Table 8.

On-ramp effect estimates, robustness checks.

Linear probability model (DV=Medicaid participation)

	Unweighted	Drop SSI recipients	Drop respondents with any assets	All ACS respondents with income <= 100% FPG	All ACS respondents with income <= 150% FPG
	(1)	(2)	(3)	(4)	(5)
Age 65 x Post 2015 x Expansion	0.013	0.054**	0.047**	0.034	0.042***
	(0.019)	(0.021)	(0.020)	(0.023)	(0.014)
$\stackrel{\_}{Y}$, Pre, exp.	0.417	0.319	0.441	0.438	0.372
Implied effect size	3.1%	16.9%	10.7%	7.8%	11.3%
N	51,314	43,900	46,818	66,662	128,164
	Drop states that had coverage for childless adults in the pre period	Drop early expansion states	Drop states with mid-year expansions	Keep treatment states with lowest pre-period dual enrollment
	(6)	(7)	(8)	(9)
Age 65 x Post 2015 x Expansion	0.028	0.053**	0.040*	0.073**
	(0.018)	(0.024)	(0.021)	(0.034)
$\stackrel{\_}{Y}$, Pre, exp.	0.411	0.425	0.432	0.290
Implied effect size	6.8%	12.5%	9.3%	25.2%
N	46,038	38,015	48,122	23,994

Notes: All samples consist of respondents to the 2010-17 ACS who are age 65 or age 68-69 and residing in states other than those that had Medicaid expansions in 2015-2017 (i.e., other than Pennsylvania, Indiana, Alaska, Montana, and Louisiana). In columns (4) and (5), the samples are defined from all ACS respondents who reside in the community and meet the income restrictions shown. The samples in columns (1)-(3) and (6)-(9) are defined from the baseline sample, which further restricts the sample to include only those who are income-eligible for Medicaid according to the criteria in their state of residence. Column (6) excludes respondents in the District of Columbia, Delaware, Massachusetts, New York, and Vermont because these states had coverage for childless adults prior to 2014 (as in Miller and Wherry, 2017 and Ghosh et al., 2019). Column (7) excludes respondents in California, Connecticut, the District of Columbia, Massachusetts, Minnesota, New Jersey, and Washington (as in Frean et al., 2017). Column (8) excludes respondents in Michigan, New Hampshire, Indiana, Louisiana, and Alaska. In column (9), the treatment group is comprised of residents of Alaska, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Iowa, Montana, New Hampshire, North Dakota, and Ohio. All models also include the controls reported in the baseline specification shown in Table 7, column 1. Sample weights are used (except in column 1). Standard errors clustered by state are reported in parentheses. Statistical significance is indicated by

^***for the .01 level,

^**for the .05 level and

^*for the .10 level.