A Preliminary Investigation of The Effects of Restrictions on Medicaid Funding for Abortions on Female STD Rates

Sen, Bisakha (2003): A Preliminary Investigation of The Effects of Restrictions on Medicaid Funding for Abortions on Female STD Rates. Published in: Health Economics , Vol. 12, No. 3 (2003): pp. 453-464.

Abstract

There is evidence in the economic literature that restrictions on Medicaid funding for abortion reduces the demand for abortion. The unresolved question is whether such restrictions also increase safe sex (that is, pregnancy avoidance) behavior among women. This study explores that issue using state-level gonorrhea rates among women for 1975-95. The rationale is that sexual behavior that leads to greater risk of accidental pregnancies is likely to be highly correlated with sexual behavior leading to greater risk of STD infection. Since gonorrhea has an incubation period of about a week, and is transmitted almost exclusively through sexual intercourse, a change in sexual behavior should soon be followed by a change in gonorrhea rates. The study used a partial adjustment model with lagged dependent variables estimated using Arellano-Bond’s GMM method. Results fail to find any statistically significant evidence that Medicaid funding restrictions are effective in reducing gonorrhea rates. This finding is robust to a variety of alternate specifications and tests. This suggests that restrictions on Medicaid funding for abortion fail to promote safe sex behavior among women.

• Item Type: MPRA Paper
• Institution: University of Alabama at Birmingham
• Language: English
• Keywords: STD; Medicaid Restrictions; Abortion; Women
• Subjects: I - Health, Education, and Welfare > I1 - Health > I10 - General

References

1. Scribner R. A., Cohen, D. A and Farley, T. A. “A Geographic Relation between Alcohol Availability and Gonorrhea Rates.” Sexually Transmitted Disease, 1998; 25: 544-548. 2. Chesson H., Harrison, P. and Kassler, W. “Sex Under the Influence: The Effect of Alcohol Policy on Sexually Transmitted Disease Rates in the United States,” Journal of Law and Economics, 2000; 43: 215-238. 3. Blank R.M., George C. and. London R.A. . “State Abortion Rates: The Impact Of Policies, Providers, And Economic Environment.” Journal of Health Economics, 1996; 15: 513-553. 4. Levine P., Trainor A., and Zimmerman D.J.. “The Effect Of Medicaid Abortion Funding Restrictions On Abortions, Pregnancies And Births.” Journal of Health Economics, 1996; 15: 555-578. 5. Haas-Wilson D. “The Impact of State Abortion Restrictions on Minor’s Demand for Abortions.” Journal of Human Resources , 1996; 31: 140-158. 6. Kane T.J. and Staiger D. “Teen Motherhood and Abortion Access.” Quarterly Journal of Economics, 1996; 111: 467-506. 7. Matthews, S., Ribar D. and Wilhelm M. “The Effects of Economic Conditions and Access to reproductive Health Services on State Abortion Rates and Birthrates.” Family Planning Perspectives , 1997; 29 : 52-60. 8. Lundberg, S. and Plotnick R.D. “Adolescent Premarital Childbearing: Do Economic incentives Matter?” Journal of Labor Economics, 1995; 13: 177-200. 9. Evans M.I., Gleicher E., Feingold E., Johnson M.P. and Sokol R.J.. “The Fiscal Impact of the Medicaid Abortion Funding Ban in Michigan.” Obstetrics and Gynecology , 1993; 82: 555-560. 10. Currie, J., Nixon L. and Cole N. “Restrictions on Medicaid Funding of Abortion: Effects on Birth Weight and Pregnancy Resolutions.” Journal of Human Resources, 1996; 31: 159-188. 11. Tomal, A. “Parental Involvement Laws and Minor and Non-minor Teen Abortion and Birth Rates.” Journal of Family and Economic Issues, 1999; 20: 149-162. 12. Cook P.J.,. Parnell A.M,. Moore M.J and Pagnini D. “The Effects of Short-term Variations in Abortion Funding on pregnancy Outcomes.” Journal of Health Economics, 1999; 18: 241-257. 13. Argys, L.M., Averett S.L and Rees D.I. “The Impact of Economic incentives on Teenage Sexual Activity and Contraceptive Use.” Working Paper, Department of Economics, University of Colorado at Denver, 1999. 14. Sen, B. “Pre-Marital Sexual Behavior And Contraception Use Among Adolescents: Do Family Background And Economic Incentives Matter?” Presented at the ‘NLSY97 Early Results Conference’, Bureau of Labor Statistics, Washington DC, November, 1999. 15. Levine, P. “The Sexual Activity and Birth Control use of American Teenagers.” In Jonathan Gruber ed. Risky Behavior Among American Youth: An Economic Analysis. University of Chicago Press, 2001. 16. Sollom, T. “State Actions on Reproductive Health Issues in 1994.” Family Planning Perspectives, 1995; 27 : 83-87. 17. Sollom, T. “State Actions on Reproductive Health Issues in 1996.” Family Planning Perspectives, 1997; 29 : 35-40. 18. Nickell, S. “Biases in Dynamic Models with Fixed Effects,” Econometrica, 1981; 49: 1417-1426. 19. Ridder, G. and Wansbeek T.J. “Dynamic Models for Panel data,” in R. van der Ploeg, ed. Advanced Lectures in Quantitative Economics. Academic Press, New York, 1990. 20. Kiviet, J.F. “On Bias, Inconsistency and Efficiency of Some Estimators in Dynamic Panel Data Models,” Journal of Econometrics, 1995; 68 : 53-78. 21. Arellano, M. and Bond S. “Some Tests of Specification for Panel Data: Monte Carlo Evidence and An Application to Employment Equations,” Review of Economic Studies, 1991; 58: 277-297.