Table 1. Impacts of PEP on COVID-19 Resilience

||NPI<br>Adherence<br>Index<br>(1)|Medical<br>Access<br>Index<br>(2)|Protection against<br>Contracting<br>Covid-19 Index<br>(3)|Economic<br>Resilience<br>Index<br>(4)|
|---|---|---|---|---|
|_Panel A. ITT Direct Impacts_|||||
|1[_RAMVijk_ = 1]|0.191|0.282|0.253|0.422|
||(0.047)|(0.013)|(0.046)|(0.048)|
|R-squared|0.067|0.215|0.061|0.136|
|_Panel B. ITT coeffcient interact with_|_wave_||||
|_β_1 =1[RAMV_ijk_ = 1]_×_1[wave]|0.080<br>(0.094)|-0.102<br>(0.026)|–<br>–|0.043<br>(0.099)|
|_β_2 =1[RAMV_ijk_ = 1]|0.144|0.333|–|0.397|
||(0.074)|(0.020)|–|(0.080)|
|Wave Diff. Effect=_β_1+_β_2|0.224|0.232|–|0.440|
||(0.060)|(0.017)|–|(0.059)|
|R-squared|0.067|0.220|–|0.136|
|Observations(Both waves)|2,318|2,618|2,640|2,337|

_Notes:_ All estimations include state and sampling-city fixed effects, and control for the interaction between wave dummies and the set of individual controls listed in Table A.5. 1[ _wave_ ] takes the value of one for the second wave of the panel. Standard errors clustered at the family level are reported in parentheses.

_Better housing conditions for eligible PEP applicants facilitated the adherence to adopt NPI_ . The estimate for the NPI adherence index is and econom- coefficient statistically significant ically meaningful (0.19 standard deviation –SD – higher than the mean of the control group). Less crowded homes (9.5% for more rooms per family member) with private bathrooms (4.3 percentage points –p.p.– more likely to have a private bathroom) may have helped migrants to social distance, hand washing, and to have overall better sanitary conditions to prevent infection and the transmission of the virus (see Table A.1 in the Appendix for the estimation of individual outcomes). The gap between PEP and nonPEP eligible applicants in housing conditions, and presumably the risk of contracting the virus, widened between 2020 and 2021.

_PEP increased access to healthcare services_ . The effect of PEP on the medical access index is sizeable and statistically significant. The index for PEP eligible applicants is 28% larger with respect to the mean of the non-RAMV group. Health insurance access is 49.5 p.p higher for PEP eligible applicants, providing beneficiaries more medical assistance and prescriptions when ill: 10 p.p and 5.6 p.p respectively (See Table A.2 in the Appendix). Medical access, however, seemed to deteriorate between 2020 and 2021. Despite the expansion of coverage of the health system for PEP eligible applicants, the gap between eligible and non-eligible PEP applicants shrank.

_Higher access to healthcare services resulted in higher detection and vaccination rates of COVID19._ Household heads who were eligible for the program reported symptoms 2.1 p.p more, relative to non-eligible households; while the probability of contracting the virus for family members of PEP eligible households was 26.8 p.p. higher relative to non-eligible household members. PEP eligible applicants also had higher vaccination rates (8.5p.p.) relative to non-applicants (Table A.3 in the Appendix).

_PEP eligible applicants were more resilient to the negative economic shock brought by the pandemic_ . The coefficient estimate on the impact of PEP on the index of economic resilience is not only statistically significant, but economically meaningful. The effect is 0.42 SD with 4