This is a good question that I didn't see directly addressed in the article or the text of the study (on a quick read), but it seems to be indirectly controlled for in this way (quoting the study...
This is a good question that I didn't see directly addressed in the article or the text of the study (on a quick read), but it seems to be indirectly controlled for in this way (quoting the study itself):
[...] such a reduction in medical visits after the closure was not seen in counts of visits for physical injuries, a control health outcome not thought to be affected by air pollution, confirming the specificity of the closure health benefits to biologically plausible outcomes.
I think one would expect all cause visits to drop if health coverage were the driving factor.
Thanks, I agree. Would have appreciated greater detail in this area, however, since extended family health coverage was no doubt impacted by the closure and the article failed to address that...
Thanks, I agree. Would have appreciated greater detail in this area, however, since extended family health coverage was no doubt impacted by the closure and the article failed to address that factor adequately imo.
I wonder what percent of the people living there lost their health coverage when the plant closed and could no longer afford to go to the ER?
This is a good question that I didn't see directly addressed in the article or the text of the study (on a quick read), but it seems to be indirectly controlled for in this way (quoting the study itself):
I think one would expect all cause visits to drop if health coverage were the driving factor.
Thanks, I agree. Would have appreciated greater detail in this area, however, since extended family health coverage was no doubt impacted by the closure and the article failed to address that factor adequately imo.
But then they would have died, and that would have been registered too.