assigned to the control group and paid $50 a month for their continued participation. The other 1,000 got $1,000 every month for three years.
Abstract:
We study the causal impacts of income on a rich array of employment outcomes, leveraging an experiment in which 1,000 low-income individuals were randomized into receiving $1,000 per month unconditionally for three years, with a control group of 2,000 participants receiving $50/month. We gather detailed survey data, administrative records, and data from a custom mobile phone app. The transfer caused total individual income to fall by about $1,500/year relative to the control group, excluding the transfers. The program resulted in a 2.0 percentage point decrease in labor market participation for participants and a 1.3-1.4 hour per week reduction in labor hours, with participants’ partners reducing their hours worked by a comparable amount. The transfer generated the largest increases in time spent on leisure, as well as smaller increases in time spent in other activities such as transportation and finances. Despite asking detailed questions about amenities, we find no impact on quality of employment, and our confidence intervals can rule out even small improvements. We observe no significant effects on investments in human capital, though younger participants may pursue more formal education. Overall, our results suggest a moderate labor supply effect that does not appear offset by other productive activities.
Abstract:
This paper provides new evidence on the causal relationship between income and health by studying a randomized experiment in which 1,000 low-income adults in the United States received $1,000 per month for three years, with 2,000 control participants receiving $50 over that same period. The cash transfer resulted in large but short-lived improvements in stress and food security, greater use of hospital and emergency department care, and increased medical spending of about $20 per month in the treatment relative to the control group. Our results also suggest that the use of other office-based care—particularly dental care—may have increased as a result of the transfer. However, we find no effect of the transfer across several measures of physical health as captured by multiple well-validated survey measures and biomarkers derived from blood draws. We can rule out even very small improvements in physical health and the effect that would be implied by the cross-sectional correlation between income and health lies well outside our confidence intervals. We also find that the transfer did not improve mental health after the first year and by year 2 we can again reject very small improvements. We also find precise null effects on self-reported access to health care, physical activity, sleep, and several other measures related to preventive care and health behaviors. Our results imply that more targeted interventions may be more effective at reducing health inequality between high- and low-income individuals, at least for the population and time frame that we study.
If people are going to the dentist more often (regardless of how it is funded), one would normally assume better health outcomes.
I don’t know what to make of that finding but my initial thought is that is that it may say more about the ineffectiveness of some healthcare that it does for any form of UBI.
Reading the PDF now to try and see if they address this issue.
Ultimately, our results suggest that policymakers interested in improving health and reducing health disparities specifically should consider prioritizing programs that target health directly, at least for populations similar to the one we study. Expanding Medicaid eligibility, reducing prescription drug costs, and making it easier for patients to make primary care appointments have all been shown via rigorous evaluation to meaningfully improve the health and healthcare access of low-income and otherwise vulnerable adult populations over a time period similar to or shorter than the one we study
So in other words, don’t give out cash but make sure everyone has access to Medicaid and cheaper drugs.
Or maybe people would like to do something with their life, other than work a back-breaking schedule to make a “JC” richer? Oh, sorry. Suggesting people could have any life goal other than enriching a “JC” is Communistical.
For sure, a “simple” tooth cleaning could lay the groundwork for future dental health…it did for me 50 odd years ago and in my early years as a dental student. The reason for that, of course, is that the knowledge base I acquired and started to apply to myself meant that I changed the habits that usually lead to cavities and periodontal disease. I started to practise what I subsequently preached, in other words.
Most folk don’t actually do that. I’ll leave it to others to 'fess up to how short a time after a treatment session with the practice hygienist and with their teeth barnacle free, their improved oral hygiene regimen lasts. Three weeks is usually the best one could hope for before it’s back to business as usual.
At current pricing, about 70 million low-income Americans can’t afford to see a dentist. If you’re on Medicaid, there’s a dental benefit, but very few dentists are willing to accept the Medicaid reimburement.
So yes, improving low-income folks access to dental care might be preferable to an unrestricted $1,000/month payment.
Back in 2000, economist Angus Deaton calculated that the average American family is paying an $8,000 annual “poll tax” in the form of price gouging and lack of competition in health care. No doubt it’s $10,000 or more today. Just not screwing people would be a big help.
@rainphakir …well, over a 3 year period of study in a population with an already sub optimal level of dental health, you’d see a difference. All things being equal, in the no care/intervention group, you’d be more likely to see larger deposits of calculus and untreated caries. With “normal” intervention, you might see much lighter deposits of calculus (especially in the weeks immediately after a dental visit), more restorations (in the restorable teeth) and possibly more missing teeth in lieu of the unrestorable rotten stumps.
However, that would all depend on the population under study and the starting point. Dental diseases aren’t inevitable for the most part, and cavities and periodontal disease don’t “just happen” but rather depend upon the care received during the 99.999% of time spent outside the dental office rather than in.
I wouldn’t do it but, given my experience over the past 40 years, I could easily avoid going to the dentist for 3 years without any noticeable change. Hygienists routinely find nothing to struggle with and I’ve had zero restorations because of new caries since about 1976 (only one “material failure” since).
At face value the results suggest that the relevant health issues facing the lower income household is not seriously impacted by an extra $1000/month. That is not enough money for example to cause a lifestyle change that reduces obesity. An extra dental exam cannot fully counter a diet with too much soda and sweets. Some financial pressure is relieved, but there is still the stress of higher crime rates, poorer schools, gangs, etc.
It suggests that Medicaid is good enough to deal with most immediate health issues and a $1,000/month is not enough to deal with longer term health issues.
We also find that the transfer did not improve mental health after the first year and by year 2 we can again reject very small improvements. We also find precise null effects on self-reported access to health care, physical activity, sleep, and several other measures related to preventive care and health behaviors. Our results imply that more targeted interventions may be more effective at reducing health inequality between high- and low-income individuals, at least for the population and time frame that we study.
We can see two billionaires Trump and Musk who show no signs of better mental health based on money. The result above should not surprise us.
I am actually doing some work this morning at Starbucks. The friend sitting opposite me at the table is a divorcee. His mental health is mixed since his divorce. He is very angry and upset. High stress stuff. He is well off and has a successful company. It does not help. A larger part of his life is in the blanker.
But if he lost his money and didn’t have a warm winter coat and his car was always breaking down then he would be even more unhappy. It that sense it does help.
