Actuarial Outpost
 
Go Back   Actuarial Outpost > Actuarial Discussion Forum > Life
FlashChat Actuarial Discussion Preliminary Exams CAS/SOA Exams Cyberchat Around the World Suggestions

DW Simpson International Actuarial Jobs
Canada  Asia  Australia  Bermuda  Latin America  Europe


Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
  #191  
Old 02-20-2017, 11:44 AM
campbell's Avatar
campbell campbell is offline
Mary Pat Campbell
SOA AAA
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: NY
Studying for duolingo and coursera
Favorite beer: Murphy's Irish Stout
Posts: 85,068
Blog Entries: 6
Default

This is an odd one. A defamation suit over non-risk-adjusted mortality rate in the news (as well as alleging an ongoing investigation when there was no investigation)

http://lawnewz.com/uncategorized/hos...lse-reporting/

Quote:

Those who accuse CNN and other mainstream media outlets of “fake news” will probably revel in a recent decision by a federal judge in Atlanta, Georgia. While Judge Orinda Evans didn’t all out declare that CNN was peddling in falsehoods, she did take aim at the network in an initial judgment in favor of a former hospital CEO who sued CNN accusing them of purposely skewing statistics to reflect poorly on a West Palm Beach hospital. Judge Evans didn’t mince words in her 18-page order allowing the case to move forward, and dismissing CNN’s attempt to get it thrown out of court.

Davide Carbone, former CEO of St. Mary’s Medical Center in West Palm Beach, filed a defamation lawsuit against CNN after they aired what he claims were a “series of false and defamatory news reports” regarding the infant mortality rate at the hospital. CNN’s report said the mortality rate was three times the national average. However, Mr. Carbone contends that CNN “intentionally” manipulated statistics to bolster their report. He also claims that CNN purposely ignored information that would look favorable to the hospital in order to sensationalize the story.

“In our case, we contended that CNN essentially made up its own standard in order to conduct an ‘apples to oranges’ comparison to support its false assertion that St. Mary’s mortality rate was 3 times higher than the national average. Accordingly, the case against CNN certainly fits the description of media-created ‘Fake News.'” said Carbone’s attorney L. Lin Wood, in a statement to LawNewz.com.

Wood says that as a result of CNN’s story Carbone lost his job and it became extremely difficult for him to find new employment in the field of hospital administration.
I looked at the court doc and did a blog post:
http://stump.marypat.org/article/670...ortality-rates

So, both the plaintiff & CNN agree the raw stats were correct.

Plaintiff says the raw stats were compared against risk-adjusted stats, and were misleading.

All that's happened so far is the judge says the lawsuit can go forward. Plaintiff could still lose.
__________________
It's STUMP

LinkedIn Profile
Reply With Quote
  #192  
Old 02-26-2017, 04:20 PM
campbell's Avatar
campbell campbell is offline
Mary Pat Campbell
SOA AAA
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: NY
Studying for duolingo and coursera
Favorite beer: Murphy's Irish Stout
Posts: 85,068
Blog Entries: 6
Default

not only mortality, but it is related

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/27/o...m_medium=email

Quote:
Why Succeeding Against the Odds Can Make You Sick

.....
Over the past two years, Dr. Brody and colleagues have amassed more evidence supporting this theory. In 2015, they found that white blood cells among strivers were prematurely aged relative to those of their peers. Ominous correlations have also been found in cardiovascular and metabolic health. In December, Dr. Brody and colleagues published a study in the journal Pediatrics that said that among black adolescents from disadvantaged backgrounds, “unrelenting determination to succeed” predicted an elevated risk of developing diabetes.

.....
Dr. Brody, who does much of his work in African-American communities in rural Georgia, focuses on people who overcome the odds to prosper, academically, professionally and financially. The personality trait that predicts this kind of success against the odds is known in psychology as resilience. Many consider it desirable. Dr. Brody’s summary of the classical tenets of resilient strivers sounds like something from a motivational poster: “They cultivate persistence, set goals and work diligently toward them, navigate setbacks, focus on the long term, and resist temptations that might knock them off course.”

