
TL;DR
This paper critically evaluates a study claiming Hurricane Katrina improved elderly survival rates, highlighting methodological flaws that undermine the original conclusions.
Contribution
It provides a detailed critique of prior research, emphasizing issues with demographic adjustments, selection bias, and unexamined mortality changes.
Findings
Identifies unaccounted demographic differences affecting mortality analysis
Highlights non-random selection of migration destinations post-Katrina
Argues that the original study's evidence does not support its conclusions
Abstract
In a recent article in the American Economic Review, Tatyana Deryugina and David Molitor (DM) analyzed the effect of Hurricane Katrina on the mortality of elderly and disabled residents of New Orleans. The authors concluded that Hurricane Katrina improved the eight-year survival rate of elderly and disabled residents of New Orleans by 3% and that most of this decline in mortality was due to declines in mortality among those who moved to places with lower mortality. In this article, I provide a critical assessment of the evidence provided by DM to support their conclusions. There are three main problems. First, DM generally fail to account for the fact that people of different ages, races or sex will have different probabilities of dying as time goes by, and when they do allow for this, results change markedly. Second, DM do not account for the fact that residents in New Orleans are…
Peer Reviews
No public reviews on file for this paper yet. If you reviewed it on a platform where reviews are public (OpenReview, ICLR, NeurIPS, ICML), you can paste yours below so the community can read it here.
Videos
No videos yet. Explain this paper in a talk, walkthrough, or lecture? Add one.
