Archived syllabus. Policies, dates, assignments, and readings reflect Fall 2022.
Course information
ECO 725-001: Health Economics
University of Kentucky
Fall Semester 2022
3.0 Credits
TR/12:30 pm – 1:45 pm Eastern Time/B&E 127
Instructor Information
Professor Aaron Yelowitz
Office: 225H B&E Building
Email: aaron@uky.edu; if possible, please communicate with me through the Canvas email interface as it is easier for me to keep track of communication. Under normal circumstances, I will respond within 24 hours.
Office hours: Thursday, 2 pm – 4 pm Eastern Time (also, usually available by Zoom, please schedule in advance).
Course Description
This course rigorously examines the organization, financing, and management of the US health care system and programs and emphasizes economic analysis contemporary health policy concerns. By the end of the semester, students should have the institutional knowledge and analytic tools needed to contribute to current public policy debates about health and medical care.
This course and ECO 724 (Environmental Economics) are the two courses that are the basis for the area in Environmental and Health Economics in the Ph.D. program in Economics.
Course Prerequisites
ECO 601 and 703 or consent of instructor.
Student Learning Outcomes
After completing this course, the student will be able to:
Identify the major features of the health care system in the United States.
Contrast how health care markets differ from other economic markets.
Apply data to examine how health care markets operate.
Analyze whether empirical findings from data application are consistent with theory.
Integrate economic theory and empirical analysis to understand health care markets.
Assess whether health care policy proposals will have the intended consequences.
Required Materials
Readings
Peer-reviewed articles (available on JSTOR for UK subscribers) will form the core readings of this course. Some articles come from the Handbook of Health Economics (HPE) and are typically available on NBER’s website.
In addition, supplemental handouts and PowerPoint slides will be distributed.
Activities, Exams, and Grading Scheme
Course Assignments
Research Paper (50%)
Final Exam (35%)
In-Class Presentation (15%)
Summary Description of Course Assignments
50 points: All students will use publicly available data of their choosing (i.e., HCUP, BRFSS, NHIS, NIS, CPS, ACS, SIPP, PSID, NLSY, GSS, NSAF, HRS, AHEAD, Vital Statistics, Census PUMS, Google Trends, SafeGraph, etc.) to ask and answer a research question related to health economics. Much of this data can be found on NBER, Census, ICPRS, or www.data.gov.
Students will provide data, programs, log files and write-up in electronic form. All programming must be done in Stata and the write-up must be in Word. The write-up must not exceed 2000 words (approximately 12 manuscript pages), including diagrams, figures, tables, and references. The word count will be strictly enforced, and the overall goal is to have a paper that conforms to the guidelines for short papers from both health policy and economics journals.
Your research paper proposal will be due by Thursday, 10/6/2022, by 4 pm EST. I will give you feedback by Friday, 10/14/2022. The research paper (and programs, log files, data) will be due on 11/22/2022, by 4 pm EST.
35 points: There will be an online final exam during final exam week, on Tuesday, 12/13/2022 from 10:30 am - 12:30 pm. The exam will be closed book / closed note and used Respondus Monitor.
15 points: The field of health economics is vast, and the goal of the in-class presentation is to teach the entire class about an unexplored aspect of public economics. Several recent winners of the John Bates Clark medal have made recent, important contributions to the field. The presentations will be around 15-20 minutes each (including questions) and will be conducted in two sessions (11/29/2022 and 12/1/2022). You must have the topic approved by me. The topics should focus on timely issues in health economics. Presentation proposals will be due by 10/27/2022, by 4 pm EST.
Technology concerns: Although proctored Canvas exams with Respondus Monitor will likely work for almost all students enrolled in ECO 725, if your situation makes this arrangement infeasible, please contact me as soon as possible so that we can make alternative arrangements. I can be reached at aaron@uky.edu.
Submission of Assignments
Any assignments will be submitted via Canvas or other online means that will be detailed later. For students with an excused absence, alternative arrangements will be made if submission cannot be met by the deadline. For students with an unexcused absence, late assignments will not be accepted.
Grading Scheme
A grading curve will be applied; historically, approximately 70% of students earn an A; 30% earn a B or lower.
