Ethnic Discrimination in U.S. Healthcare Hiring: Identification from H-1B Cap-Exempt Hospitals

Last registered on August 27, 2026

Pre-Trial

Trial Information

General Information

Title
Ethnic Discrimination in U.S. Healthcare Hiring: Identification from H-1B Cap-Exempt Hospitals
RCT ID
AEARCTR-0019358
Initial registration date
August 23, 2026

Initial registration date is when the trial was registered.

It corresponds to when the registration was submitted to the Registry to be reviewed for publication.

First published
August 27, 2026, 12:15 PM EDT

First published corresponds to when the trial was first made public on the Registry after being reviewed.

Locations

There is information in this trial unavailable to the public. Use the button below to request access.

Request Information

Primary Investigator

Affiliation

Other Primary Investigator(s)

PI Affiliation
ArchBridge
PI Affiliation
Berkeley

Additional Trial Information

Status
In development
Start date
2026-08-24
End date
2027-12-20
Secondary IDs
Prior work
This trial does not extend or rely on any prior RCTs.
Abstract
Ethnic discrimination is a persistent driver of labor market exclusion for workers from historically underrepresented racial and ethnic groups in the United States. For Asian and Hispanic applicants, however, name-based audit estimates conflate two distinct channels: direct ethnic bias and employer beliefs about visa cost. The channels imply different policy remedies, and existing designs cannot tell them apart. We propose a pilot study for a 15,000 resume correspondence audit in US healthcare hiring that recovers ethnic discrimination net of immigration-status effects. We exploit a sharp institutional discontinuity: nonprofit hospitals affiliated with universities are exempt from the H-1B cap and lottery, while otherwise identical nonprofit hospitals are bound by it. We randomly assign immigration status (citizen, lawful permanent resident, F-1 student) and name-signaled ethnicity (White, Hispanic, Indian, Filipino) within cap-subject and cap- exempt hospital strata. We identify ethnic discrimination cleanly within the cap-exempt stratum and decompose its mediation by visa friction in the cap-subject stratum. This pilot will 1. Validate resume signals including names and 2. Explore the feasibility of design features including number of positions available, power analysis calculations given realized response rates, and whether our hypothetical candidates are appropriate matches for our targeted positions.
External Link(s)

Registration Citation

Citation
Cejka, Tim, Joanna Lahey and Vitor Melo. 2026. "Ethnic Discrimination in U.S. Healthcare Hiring: Identification from H-1B Cap-Exempt Hospitals." AEA RCT Registry. August 27. https://doi.org/10.1257/rct.19358-1.0
Sponsors & Partners

There is information in this trial unavailable to the public. Use the button below to request access.

Request Information
Experimental Details

Interventions

Intervention(s)
We will submit fictitious applications across distinct healthcare-sector vacancies posted on Indeed.com and individual hospital websites over a 17-month field period, for entry- to early-career positions in registered nursing, physical therapy, and clinical data science. Each vacancy receives exactly one application. Vacancies will be divided equally between two strata: hospitals subject to the H-1B cap and lottery (cap-subject), and hospitals exempt from the cap by virtue of university affiliation or qualifying nonprofit/government research status (cap-exempt). Within each stratum, we will stratify further on bed count, metropolitan-area characteristics, and posting recency to ensure the two arms are comparable on observable demand for labor.

Intervention Start Date
2026-08-24
Intervention End Date
2027-12-20

Primary Outcomes

Primary Outcomes (end points)
Call-backs and positive call-backs (positive call-backs is a subset of call-backs)
Primary Outcomes (explanation)
N/A

Secondary Outcomes

Secondary Outcomes (end points)
Response quality (substantive interview-request vs. boilerplate auto-reply, coded by LLM-assisted classification with human validation on a 10% audit sample); response latency; explicit mention of visa-sponsorship questions in the response text
Secondary Outcomes (explanation)

