Mortality and life expectancy forecast for (comparatively) high mortality countries.

Background: The Lee-Carter method and its later variants are widely accepted extrapolative methods for forecasting mortality and life expectancy in industrial countries due to their simplicity and availability of high quality long time series data.
Objective: We compared and contrasted mortality forecasting models for higher mortality regimes that lack long time series data of good quality, which is common in several Central and Eastern European (CEE) countries.
Data and Methods: We utilized seven different variants of the Lee-Carter method and coherent mortality forecasts of various CEE countries, and the Bayesian Hierarchical Model used by the United Nations to produce probabilistic forecasts. The data of nine CEE countries with comparatively higher mortality have been considered.
Results: The performance of the forecasting models for the nine CEE countries was found to be lower than that observed for low-mortality countries. No model gives uniquely best performance for all the nine CEE countries. Most of the LC variants produced lower forecasts of life expectancies than current life expectancy values for Belarus, Russia, and Ukraine. A coherent mortality forecast could not overcome the limitations of single population forecasting techniques due to increasing mortality differences between these countries over the fitting period (mortality divergence). In the same context, the use of the probabilistic forecasting technique from the Bayesian framework resulted in a better forecast than some of the extrapolative methods but also produced a wider prediction interval for several countries. The more detailed analysis for Hungary indicates that a better fit of certain forecasting methods may occur in the later part of the life span rather than the whole life span.
Conclusion: These findings imply the necessity of inventing a new forecasting technique for high-mortality countries.
Competing Interests: Both authors declare that they have no competing interests.Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.