 Is Prenatal Care Really Ineffective? Or, is the 'Devil' in the Distribution?Partha Deb () and Karen Smith Conway No 02/2, Hunter College Department of Economics Working Papers from Hunter College: Department of Economics Abstract: It is widely believed that expanding prenatal care should improve infant health; yet research typically finds weak effects of prenatal care on infant health. We argue that there are two kinds of pregnancies, 'complicated' and 'normal' ones, and that combining these pregnancies, as past research does, may lead prenatal care to appear ineffective. Data from the NMIHS offers compelling evidence supporting our view. The standard 2SLS approach yields residuals that are obviously bimodal and prenatal care coefficients that are frequently insignificant. In contrast, estimating birth weights with a finite mixture model yields estimates that are much more robust and that clearly suggest that prenatal care has a consistent, substantial effect on ?normal? pregnancies. Our Monte Carlo experiment confirms that ignoring even a small proportion of ?complicated? pregnancies can lead the onset of prenatal care to appear unimportant. New Economics Papers: this item is included in nep-hea Downloads: (external link) Related works: Export reference: BibTeX RIS (EndNote, ProCite, RefMan) HTML/Text Persistent link: http://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:htr:hcecon:02/2 Access Statistics for this paper More papers in Hunter College Department of Economics Working Papers from Hunter College: Department of Economics |
Is your work missing from RePEc? Here is how to contribute.
Questions or problems? Check the EconPapers FAQ or send mail to .
EconPapers is hosted by the
Örebro University School of Business.