The Formation and Evolution of Physician Treatment Styles: An Application to Cesarean Sections

Small-area-variation studies have shown that physician treatment styles differ substantially both between and within markets, controlling for patient characteristics. Using a data set containing the universe of deliveries in Florida over a 12-year period with consistent physician identifiers and a rich set of patient characteristics, we examine why treatment styles differ across obstetricians at a point in time, and why styles change over time. We find that the variation in c-section rates across physicians within a market is two to three times greater than the variation between markets. Surprisingly, residency programs explain less than four percent of the variation between physicians in their risk-adjusted c-section rates, even among newly-trained physicians. Although we find evidence that physicians, especially relatively inexperienced ones, learn from their peers, they do not substantially revise their prior beliefs regarding how patients should be treated due to the local exchange of information. Our results indicate that physicians are not likely to converge over time to a community standard; thus, within-market variation in treatment styles is likely to persist.

Mergers and Acquisitions in the Pharmaceutical and Biotech Industries

This paper examines the determinants of M&A activity in the pharmaceutical-biotechnology industry and the effects of mergers using propensity scores to control for merger endogeneity. Among large firms, we find that mergers are a response to excess capacity due to anticipated patent expirations and gaps in a company's product pipeline. For small firms, mergers are primarily an exit strategy for firms in financial trouble, as indicated by low Tobin's q, few marketed products, and low cash-sales ratios. We find that it is important to control for a firm's prior propensity to merge. Firms with relatively high propensity scores experienced slower growth of sales, employees and R&D regardless of whether they actually merged, which is consistent with mergers being a response to distress. Controlling for a firm's merger propensity, large firms that merged experienced similar changes in enterprise value, sales, employees, and R&D relative to similar firms that did not merge. Merged firms had slower growth in operating profit in the third year following a merger. Thus mergers may be a response to trouble, but they are not an effective solution for large firms. Neither mergers nor propensity scores have any effect on subsequent growth in enterprise value. This confirms that market valuations on average yield unbiased predictions of the effects of mergers. Small firms that merged experienced slower R&D growth relative to similar firms that did not merge, suggesting that post-merger integration may divert cash from R&D.

Is the Roberts Court Especially Activist? A Study of Invalidating (and Upholding) Federal, State, and Local Laws

Is the Roberts Court especially activist or, depending on your preference, especially lacking in judicial self-restraint? If we define judicial self-restraint as a reluctance to declare legislative action unconstitutional and confine the analysis to the 1969-2009 Terms, the answer is no. The Roberts Justices, just as their immediate predecessors, are neither uniform activists nor committed restraintists. Rather, the Justices\u27 votes to strike (and uphold) statutes seem to reflect their political preferences toward the policy content of the law, and not an underlying preference for restraint (or activism). In a nutshell, liberal Justices tend to invalidate conservative laws and conservative Justices, liberal laws. This holds regardless of whether we examine all the Justices\u27 votes simultaneously or each Justice individually

Does Public Opinion Influence the Supreme Court?: Probably Yes (But We’re Not Sure Why)

http://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/116098/1/pennConLaw11.pd

Statistical Inference

http://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/116264/1/si05.pd

Does the U.S. Constitution Need an Equal Rights Amendment?

For over 3 decades, those engaged in the battle over the Equal Rights Amendment (ERA), along with many scholarly commentators, have argued that ratification of the amendment will lead U.S. courts (1) to elevate the standard of law they now use to adjudicate claims of sex discrimination, which, in turn, could lead them (2) to find in favor of parties claiming a denial of their rights. We investigate both possibilities via an examination of constitutional sex discrimination litigation in the 50 states—over a third of which have adopted ERAs. Employing methods especially developed for this investigation, we find no direct effect of the ERA on case outcomes. But we do identify an indirect effect: the presence of an ERA significantly increases the likelihood of a court applying a higher standard of law, which in turn significantly increases the likelihood of a decision favoring the equality claim

Mergers and Acquisitions in the Pharmaceutical and Biotech Industries

We examine the determinants and effects of M&A activity in the pharmaceutical/ biotechnology industry using SDC data on 383 firms from 1988 to 2001. For large firms, mergers are a response to expected excess capacity due to patent expirations and gaps in a firm’s product pipeline. For small firms, mergers are primarily an exit strategy in response to financial trouble (low Tobin’s q; few marketed products, low cash–sales ratios). In estimating effects of mergers, we use a propensity score to control for selection based on observed characteristics. Controlling for merger propensity, large firms that merged experienced a similar change in enterprise value, sales, employees, and R&D, and had slower growth in operating profit, compared with similar firms that did not merge. Thus mergers may be a response to trouble, but they are not a solution