Attendance Policy
Students are strongly encouraged to attend every lecture and review the assigned lecture notes in advance. Many of the readings – especially the academic readings – will be easier to understand with attendance. However, no credit will be given for attendance.
Course Schedule, ECO 725-001, Fall 2022
Module 1: Overview, Data Orientation, Empirics
Part 1
Overview of syllabus, papers, and goals of course.
Lay out expectations with respect to turning in paper (i.e., Word) and statistical programs (i.e., Stata, log files, do files). Objective: 2000-word paper potentially publishable in economics or public health journal.
Part 2
Yelowitz video on online data sources. Objective: be fast and correct with data sources, and in very short order, figure out whether there is sufficient potential with a dataset to move forward of a topic.
Yelowitz PowerPoint/video on using data - “Data Sources for Economics Students”
Examples of data sources: (a) Publicly available, pros/cons, (b) Data scraping (i.e., Diamonds), (c) Non-public, expensive data (i.e., Nielsen data, College of Pharmacy), (d) “Free” data with severe hoops (i.e., Census RDC, IRB approval, process of getting findings approved), (e) “Free” data with “buy-in” – i.e., data from employer.
Discussion of data sources (HCUP, Safegraph, Neilsen) where training is needed.
Documenting data, internet data, data presentation.
Gentzkow, Matthew and Jesse M. Shapiro, 2014. “Code and Data for the Social Sciences: A Practitioner’s Guide.” University of Chicago mimeo.
Edelman, Benjamin. 2012. “Using Internet Data for Economic Research.” Journal of Economic Perspectives 26 (2): 189-206.
Schwabish, 2014. “An Economist’s Guide to Visualizing Data.” Journal of Economic Perspectives, 28(1): 209-34.
Varian, Hal R. 2014. “Big Data: New Tricks for Econometrics.” Journal of Economic Perspectives 28 (2): 3-28.
Mason, Winter, and Siddharth Suri. 2012. “Conducting Behavioral Research on Amazon’s Mechanical Turk.” Behavior Research Methods 44 (1): 1-23.
Difference-in-differences handout, Standard error corrections
Yelowitz difference-in-differences handout & examples
Gruber, Public Finance and Public Policy, “Empirical Tools of Public Finance,” 2005, Chapter 3.
Bertrand, M., E. Duflo, and S. Mullainathan. 2004. “How Much Should We Trust Differences-In-Differences Estimates?” The Quarterly Journal of Economics 119 (1): 249-75.
Cameron, A. Colin, Jonah B. Gelbach, and Douglas L. Miller. 2011. “Robust Inference with Multiway Clustering.” Journal of Business & Economic Statistics 29 (2): 238-49. Cameron, A. Colin, Jonah B. Gelbach, and Douglas L. Miller. 2008. “Bootstrap-Based Improvements for Inference with Clustered Errors.” Review of Economics and Statistics 90 (3): 414-27.
Module 2: Overview of US Health Care System, Health & Economy
Part 1
Overview of health care system
Gruber, Public Finance and Public Policy, “Health Insurance I: Health Economics and Private Health Insurance,” 2005, Chapter 15.
Gruber, Public Finance and Public Policy, “Health Insurance II: Medicare, Medicaid, and Health Care Reform,” 2005, Chapter 16.
Part 2
How does health vary with economic conditions?
Ruhm, C. J. 2000. “Are Recessions Good for Your Health?” The Quarterly Journal of Economics 115 (2): 617-50.
Chetty R, Stepner M, Abraham S, Lin S, Scuderi B, Turner N, Bergeron A, Cutler D. The Association Between Income and Life Expectancy in the United States, 2001-2014. JAMA. 2016;315(16):1750-1766.
Module 3: Demand for Medical Care, Identification
Part 1
Demand for medical care
Manning, Willard G., et al. 1987. “Health Insurance and the Demand for Medical Care: Evidence from a Randomized Experiment.” American Economic Review, 77:251-277.
Aron-Dine, Aviva, Liran Einav, and Amy Finkelstein. 2013. “The RAND Health Insurance Experiment, Three Decades Later.” Journal of Economic Perspectives 27 (1): 197-222.
