ECIN Replication Package for "A closer look at Doleac and Mukherjee (2022) and the effects of naloxone access laws on opioid ER admissions"

The replication materials provided here are associated with the study with the following abstract:<br><br>Doleac and Mukherjee (2022) conclude that broadening access to a life-saving drug – naloxone – does not reduce opioid-related mortality as the drug simultaneously encourages riskier drug use. I show issues with their data, design, and estimation methods. For example, their Google Search data has an unverifiable origin, the law timing is incorrect, and the statistical inference is invalid. Correcting these issues within a triple difference design shows that naloxone, contrary to their findings, does not increase ER opioid admissions. I conclude that the moral hazard (and the ensuing adverse consequences) of naloxone use lacks empirical support.

本处提供的复现材料与下述摘要所载研究相关：<br><br>多莱阿克与穆克吉（Doleac and Mukherjee，2022）的研究结论为，拓宽救命药物纳洛酮（naloxone）的可及性并不会降低阿片类药物相关死亡率，原因是该药物会同时加剧用药风险行为。本文作者指出其研究在数据、研究设计与估计方法上均存在问题：其一，其使用的谷歌搜索（Google Search）数据来源无法验证；其二，法律政策的时间节点设定有误；其三，统计推断存在缺陷。通过三重差分（triple difference）设计修正上述问题后，本文的分析结果显示，与多莱阿克和穆克吉的研究结论相反，纳洛酮并未增加急诊室（Emergency Room，简称ER）的阿片类药物相关入院人次。本文最终得出结论：纳洛酮使用所引发的道德风险（moral hazard）及其后续的不利后果，尚无经验证据支撑。