Experimental Design

Experimental Design
Treatments
At each vacancy, we orthogonally randomize two applicant attributes:
Immigration status: U.S. citizen, or F-1 international-student visa holder will be directly signaled on each resume for all applicants. Each vacancy is assigned to one immigration cell with equal probability.
Name-signaled ethnicity: White, Hispanic, Indian, or Filipino. Each vacancy is assigned to one ethnicity cell with equal probability. The four arms reflect the largest ethnic groups whose names plausibly co-signal immigration-cost concerns to U.S. healthcare employers, and the inclusion of Filipino applicants is motivated by their disproportionate representation in the U.S. nursing workforce.
Education, work history, GPA, and skills are drawn from a curated repository of real healthcare resumes. Education will be recent or upcoming graduates of undergraduate programs from US institutions. White-signaled names list English fluency and some will list Spanish; minority-signaled names list English plus one native language, to neutralize a common confound in audit studies. We will use only female names for nursing positions, but for the pilot will include both male and female names for physical therapy and clinical data science applications. Because we will be submitting multiple resumes to each hospital (though only one resume per open position), we will randomize resume inputs such that the same hospital does not get the same verbiage for different candidates.
Identification strategy
Two contrasts are identified by random assignment within hospital strata:
Citizen vs F-1 visa: visa-related friction, holding ethnicity constant.
White-signaled vs. minority-signaled within each visa cell: ethnic discrimination, holding visa status constant.
For each focal ethnic minority group e ∈ {Hispanic, Indian, Filipino}, we estimate the following linear probability model on a subsample restricted to White-signaled (the reference category) and ethnicity-e-signaled applications:
Yi​ = α + β1Ethnicityi + β2Foreigni + β3Exempti + β4(Ethnicityi x Foreigni) + β5(Ethnicityi x Exempti)
+β6(Foreigni x Exempti) + β7(Ethnicityi x Foreigni x Exempti) + Zi'γ + εi,
In this specification, Ethnicityi indicates an applicant assigned a name signaling minority status e; Foreigni denotes the assignment of an F-1 international-student signal (relative to the U.S. Citizen reference group); and Exempti identifies vacancies within the cap-exempt hospital stratum. The vector Zi incorporates hospital-level controls such as bed count, rural-urban designation, and system affiliation. In expanded specifications, we include resume-level randomization attributes, local labor-market indicators, and state and posting-month fixed effects. We cluster standard errors at the hospital level to account for within-institution correlation.
Direct ethnic discrimination is isolated within the cap-exempt stratum, where the principal sponsorship friction (the H-1B lottery) is absent and the hiring decision is administratively close to that for a citizen. For Citizen applicants in these hospitals, the ethnic-name penalty is recovered by β1 + β5; for F-1 applicants, it is β1 + β4 + β5 + β7. A significant negative value for either sum constitutes evidence of direct bias that cannot be explained by visa-related beliefs. The visa-cost channel is further identified by the stratum contrast in the F-1 penalty: this difference equals β6 for White applicants and β6 + β7 for minority applicants. Thus, the triple-interaction coefficient β7 provides a direct test of whether immigration-policy burdens fall disproportionately on minority applicants relative to White peers. Finally, as a placebo test of our identifying assumption, we expect β5 (which captures the ethnic-penalty differential between cap-exempt and cap-subject hospitals among Citizens) to be statistically indistinguishable from zero, since U.S. Citizens require no sponsorship in either stratum; any divergence would suggest unobserved hospital-level heterogeneity unrelated to the H-1B regime, assuming no crowd-out.
Intuitively, the cap-subject vs. cap-exempt hospital contrast is what isolates ethnic discrimination from visa cost. In cap-subject hospitals, hiring a non-citizen entails a lottery, attorney costs, and timeline risk; in cap-exempt hospitals, an H-1B sponsorship can be filed at any time without lottery, and the hiring decision is administratively closer to that for a citizen. The difference-in-differences of the ethnic-name penalty across hospital strata, within visa cells, is our primary causal estimand for ethnic discrimination net of visa cost. Relative to Oreopoulos (2011), this strata contrast is the source of identification absent in his Canadian design.
One primary concern is that cap-subject and cap-exempt hospitals may differ along other characteristics that may also affect differences in ethnic and racial hiring. We address this concern in several ways. First, we will match cap-subject hospitals along observables such as size and non-profit status. Second, we collect additional observable information on hospitals and their areas to use as controls in some specifications. Third, we are using the difference-in-differences strategy described above to compare outcomes within visa cells.
A secondary concern is that our setting focuses on a specific population (working-age applicants in the US with college degrees) within a specific sector (healthcare). We view this focus as a feature of the design, not a limitation. Foreign-born workers are substantially overrepresented in US healthcare, and immigrant labor has been shown to materially raise staffing levels and improve patient outcomes in long-term care (Grabowski, Gruber, & McGarry, 2025), so hiring decisions in this sector have direct downstream consequences for the low-income and majority-minority communities that depend on safety-net hospitals. The ethnic groups we target are themselves marginalized: US-born Hispanic Americans (predominantly of Mexican descent) and Filipinos face among the highest poverty risks in the United States. Our design captures both the ethnic discrimination they experience regardless of citizenship and the additional discrimination from being perceived as immigrant, since employers may read Hispanic-signaled and Filipino-signaled names as foreign regardless of actual visa status. Finally, US healthcare is the rare setting in which this natural experiment is available: cap-exempt and cap-subject hospitals are comparable on most other dimensions relevant to hiring, which is generally not true of cap-exempt and cap-subject firms in other H-1B-exposed sectors such as technology or finance.
Experimental Design Details
Not available
Randomization Method
Randomization will be done in office by a computer using a resume randomizer.
Randomization Unit
Results will be clustered at the firm (hospital) level to account for within-institution correlation.
Was the treatment clustered?
Yes

