The surprising finding reported in Deyugina and Molitor (2020) that a hurricane as devastating as Katrina reduced the mortality of  residents of New Orleans merits close scrutiny because it is inconsistent with intuition, theory and prior evidence (e. g., Laditka et al. 2010; Rhodes et al. 2010; Fussel and Lowe 2014; Calvo et al. 2015). In this article, I provided a thorough review and critical assessment of the evidence provided by DM to support their conclusions. I find the evidence wanting .
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 likely to be selected non-randomly on the basis of health because of the relatively high mortality rate in New Orleans compared to the rest of the country. Third, there is considerable evidence that among those who moved from New Orleans, the destination chosen was non-random. Finally, DM never directly assessed changes in mortality of those who moved, or stayed, in New Orleans before and after Hurricane Katrina. These problems lead me to conclude that the evidence presented by DM does not support their inferences .
R
The surprising finding reported in Deyugina and Molitor (2020) that a hurricane as devastating as Katrina reduced
In a recent article in the American Economic Review, Tatyana Deryugina and David Molitor (DM) analyzed the effect of Hurricane Katrina on
A
elderly and disabled
R
merits close scrutiny because it is inconsistent with intuition, theory and prior evidence (e. g., Laditka et al. 2010; Rhodes et al. 2010; Fussel and Lowe 2014; Calvo et al. 2015).
. 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.
R
provided a thorough review and
provide a
R
I find the evidence wanting
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 likely to be selected non-randomly on the basis of health because of the relatively high mortality rate in New Orleans compared to the rest of the country. Third, there is considerable evidence that among those who moved from New Orleans, the destination chosen was non-random. Finally, DM never directly assessed changes in mortality of those who moved, or stayed, in New Orleans before and after Hurricane Katrina. These problems lead me to conclude that the evidence presented by DM does not support their inferences