Finkelstein, Amy N, Sarah L Taubman, Bill J Wright, Mira Bernstein, Jonathan Gruber, Joseph P Newhouse, Heidi L Allen, Katherine Baicker, and Oregon Health Study Group. 2012. “The Oregon Health Insurane Experiment: Evidence from The First Year.” Quarterly Journal of Economics 127 (August (3)): 1057-1106.
Part 2
Identification of interventions
McClellan, M, B J McNeil, and J P Newhouse. 1994. “Does More Intensive Treatment of Acute Myocardial Infarction in the Elderly Reduce Mortality? Analysis Using Instrumental Variables.” JAMA: The Journal of the American Medical Association 272(11): 859-66.
Angrist, Joshua D, and Jörn-Steffen Pischke. 2010. “The Credibility Revolution in Empirical Economics: How Better Research Design Is Taking the Con out of Econometrics.” Journal of Economic Perspectives 24 (2): 3-30.
Module 4: Medical Malpractice
Part 1
Medical Malpractice
Kessler, Daniel, and Mark Mcclellan. 1996. “Do Doctors Practice Defensive Medicine?” The Quarterly Journal of Economics 111 (2): 353-90.
Currie, Janet, and W Bentley MacLeod. 2008. “First Do No Harm? Tort Reform and Birth Outcomes.” Quarterly Journal of Economics 123 (2): 795-830.
Module 5: Managed Care & Organizational Form and Performance
Part 1
Managed Care
Marton, J., Yelowitz, A. and Talbert, J., “A Tale of Two Cities? The Heterogeneous Impact of Medicaid Managed Care,” Journal of Health Economics, July 2014, 36(1): 47- 68.
Aizer, Anna, Janet Currie, and Enrico Moretti. 2007. “Does Managed Care Hurt Health? Evidence from Medicaid Mothers.” Review of Economics and Statistics 89 (3): 385-99.
Duggan, Mark, and Tamara Hayford. 2013. “Has the Shift to Managed Care Reduced Medicaid Expenditures? Evidence from State and Local-Level Mandates.” Journal of Policy Analysis and Management 32 (3): 505-35.
Part 2
Organizational Form and Performance
Duggan, Mark G. 2000. “Hospital Ownership and Public Medical Spending.” The Quarterly Journal of Economics 115 (4): 1343-73.
Ho, Vivian, and Barton H. Hamilton. 2000. “Hospital Mergers and Acquisitions: Does Market Consolidation Harm Patients?” Journal of Health Economics 19 (5): 767-91.
Schmitt, Matt. 2017. “Do Hospital Mergers Reduce Costs?” Journal of Health Economics. 52: 74-94.
Module 6: Medicare and Medicaid
Part 1
Medicare
Finkelstein, Amy. 2007. “The Aggregate Effects of Health Insurance: Evidence from the Introduction of Medicare.” The Quarterly Journal of Economics 122: 1-37.
Card, David, Carlos Dobkin, and Nicole Maestas. 2008. “The Impact of Nearly Universal Insurance Coverage on Health Care Utilization: Evidence from Medicare.” American Economic Review 98 (5): 2242-58.
Card, David, Carlos Dobkin, and Nicole Maestas. 2009. “Does Medicare Save Lives?” Quarterly Journal of Economics 124 (2): 597-636.Abaluck, Jason, and Jonathan Gruber. "Choice inconsistencies among the elderly: evidence from plan choice in the Medicare Part D program." American Economic Review 101.4 (2011): 1180-1210.
Part 2
Medicaid
Currie, Janet, and Jonathan Gruber. 1996a. “Health Insurance Eligibility, Utilization of Medical Care, and Child Health.” The Quarterly Journal of Economics 111 (2): 431-66.
Currie, Janet, and Jonathan Gruber. 1996b. “Saving Babies: The Efficacy and Cost of Recent Changes in the Medicaid Eligibility of Pregnant Women.” Journal of Political Economy 104 (6): 1263.
Cutler, D. M., and J. Gruber. 1996. “Does Public Insurance Crowd Out Private Insurance?” The Quarterly Journal of Economics 111 (2): 391-430.
Gruber, Jonathan, and Aaron Yelowitz. 1999. “Public Health Insurance and Private Savings.” Journal of Political Economy 107 (6): 1249-74.