Experiment Characteristics

Sample size: planned number of clusters
up to 491 treatment clusters (the full universe of Non-profit AND major affiliation; not all will be hiring)
up to 4,861 control clusters (will be matched a-priori or ex-post to treatment clusters depending on job availability)
Sample size: planned number of observations
For the full study, we will use 15,000 observations. For the pilot, we will determine the full pilot sample size after an initial pilot of 400 applications.
Sample size (or number of clusters) by treatment arms
We do not know-- the pilot will help determine reasonable numbers.
Minimum detectable effect size for main outcomes (accounting for sample design and clustering)
This study is a pilot and as such, the focus is on determining which of our research decisions are most viable. That said, we provide the following information about power calculations. We assume a baseline callback rate of approximately 13% (with sensitivity tables in the pre-analysis plan for rates between 8% and 18%). This is a reasonable assumption for positions that require a college education (Nunley et al. 2015), but our pilot study will test its feasibility. Should each of our ethnic groups and positions be viable, and assuming similar treatment effects across the different job positions (something we will test), our back of the envelope power calculations suggest that 15,000 applications should be sufficient for the full sample. With 15,000 applications distributed across 24 ethnicity x visa x stratum cells (4 x 3 x 2), each cell contains roughly 625 applications. For binary outcomes around p = 0.13, this yields a minimum detectable effect (MDE) of approximately 3.3 percentage points within-cell at 80% power and a = 0.05, comfortably below the 4-6 percentage point ethnic-name penalties documented in Bertrand & Mullainathan (2004) and Kline, Rose & Walters (2022). For the difference-in-differences contrast across hospital strata (our primary estimand for ethnic discrimination net of visa cost), pooling across visa cells yields a within-ethnic-group MDE of approximately 2.6 percentage points. Because each vacancy receives a single application, identification is between-vacancy within strata, and we will use strata-level fixed effects (occupation x metropolitan area x bed-count band x posting-month) rather than vacancy fixed effects in the main specifications. The pre-analysis plan reports robustness to alternative fixed-effect specifications and a detailed power table by sub-population, with particular attention to Indian and Filipino applicants in cap-subject hospitals, where the H-1B-induced cost is most binding.
IRB

Institutional Review Boards (IRBs)

IRB Name
Berkeley
IRB Approval Date
2026-03-18
IRB Approval Number
2026-01-19298