Skip to main content
PLOS ONE logoLink to PLOS ONE
. 2024 Aug 21;19(8):e0308105. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0308105

Increased homicide played a key role in driving Black-White disparities in life expectancy among men during the COVID-19 pandemic

Michael T Light 1,*, Karl Vachuska 1
Editor: Claudio Alberto Dávila-Cervantes2
PMCID: PMC11338436  PMID: 39167593

Abstract

Disparities in life expectancy between Black and White Americans increased substantially during the COVID-19 pandemic. During the same period, the US experienced the largest increase in homicide on record. Yet, little research has examined the contribution of homicide to Black-White disparities in longevity in recent years. Using mortality data and population estimates, we conduct a comprehensive decomposition of the drivers of Black-White inequality in life expectancy and lifespan variability between 2019 and 2021 among men. We find that homicide is one of the principal reasons why lifespans have become shorter for Black men than White men in recent years. In 2020 and 2021, homicide was the leading contributor to inequality in both life expectancy and lifespan variability between Black and White men, accounting for far more of the racial gap in longevity and variability than deaths from COVID-19. Addressing homicides should be at the forefront of any public health discussion aimed at promoting racial health equity.

Introduction

The COVID-19 pandemic precipitated a staggering drop in U.S. life expectancy and substantially widened Black-White disparities in longevity [1,2]. Not only did the disease burden of the COVID-19 virus fall disproportionately on Black Americans, but the cascading disruptions during the pandemic also took a heavy toll on the Black community [3], including homicide. Following notable declines in homicide since the early 1990s, the U.S. homicide rate rose 30% between 2019 and 2020 –the largest one-year increase in over a century [4]. Homicide went up again in 2021, to the highest point in more than two decades [5], and Black men bore the brunt of these stark homicide increases. Between 2019 and 2020, the non-Hispanic Black male homicide rate increased 39%, from 43.8 to 61.0 (per 100,000 Black men in the population). For non-Hispanic White men, the increase was 22% (compare 3.6 to 4.4 per 100,000 White men). As a result, the Black-White homicide ratio among men shot up from 12:1 in the year immediately preceding the pandemic, to approximately 14:1 in 2020 and 2021.

Yet, despite these trends, there has been limited research on the contribution of homicide to Black-White disparities in life expectancy during the pandemic. This is a notable gap given that homicide was a major contributor to racial inequality in life expectancy even before the pandemic [6]. Moreover, homicide has an outsized impact on longevity because, unlike COVID-19, it disproportionately afflicts the young (especially young men), among whom homicides have become disquietingly common [7]. Indeed, gun deaths increased 50% among U.S. children under 18 between 2019 and 2021, the majority of which were homicides [8].

Against this backdrop, in this study we provide a detailed decomposition of the specific causes of death that drove the changes in Black-White (B-W) life expectancy in 2020 and 2021 (relative to 2019), with an emphasis on the relative import of homicide to these mortality shifts. Because men suffer disproportionally from homicide, we focus on male mortality throughout our analysis. We also decompose the sources of lifespan variability (the variance in age at death) between Blacks and Whites during this period. Although life expectancy is an essential indicator of population health, it also masks important heterogeneity because two populations with similar mean ages at death can exhibit notably different dispersion around the mean [9]. In this regard, greater lifespan variability is a fundamental inequality because it translates to greater uncertainty about age at death, which can prompt individuals to discount their future [10]. This is particularly consequential in the context of pervasive violence, as a sense of "futurelessness" can contribute to yet further crime and violence [11]. Our complementary analyses of both life expectancy and lifespan variability thus provide a comprehensive look at the link between homicide and the changes in mortality inequality between Black and White men in recent years.

Our focus on both 2020 and 2021 is important because previous decompositions of racial disparities in life expectancy during the pandemic concentrated mainly on 2020 [2]. However, mortality dynamics have changed appreciably since the initial onset of COVID-19. Notably, 2021 saw the widespread dissemination of multiple COVID-19 vaccines and the narrowing and then vanishing of the Black-White gap in COVID-19 deaths [12]. And yet, the racial gap in life expectancy declined only slightly in 2021 compared to 2020 [3]. Thus, an updated understanding of the drivers of Black-White inequality in life expectancy and variability is crucial for informing public health conversations about ameliorating racial disparities in mortality.

Materials and methods

Data and life table construction

Mortality information comes from the publicly available US multiple cause of death data files, from the National Vital Statistics System division of the National Center for Health Statistics (https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data_access/vitalstatsonline.htm#Mortality_Multiple). For 2019–2021, we aggregated mortality statistics by cause of death, 1-year age category (up to age 100), sex, and race/ethnicity, where causes of death are coded according to ICD-10 codes [13]. Drawing from prior research [9], we collapse the ICD-10 codes into 20 causes (see S3 Table for the ICD-10 codes for each cause). Population estimates by age category, gender, and race/ethnicity come from the yearly population estimates published by the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results Program (https://seer.cancer.gov/popdata/download.html). For 2021, single-year population estimates for the 85+ age groups are calculated by projecting forward the 2020 population one year using 2020 mortality rates. These projections are rescaled to have the same population size as SEER’s 2021 estimate for the 85+ age group by race and sex.