In the United States, gaps in health and longevity between the wealthy and the poor are some of the greatest in the world. It seems natural to assume that jumping from one stratum to the next — being upwardly mobile — would come with gains in health. And conceivably it could work that way — like if a person won the lottery or achieved overnight fortune from writing a truly insightful tweet. But decades of research show that when resilient people work hard within a system that has not afforded them the same opportunities as others, their physical health deteriorates.

The effect has become known as John Henryism. The term was coined by a young researcher named Sherman James in the 1980s, after he met a man named John Henry Martin. Mr. Martin didn’t have any known relation to the John Henry of folk legend who beat a mechanical steam drill in a steel-driving contest, only to collapse dead from exhaustion. (It’s debated whether the original John Henry was himself an actual person with an actual nine-pound hammer that he used to drive metal stakes into Big Bend Mountain in West Virginia in the 1870s so that dynamite could be embedded in the rock and a tunnel could be built for the C.&O. Railroad, or possibly an amalgam of many former slaves who transitioned into freedom.)

.....
Dr. James went on to develop what he called the John Henryism scale, meant to identify people who use “high-effort coping” to manage challenges. The scale is based on how strongly people identify with statements like “When things don’t go the way I want them to, that just makes me work even harder” and “I’ve always felt that I could make of my life pretty much what I wanted to make of it.” He found that high scores correlated with worse health among poor and working-class blacks. Notably, like Dr. Brody, Dr. James found that working-class white Americans seemed unaffected by this phenomenon.

.....
Last month, Dr. Mujahid published findings from a study of a (needless to say, pale) population in Finland. Lower socioeconomic status correlated with more heart attacks (as expected) — but this effect was strongest among people who scored highest on the John Henryism scale.

“This is a significant step forward in understanding the generalizability of the John Henryism hypothesis,” said Dr. James, who collaborated with Dr. Mujahid on the new study. “Because we called it John Henryism, it carried a strong connotation of being unique to black men. But that wasn’t our original expectation.”

When Dr. James was first coming to appreciate the John Henryism effect in the mid-1980s in eastern North Carolina, he reminded me, “the economic resources and social standing of blacks and whites in that community were very different.” Very few African-Americans had even high-level blue-collar jobs, and virtually none had white-collar jobs. Almost all white people had one or the other.

“The items that speak to John Henryism don’t speak to gender or race or socioeconomic status,” said Dr. Mujahid. The scales are designed to measure repetitive, high-effort coping. Her conclusion is that because African-Americans encounter more overt and systemic discrimination, “the combination of adversity and high-effort coping is what’s having health consequences.”

......
Dr. James expects John Henryism can now be seen across Western democracies, wherever people are inculcated with a Protestant sense of personal responsibility and belief in self-reliance. “When people act on that — really trying to make ends meet going up against very powerful forces of dislocation — their biological systems are going to pay a price,” he said.

“That’s the situation African-Americans have been in since the beginning,” he added. “Now we’re seeing other groups begin to be exposed to these same forces.”

In the spirit of the original John Henry, among those forces is technologically induced unemployment. The mechanization of labor once pushed rural Southern blacks into the factories of the North. Now mechanization is giving way to automation, affecting less-educated white Americans, especially men.

.....
“This is going to be a very difficult time,” said Dr. Mujahid. She added, not hopefully, “There will probably be some interesting natural experiments that emerge.”

__________________
It's STUMP

LinkedIn Profile
Reply With Quote
  #193  
Old 02-26-2017, 04:37 PM
campbell's Avatar
campbell campbell is offline
Mary Pat Campbell
SOA AAA
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: NY
Studying for duolingo and coursera
Favorite beer: Murphy's Irish Stout
Posts: 85,068
Blog Entries: 6
Default

https://www.theatlantic.com/health/a...we-die/516357/

Quote:
Should We Die?
Radical longevity may change the way we live—and not necessarily for the better.