Yelowitz, Aaron S. 1995. “The Medicaid Notch, Labor Supply, and Welfare Participation: Evidence from Eligibility Expansions.” The Quarterly Journal of Economics 110 (4). Oxford University Press: 909-39.
Module 7: Adverse Selection
Part 1
Rothschild, Michael, and Joseph Stiglitz. 1976. “Equilibrium in Competitive Insurance Markets: An Essay on the Economics of Imperfect Information.” The Quarterly Journal of Economics 90(4): 629.
Cutler, D. M., and S. J. Reber. 1998. “Paying for Health Insurance: The Trade-Off between Competition and Adverse Selection.” The Quarterly Journal of Economics 113 (2): 433-66.
Buchmueller, Thomas, and John DiNardo. 2002. “Did Community Rating Induce an Adverse Selection Death Spiral? Evidence from New York, Pennsylvania, and Connecticut.” American Economic Review 92 (1): 280-94.
Handel, 2013. “Adverse selection and inertia in health insurance markets: when nudging hurts.” American Economic Review, 103 (7), 2643-2682.
Handel, Ben, Igal Hendel, and Michael D. Whinston. 2015. “Equilibria in Health Exchanges: Adverse Selection versus Reclassification Risk.” Econometrica 83(4): 1261-1313.
Module 8: Health Insurance Expansions
Part 1
Dependent Coverage Mandates
Antwi, By Yaa Akosa, Asako S. Moriya, and Kosali Simon. 2013. “Effects of Federal Policy to Insure Young Adults: Evidence from the 2010 Affordable Care Act’s Dependent-Coverage Mandate.” American Economic Journal: Economic Policy 5 (4): 1-28.
Akosa Antwi, Yaa, Asako S. Moriya, and Kosali I. Simon. 2015. “Access to Health Insurance and the Use of Inpatient Medical Care: Evidence from the Affordable Care Act Young Adult Mandate.” Journal of Health Economics 39: 171-87.
Part 2
ACA Expansion
Courtemanche, C., Marton, J., and Yelowitz, A., 2016. “Who Gained Insurance Coverage in 2014, the First Year of Full ACA Implementation?” Health Economics, 25(6): 778-784.
Courtemanche, C., Marton, J., Ukert, B., Yelowitz, A., and Zapata, D., “Impacts of the Affordable Care Act on Health Insurance Coverage in Medicaid Expansion and Non- Expansion States,” Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, 2017, 36(1): 178-210.
Frean, M., Gruber, J., Sommers, B. 2017. “Premium Subsidies, the mandate, and Medicaid expansion: Coverage effects of the Affordable Care Act.” Journal of Health Economics, 53: 72-86.
Kaestner, R., Garrett, B., Chen, J., Gangopadhyaya, A. and Fleming, C., 2017. “Effects of ACA Medicaid Expansions on Health Insurance Coverage and Labor Supply.” Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, 36: 608-642.
Courtemanche, C., Marton, J., Ukert, B., Yelowitz, A., and Zapata, D., “Early Effects of the Affordable Care Act on Health Care Access, Risky Health Behaviors, and Self- Assessed Health,” Southern Economic Journal.
Part 3
Massachusetts Reform
Courtemanche, Charles J., and Daniela Zapata. 2014. “Does Universal Coverage Improve Health? The Massachusetts Experience.” Journal of Policy Analysis and Management 33 (1): 36-69.
Module 9: Behavioral economics
Part 1
Marton, J., Yelowitz, A., and Talbert, J., “Medicaid Program Choice, Inertia and Adverse Selection,” Journal of Health Economics, 2017, 56(1): 292-316.
Ericson, K.M.M., 2014. Consumer inertia and firm pricing in the Medicare part D prescription drug insurance exchange. American Economic Journal: Econ. Policy 6 (1), 38-64.
Handel, B.R., Kolstad, J., 2015. Health insurance for ‘humans’: Information frictions, plan choice, and consumer welfare. American Economic Review 105 (8), 2449-2500.
Handel, B.R., Kolstad, J., 2015. Getting the Most from Marketplaces: Smart Policies on Health Insurance Choice, Brookings Institution.
