Bio


Danea Horn is a postdoctoral scholar in Economics at Stanford University. She earned her doctorate in Agriculture and Resource Economics from the University of California, Davis in 2021. Prior to that, Danea wrote a book, Chronic Resilience, which was a personal examination of the patient experience. The book tells stories of resilience that demonstrate how seemingly individual experiences with the health care system are fundamentally connected. With an applied economist’s toolkit, Danea's research now focuses on pharmaceutical pricing, health innovation and resource constraints.

Stanford Advisors


All Publications


  • Incomplete program take-up during a crisis: evidence from the COVID-19 shock in one U.S. state. International tax and public finance Bitler, M., Cook, J., Horn, D., Seegert, N. 2022: 1-22

    Abstract

    In the U.S., means-tested cash, in-kind assistance, and social insurance are part of a patchwork safety net, often run with substantial involvement of state and local governments. Take-up-participation among eligible persons in this system is incomplete. A large literature points to both neo-classical and behavioral science explanations for low take-up. In this paper, we explore the response of the safety net to COVID-19 using newly-collected survey data from one U.S. state-Utah. The rich Utah data ask about income and demographics as well as use of three social safety net programs which collectively provided a large share of relief spending: the Unemployment Insurance program, a social insurance program providing workers who lose their jobs with payments; the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, which provides benefit cards for purchasing unprepared food at retailers; and Economic Impact Payments, which provided relatively universal relief payments to individuals. The data do not suffice to determine eligibility for all of the programs, so we focus on participation per capita. These data also collect information on several measures of hardship and why individuals did not receive any of the 3 programs. We test for explanations that differentiate need, lack of information, transaction costs/administrative burden, stigma, and lack of eligibility. We use measures of hardship to assess targeting. We find that lack of knowledge as well as difficulty applying, and stigma in the UI program each play a role as reasons for not participating in the programs.

    View details for DOI 10.1007/s10797-022-09760-y

    View details for PubMedID 36246496

    View details for PubMedCentralID PMC9547372

  • Technology adoption and market allocation: The case of robotic surgery. Journal of health economics Horn, D., Sacarny, A., Zhou, A. 2022; 86: 102672

    Abstract

    The adoption of health care technology is central to improving productivity in this sector. To provide new evidence on how technology affects health care markets, we focus on one area where adoption has been particularly rapid: surgery for prostate cancer. Within just eight years, robotic surgery grew to become the dominant intensive prostate cancer treatment method. Using a difference-in-differences design, we show that adopting a robot drives prostate cancer patients to the hospital. To test whether this result reflects market expansion or business stealing, we also consider market-level effects of adoption and find effects that are significant but smaller, suggesting that adoption expands the market while also reallocating some patients across hospitals. Marginal patients are relatively young and healthy, inconsistent with the concern that adoption broadens the criteria for intervention to patients who would gain little from it. We conclude by discussing implications for the social value of technology diffusion in health care markets.

    View details for DOI 10.1016/j.jhealeco.2022.102672

    View details for PubMedID 36115136

  • Effects of the Colorectal Cancer Control Program HEALTH ECONOMICS Bitler, M. P., Carpenter, C. S., Horn, D. 2021; 30 (11): 2667-2685

    Abstract

    Although colorectal cancer (CRC) screening is highly effective, screening rates lag far below recommended levels, particularly for low-income people. The Colorectal Cancer Control Program (CRCCP) funded $100 million in competitively awarded grants to 25 states from 2009-2015 to increase CRC screening rates among low-income, uninsured populations, in part by directly providing and paying for screening services. Using data from the 2001-2015 Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System (BRFSS) and a difference-in-differences strategy, we find no effects of CRCCP on the use of relatively cheap fecal occult blood tests (FOBT). We do, however, find that the CRCCP significantly increased the likelihood that uninsured 50-64-year-olds report ever having a relatively expensive endoscopic CRC screening (sigmoidoscopy or colonoscopy) by 2.9 percentage points, or 10.7%. These effects are larger for women, minorities, and individuals who did not undertake other types of preventive care. We do not find that the CRCCP led to significant changes in CRC cancer detection. Our results indicate that the CRCCP was effective at increasing CRC screening rates among the most vulnerable.

    View details for DOI 10.1002/hec.4397

    View details for Web of Science ID 000680376000001

    View details for PubMedID 34342362

    View details for PubMedCentralID PMC8497428

  • Technology Adoption and Market Allocation: The Case of Robotic Surgery Horn, D., Sacarny, A., Zhou, A. National Bureau of Economic Research. 2021 ; NBER Working Paper (29301):
  • Chronic Resilience Horn, D. Conari Press. 2013