With these data, we constructed multiple-decrement life tables by cause of death, age, sex, and race for the period 2019–2021 using standard demographic techniques in public health and demography [2]. We estimate life expectancy as the average number of years a synthetic cohort of newborns is expected to live if they were to experience the mortality rates observed in a given year (details for our procedures are shown in the Supporting Information). This methodology is apt for comparing different groups over time because it is not sensitive to differences in population size or age structure.

Decomposition of life expectancy and lifespan variability

We decompose inequalities in life expectancy by cause with the following equation:

 nΔxi=nΔx*( nmxi(2)nmxi(1) nmx(2)nmx(1))

Where  nΔxi represents the difference in life expectancies between groups 1 and 2, attributed to cause i in the age-category beginning with age x and going through age x+n,  nmxi(2) represents the age and cause-specific mortality rate for cause i between ages x and x+n for group 2, nmx(2) represents the age-specific mortality rate between ages x and x+n for group 2. This equation separates the total contribution of a given age group into the different causes of death within that age category. Consequently, the total contribution for any given cause of death is the sum of the contributions for that cause across age categories.

To estimate which causes of death contributed to changes in inequality over time, we extend our analysis to four groups: non-Hispanic Blacks (1) and non-Hispanic Whites (2) in 2019, and non-Hispanic Blacks (3) and non-Hispanic Whites (4) in 2020 (and 2021). To capture changes in inequality in life expectancy between these groups, we calculate the difference in  nΔxi at two points in time. To determine the proportion of change in inequality attributed to each cause of death, we divide the differences in  nΔxi by the total change in life expectancy inequality.

Lifespan variability–the variance in age at death–is also based on the life tables, where the age of death for each age category is calculated as the mid-point of the age interval. For the 100+ age category, we assume the age of death is 102.5. Life expectancy variance is calculated from the predicted number of deaths in each age category using the following formula:

S2=( ndx*yxx+ny¯)2ndx

where y¯=ndx*yxx+nndx and yxx+n=x+n/2 for all age intervals except for the open-ended interval, where it is equal to 102.5. This calculation produces the squared standard deviation for life expectancy for each age group. The variance attributable to cause i is calculated as:

S i2=( nd xi*yxx+ny¯)2ndx

This decomposition yields the number of squared years that can be attributed to each cause of death. The percentage of life expectancy variance that can be attributed to a specific cause i, is equivalent to the difference in Si2 between the two groups divided by the difference in S2 between the two groups. This method is equivalent to the Nau and Firebaugh [14] approach for estimating “gross cause-specific contributions” to differences in life expectancy variance.

To capture changes in life expectancy variance inequality, we calculate the difference in differences in Si2 between groups at two points in time. To determine the proportion of changes in inequality caused by each cause of death, we divide the difference in differences in Si2 between groups by the total change in the inequality of life expectancy variance.

Results

Life expectancy

Whereas Black men were expected to live 71.4 years in 2019, this dropped to 67.7 years in 2020. For White men, the corresponding decline was only from 76.4 years to 74.9 years. As a result, the racial gap jumped from 5.0 to 7.2 years in lower life expectancy for Black men relative to White men. These findings align with those reported in prior research [2]. To put this in perspective, the disparity in 2020 was greater than the B-W life expectancy gap observed for males in 2000 (6.6 years) [15], and nearly equaled the gap observed in 1990 (8.2 years) [16]. Stated differently, the first year of the pandemic erased over two decades of progress in reducing inequality in longevity between Black and White men.

Fig 1 decomposes the contributions of specific causes of death to these marked changes in racial inequality in life expectancy between 2019 and 2020, 2019 and 2020, and 2020 and 2021. For parsimony, the figures throughout this article display the top five drivers of Black-White mortality disparities in 2019 (plus COVID-19), and the full results for all 20 causes of death are shown in the Supporting Information.

Fig 1. Cause-specific components of the changes in Black-White life expectancy in the United States from 2019–2021 among Males.

Fig 1

Notes: For White men, life expectancy in 2019, 2020, and 2021 was 76.4, 74.9, and 74.2 years, respectively. For Black men, life expectancy was 71.4, 67.7, and 68.1 years in 2019, 2020, and 2021.

We begin with the 2019–2020 comparison. Unsurprisingly, deaths from COVID-19 were the largest contributing factor, at 60%. But this means that much of the change in B-W inequality in life expectancy is attributable to shifts in other causes of mortality in the pandemic’s first year. Most notable were homicides at 14%, followed by heart diseases at 7% (accidental poisonings also accounted for approximately 7% of the change in B-W life expectancy inequality, see Supporting Information). Although homicides were not among the top-10 leading causes of death in 2020 and only accounted for 2.9% of the decline in life expectancy between 2019 and 2020 for the overall population [17], changes in homicide mortality were the second leading factor driving the growth in B-W inequality in life expectancy among men. It is important to place this result in recent historical context. In the decades leading up to the pandemic, reductions in homicide were one of the primary reasons why the B-W longevity gap among men shrank [18]. In 2020, however, the male B-W disparity in homicides reached its highest level since 1994 (see S1 Fig), wiping out a substantial portion of these gains.