Saurabh Bhargava, George Loewenstein, Justin Sydnor; Choose to Lose: Health Plan Choices from a Menu with Dominated Option, The Quarterly Journal of Economics, Volume 132, Issue 3, 1 August 2017, Pages 1319-1372
Abadie, Alberto and Sebastien Gay, 2006. “The impact of presumed consent legislation on cadaveric organ donation: A cross-country study,” Journal of Health Economics, 25(4): 599- 620.
Campus-wide University Senate Policies (see https://www.uky.edu/universitysenate/acadpolicy )
Excused Absences and Acceptable Excuses
Excused Absences: Senate Rules 5.2.5.2.1 defines the following as acceptable reasons for excused absences: (a) significant illness, (b) death of a family member, (c) trips for members of student organizations sponsored by an educational unit, trips for University classes, and trips for participation in intercollegiate athletic events, (d) major religious holidays, (e) interviews for graduate/professional school or full-time employment post-graduation, and (f) other circumstances found to fit “reasonable cause for nonattendance” by the instructor of record. Students should notify the professor of absences prior to class when possible.
If a course syllabus requires specific interactions (e.g., with the instructor or other students), in situations where a student’s total EXCUSED absences exceed 1/5 (or 20%) of the required interactions for the course, the student shall have the right to request and receive a "W," or the Instructor of Record may award an “I” for the course if the student declines a “W.” (Senate Rules 5.2.5.2.3.1)
Religious Observances
Religious Observances: Students anticipating an absence for a major religious holiday are responsible for notifying the instructor in writing of anticipated absences due to their observance of such holidays. Senate Rules 5.2.5.2.1(4) requires faculty to include any notification requirements within the syllabus. If no requirement is specified, two weeks prior to the absence is reasonable and should not be given any later. Information regarding major religious holidays may be obtained through the Ombud’s website.
Verification of Absences
Verification of Absences: Students may be asked to verify their absences in order for them to be considered excused. Senate Rule 5.2.5.2.1 states that faculty have the right to request appropriate verification when students claim an excused absence due to: significant illness; death in the household, trips for classes, trips sponsored by an educational unit and trips for participation related to intercollegiate athletic events; and interviews for full-time job opportunities after graduation and interviews for graduate and professional school. (Appropriate notification of absences due to University-related trips is required prior to the absence when feasible and in no case more than one week after the absence.)
Make-Up Work
Make-Up Work: Students missing any graded work due to an excused absence are responsible: for informing the Instructor of Record about their excused absence within one week following the period of the excused absence (except where prior notification is required); and for making up the missed work. The instructor must give the student an opportunity to make up the work and/or the exams missed due to the excused absence, and shall do so, if feasible, during the semester in which the absence occurred. The instructor shall provide the student with an opportunity to make up the graded work and may not simply calculate the student's grade on the basis of the other course requirements, unless the student agrees in writing. According to SR 5.2.5.2.2, if a student adds a class after the first day of classes and misses graded work, the instructor must provide the student with an opportunity to make up any graded work.
Excused Absences for Military Duties
Excused Absences for Military Duties: If a student is required to be absent for one-fifth or less of the required course interactions (e.g., class meetings) due to military duties, the following procedure (per SR 5.2.5.2.3.2) shall apply:
Once a student is aware of a call to duty, the student shall provide a copy of the military orders to the Director of the Veterans Resource Center. The student shall also provide the Director with a list of his/her courses and instructors.
The Director will verify the orders with the appropriate military authority, and on behalf of the military student, notify each Instructor of Record via Department Letterhead as to the known extent of the absence.
The Instructor of Record shall not penalize the student’s absence in any way and shall provide accommodations and timeframes so that the student can make up missed assignments, quizzes, and tests in a mutually agreed upon manner.
Unexcused Absences
Unexcused Absences: If an attendance/interaction policy is not stated in the course syllabus or the policy does not include a penalty to the student, the instructor cannot penalize a student for any unexcused absences. (SR 5.2.5.2.3.3)
Prep Week and Reading Days
Prep Week and Reading Days: Per Senate Rules 5.2.5.6, the last week of instruction of a regular semester is termed "Prep Week.” This phrase also refers to the last three days of instruction of the summer session and winter intersession. The Prep Week rule applies to ALL courses taught in the fall semester, spring semester, and summer session, including those taught by distance learning or in a format that has been compressed into less than one semester or session. This rule does not apply to courses in professional programs in colleges that have University Senate approval to have their own calendar.
