Reference health

A Time-Series Investigation of the U.S. Real Health Expenditure: Evidence from Nonlinear Unit Root Tests

https://doi.org/10.1007/s11294-012-9374-z
CiteStamped reference-health badge
24/24 checkable references clean · checked 2026-08-09

Every reference with a DOI in the deposited reference list resolved to a known work in Crossref or DataCite at the dated check, and none carried a retraction, withdrawal, or removal notice.

3 without a DOI — not checked. A reference deposited without a DOI is never matched by title or guessed at; it stays outside the checked set, and this line discloses that.

The 24 checked references that resolve
resolves10.1016/j.jhealeco.2005.01.001
Health care expenditure and GDP: Are they broken stationary?
resolves10.2307/2171846
Efficient Tests for an Autoregressive Unit Root
resolves10.1016/S0167-6296(99)00036-3
On stationarity and cointegration of international health expenditure and GDP
resolves10.1016/0167-6296(95)00017-8
The determinants of health care expenditure: A cointegration approach
resolves10.1016/S0167-6296(02)00122-4
Stationarity of health expenditures and GDP: evidence from panel unit root tests with heterogeneous structural breaks
resolves10.1162/qjec.122.1.39
The Value of Life and the Rise in Health Spending
resolves10.1093/cje/beq024
Time to reject the privileging of economic theory over empirical evidence? A reply to Lawson
resolves10.1016/S0304-4076(02)00202-6
Testing for a unit root in the nonlinear STAR framework
resolves10.1007/s00362-009-0204-1
A new unit root test against ESTAR based on a class of modified statistics
resolves10.1016/0304-4076(92)90104-Y
Testing the null hypothesis of stationarity against the alternative of a unit root
resolves10.1162/003465303772815961
Minimum Lagrange Multiplier Unit Root Test with Two Structural Breaks
resolves10.1016/j.jhealeco.2008.04.003
Corrigendum to “Stationarity of health expenditures and GDP: Evidence from panel unit root tests with heterogeneous structural breaks” [J. Health Econ. 22 (2003) 313–323]
resolves10.1162/003465397556791
Multiple Trend Breaks and the Unit-Root Hypothesis
resolves10.1023/A:1019066012984
Managed care, deficit financing, and aggregate health care expenditure in the United States: A cointegration analysis
resolves10.1016/j.jhealeco.2005.12.001
Examining structural breaks and growth rates in international health expenditures
resolves10.1002/hec.1316
The role of permanent and transitory shocks in explaining international health expenditures
resolves10.1111/1468-0262.00256
LAG Length Selection and the Construction of Unit Root Tests with Good Size and Power
resolves10.1111/1468-0084.00076
Testing for Unit Roots with Breaks: Evidence on the Great Crash and the Unit Root Hypothesis Reconsidered
resolves10.1016/S0167-6296(01)00122-9
Technology as a ‘major driver’ of health care costs: a cointegration analysis of the Newhouse conjecture
resolves10.2307/1913712
The Great Crash, the Oil Price Shock, and the Unit Root Hypothesis
resolves10.1093/biomet/75.2.335
Testing for a unit root in time series regression
resolves10.1016/j.jhealeco.2010.07.008
The growth of public health expenditures in OECD countries: Do government ideology and electoral motives matter?
resolves10.1111/j.1467-8454.2011.00409.x
DOES DISAGGREGATION AFFECT THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN HEALTH CARE EXPENDITURE AND GDP? AN ANALYSIS USING REGIME SHIFTS*
resolves10.1080/07350015.1992.10509904
Further Evidence on the Great Crash, the Oil-Price Shock, and the Unit-Root Hypothesis
The 3 references without a DOI — listed, not checked
no DOI — not checkedDas, A., & Martin, F. (2010). An econometric analysis of the US health care expenditure. Global Journal of Health Science, 2(1), 150–159.
no DOI — not checkedU.S. Census Bureau. Statistical Abstract of the United States: 2010. (2009). Washington, DC.
no DOI — not checkedU.S. Government Printing Office. (2010). Economic Report of the President. (2010). Washington, DC.
What this badge says. CiteStamped means the CHECKABLE references of this work were clean at the dated check: each resolved to a known work in a public registry, and none carried a retraction notice at that time. It says nothing about the quality, findings, or importance of the work itself, and nothing about references deposited without a DOI.

checked 2026-08-09 — re-checked daily as this page is visited; titles and statuses come from Crossref and DataCite and are not part of the signed record

Embed this badge

Both snippets point at the live badge image and link back to this page. The badge re-renders from the daily check, so an embed never goes stale by more than a day of visits.

<a href="https://citestamp.com/citestamped/10.1007/s11294-012-9374-z"><img src="https://citestamp.com/citestamped/10.1007/s11294-012-9374-z/badge.svg" alt="CiteStamped reference-health badge" width="460" height="64"></a>
[![CiteStamped reference-health badge](https://citestamp.com/citestamped/10.1007/s11294-012-9374-z/badge.svg)](https://citestamp.com/citestamped/10.1007/s11294-012-9374-z)