The impact of homicide was even more pronounced in 2021. Relative to 2019, differential exposure to homicide mortality among White and Black men accounted for 26% of the increase in racial inequality in life expectancy, the second leading factor behind only COVID-19. Interpreted substantively, homicides alone accounted for a quarter of a year (0.25 years) in the change in the B-W gap in life expectancy between 2019 and 2021, an appreciably greater impact than the combined influence of suicides, other external causes, chronic lower respiratory diseases, heart diseases, Alzheimer’s disease, diabetes, influenza and pneumonia, and other infectious diseases.

We now turn to the mortality shifts that occurred during the pandemic between 2020 and 2021. Following the initial devastation of the COVID-19 pandemic in 2020, the B-W life expectancy gap among men lessened in 2021, from 7.2 years to 6.0 years. As illustrated in Fig 1, deaths from COVID-19 were the largest factor by far driving this decreasing disparity, as White men began to succumb to COVID-19 at similar rates as Black men. On the other side of the mortality ledger, however, accidental poisoning (i.e., overdose deaths) was the leading cause of death that increased B-W disparities in life expectancy among men. In other words, inequality in B-W life expectancy would have decreased more in 2021 were it not for the pronounced increase in overdose mortality among Black men in 2021 relative to White men. Homicides played a relatively small role in the Black-White mortality shift between 2020 and 2021.

But the salience of homicide becomes evident when we decompose the contributions of specific causes of death to Black-White inequality in life expectancy in 2019, 2020 and 2021 separately. As shown in Fig 2, even during the peak of COVID-19 in 2020 when racial disparities in COVID-19 deaths were most acute, homicides contributed more to B-W inequality in life expectancy among men than every other cause of death. In 2021, homicide was again the leading contributor to Black-White inequality in life expectancy for men, accounting for more than twice as much of the gap as COVID-19 deaths in that year.

Fig 2. Cause-specific components of the Black-White life expectancy in the United States from 2019–2021 among Males.

Fig 2

Notes: For White men, life expectancy in 2019, 2020, and 2021 was 76.4, 74.9, and 74.2 years, respectively. For Black men, life expectancy was 71.4, 67.7, and 68.1 years in 2019, 2020, and 2021.

Lifespan variability

As shown in Fig 3, lifespan variability is greater among Black men than White men. In each year, including the pandemic years, homicide was the primary reason why the lifespans of Black men were less certain than those of White men. For example, homicide accounted for more than half (55%) of the B-W gap in lifespan variability in 2020, more than three times the impact of COVID-19. In 2021, the impact of homicide on the B-W gap in lifespan variability was nine times greater than deaths from COVID-19 (compare 54% to 6%).

Fig 3. Cause-specific components of the Black-White lifespan variability gap in the United States in 2019, 2020 and 2021 among Males.

Fig 3

Notes: For White men, the variance in life expectancy in 2019, 2020, and 2021 was 298.2, 302.0, and 305.7 squared-years, respectively. For Black men, variance in life expectancy was 397.0, 390.2, and 394.1 squared-years in 2019, 2020, and 2021.

In line with previous research, we find that B-W lifespan variability decreased during the pandemic [2], driven by slight increases in variability among White men in 2020 and 2021 combined with decreased variability over this period for Black men. We examine these bifurcated trends separately in Fig 4 where we look at within-race changes during the pandemic. For Black men (Panel A), most causes of death worked to decrease the amount of lifespan variability in the first year of the pandemic, save for three notable exceptions: COVID-19, homicide, and accidental poisonings (traffic accidents and diabetes also increased Black male lifespan variability but only slightly). These patterns are even more pronounced when we look at changes between 2019 and 2021 in the variance at age of death for Black men. Hence, there would have been far more certainty in the age of death among Black men were it not for the marked increases in deaths from COVID-19, homicide, and accidental poisoning.

Fig 4.

Fig 4

Cause-specific components of the changes in Black Male (Panel A) and White Male (Panel B) lifespan variability in the United States from 2019–2021. Notes: For Black men, variance in life expectancy was 397.0, 390.2, and 394.1 squared-years in 2019, 2020, and 2021.For White men, the variance in life expectancy in 2019, 2020, and 2021 was 298.2, 302.0, and 305.7 squared-years, respectively.