Make-up exams and quizzes are allowed during Prep Week. In cases of "Take Home" final examinations, students shall not be required to return the completed examination before the regularly scheduled examination period for that course. No written examinations, including final examinations, may be scheduled during the Prep Week. No quizzes may be given during Prep Week. No project/lab practicals/paper/presentation deadlines or oral/listening examinations may fall during the Prep Week unless it was scheduled in the syllabus AND the course has no final examination (or assignment that acts as a final examination) scheduled during finals week. (A course with a lab component may schedule the lab practical of the course during Prep Week if the lab portion does not also require a Final Examination during finals week.) Class participation and attendance grades are permitted during Prep Week. The Senate Rules permit continuing into Prep Week regularly assigned graded homework that was announced in the class syllabus.
For fall and spring semester, the Thursday and Friday of Prep Week are study days (i.e. “Reading Days”). There cannot be any required "interactions" on a Reading Day. "Interactions" include participation in an in-class or online discussion, attendance at a guest lecture, or uploading an assignment. See Senate Rules 9.1 for a more complete description of required interactions.
Accommodations Due to Disability
Accommodations Due to Disability: In accordance with federal law, if you have a documented disability that requires academic accommodations, please inform your instructor as soon as possible during scheduled office hours. In order to receive accommodations in a course, you must provide your instructor with a Letter of Accommodation from the Disability Resource Center (DRC). The DRC coordinates campus disability services available to students with disabilities. It is located on the corner of Rose Street and Huguelet Drive in the Multidisciplinary Science Building, Suite 407. You can visit their website (uky.edu/DisabilityResourceCenter). DRC accommodations are not retroactive and should therefore be established with the DRC as early in the semester as is feasible.
Non-Discrimination Statement and Title IX Information
Non-discrimination and Title IX policy: In accordance with federal law, UK is committed to providing a safe learning, living, and working environment for all members of the University community. The University maintains a comprehensive program which protects all members from discrimination, harassment, and sexual misconduct. For complete information about UK’s prohibition on discrimination and harassment on aspects such as race, color, ethnic origin, national origin, creed, religion, political belief, sex, and sexual orientation, please see the electronic version of UK’s Administrative Regulation 6:1 (“Policy on Discrimination and Harassment”) (https://www.uky.edu/regs/ar6-1). In accordance with Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972, the University prohibits discrimination and harassment on the basis of sex in academics, employment, and all of its programs and activities. Sexual misconduct is a form of sexual harassment in which one act is severe enough to create a hostile environment based on sex and is prohibited between members of the University community and shall not be tolerated. For more details, please see the electronic version of Administrative Regulations 6:2 (“Policy and Procedures for Addressing and Resolving Allegations of Sexual Assault, Stalking, Dating Violence, Domestic Violence, and Sexual Exploitation”) (https://www.uky.edu/regs/ar6-2). Complaints regarding violations of University policies on discrimination, harassment, and sexual misconduct are handled by the Office of Institutional Equity and Equal Opportunity (Institutional Equity), which is located in 13 Main Building. You can also visit Institutional Equity’s website (https://www.uky.edu/eeo).
Faculty members are obligated to forward any report made by a student related to discrimination, harassment, and sexual misconduct to the Office of Institutional Equity. Students can confidentially report alleged incidences through the Violence Intervention and Prevention Center (https://www.uky.edu/vipcenter), Counseling Center (https://www.uky.edu/counselingcenter), or University Health Service (https://ukhealthcare.uky.edu/university-health-service/student-health).
Reports of discrimination, harassment, or sexual misconduct may be made to Institutional Equity here.
Academic Offenses (See https://www.uky.edu/universitysenate/ao )
Senate Rules 6.3.1 ("Plagiarism")
Plagiarism: Per University policy, students shall not plagiarize, cheat, or falsify or misuse academic records. The minimum penalty for a first offense is a zero on the assignment on which the offense occurred. If the offense is considered severe or the student has other academic offenses on their record, more serious penalties, up to suspension from the University may be imposed. A plea of ignorance is not acceptable as a defense against the charge of academic dishonesty.
