IESET.
Hypotheses·healthcare·health_savings_account_preventive_spending

Health-savings-account or catastrophic-plus-savings designs contain cost growth without worse age-adjusted mortality than comprehensive public-insurance peers.

INCONCLUSIVEengine/runs/health_savings_account_preventive_spending

INCONCLUSIVE_DATA_PENDING — treatment 'policy_or_institution_proxy' has no within-country variation under country fixed effects

confidence cueResult card produced; verdict unclassified.

policy briefCoverage too thin

In ordinary language

Does the healthcare rule being tested improve access, cost, or outcomes for patients, or does it mainly shift pressure around the system?

plain answer

This test cannot make a firm call yet. treatment 'policy_or_institution_proxy' has no within-country variation under country fixed effects

why it matters

This matters because healthcare claims should change belief only when they survive a pre-declared empirical test.

how the test works

It compares 30 country or place units from 1980 to 2023, using a panel fe design, with fixed effects for country and year.

what was measured
What changed
  • Policy or institution proxy
What we checked
  • Primary sectoral outcome
what this does not prove

A single test is not the whole truth. It narrows the claim under a specific sample, time period, and method. Strong policy conclusions need the pattern to survive nearby tests, alternative data, and serious objections.

verification

No evidence packet has been generated yet.

Results

engine/runs/health_savings_account_preventive_spending
1007550250198020022023USAGBRCANAUSNZLDEUFRA
illustrative sketch · run pending
No coefficients yet. When the model fires, this chart will show primary_sectoral_outcome across 30 sampled countries over 1980–2023.
The shapes above are stylised — none of the lines are real data.
Placeholder for health_savings_account_preventive_spending. Published chart will be generated from engine/runs/health_savings_account_preventive_spending/chart_data.json.

Who has skin in the game — schools predicting on this

3 schools list this hypothesis as a test of their position. The chips below are school-level scoreboard outcomes, not a second hypothesis verdict.

hypothesis verdict vs scoreboard outcome

The banner verdict judges this hypothesis as written. The scoreboard asks whether each school's polarity-corrected prediction was right. Raw status is not a school win: SUPPORTED supports schools that needed SUPPORTED, but refutes schools that needed REFUTED.

Chicago School Monetarismwins if SUPPORTEDpartial/no-callClassical Liberalwins if SUPPORTEDpartial/no-callEmpirical Pragmatist (the framework's house position)wins if SUPPORTEDpartial/no-call

Pre-registration

pre-registered
first-spec commit 4467b9f · 2026-05-02T22:38:16Z
run generated · 2026-06-29T17:53:09Z

Health-savings-account or catastrophic-plus-savings designs contain cost growth without worse age-adjusted mortality than comprehensive public-insurance peers.

Falsification criterion — what would disprove this

set before the run · honoured after

This hypothesis is considered falsified if:

SUPPORTED if the treatment coefficient has the predicted sign at p<0.10. REFUTED if the opposite sign is significant at p<0.10. Otherwise PARTIAL.

formal test & threshold
test:      panel_fe_health_savings_account_preventive_spending
threshold: p<0.10 with pre-registered sign

Method

Template
panel_fe
Fixed effects
country, year
Clustering
country
Sample
30 countries · 1980 – 2023
Evidence type
associational

Proxy-first TWFE screen; upgrade to bespoke replication when exact sector datasets are fetched.

Data

VariableSourceTransform
primary_sectoral_outcome
outcome
world_bank_wdi:SH.XPD.CHEX.GD.ZStier 2
level_or_growth_proxy
policy_or_institution_proxy
treatment
constructed:1 for SGP from 1984 onward; USA from 2003 onwardtier 5
indicator_or_level
log_gdp_pc
control
world_bank_wdi:NY.GDP.PCAP.KDtier 2
log
rule_of_law
control
wgi:RL.ESTtier 4
level

● ready  · ● pending  · ● reconstruct-needed

Detailed result card

Result card — health_savings_account_preventive_spending

Verdict: INCONCLUSIVE_DATA_PENDING — treatment 'policy_or_institution_proxy' has no within-country variation under country fixed effects

Pre-registration

  • Claim: Health-savings-account or catastrophic-plus-savings designs contain cost growth without worse age-adjusted mortality than comprehensive public-insurance peers.
  • Falsification rule: SUPPORTED if the treatment coefficient has the predicted sign at p<0.10. REFUTED if the opposite sign is significant at p<0.10. Otherwise PARTIAL.
  • Falsification test: panel_fe_health_savings_account_preventive_spending

Estimate

  • Error: treatment 'policy_or_institution_proxy' has no within-country variation under country fixed effects

Variables resolved

  • world_bank_wdi:SH.XPD.CHEX.GD.ZS → primary_sectoral_outcome (outcome, publisher=world_bank_wdi, n=4811)
  • constructed: 1 for SGP from 1984 onward; USA from 2003 onward → policy_or_institution_proxy (treatment, publisher=constructed, n=1320)
  • world_bank_wdi:NY.GDP.PCAP.KD → log_gdp_pc (controls, publisher=world_bank_wdi, n=12104)
  • wgi:RL.EST → rule_of_law (controls, publisher=wgi, n=5296)

Generated by scripts/run_panel_fe.py at 2026-06-29T17:53:09+00:00

Strongest opposing argument

Every hypothesis ships with its charitable opposing argument. The framework earns credibility by handling objections at their strongest, not weakest.

Authored framework. Read the transparency note.