For White men (Panel B), we see a similar pattern where most causes of death decreased the degree of lifespan variability between 2019 and 2020. However, unlike for Black men, the substantial uptick in deaths from COVID-19, overdoses, and to a lesser extent homicide, were enough to offset these decreases for White men. We observe the same general patterning in the 2019–2021 comparison among White men. Taken together, for White and especially Black men, homicide was an important contributor to lifespan variability during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Discussion

Black-White disparities in homicide have existed for decades. But during the COVID-19 pandemic, these disparities did not just persist, they grew. Our analysis demonstrates that these increases in homicide were highly consequential for racial disparities in longevity. Simply put, homicide is one of the primary reasons why lifespans became shorter and were more variable for Black men than White men in recent years. In both 2020 and 2021, we show that homicide was the leading contributor to Black-White inequality in life expectancy and lifespan variability among men, accounting for far more of the B-W gaps in longevity and variability than deaths from COVID-19. Relative to pre-pandemic disparities, homicide was the second leading factor that drove increases in B-W inequality in longevity between 2019 and 2021.

Homicide was also among the leading factors working to increase lifespan variability among Black men. The costs of uncertain lifespans are high. If unpredictable lives result in further criminal activity [11] and less investment in long-term goals such as school, legitimate work, skill development, and retirement [10], then the social and economic costs of the substantial increase in homicide mortality among Black men in recent years may far outlast the COVID-19 pandemic.

By revealing previously overlooked sources of mortality inequality in recent years, our study identifies homicide as one of the most promising areas for policy interventions aimed at reversing recent racial disparities in longevity. This is for two reasons. First, even with the recent increases, homicides still only represent a small proportion of overall deaths in the US and less than 3% more Blacks than Whites die of homicide. Hence, our findings imply that Black-White inequality in life expectancy and lifespan variability could be narrowed substantially by eliminating this comparatively small difference. Second, there is precedent for sharp declines in homicide. Between 1991 and 2014, the homicide rate was cut by more than half, representing a “public health breakthrough for African American males, and adding 0.80 years to life expectancy at birth…” (18: 658). The causes of the “Great American Crime Decline” [19] have been subject to a tremendous amount of research [20,21], and while there is disagreement about the relative weight of various factors, this body of work still provides evidence for several encouraging policy interventions for curbing violence, including investments in community nonprofit organizations and policing [22]. One thing is clear: reductions in homicide will require conscious effort and the policies designed to lower violence are likely to be markedly different from those aimed at other sources of racial inequality in life expectancy (e.g., heart diseases).

Although the CDC and Census data have been widely used to study longevity, readers should consider limitations in mortality and population data when interpreting our results. The underlying cause of death could be miscoded, and prior research suggests that such errors correlate with race [23]. Along similar lines, mortality estimates could be biased by population undercounts, age misreporting, and racial misclassifications. For our longitudinal analyses, such concerns are likely minimal because any non-random recording errors would have to systematically change in a short period of time, and there is scant evidence this occurred. However, data errors could play a larger role in our cross-sectional decompositions.

Conclusion

Differences in longevity are a primary source of social inequality more broadly [24], and our study reveals that differential exposure to homicide played a central role in increasing B-W inequality in life expectancy during the COVID-19 pandemic among men. These results are particularly sobering in light of the most recent trends in COVID-19 and homicide deaths. COVID-19 deaths declined by 47% in 2022 [25], while homicide deaths were largely stable [26]. The homicide data from 2023 looks more encouraging, with notable decreases in many major cities throughout the US compared to the same time in 2022. However, even with record double-digit declines in 2023, there were still substantially more homicides in the US compared to 2019 [27]. Thus, given our results, the impact of homicides on Black-White inequality in life expectancy and variability may be even more pronounced in 2022 and 2023. Therefore, reductions in violence should be at the fore of any public health discussion aimed at promoting health equity.

Supporting information

S1 Data. Data and materials availability.

(DOCX)

pone.0308105.s001.docx (23.3KB, docx)
S1 Fig. Differences in homicide death rates between Black and White men, 1990–2021.

(DOCX)

pone.0308105.s002.docx (18.4KB, docx)
S1 Table. Black-White male cause decomposition by year.

(DOCX)

pone.0308105.s003.docx (14.6KB, docx)
S2 Table. Variance decomposition by race and year for men.

(DOCX)

pone.0308105.s004.docx (16.1KB, docx)
S3 Table. Cause-grouping and corresponding ICD-10 codes.

(DOCX)

pone.0308105.s005.docx (19.4KB, docx)

Acknowledgments

We thank Marcus Felson, Jenna Nobles, and the anonymous reviewers for their helpful comments.

Data Availability

All data needed to evaluate the conclusions in the paper are present in the paper and/or the Supplementary Materials. Computer code used to produce the study results will be made available on OpenICPSR. The mortality data can be accessed from the NVSS at https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data_access/vitalstatsonline.htm#Mortality_Multiple and the population estimates are available from SEER at https://seer.cancer.gov/popdata/download.html.

Funding Statement

This research is supported by the Romnes Faculty Fellowship provided by the University of Wisconsin-Madison Office of the Vice Chancellor for Research and Graduate Education with funding from the Wisconsin Alumni Research Foundation. The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.

