Household finances can affect health and health care through several channels. To explore these channels, we exploit the randomized timing of the arrival of the 2008 Economic Stimulus Payments. We find that the payments raised the probability of an adult emergency department visit over the following 23 weeks by an average of 1.1%. This effect is difficult to reconcile with the Permanent Income Hypothesis. We observe little impact on avoidable hospitalizations or emergency visits for non-urgent conditions and no difference in effects as a function of health insurance coverage. By contrast, we show that the increase is driven by visits for urgent medical conditions, like drug- and alcohol-related visits. Complementary evidence suggests that consumers are not simply substi-tuting from outpatient doctor visits to hospital care. The results thus suggest that liquidity constraints may not constitute a direct barrier to care, but rather that liquidity can increase health care utilization indirectly by increasing the need for care.

on the survey and their careful explanation of the Nielsen Consumer Panel. The results of this paper are calculated based on data from The Nielsen Company (U.S.) LLC and provided by the Marketing Data Center and the University of Chicago Booth School of Business. The views expressed herein are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of the National Bureau of Economic Research. NBER working papers are circulated for discussion and comment purposes. They have not been peer-reviewed or been subject to the review by the NBER Board of Directors that accompanies official NBER publications.

This paper uses tax rebate payments from the 2008 economic stimulus to estimate the effect of a one-time change in income on three measures of subjective well-being: life satisfaction, health satisfaction, and affect. The income effect is identified by exploiting the plausibly exogenous variation in the payment schedule of the rebates. Using both ordinary least squares and two-stage least squares estimators, I find that the rebates had a large and positive impact on affect, which is explained by a reduction in feelings of stress and worry. For life satisfaction and health satisfaction, there is weaker evidence of a positive impact. Overall, the results show that a temporary increase in liquidity may enhance emotional well-being and that this effect is relatively stronger for low-income respondents.

Among many economists, use of alternative financial services—such as check cashers, pawn shops and payday lenders—is viewed as a puzzle. Why would households choose these services, given that they are often quite expensive, and that other alternatives exist in the banking sector? The preferred policy response of many observers is often financial

Abstract Using a comprehensive panel dataset on U.S. households, we study the effects of the 2005 bankruptcy reform on bankruptcy, insolvency and foreclosure. We find that the reform caused a permanent drop in the bankruptcy rate relative to pre-reform levels, due to the rise in filing costs associated with the reform, which can be interpreted as resulting from liquidity constraints. We find that the decline in bankruptcy filings resulted in a rise in the rate and persistence of insolvency, and a rise in the rate of foreclosure. We document that insolvency is associated with worse financial outcomes than bankruptcy, as individuals in this state accumulate collections, judgements, do not have access to new lines of credit, and their credit score bottoms out. Since bankruptcy filings have declined mostly for low income individuals, our findings suggest that the 2005 reform may have removed an important form of insurance against negative income shocks and increased financial distress for this group. * We wish to thank

The views expressedherein are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the National Bureau of Economic Research. NBER working papers are circulated for discussion and comment purposes. They have not been peer-reviewed or been subject to the review by the NBER Board of Directors that accompanies official NBER publications.

Entry barriers into social insurance programs will be effective screening devices if they cause only those individuals receiving higher benefits from a program to participate in that program. We find evidence for this by using plausibly exogenous variations in travel-related entry costs into the Canadian consumer bankruptcy system. Using detailed balance sheet and travel data, we find that higher travel-related entry costs reduce bankruptcies from individuals with lower financial benefits of bankruptcy (unsecured debt discharged, minus secured assets forgone). When compared across filers, each extra kilometer traveled to access the bankruptcy system requires approximately $11 more in financial benefits from bankruptcy.

We are the first to examine whether exogenous shocks cause personal bankruptcy through the balance sheet channel and/or the income statement channel. For identification, we examine the effect of exogenous, politically motivated government payments on 200,000 Canadian bankruptcy filings. We find support for the balance sheet channel, in that receipt of the exogenous cash increases the net balance sheet benefits of bankruptcy (unsecured debt discharged minus liquidated assets forgone) required by filers. We also find limited support for the income statement channel, in that exogenous payments reduce bankruptcy filings from individuals whose current expenses exceed their current income.

Abstract Whether improving access to credit alleviates financial distress among households is, at best, inconclusive. While it can mitigate financial hardship through the possibility of consumption smoothing, credit access may exacerbate distress among certain group of borrowers because of over-borrowing. Using the 2005 Bankruptcy Abuse Prevention and Consumer Protection Act (BAPCPA), I investigate the impact of consumer credit availability on households' borrowing decisions and the subsequent effect on their financial well-being. Exploiting arguably exogenous cross-state variation in the generosity of bankruptcy law (exemption limits) prior to the Act, I find that households' access to credit increased significantly more in states with higher exemption limits, where lenders were more exposed to losses from bankruptcy filings. Households with low education and those with self-reported self-control problems responded aggressively by taking large amounts of debt and spending it mainly on apparel and recreational activities. Consequently, household distress, as measured by their inability to repay mortgage loans as well as a significant decline of food consumption, increased substantially more among low educated households and those with self-control problems. The paper highlights the real cost of credit availability for a subgroup of vulnerable borrowers and implies that restricting access to bankruptcy could have harmful welfare effects.

We are the first to show that the cost of personal bankruptcy filers traveling to their bankruptcy trustees affects bankruptcy choices. We use detailed balance sheet, income statement, and location data from 400,000 Canadian bankruptcies. To control for endogenous trustee selection, we use the location of local government offices as an instrument for the location of bankruptcy trustees (while filers interact with trustees, and trustees interact with local government, filers do not interact with the local government). We find that increased travel costs reduce the number of filings. Furthermore, for those individuals who do file, we find that their increased travel costs need to be compensated by increased financial benefits of bankruptcy. Filers without cars (higher travel costs), as well as those with jobs (higher opportunity costs), receive larger per-kilometer financial benefits from bankruptcy.