Comment: 15 pages, 4 figuresTo make informed policy recommendations from observational data, we must be able to discern true treatment effects from random noise and effects due to confounding. Difference-in-Difference techniques which match treated units to control units based on pre-treatment outcomes, such as the synthetic control approach have been presented as principled methods to account for confounding. However, we show that use of synthetic controls or other matching procedures can introduce regression to the mean (RTM) bias into estimates of the average treatment effect on the treated. Through simulations, we show RTM bias can lead to inflated type I error rates as well as decreased power in typical policy evaluation settings. Further, we provide a novel correction for RTM bias which can reduce bias and attain appropriate type I error rates. This correction can be used to perform a sensitivity analysis which determines how results may be affected by RTM. We use our proposed correction and sensitivity analysis to reanalyze data concerning the effects of California's Proposition 99, a large-scale tobacco control program, on statewide smoking rates.