References

  • 1.Simmons-Duffin S. (2023) “‘Live free and die?’ the sad state of U.S. life expectancy”. NPR. Retrieved from https://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2023/03/25/1164819944/live-free-and-die-the-sad-state-of-u-s-life-expectancy. [Google Scholar]
  • 2.Aburto J. M., Tilstra A. M., Floridi G., & Dowd J. B. (2022). “Significant impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic on race/ethnic differences in US mortality.” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 119(35), e2205813119. doi: 10.1073/pnas.2205813119 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 3.Hill L., & Artiga S. (2023). “What is Driving Widening Racial Disparities in Life Expectancy?”. KFF. Retrieved from https://www.kff.org/racial-equity-and-health-policy/issue-brief/what-is-driving-widening-racial-disparities-in-life-expectancy/ [Google Scholar]
  • 4.Gramlich J. (2021). “What we know about the increase in US murders in 2020.” Pew Research Center. [Google Scholar]
  • 5.Lopez, G. (2022, September 23). A shift in Crime. New York Times.
  • 6.Lariscy, Joseph T., Claudia Nau, Glenn Firebaugh, and Robert A. Hummer. 2013. “Racial/Ethnic Inequality in Adult Survival: Decomposition of Age at Death Variation among U.S. Adults. Presented at the Annual Meeting for the Population Association of America, April 11–13 New Orleans, LA.
  • 7.Wilson R. F., Fortson B. L., Zhou H., Lyons B. H., Sheats K. J., Betz C. J.,… & Self-Brown S. (2023). “Trends in homicide rates for US children aged 0 to 17 years, 1999 to 2020.” JAMA pediatrics, 177(2), 187–197. doi: 10.1001/jamapediatrics.2022.4940 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 8.Gramlich J. (2023). “Gun deaths among US children and teens rose 50% in two years.” Pew Research Center. [Google Scholar]
  • 9.Firebaugh G., Acciai F., Noah A. J., Prather C., & Nau C. (2014). “Why lifespans are more variable among blacks than among whites in the United States.” Demography, 51(6), 2025–2045. doi: 10.1007/s13524-014-0345-2 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 10.Edwards R. D. (2013). “The cost of uncertain life span.” Journal of population economics, 26(4), 1485–1522. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 11.Brezina T., Tekin E., & Topalli V. (2009). “Might not be a tomorrow”: A multimethods approach to anticipated early death and youth crime.” Criminology, 47(4), 1091–1129. [Google Scholar]
  • 12.Johnson, A. & Keating, D. (2022, October 19). Whites now more likely to die from covid than Blacks: Why the pandemic shifted. Washington Post.
  • 13.World Health Organization. (2008). ICD-10: International Statistical Classification of Diseases and Related Health Problems (10th Rev. 2nd ed.). Geneva, Switzerland.
  • 14.Nau C, Firebaugh G. (2012). “A New Method for Determining Why Length of Life is More Unequal in Some Populations Than in Others.” Demography, 49, 1207–1230 doi: 10.1007/s13524-012-0133-9 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 15.Arias E. (2002). United States Life Tables, 2000. National vital statistics reports; vol 51 no 3. Hyattsville, Maryland: National Center for Health Statistics. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 16.National Center for Health Statistics. (1998). Vital statistics of the United States, 1994, preprint of vol II, mortality, part A sec 6 life tables. Hyattsville, Maryland.
  • 17.Arias E., & Xu J. (2022). United States Life Tables, 2020. National Vital Statistics Reports; vol 71 no 1. Hyattsville, MD: National Center for Health Statistics. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 18.Sharkey P., & Friedson M. (2019). “The impact of the homicide decline on life expectancy of African American males.” Demography, 56(2), 645–663. doi: 10.1007/s13524-019-00768-4 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 19.Zimring W. D. S. F. E. (2006). The Great American Crime Decline. Oxford University Press, USA. [Google Scholar]
  • 20.Levitt S. D. (2004). “Understanding why crime fell in the 1990s: Four factors that explain the decline and six that do not.” Journal of Economic perspectives, 18(1), 163–190. [Google Scholar]
  • 21.Roeder O. K., Eisen L. B., Bowling J., Stiglitz J. E., & Chettiar I. M. (2015). “What caused the crime decline?” New York, NY: Brennan Center for Justice, New York University School of Law. Retrieved from https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/research-reports/what-caused-crime-decline [Google Scholar]
  • 22.Sharkey P. (2018). Uneasy Peace: The great crime decline, the renewal of city life, and the next war on violence. WW Norton & Company. [Google Scholar]
  • 23.Noymer A., Penner A. M., & Saperstein A. (2011). “Cause of death affects racial classification on death certificates.” PLoS One, 6(1), e15812. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0015812 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 24.Peltzman S. (2009). “Mortality inequality.” Journal of Economic Perspectives, 23(4), 175–190. doi: 10.1257/jep.23.4.175 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 25.Ahmad FB, Cisewski JA, Xu J, Anderson RN. (2023). COVID-19 Mortality Update—United States, 2022. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep 72(18):493–496. Retrieved from doi: 10.15585/mmwr.mm7218a4 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 26.Fox J. (2023, March 3). “Pandemic Murder Wave Has Crested. Here’s the Postmortem.” Bloomberg. Retrieved from https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2023-03-03/pandemic-murder-wave-has-crested-here-s-the-postmortem#xj4y7vzkg [Google Scholar]
  • 27.Asher J. (2023). “The Murder Rate Is Suddenly Falling.” The Atlantic. [Google Scholar]

Decision Letter 0

Claudio Alberto Dávila-Cervantes

5 Apr 2024

PONE-D-23-42765Increased homicide played a key role in driving black-white disparities in life expectancy during the COVID-19 pandemicPLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Light,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process.