“So, you don’t want to die?” I asked Zoltan Istvan, then the Transhumanist candidate for president, as we sat in the lobby of the University of Baltimore one day last fall.

“No,” he said, assuredly. “Never.”

Istvan, an atheist who physically resembles the pure-hearted hero of a Soviet children’s book, explained that his life is awesome. In the future, it will grow awesomer still, and he wants to be the one to decide when it ends. Defying aging was the point of his presidential campaign, the slogan of which could have been “Make Death Optional for Once.” To (literally) drive the point home, he circled the nation in the “Immortality Bus,” a brown bus spray-painted to look like a coffin.

.....
Meanwhile, scientists in California are expected to launch a clinical trial in which participants will have their blood “cleaned” of age-related proteins, the Guardian reported, with the goal of helping them live longer and healthier lives. A drug called rapamycin, which extended the lives of mice by a quarter, is also being tested. The thinking is, “if we figure out what chemical event signals to the body that it’s time to wrap things up,” said Sheldon Solomon, a psychology professor at Skidmore College, “you could be at a certain age for a long time.”

The billionaire technologists’ obsession with living forever can approach a sort of parody. Oracle’s Ellison once said, “Death makes me very angry"—suggesting this pillar of nature is just another consumer pain-point to be relieved with an app.

But let’s assume, for the sake of argument, that it can be. Let’s say human lives will soon get radically longer—or even become unending. The billionaires will get their way, and death will become optional.

If we really are on the doorstep of radical longevity, it’s worth considering how it will change human society. With no deadline, will we still be motivated to finish things? (As a writer, I assure you this is difficult.) Or will we while away our endless days, amusing ourselves to—well, the Process Formerly Known as Death—while we overpopulate the planet? Will Earth become a paradise of eternally youthful artists, or a hellish, depleted nursing home? The answers depend on, well, one’s opinion about the meaning of life.

......
This feeling of abundant possibility is one of the chief motivations of the pro-longevity crowd. “Projects and ambitions like mastering every musical instrument in the orchestra, writing a book in each of all the major languages, planting a new garden and seeing it mature, teaching one’s great-great-grandchildren how to fish, traveling to Alpha Centauri, or just seeing history unfold over a few hundred years are not realistic: there is simply not enough time to achieve them given current life expectancy,” wrote Nick Bostrom, an Oxford philosopher and grand-daddy of life-extension (so to speak), with fellow philosopher Rebecca Roache in 2008. But, they continue, “if we could reasonably expect from an early age to live indefinitely, we could embark on projects designed to keep us occupied for hundreds or thousands of years.”
.....
Still, a common fear about life in our brave, new undying world is that it will just be really boring, says S. Matthew Liao, director of the Center for Bioethics at New York University. Life, Liao explained, is like a party—it has a start and end time. “We get excited because the party’s going on for an hour, and we don’t want to miss it. We try to make the most of it while we’re there.”

__________________
It's STUMP

LinkedIn Profile
Reply With Quote
  #194  
Old 02-26-2017, 05:53 PM
campbell's Avatar
campbell campbell is offline
Mary Pat Campbell
SOA AAA
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: NY
Studying for duolingo and coursera
Favorite beer: Murphy's Irish Stout
Posts: 85,068
Blog Entries: 6
Default

https://www.manhattan-institute.org/...ple-10044.html

Quote:
Will Repealing Obamacare Kill People?


ABSTRACT

The best statistical estimate for the number of lives saved each year by the Affordable Care Act (ACA) is zero. Certainly, there are individuals who have benefited from various of its provisions. But attempts to claim broader effects on public health or thousands of lives saved rely upon extrapolation from past studies that focus on the value of private health insurance. The ACA, however, has expanded coverage through Medicaid, a public program that, according to several studies, has failed to improve health outcomes for recipients. In fact, public health trends since the implementation of the ACA have worsened, with 80,000 more deaths in 2015 than had mortality continued declining during 2014–15 at the rate achieved during 2000–2013.
KEY FINDINGS

