16
Estimations – by maximum likelihood – are done separately for each state and each
month between December 2007 and February 2009. That is, we are for each month
m
and state
j
estimating the parameters (lowercase) in:
(1)
where
i
indexes individual and
if being prioritized, and
if not being prioritized.
The effect of being prioritized to either Sassam or AM is analyzed separately. The
increased probability (i.e., odds) of being in state
j
at month
m
if being prioritized is then
obtained as
).
The results from the analysis together with the mean prevalence for the treated and
controls of being in each of the states are displayed in Tables 3 and 4.
14
Both tables are
divided into three panels: The effects on sickness absence are displayed in panels A, the
effects on unemployment are displayed in panels B, and finally the effects on receiving DB
are displayed in the C panels.
Table 3 displays the effect of being prioritized to Sassam. From panel A we can see an
increased propensity to be sick absent throughout the whole period. During the first 3
months of 2008, the effect is significantly positive. We thus find a locking-in effect early
in the follow-up period, and in February (the peak) the odds of being sick absent are
about 4 (0.628/0.604-1) percent higher for those prioritized to Sassam.
From panel B we find that the effect on unemployment is somewhat negative in all but
1 month, but the impact is throughout small and non-significant.
15
Turning to the results in panel C, the reported flows to DB are very small in the first
few months after screening which means that the effect from being prioritized to Sassam
is imprecisely estimated. From July of 2008 onward, the impact from being prioritized to
Sassam is significantly positively associated with receiving DB. The risk of having DB is
14-22 percent higher from July 2008 forward if being prioritized. In the control group the
risk of having disability is monotonously increasing from 2.7 percent in July to 4.4 percent
in February 2008. The corresponding risk if being prioritized is also monotonously rising
from 3.3 percent to 5.2 percent. Note that the difference in prevalence between the
treated and controls is 0.8 percentage points, which is the same estimate obtained from
the reduced form of estimation displayed in column 3 in Table 2.
The results from being prioritized to AM are displayed in Table 4. The point estimates
are generally smaller than those in the Sassam experiment and no significant effects are
found in any of the states in any of the months. Comparing the results, this suggests that
the meeting with the caseworker screening the working capacity (Sassam) has a larger
impact on subsequent outcome than the meeting with the employer (AM). This result
could stem from different effects from the two treatments but also simply from the fact
that Sassam takes place before AM.
14
In the estimations, we control for covariates. The unadjusted results are qualitatively the same
and are presented in Table C1 in Appendix C.
15
Unemployment is defined as being registered at the public employment service as a job seeker.
This usually involves either being openly unemployed or a participant in a labor market program. A
small share could also be working, either temporarily or part time.