==============================

ACADEMIC EDITOR: I regret to inform you that we are unable to accept your manuscript for publication in its current form.

The reviewers have provided valuable feedback on your manuscript, with two out of three reviews being positive. 

However, the negative review raises significant concerns about the research methodology and the life expectancy estimates. 

Therefore, we recommend that you thoroughly address all the comments provided by the reviewers and revise your manuscript accordingly.

It is essential that you address all these concerns comprehensively in your revised manuscript to ensure its suitability for publication.

We understand that revising your manuscript may require substantial effort, but we believe that addressing the reviewers' comments will significantly improve the quality and impact of your research. We encourage you to carefully consider all the feedback provided and to make the necessary revisions accordingly. 

==============================

Please submit your revised manuscript by May 18 2024 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

  • A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.

  • A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.

  • An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.

If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols. Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Claudio Alberto Dávila-Cervantes, Ph.D.

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal requirements:

1. When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements.

Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at 

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and 

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf.

2. Please note that PLOS ONE has specific guidelines on code sharing for submissions in which author-generated code underpins the findings in the manuscript. In these cases, all author-generated code must be made available without restrictions upon publication of the work. Please review our guidelines at https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/materials-and-software-sharing#loc-sharing-code and ensure that your code is shared in a way that follows best practice and facilitates reproducibility and reuse."

3. We note that the grant information you provided in the ‘Funding Information’ and ‘Financial Disclosure’ sections do not match. 

When you resubmit, please ensure that you provide the correct grant numbers for the awards you received for your study in the ‘Funding Information’ section.

4. Thank you for stating the following financial disclosure: 

 [This research is supported by the Romnes Faculty Fellowship provided by the University of Wisconsin-Madison Office of the Vice Chancellor for Research and Graduate Education with funding from the Wisconsin Alumni Research Foundation.].  

Please state what role the funders took in the study.  If the funders had no role, please state: ""The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript."" 

If this statement is not correct you must amend it as needed. 

Please include this amended Role of Funder statement in your cover letter; we will change the online submission form on your behalf.

5. We notice that your supplementary figures and tables are included in the manuscript file. Please remove them and upload them with the file type 'Supporting Information'. Please ensure that each Supporting Information file has a legend listed in the manuscript after the references list.

6. Please remove your figures from within your manuscript file, leaving only the individual TIFF/EPS image files, uploaded separately. These will be automatically included in the reviewers’ PDF.

7. Please include captions for your Supporting Information files at the end of your manuscript, and update any in-text citations to match accordingly. Please see our Supporting Information guidelines for more information: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/supporting-information. 

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: No

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: No

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: No

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

5. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: It was a pleasure to read this well-written and carefully executed study of Black-White longevity disparities during the pandemic.

My only questions to the authors are: (1) Was the initial 5-year age category separated into 0-1 and 1-4 age intervals, so as to separate perinatal/infant from early childhood mortality?, and (2) What methodology was used to estimate number of years lived among those who died within each of the age categories (i.e., nax)?

Those minor issues/questions aside, I think this is a terrific manuscript. The topic is timely and important, the demographic methods are sound, the data while imperfect are high quality (particularly relative to some other sources of observational data in social science and epidemiology), and the overarching conclusion – that more attention needs to be paid to homicide as a driver or Black-White disparities in mortality – is well supported by the findings. In addition, the focus on mortality variability and the effects this could have on discounting the future among Black youth is interesting and will make an important contribution to the literature.

Reviewer #2: The manuscript “Increased Homicide Played a Key Role in Driving Black-White Disparities in Life Expectancy during the COVID-19 Pandemic” estimates non-Hispanic Black and non-Hispanic white life expectancy and lifespan variability in the United States for the years 2019, 2020, and 2021. The authors then decompose the changes into cause-specific contributions and argue that homicide deaths in 2021 was a primary contributor to inequalities between Black and white men between 2019 and 2021.

This is the first time I am reviewing this manuscript. While the topic is likely to of broad interest to both scholars and policymakers, I have some major concerns with the methods and caution that the paper is not ready for acceptance. Below I organize my thoughts around (1) major concerns, and (2) smaller points. I hope that the authors find them useful as they continue to rework this manuscript.

Major

The life expectancy estimates are quite different from what I have seen in other outlets, including the final life expectancy estimates from the NVSS. For example, the 5.5 year life expectancy decline (77.7 to 72.2) that the authors observe for Black males between 2019 and 2020 is very different than estimates reported elsewhere: (a) in Aburto et al: 71.4 (2019) to 67.8 (2020) – loss of 3.6 years, (b) in Masters et al: 74.78 (2019) to 71.55 (2020) – loss of 3.23 years, and (c) in US Life Tables: 74.8 (2019) to 71.5 (2020) – loss of 3.3 years. The initial levels and the drop are quite different between this manuscript and other work.