The Affordable Care Act has led to substantial increases in Medicaid enrollment but shows no effect in the aggregate on private insurance coverage; a lower share of non-elderly Americans had private insurance in 2015 than at the start of the recession in 2007–08.
Economic recovery, not the ACA, has driven changes in private insurance coverage: during 2007–10, total employment fell 5.5% and private insurance coverage fell 7.0%; during 2010–15, total employment rose 8.8% and private insurance coverage rose 9.5%.
The share of non-elderly Americans with private health insurance fell from 66.8% in 2007 to 65.6% in 2015.
By contrast, the share of non-elderly Americans enrolled in public insurance, primarily Medicaid, has increased from 18.1% in 2007 to 25.3% in 2015, accounting for the entire reduction in the uninsured share of the population.
Studies showing positive effects from health-insurance coverage focus on private insurance, not Medicaid.
In Oregon, researchers studied the effects of expanding Medicaid coverage and found no improvement in health out- comes. Numerous other studies support this finding for specific conditions and procedures, for Medicaid expansions and for public health spending generally.
Where studies do find that Medicaid has a positive effect, it is for pregnant women and young children— groups whose coverage was not expanded by the ACA.
A statistical claim that the ACA saves large numbers of lives should be supported by evidence that it has reduced mortality rates; yet the opposite occurred.
In 2015, age-adjusted mortality rose and life expectancy declined in the United States for the first time since the early 1990s.
Nor is it the case that states adopting the ACA’s optional Medicaid expansion performed better than those rejecting it; to the contrary, mortality in 2015 rose more in Medicaid expansion states.
Despite implementation of the ACA, there were 80,000 more deaths in 2015 than had mortality continued to decline during 2014–15 at the same rate as during 2000–2013.
Full report:
https://www.manhattan-institute.org/...IB-OC-0217.pdf

it's only 5 pages.

and no graphs

__________________
It's STUMP

LinkedIn Profile
Reply With Quote
  #195  
Old 03-13-2017, 07:50 AM
campbell's Avatar
campbell campbell is offline
Mary Pat Campbell
SOA AAA
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: NY
Studying for duolingo and coursera
Favorite beer: Murphy's Irish Stout
Posts: 85,068
Blog Entries: 6
Default

I've been doing a weekly feature on my blog called "Mortality Monday"

today's is about suspicious Russian deaths:
http://stump.marypat.org/article/681...russian-deaths

Just wanted to point out these historical death curves (by calendar year) from Russia:



__________________
It's STUMP

LinkedIn Profile
Reply With Quote
  #196  
Old 03-22-2017, 05:34 PM
campbell's Avatar
campbell campbell is offline
Mary Pat Campbell
SOA AAA
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: NY
Studying for duolingo and coursera
Favorite beer: Murphy's Irish Stout
Posts: 85,068
Blog Entries: 6
Default

kind of about morbidity more than mortality, but:

http://nautil.us/issue/46/balance/wi...-the-new-60-rp

Quote:
Will 90 Become The New 60?
As our lifespans have increased, so too have our active years. Can that go on?


.....
In 1946 the newly founded Gerontological Society of America cited, in the first article of the first issue of its Journal of Gerontology, the need to concern ourselves to add “not more years to life, but more life to years.” The dictum was famously sharpened 15 years later by Robert Kennedy when he told the delegates at the first White House Conference on Aging “We have added years to life; it is time to think about how we add life to years.” Political theorist and futurist Francis Fukuyama was particularly eloquent but hardly alone when he warned two decades ago that if we maintain our obsession with extending life at all costs, society may “increasingly come to resemble a giant nursing home.”

Around the same time noted aging researchers S. Jay Olshansky and Bruce Carnes wrote in ominous tones that we were treading into the realm of “manufactured survival time,” warning that “this success has been accompanied by a rise in frailty and disability in the general population.1 This is a consequence that neither the medical community nor society was prepared for.” A celebrated article by epidemiologist E.M. Gruenberg in 1977 bemoaned the “failures of success”: “at the same time that persons suffering from chronic diseases are getting an extension of life, they are also getting an extension of disease and disability.”

