Missing Americans: Early Death in the United States, 1933-2021

We assessed how many U.S. deaths would have been averted each year, 1933-2021, if U.S. age-specific mortality rates had equaled those of other wealthy nations. The annual number of excess deaths in the U.S. increased steadily beginning in the late 1970s, reaching 626,353 in 2019. Excess deaths surged during the COVID-19 pandemic. In 2021, there were 1,092,293 "Missing Americans" and 25 million years of life lost due to excess mortality relative to peer nations. In 2021, half of all deaths under 65 years and 91% of the increase in under-65 mortality since 2019 would have been avoided if the U.S. had the mortality rates of its peers. Black and Native Americans made up a disproportionate share of Missing Americans, although the majority were White. One sentence summaryIn 2021, 1.1 million U.S. deaths - including 1 in 2 deaths under age 65 years - would have been averted if the U.S. had the mortality rates of other wealthy nations.

Unemployment insurance and food insecurity among people who lost employment in the wake of COVID-19

Forty million U.S. residents lost their jobs in the first two months of the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic. In response, the Federal Government expanded unemployment insurance benefits in both size ($600/week supplement) and scope (to include caregivers and self-employed workers). We assessed the relationship between unemployment insurance and food insecurity among people who lost their jobs during the COVID-19 pandemic in the period when the federal unemployment insurance supplement was in place. We analyzed data from the Understanding Coronavirus in America (UAC) cohort, a longitudinal survey collected by the University of Southern California Center for Economic and Social Research (CESR) every two weeks between April 1 and July 8, 2020. We limited the sample to individuals living in households earning less than $75,000 in February 2020 who lost their jobs during COVID-19. Using difference-in-differences and event study regression models, we evaluated the association between receipt of unemployment insurance and self-reported food insecurity and eating less due to financial constraints. We found that 40.5% of those living in households earning less than $75,000 and employed in February 2020 experienced unemployment during the COVID-19 pandemic. Of those who lost their jobs, 31% reported food insecurity and 33% reported eating less due to financial constraints. Food insecurity peaked in April 2020 and declined over time, but began to increase again among people receiving unemployment insurance during the final wave of the survey ahead of the federal supplement to unemployment insurance ending. Food insecurity and eating less were more common among people who were non-White, lived in lower-income households, younger, and who were sexual or gender minorities. Receipt of unemployment insurance was associated with a 4.4 percentage point (95% CI: -7.8 to -0.9 percentage points) decline in food insecurity (a 30.3% relative decline compared to the average level of food insecurity during the study period). Receipt of unemployment insurance was also associated with a 6.1 percentage point (95% CI: -9.6 to -2.7 percentage point) decline in eating less due to financial constraints (a 42% relative decline). Estimates from event study specifications revealed that reductions in food insecurity and eating less were greatest in the four-week period immediately following receipt of unemployment insurance, with no evidence of differential pre-existing trends in either outcome. We conclude that receiving unemployment insurance benefits during the period when the $600/week federal supplement was in place was associated with large reductions in food insecurity.

Social distancing to slow the U.S. COVID-19 epidemic: an interrupted time-series analysis

BackgroundSocial distancing measures to address the U.S. coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) epidemic may have notable health and social impacts. Methods and FindingsWe conducted a longitudinal pretest-posttest comparison group study to estimate the change in COVID-19 case growth before versus after implementation of statewide social distancing measures in the U.S. The primary exposure was time before (14 days prior to, and up to 3 days after) versus after (beginning 4 days after, and up to 21 days after) implementation of the first statewide social distancing measures. Statewide restrictions on internal movement were examined as a secondary exposure. The primary outcome was the COVID-19 case growth rate. The secondary outcome was the COVID-19-attributed mortality growth rate. All states initiated social distancing measures between March 10-25, 2020. The mean daily COVID-19 case growth rate decreased beginning four days after implementation of the first statewide social distancing measures, by 0.9% per day (95% confidence interval [CI], -1.3% to -0.4%; P<0.001). We did not estimate a statistically significant difference in the mean daily case growth rate before versus after implementation of statewide restrictions on internal movement (0.1% per day; 95% CI, -0.04% to 0.3%, P=0.14), but there is significant difficulty in disentangling the unique associations with statewide restrictions on internal movement from the unique associations with the first social distancing measures. Beginning seven days after social distancing, the COVID-19-attributed mortality growth rate decreased by 1.7% per day (95% CI, -3.0% to -0.7%; P<0.001). Our analysis is susceptible to potential bias resulting from the aggregate nature of the ecological data, potential confounding by contemporaneous changes (e.g., increases in testing), and potential underestimation of social distancing due to spillovers across neighboring states. ConclusionsStatewide social distancing measures were associated with a decrease in the COVID-19 epidemic case growth rate that was statistically significant and a decrease in the COVID-19-attributed mortality growth rate that was not statistically significant. Author SummaryO_ST_ABSWhy was the study doneC_ST_ABSThere are few empirical data about the population health benefits of imposing statewide social distancing measures to reduce transmission of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2, which causes coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). What did the researchers findWe compared data from each state before vs. after implementation of statewide social distancing measures to estimate changes in mean COVID-19 daily case growth rates. Growth rates declined by approximately 1% per day beginning four days (approximately one incubation period) after statewide social distancing measures were implemented. Stated differently, our model implies that social distancing reduced the total number of COVID-19 cases by approximately 1,600 reported cases at 7 days after implementation, by approximately reported 55,000 cases at 14 days after implementation, and by approximately reported 600,000 cases at 21 days after implementation. What do these findings meanStatewide social distancing measures were associated with a reduction in the growth rate of COVID-19 cases in the U.S. However, our analysis is susceptible to potential bias resulting from the aggregate nature of the data, potential confounding by other changes that occurred during the study period (e.g., increases in testing), and potential underestimation of social distancing due to spillovers across neighboring states.