I wish I could have looked through the authors’ code to understand where this discrepancy was coming from, but unfortunately it was not shared with reviewers. Because I do not trust even the baseline estimates of life expectancy that are reported here, I have a hard time trusting the remainder of the authors’ results.

Related, is it actually standard to assume an age of death of 90 for all those over 85 (as the authors say in the methods)? In my experience, it is more common to use penalized composite link methodology (PCLM) to smooth mortality and population counts out to some determined age (usually to 110). Stopping counts at 85+ (or assuming a death of 90 for all over 85) biases mortality estimates. Perhaps this is where the strange life expectancy estimates are coming from?

Smaller Points

• From the introduction: “Not only did the disease burden of the COVID-19 virus fall disproportionately on Black Americans, but the cascading disruptions during the pandemic also took a heavy toll on the Black community, perhaps none more so than homicide.”

o This feels a bit suggestive. It statement implies that the rise in homicide during the pandemic years outweighed the burden of other causes of death (e.g., CVD or Drug-related deaths) and I’m not sure that is the case.

• I wonder about the language of “murder” vs. “homicide.” There are some meaningful differences between the two, and I would encourage the authors to be mindful of using the correct terminology throughout.

• A very minor point: “For non-Hispanic White men, the increase was only 22%” (Page 3, line 43) – this is still a big increase. I recommend removing the word “only.”

References

Aburto, J. M., Tilstra, A. M., Floridi, G., & Dowd, J. B. (2022). Significant impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic on race/ethnic differences in US mortality. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 119(35), e2205813119.

Masters, R. K., Aron, L. Y., & Woolf, S. H. (2024). Life Expectancy Changes During the COVID-19 Pandemic, 2019–2021: Highly Racialized Deaths in Young and Middle Adulthood in the United States as Compared With Other High-Income Countries. American Journal of Epidemiology, 193(1), 26-35.

US Life Table: https://dx.doi.org/10.15620/cdc:118055

Reviewer #3: “Increased homicide played a key role in driving black-white disparities in life expectancy during the COVID-19 pandemic”

By Michael T. Light and Karl Vachuska

The manuscript by Light and Vachuska investigates an important topic- the effect that homicide mortality had on Black:White inequities in life expectancy during the COVID-19 pandemic. The authors investigated both changes in average life expectancy and lifespan variability. The authors conclude that homicide contributed to why lifespans became shorter and more variable for Blacks compared to Whites in the period 2019-2021.

I thought that this manuscript was quite well-written. The methodology consisted of life tables and multiple decrement processes has been used previously (Aburto et al 2022) and is widely concerned adequate and appropriate for this area of investigation.

Some comments:

1. Early in the manuscript (line 86) the authors describe categorizing causes of death into groups based on common etiologies (external causes, chronic disease, communicable diseases and a residual category). But it seems that nothing further was done with this categorization. When the authors describe contributions of specific causes, they do so by those causes (heart disease, traffic accidents, etc.). Because the authors don’t elaborate further on these categorizations, reference to them should be removed from the manuscript.

2. A comment on the tables and figures: this may be something that the authors cannot do anything about- but the current format of the tables and figures is incredibly confusing and requires so much more time and effort to comprehend than is reasonable. For example, Panel A. 2020 on page 23 does not have labels to indicate whether this was for males, females or both, and whether this figure is for average life expectancy or lifespan variability. I am not sure what the solution is- the authors’ original intent (to categorize deaths into four groups of causes) might have been helpful here- as the inclusion of a bunch of other causes, that are not further explained or discussed (i.e. cerebrovascular diseases and accidental poisoning) take up valuable real estate that could be better spent illustrating the findings of the paper).

There is uneven treatment of the tables and figures more generally. The next page (24) includes a title (Figure 2. Cause-specific components of the Black-White life expectancy gap in the United States in 2020 and 2021 among Males). There is also a note indicating what the ALE was for black and white males in 2020 and 2021-but nowhere is the actual number of years shown anywhere. One possible solution would be to refer to actual number of years of the life expectancy gap. Possibly both could be included- as it is now, it is not clear what I am looking at on page 24- I think it is the comparison for males in 2021. But, why information about 2020 was included in the Figure caption is not known. Basically, the reader is guessing what is happening in each of the tables. I think the authors could improve the figures.

3. I was rather confused about the scope of this manuscript- while I initially thought that it focused on males and females together, and the population more broadly, the authors relegated results regarding women to the SI appendix. Also, in the supplement, there was a line graph for men, but not for women. The overall result seems lopsided and awkward. Moreover, I think that the results for men were rather stark and I would support narrowing the scope of this manuscript to include only male mortality. Certainly, interventions aimed at reducing homicide mortality for men and women may look different- particularly since most female homicide mortality is related to intimate partner violence.