This message is particularly dire if lifespans rise over extended periods of time—which they have done. In 1936 Louis Dublin, the chief actuary of Metropolitan Life teamed up with the esteemed mathematical demographer Alfred Lotka, to calculate the maximum life expectancy theoretically possible. They came up with a limit of 69.93 years. This limit was exceeded by women in Iceland five years later, by American women in 1949, and by American men in 1979. Life expectancies have been increasing at a steady rate of 3 months per year for the past 175 years, and on average, expert calculations of the maximum possible human lifespan have been exceeded an average of five years after being made. In some cases, they had already been overtaken by events somewhere in the world at the time they were issued.

ut what if long lifespans don’t necessarily mean more years of disability? At the turn of the present century George C. Williams, celebrated evolutionary theorist of aging, attacked what he termed the “Tithonus error.” Tithonus, son of a nymph, lover of a goddess, was granted the boon of eternal life. But the further gift of eternal youth was unattainable. Frail, bent, and suffering he shriveled at last into a cricket. Williams’ argument was almost a trivial one, from the perspective of evolutionary biology: The very aged are rare, hence there is unlikely to have been any evolutionary pressure to shape the timing of the end of life, in the way that the timing of early development has been shaped. What we see as the “natural lifespan” is simply a balance between the wear of daily life and the limited ability of repair mechanisms to undo it fully. Shifting the balance, either by increasing the rate or efficiency of repair, or by reducing the rate of damage, must surely stretch out the whole process. Actually, it should do even better than that: The end stage, where most of our suffering is found, ought to be the least susceptible to extension, since it requires maintaining the function of an organism that is failing on multiple levels. This is consistent with the observation that, while mortality rates have been falling at all ages, the pace of progress has been slowest at advanced ages. Youth, according to this argument, should take up a greater portion of our lifespan over time. In 1980 the medical researcher James Fries called this process “compression of morbidity.”

Okay, I want to see the paper where they calculated the maximum possible life expectancy. That's hilarious.

More on morbidity compression:

Quote:
By comparison, the generation of American men who fought in World War II and are now in their 90s lived, on average, about eight years longer than their great grandfathers who fought in the Civil War, once they reached adulthood. Those among the 19th-century men who did survive into what we now call middle age also spent more of their years suffering chronic, debilitating illnesses. Specifically, the average age of onset of arthritis was 64.7 years for the WWII veterans, but only 53.7 years for the Civil War veterans. Heart disease started nearly 10 years later, and chronic respiratory disease more than 11 years.

Comparing the Union Army results with late 20th-century health surveys has led to estimates of disability-rate declines of 0.6 percent per year, accelerating to 1.7 percent per year in the 1980s and 1990s.2 These trends have continued into the 21st century, at least according to some measures. According to the 1985 United States Health Interview Survey 23 percent of Americans aged 50 to 64 reported limitations on daily activities due to chronic illness; in 2014, this was down to 16 percent. At ages 65 and higher, the percentages were 39 percent and 33 percent.

A recent study by University of Southern California gerontologist Eileen Crimmins and her colleagues looked at the change in disability-free life expectancy—the average number of years that we would expect someone to live free of major limitations due to long-term illness. From 1970 to 2010 American males gained about 7.7 years of life expectancy at birth, of which nearly half (3.2) could be expected to be disability free. Perhaps more immediately relevant, Americans aged 65 saw their remaining life expectancy increase from 15 to 19 years, with 2.5 of the 4 extra years being disability-free. (This averages the results for men and women; women gained fewer years overall than men, but the relative gains between disability-free and disabled years are similar.) The largest increase in healthy years after age 65 came in the last decade. Americans in 2010 could expect to live 80 percent of their lives without major disability, including well over half of their years after age 65.

Perhaps most striking, a new study has discovered that over the past two decades the incidence of new dementia cases has dropped by 20 percent.3 Men in the United Kingdom develop dementia today at the same rate as men five years younger in the 1990s; for women the improvements have been more modest.


