4.4 Article

Breast cancer and women's labor supply

Journal

HEALTH SERVICES RESEARCH
Volume 37, Issue 5, Pages 1309-1328

Publisher

BLACKWELL PUBL LTD
DOI: 10.1111/1475-6773.01041

Keywords

breast cancer; cancer survival; economic outcomes; employment; labor supply

Funding

  1. NCI NIH HHS [R01 CA086045, R01 CA86045] Funding Source: Medline
  2. NIA NIH HHS [K01-AG00589] Funding Source: Medline

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Objective. To investigate the effect of breast cancer on women's labor supply. Date Source/Study Setting. Using the 1992 Health and Retirement Study, we estimate the probability of working using probit regression and then, for women who are employed, we estimate regressions for average weekly hours worked using ordinary least squares (OLS). We control for health status by using responses to perceived health status and comorbidities. For a sample of married women, we control for spouses' employer-based health insurance. We also perform additional analyses to detect selection bias in our sample. Principal Findings. We find that the probability of breast cancer survivors working is 10 percentage points less than that for women without breast cancer. Among women who work, breast cancer survivors work approximately three more hours per week than women who do not have cancer. Results of similar magnitude persist after health status is controlled in the analysis, and although we could not definitively rule out selection bias, we could not find evidence that our results are attributable to selection bias. Conclusions. For some women, breast cancer may impose an economic hardship because it causes them to leave their jobs. However, for women who survive and remain working, this study failed to show a negative effect on hours worked associated with breast cancer. Perhaps the morbidity associated with certain types and stages of breast cancer and its treatment does not interfere with work.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.4
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available