Searcharxiv⌕ Search
Home/Archive/arXiv

arXiv · 2009.02853

Do Black and Indigenous Communities Receive their Fair Share of Vaccines Under the 2018 CDC Guidelines

Parag A. Pathak·Harald Schmidt·Adam Solomon·Edwin Song·Tayfun Sönmez·M. Utku Ünver
View original source ↗Read source document ↗Export metadata ↓

Abstract

A major focus of debate about rationing guidelines for COVID-19 vaccines is whether and how to prioritize access for minority populations that have been particularly affected by the pandemic, and been the subject of historical and structural disadvantage, particularly Black and Indigenous individuals. We simulate the 2018 CDC Vaccine Allocation guidelines using data from the American Community Survey under different assumptions on total vaccine supply. Black and Indigenous individuals combined receive a higher share of vaccines compared to their population share for all assumptions on total vaccine supply. However, their vaccine share under the 2018 CDC guidelines is considerably lower than their share of COVID-19 deaths and age-adjusted deaths. We then simulate one method to incorporate disadvantage in vaccine allocation via a reserve system. In a reserve system, units are placed into categories and units reserved for a category give preferential treatment to individuals from that category. Using the Area Deprivation Index (ADI) as a proxy for disadvantage, we show that a 40% high-ADI reserve increases the number of vaccines allocated to Black or Indigenous individuals, with a share that approaches their COVID-19 death share when there are about 75 million units. Our findings illustrate that whether an allocation is equitable depends crucially on the benchmark and highlight the importance of considering the expected distribution of outcomes from implementing vaccine allocation guidelines.

Explore related subjects

econ.GNq-fin.EC

Keep this discovery

BibTeXRIS

Parag A. Pathak, Harald Schmidt, Adam Solomon, Edwin Song, Tayfun Sönmez, M. Utku Ünver. 2020-09-07. Do Black and Indigenous Communities Receive their Fair Share of Vaccines Under the 2018 CDC Guidelines. https://arxiv.org/abs/2009.02853

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related papers

arXiv2026

Reducing Prescription Errors Through Information Intervention: A Field Experiment in Healthcare Operations

Drug-drug interaction (DDI) errors pose serious risks to patient safety. Existing decision-support systems often require physicians to respond to alerts, disrupting workflows and contributing to high override rates. We examine whether a non-mandatory information intervention can reduce DDI errors and foster learning. Using a randomized field experiment with India's largest electronic medical record platform, we analyze 2.81 million prescriptions from 1,700 physicians using a difference-in-differences design. Treatment physicians received real-time information highlighting DDI errors without being required to respond, while control physicians received no such information. The intervention reduced DDI errors by 8.6%, corresponding to an estimated US$4.8 million in annual hospitalization cost savings and approximately 134 lives potentially saved. We identify two mechanisms: reactive correction, whereby physicians remove errors after they are flagged, and proactive learning, whereby they avoid errors before alerts occur. While early reductions are driven primarily by correction, physicians increasingly avoid errors over time. They also become less likely to repeat previously flagged errors and reduce new errors, suggesting that learning generalizes beyond specific drug pairs. The effects are consistent across physician types and do not compromise productivity or care quality. Our findings show that non-mandatory information interventions can improve patient safety through both immediate error correction and persistent, generalizable learning.

econ.GN↗
arXiv2026

How an Economy Shrinks in Space: Concavity-on-Jobs and Upward Consolidation under Demographic Decline

When a country's population declines, the aggregate economy appears to contract on the intensive margin: industrial diversity intact, every industry a little smaller. At the regional level, contraction is uneven and takes the extensive form: entire industries disappear, one after another. The relevant unit is the city: industries are nested by size - the hierarchy property of industrial location - each viable only above a minimum population. Necessity industries' thresholds bunch at the low end, so a city's industry count - and its jobs - is sharply concave in size (concavity on jobs). A modest loss pushes a small city below many thresholds at once; a large core sheds a few specialized industries, one at a time. Lost industries consolidate upward to the next city large enough to host them; for the worker it means a step down to a lower-paid local job. To recover that income, workers move up to the apex - the only city hosting the full industry range. Studying Japan - two decades ahead of the OECD, Tokyo at its apex - with worker-level panel data on the young workers who carry the migration, a wage regression in real, housing-inclusive wages identifies a Tokyo-bound migration incentive that varies by origin, following concavity on jobs.

econ.GN↗
arXiv2026

Do wind and solar curtail at negative electricity prices? Incentives and evidence across two decades of German renewable support schemes

In many power systems, wind and solar generation increasingly often exceeds electricity demand. Curtailing renewable generation in those hours matters both for prices and for the physical stability of the grid. Turning off wind turbines and solar panels is technically easier than ramping down a large power station, yet support schemes often give renewables an economic incentive to keep producing at negative prices. This paper studies wind and solar energy in Germany. For each cohort of generators it estimates, hour by hour, the incentive implied by two decades of support policy. It then sets those incentives against observed behavior, using a new estimate of market-based curtailment built from reanalysis weather data. I find that in 2025, at prices below -50 EUR/MWh, almost all wind generators had an incentive to stop producing, but only half of them did. Solar is the opposite case: nearly two thirds of the potential had no incentive to curtail at all, mostly because it receives a feed-in tariff that shields it from wholesale prices. Of the exposed remainder, just over a fifth cut production. Low exposure and response rates inflate subsidy payments and make the power system harder to operate safely. I conclude that a further expansion of wind and solar requires them to respond to price signals.

econ.GN↗