.....
The massive benefits from vaccination, the elimination of leaded gasoline, and reduction of smoking are still making their way through the aging population, of course, and will likely be stretching our healthy lifespans for some time to come. Tremendous progress could still be achieved by spreading the healthful environments of wealthy countries to the rest of the world, and the healthful lifestyles of the wealthy within those countries to the rest of the population.

.....
An illustration of this may be found in a recent study of the timing of disability by health economists David Cutler, Kaushik Ghosh, and Mary Beth Landrum. By their measure, expected disability-free years after age 65 expanded from 8.8 to 10.4 and disabled years actually contracted, from 8.5 to 7.8, between 1992 and 2004—with the disabled years increasingly concentrated in the period immediately preceding death. The picture looked slightly different, though, when framed in terms of “disease-free” years. Disease-free life expectancy after age 65 barely increased, from 8.0 to 8.6, while years with disease increased from 9.5 to 9.7. More disease, then, but less disability.

.....
Will the fit 90-year-olds of the future need to expend the strength they have maintained to lug around the contents of a large medicine cabinet to keep them going? A recent study found that while the fraction of elderly Americans (age 65 and over) who were taking five or more prescription medications had been increasing, it seems to have stabilized in recent years at just under 40 percent. Many of the most effective treatments for age-related conditions are set-it and forget-it—hip replacements, for instance, and cardiac pacemakers. Implantable drug pumps are already in use.

We long ago got used to thinking that a person can still be youthful and healthy even when needing spectacles to see clearly, or when their survival depends on an artificial supply of insulin. The spry 90-year-olds of the future may be no different, hearing through cochlear implants and running with leg and heart muscles rebuilt with stem-cell treatments. Whatever the future of aging is, there is no sign yet of any limit to our ability to expand each of the phases of our lives.
__________________
It's STUMP

LinkedIn Profile
Reply With Quote
  #197  
Old 03-22-2017, 05:37 PM
campbell's Avatar
campbell campbell is offline
Mary Pat Campbell
SOA AAA
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: NY
Studying for duolingo and coursera
Favorite beer: Murphy's Irish Stout
Posts: 85,068
Blog Entries: 6
Default

okay, I need to learn more about this person:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Louis_Israel_Dublin

https://www.jstor.org/stable/pdf/1808523.pdf

https://www.amazon.com/s/ref=dp_byli...=relevancerank
__________________
It's STUMP

LinkedIn Profile

Last edited by campbell; 03-22-2017 at 05:43 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #198  
Old 03-23-2017, 09:12 AM
PeppermintPatty's Avatar
PeppermintPatty PeppermintPatty is offline
Member
CAS
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Posts: 39,311
Default

The WSJ had an article today about the rising mortality rates of US white people who aren't college educated. "Deaths of despair", like alcohol-related deaths, are on the rise. All the stories in the article were about men, but none of the stats it showed were split by sex, leading me to be curious about that.

But the numbers were rather grim, showing a growing divide between the classes.
Reply With Quote
  #199  
Old 03-23-2017, 12:17 PM
campbell's Avatar
campbell campbell is offline
Mary Pat Campbell
SOA AAA
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: NY
Studying for duolingo and coursera
Favorite beer: Murphy's Irish Stout
Posts: 85,068
Blog Entries: 6
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by PeppermintPatty View Post
The WSJ had an article today about the rising mortality rates of US white people who aren't college educated. "Deaths of despair", like alcohol-related deaths, are on the rise. All the stories in the article were about men, but none of the stats it showed were split by sex, leading me to be curious about that.

But the numbers were rather grim, showing a growing divide between the classes.
From NPR:

http://www.npr.org/sections/health-s...ths-of-despair

Quote:
The Forces Driving Middle-Aged White People's 'Deaths Of Despair'

Listen· 4:51

In 2015, when researchers Ann Case and Angus Deaton discovered that death rates had been rising dramatically since 1999 among middle-aged white Americans, they weren't sure why people were dying younger, reversing decades of longer life expectancy.

Now the husband-and-wife economists say they have a better understanding of what's causing these "deaths of despair" by suicide, drugs and alcohol.


