Table 6.

Estimates of treatment effect (β₁) for different bandwidths

	Cut-off point
Sample	1–2	2–3	3–4	4–5
Bandwidth 1
N (Control - Treated)	201-65	59–72	65–111	110–200
Treatment effect	0.003	0.074***	0.023	0.007
SE	(0.018)	(0.024)	(0.022)	(0.017)
Bandwidth 2
N (Control - Treated)	308-125	119–134	120–176	203–298
Treatment effect	−0.015	0.060***	0.079***	−0.0160
SE	(0.013)	(0.016)	(0.016)	(0.013)
Bandwidth 4
N (Control - Treated)	547-252	231–250	257–333	388–518
Treatment effect	−0.004	0.023*	0.052***	0.023**
SE	(0.010)	(0.012)	(0.011)	(0.010)
Bandwidth 5
N (Control - Treated)	654-321	294–308	330–405	455–623
Treatment effect	0.002	0.009	0.033***	0.023**
SE	(0.009)	(0.011)	(0.010)	(0.009)
Bandwidth 6
N (Control - Treated)	764-384	357–377	385–514	547–744
Treatment effect	0.001	−0.007	0.007	0.016*
SE	(0.008)	(0.010)	(0.009)	(0.008)

Notes:

^{*, **, and ***}indicate treatment effects significantly different between treatment and control nursing homes at 90%, 95%, and 99% confidence levels, respectively.

Outcome is number of admissions. All models control for the running variable (centered at cut-off point), payer mix, chain status, hospital-based indicator, type of ownership, Herfindahl–Hirschman Index, Cognitive performance scores, occupancy rate, number of beds, demographics characteristics (education and race), and ratings in the quality and staffing domains.