Senate Rule 6.3.1 states that all academic work, written or otherwise, submitted by students to their instructors or other academic supervisors, is expected to be the result of their own thought, research, or self-expression. In cases where students feel unsure about a question of plagiarism involving their work, they are obliged to consult their instructors on the matter before submission.
When students submit work purporting to be their own, but which in any way borrows ideas, organization, wording, or content from another source without appropriate acknowledgment of the fact, the students are guilty of plagiarism.
Plagiarism includes reproducing someone else's work (including, but not limited to a published article, a book, a website, computer code, or a paper from a friend) without clear attribution. Plagiarism also includes the practice of employing or allowing another person to alter or revise the work which a student submits as his/her own, whoever that other person may be, except under specific circumstances (e.g. Writing Center review, peer review) allowed by the Instructor of Record or that person’s designee. Plagiarism may also include double submission, self-plagiarism, or unauthorized resubmission of one’s own work, as defined by the instructor.
Students may discuss assignments among themselves or with an instructor or tutor, except where prohibited by the Instructor of Record (e.g. individual take-home exams). However, the actual work must be done by the student, and the student alone, unless collaboration is allowed by the Instructor of Record (e.g. group projects).
When a student's assignment involves research in outside sources or information, the student must carefully acknowledge exactly what, where and how he/she has employed them. If the words of someone else are used, the student must put quotation marks around the passage in question and add an appropriate indication of its origin. Making simple changes while leaving the organization, content and phraseology intact is plagiaristic. However, nothing in these Rules shall apply to those ideas which are so generally and freely circulated as to be a part of the public domain.
Please note: Any assignment you turn in may be submitted to an electronic database to check for plagiarism.
Senate Rules 6.3.2 ("Cheating")
Cheating is defined by its general usage. It includes, but is not limited to, the wrongfully giving, taking, or presenting any information or material by a student with the intent of aiding himself/herself or another on any academic work which is considered in any way in the determination of the final grade. The fact that a student could not have benefited from an action is not by itself proof that the action does not constitute cheating. Any question of definition shall be referred to the University Appeals Board.
Senate Rules 6.3.3 ("Misuse of Academic Records")
Misuse of academic records: Maintaining the integrity, accuracy, and appropriate privacy of student academic records is an essential administrative function of the University and a basic protection of all students. Accordingly, the actual or attempted falsification, theft, misrepresentation or other alteration or misuse of any official academic record of the University, specifically including knowingly having unauthorized access to such records or the unauthorized disclosure of information contained in such records, is a serious academic offense. As used in this context, "academic record" includes all paper and electronic versions of the partial or complete permanent academic record, all official and unofficial academic transcripts, application documents and admission credentials, and all academic record transaction documents. The minimum sanction for falsification, including the omission of information, or attempted falsification or other misuse of academic records as described in this section is suspension for one semester.
Statement on Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI)
The University of Kentucky is committed to our core values of diversity and inclusion, mutual respect and human dignity, and a sense of community (Governing Regulations XIV). We acknowledge and respect the seen and unseen diverse identities and experiences of all members of the university community (https://www.uky.edu/regs/gr14). These identities include but are not limited to those based on race, ethnicity, gender identity and expressions, ideas and perspectives, religious and cultural beliefs, sexual orientation, national origin, age, ability, and socioeconomic status. We are committed to equity and justice and providing a learning and engaging community in which every member is engaged, heard, and valued.
We strive to rectify and change behavior that is inconsistent with our principles and commitment to creating a safe, equitable, and anti-racist environment. If students encounter such behavior in a course, they are encouraged to speak with the instructor of record or the college’s diversity officer, who is charged with addressing concerns about diversity, equity, and inclusiveness (uky.edu/inclusiveexcellence/college-diversity-inclusion-officers). Students may also contact a faculty member within the department, program director, the director of undergraduate or graduate studies, the department chair, or the dean. To submit an official report of bias, hatred, racism, or identity-based violence, visit the Bias Incident Support Services website (https://www.uky.edu/biss/report-bias-incident).