Death rates of non-Hispanic whites, age 45-54 -- darker = higher death rates

2000:


2014:


Quote:
In a follow-up to their groundbreaking 2015 work, they say that a lack of steady, well-paying jobs for whites without college degrees has caused pain, distress and social dysfunction to build up over time. The mortality rate for that group, ages 45 to 54, increased by a half-percent each year from 1999 to 2013.

But whites with college degrees haven't suffered the same lack of economic opportunity, and haven't seen the same loss of life expectancy. The study was published Thursday in Brookings Papers on Economic Activity.

....
On what's driving these early deaths

Case: These deaths of despair have been accompanied by reduced labor force participation, reduced marriage rates, increases in reports of poor health and poor mental health. So we are beginning to thread a story in that it's possible that [the trend is] consistent with the labor market collapsing for people with less than a college degree. In turn, those people are being less able to form stable marriages, and in turn that has effects on the kind of economic and social supports that people need in order to thrive.

In general, the longer you're in the labor force, the more you earn — in part because you understand your job better and you're more efficient at your job, you've had on-the-job training, you belong to a union, and so your wages go up with age. That's happened less and less the later and later you've been born and the later you enter this labor market.


Deaton: We're thinking of this in terms of something that's been going on for a long time, something that's emerged as the iceberg has risen out of the water. We think of this as part of the decline of the white working class. If you go back to the early '70s when you had the so-called blue-collar aristocrats, those jobs have slowly crumbled away and many more men are finding themselves in a much more hostile labor market with lower wages, lower quality and less permanent jobs. That's made it harder for them to get married. They don't get to know their own kids. There's a lot of social dysfunction building up over time. There's a sense that these people have lost this sense of status and belonging. And these are classic preconditions for suicide.

Case: The rates of suicide are much higher among men [than women]. And drug overdoses and alcohol-related liver death are higher among men, too. But the [mortality] trends are identical for men and women with a high school degree or less. So we think of this as people, either quickly with a gun or slowly with drugs and alcohol, are killing themselves. Under that body count there's a lot of social dysfunction that we think ultimately we may be able to pin to poor job prospects over the life course.

On how mortality rates differ among races

Deaton: Hispanics [have always had lower mortality rates] than whites. It's a bit of a puzzle that's not fully resolved, to put it mildly. It's always been true that mortality rates have been higher and life expectancy shorter for African Americans than for whites. What is happening now is that gap is closing and, for some groups, it's actually crossed. What we see in the new work is if you compare whites with a high school degree or less, at least their mortality rates are now higher than mortality rates for African Americans as a whole. If you compare whites with a high school degree or less with blacks with a high school degree or less, their mortality rates have converged. It's as if poorly educated whites have now taken over from blacks as the lowest rung of society in terms of mortality rates.

FWIW, one of the likely reasons for lower Hispanic mortality is lower smoking rates (I was looking into this recently)

Quote:
On how mortality rates differ among races

Deaton: Hispanics [have always had lower mortality rates] than whites. It's a bit of a puzzle that's not fully resolved, to put it mildly. It's always been true that mortality rates have been higher and life expectancy shorter for African Americans than for whites. What is happening now is that gap is closing and, for some groups, it's actually crossed. What we see in the new work is if you compare whites with a high school degree or less, at least their mortality rates are now higher than mortality rates for African Americans as a whole. If you compare whites with a high school degree or less with blacks with a high school degree or less, their mortality rates have converged. It's as if poorly educated whites have now taken over from blacks as the lowest rung of society in terms of mortality rates.