4. I think that the authors statement “By revealing previously overlooked sources of mortality inequality in recent years, our study recalibrates our understanding of the drivers of Black-White disparities in life expectancy during the pandemic” is a bit over stated. Sub-national studies in mortality have shown changes in homicide to be a major contributor to dynamic inequities in average life expectancy, particularly among males see (Friedman et al 2017; Fenelon and Boudroux 2019; Bishop-Royse 2023).

**********

6. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: No

Reviewer #3: No

**********

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

PLoS One. 2024 Aug 21;19(8):e0308105. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0308105.r002

Author response to Decision Letter 0


7 Jun 2024

Please see the detailed response memo submitted.

Attachment

Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers PLOS ONE - FINAL.docx

pone.0308105.s006.docx (24.2KB, docx)

Decision Letter 1

Claudio Alberto Dávila-Cervantes

17 Jul 2024

Increased homicide played a key role in driving black-white disparities in life expectancy among men during the COVID-19 pandemic

PONE-D-23-42765R1

Dear Dr. Light,

We’re pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been judged scientifically suitable for publication and will be formally accepted for publication once it meets all outstanding technical requirements.

Within one week, you’ll receive an e-mail detailing the required amendments. When these have been addressed, you’ll receive a formal acceptance letter and your manuscript will be scheduled for publication.

An invoice will be generated when your article is formally accepted. Please note, if your institution has a publishing partnership with PLOS and your article meets the relevant criteria, all or part of your publication costs will be covered. Please make sure your user information is up-to-date by logging into Editorial Manager at Editorial Manager® and clicking the ‘Update My Information' link at the top of the page. If you have any questions relating to publication charges, please contact our Author Billing department directly at authorbilling@plos.org.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper to help maximize its impact. If they’ll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team as soon as possible -- no later than 48 hours after receiving the formal acceptance. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org.

Kind regards,

Claudio Alberto Dávila-Cervantes, Ph.D.

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. If the authors have adequately addressed your comments raised in a previous round of review and you feel that this manuscript is now acceptable for publication, you may indicate that here to bypass the “Comments to the Author” section, enter your conflict of interest statement in the “Confidential to Editor” section, and submit your "Accept" recommendation.

Reviewer #3: All comments have been addressed

**********

2. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

4. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

6. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #3: Excellent article. I appreciate the care that the reviewers took in addressing my concerns (as well as those of the other reviewers). I think that the article was strengthened by narrowing the focus on male mortality. I believe that this manuscript is greatly improved.

**********

7. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #3: No

**********

Acceptance letter

Claudio Alberto Dávila-Cervantes

24 Jul 2024

PONE-D-23-42765R1

PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Light,

I'm pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been deemed suitable for publication in PLOS ONE. Congratulations! Your manuscript is now being handed over to our production team.

At this stage, our production department will prepare your paper for publication. This includes ensuring the following:

* All references, tables, and figures are properly cited

* All relevant supporting information is included in the manuscript submission,

* There are no issues that prevent the paper from being properly typeset

If revisions are needed, the production department will contact you directly to resolve them. If no revisions are needed, you will receive an email when the publication date has been set. At this time, we do not offer pre-publication proofs to authors during production of the accepted work. Please keep in mind that we are working through a large volume of accepted articles, so please give us a few weeks to review your paper and let you know the next and final steps.

Lastly, if your institution or institutions have a press office, please let them know about your upcoming paper now to help maximize its impact. If they'll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team within the next 48 hours. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org.

If we can help with anything else, please email us at customercare@plos.org.

Thank you for submitting your work to PLOS ONE and supporting open access.

Kind regards,

PLOS ONE Editorial Office Staff

on behalf of

Mr. Claudio Alberto Dávila-Cervantes

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Associated Data

    This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.

    Supplementary Materials

    S1 Data. Data and materials availability.

    (DOCX)

    pone.0308105.s001.docx (23.3KB, docx)
    S1 Fig. Differences in homicide death rates between Black and White men, 1990–2021.

    (DOCX)

    pone.0308105.s002.docx (18.4KB, docx)
    S1 Table. Black-White male cause decomposition by year.

    (DOCX)

    pone.0308105.s003.docx (14.6KB, docx)
    S2 Table. Variance decomposition by race and year for men.

    (DOCX)

    pone.0308105.s004.docx (16.1KB, docx)
    S3 Table. Cause-grouping and corresponding ICD-10 codes.

    (DOCX)

    pone.0308105.s005.docx (19.4KB, docx)
    Attachment

    Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers PLOS ONE - FINAL.docx

    pone.0308105.s006.docx (24.2KB, docx)

    Data Availability Statement

    All data needed to evaluate the conclusions in the paper are present in the paper and/or the Supplementary Materials. Computer code used to produce the study results will be made available on OpenICPSR. The mortality data can be accessed from the NVSS at https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data_access/vitalstatsonline.htm#Mortality_Multiple and the population estimates are available from SEER at https://seer.cancer.gov/popdata/download.html.


    Articles from PLOS ONE are provided here courtesy of PLOS

    RESOURCES