Shared Responsibility Payment Outreach Pilot

Last registered on November 27, 2019

View Trial History

Pre-Trial

Trial Information

General Information

Title

Shared Responsibility Payment Outreach Pilot

RCT ID

AEARCTR-0005119

Initial registration date

November 26, 2019

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

November 27, 2019, 10:43 AM EST

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

Locations

Country

United States of America

Region

Primary Investigator

Name

Jacob Goldin

Affiliation

Stanford

Contact Primary Investigator

Other Primary Investigator(s)

PI Name

Janet McCubbin

PI Affiliation

Treasury

Contact Investigator

PI Name

Ithai Lurie

PI Affiliation

Treasury

Contact Investigator

Additional Trial Information

Status

Completed

Start date

2016-11-25

End date

2017-01-15

Keywords

Health

Additional Keywords

Taxation, Health Insurance

JEL code(s)

Secondary IDs

Abstract

We evaluate a randomized pilot study in which the IRS sent informational letters to 3.9 million taxpayers who paid a tax penalty for lacking health insurance coverage under the Affordable Care Act. Drawing on administrative data, we study the effect of the intervention on taxpayers’ subsequent health insurance enrollment and mortality.

External Link(s)

Registration Citation

Citation

Goldin, Jacob, Ithai Lurie and Janet McCubbin. 2019. "Shared Responsibility Payment Outreach Pilot." AEA RCT Registry. November 27. https://doi.org/10.1257/rct.5119-1.0

Sponsors & Partners

Experimental Details

Interventions

Intervention(s)

Intervention Start Date

2016-11-25

Intervention End Date

2017-01-15

Primary Outcomes

Primary Outcomes (end points)

Health insurance coverage, health outcomes (i.e., mortality).

Primary Outcomes (explanation)

Secondary Outcomes

Secondary Outcomes (end points)

Secondary Outcomes (explanation)

Experimental Design

The pilot intervention we study took the form of an informational letter sent to taxpayers from the IRS. The letter informed recipients that they had paid a penalty in 2015; provided information about the penalty and plan costs for 2017; and provided instructions for recipients to investigate the availability of Exchange and Medicaid coverage through healthcare.gov. Individuals in the sample were randomly assigned to receive a letter (86%) or to a control group (14%). One letter, addressed to the taxpayer(s), was sent per return. Hence, randomization was conducted at the household level. Households were block-randomized based on age and gender of primary filer, marital status, number of dependents, income, the presence of self-employment income, 2014 penalty status, and whether the taxpayer's state expanded Medicaid and/or participated in the federal marketplace during 2017.

The treatment arms varied in either the content or the timing of the intervention. Households selected to receive a letter were randomly assigned across several treatment arms. The baseline treatment contained a personalized estimate of the taxpayer’s potential 2017 penalty (based on 2015 income and household composition) and was mailed in mid-January 2017, approximately two weeks before the close of the open enrollment period. A “non-personalized” treatment variant was identical to the baseline treatment except that the letter provided generic information about the 2017 penalty formula rather than a personalized estimate. An “exemption information” treatment variant was identical to the baseline treatment, but included additional information about penalty exemptions for which the taxpayer might apply. An “early mailing” treatment variant was identical in content to the baseline treatment but was mailed in late November 2016, near the start of the open enrollment period. Based on operational considerations, approximately 21 percent of the treatment sample was assigned to the early mailing variant. The remainder of the treatment sample was randomly divided among the baseline treatment and the other two variants in equal proportions. Finally, the baseline treatment and each of the three variants were randomly divided into two even-size groups, one of which had a Spanish-language translation printed on the reverse side of the letter and one of which did not.

Experimental Design Details

Randomization Method

By Treasury using a computer

Randomization Unit

Tax return

Was the treatment clustered?

Yes

Experiment Characteristics

Sample size: planned number of clusters

Households were block-randomized based on age and gender of primary filer, marital status, number of dependents, income, the presence of self-employment income, 2014 penalty status, and whether the taxpayer's state expanded Medicaid and/or participated in the federal marketplace during 2017.

Sample size: planned number of observations

8.9 million individuals corresponding to 4.5 million tax returns.

Sample size (or number of clusters) by treatment arms

8.9 million individuals corresponding to 4.5 million tax returns.

Minimum detectable effect size for main outcomes (accounting for sample design and clustering)

Supporting Documents and Materials

IRB