Here's the paper:
https://www.brookings.edu/wp-content...casedeaton.pdf


Quote:
SUMMARY
We build on and extend the findings in Case and Deaton (2015a) on increases in mortality and
morbidity among white non-Hispanic Americans in midlife since the turn of the century. Increases
in all-cause mortality continued unabated to 2015, with additional increases in drug overdoses, suicides,
and alcoholic-related liver mortality, particularly among those with a high-school degree or
less. The decline in mortality from heart disease has slowed and, most recently, stopped, and this
combined with the three other causes is responsible for the increase in all-cause mortality. Not only
are educational differences in mortality among whites increasing, but mortality is rising for those
without, and falling for those with, a college degree. This is true for non-Hispanic white men and
women in all age groups from 2529 through 6064. Mortality rates among blacks and Hispanics
continue to fall; in 1999, the mortality rate of white non-Hispanics aged 5054 with only a highschool
degree was 30 percent lower than the mortality rate of blacks in the same age group; by
2015, it was 30 percent higher. There are similar crossovers between white and black mortality in
all age groups from 2529 to 6064.
Mortality rates in comparable rich countries have continued their pre-millennial fall at the rates
that used to characterize the US. In contrast to the US, mortality rates in Europe are falling for those
with low levels of educational attainment, and are doing so more rapidly than mortality rates for
those with higher levels of education.
Many commentators have suggested that the poor mortality outcomes can be attributed to slowly
growing, stagnant, and even declining incomes; we evaluate this possibility, but find that it cannot
provide a comprehensive explanation. In particular, the income profiles for blacks and Hispanics,
whose mortality has fallen, are no better than those for whites. Nor is there any evidence in the European
data that mortality trends match income trends, in spite of sharply different patterns of median
income across countries after the Great Recession.
We propose a preliminary but plausible story in which cumulative disadvantage over life, in the labor
market, in marriage and child outcomes, and in health, is triggered by progressively worsening
labor market opportunities at the time of entry for whites with low levels of education. This account,
which fits much of the data, has the profoundly negative implication that policies, even ones
that successfully improve earnings and jobs, or redistribute income, will take many years to reverse
the mortality and morbidity increase, and that those in midlife now are likely to do much worse in
old age than those currently older than 65. This is in contrast to an account in which resources affect
health contemporaneously, so that those in midlife now can expect to do better in old age as
they receive Social Security and Medicare. None of this implies that there are no policy levers to be
pulled; preventing the over-prescription of opioids is an obvious target that would clearly be helpful.

https://www.brookings.edu/bpea-artic...-21st-century/

Quote:
Case and Deaton find that deaths of despair are rising in parallel for both men and women without a high school degree, and they deaths of despair have increased in all parts of the country and at every level of urbanization.

The states with the highest mortality rates from drugs, alcohol and suicide, among white non-Hispanics aged 45-54, are geographically scattered. In 2000, the epidemic was centered in the southwest. By the mid-2000s it had spread to Appalachia, Florida, and the west coast. Today, it’s country-wide.

The authors suggest that the increases in deaths of despair are accompanied by a measurable deterioration in economic and social wellbeing, which has become more pronounced for each successive birth cohort. Marriage rates and labor force participation rates fall between successive birth cohorts, while reports of physical pain, and poor health and mental health rise.

Case and Deaton document an accumulation of pain, distress, and social dysfunction in the lives of working class whites that took hold as the blue-collar economic heyday of the early 1970s ended, and continued through the 2008 financial crisis and the subsequent slow recovery.
and more:
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/artic...r-a-generation

http://www.economist.com/news/financ...-rise-economic

https://www.theatlantic.com/business...espair/520473/
__________________
It's STUMP

LinkedIn Profile

Last edited by campbell; 03-23-2017 at 12:39 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #200  
Old 03-23-2017, 04:24 PM
BLASTFROMTHEPAST BLASTFROMTHEPAST is offline
Member
Non-Actuary
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Posts: 1,264
Default

Quote:
Youth, according to this argument, should take up a greater portion of our lifespan over time. In 1980 the medical researcher James Fries called this process “compression of morbidity.”
So, just walking along one day perfectly fine and BOOM! Dead.

Kind of an awkward surprise.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 01:12 PM.


Powered by vBulletin®
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
*PLEASE NOTE: Posts are not checked for accuracy, and do not
represent the views of the Actuarial Outpost or its sponsors.
Page generated in 0.20836 seconds with 9 queries