Home
Archive
Columnists
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Register to Vote: Rock the Vote, powered by Working Assets Wireless
Advertisement
  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

Health & Wellness

Whatever Happened to American Longevity?

By Maggie Mahar and Niko Karvounis, Health Beat. Posted May 4, 2008.


In the past 20 years, the U.S. has sunk from ranking No. 11 in life expectancy to No. 42. What gives?
Advertisement

Life expectancy is a pretty simple concept: it's an estimation of how long the average person lives. Anyone can understand that. So how is this for a compelling data point: if you look at life expectancy in nations around the globe, you'll find that over the past 20 years, the U.S. has sunk from ranking  No. 11 to  ranking No. 42. In other words, a baby born in 2004 in any one of 41 other countries can expect to live longer than his or her American counterpart.

This may come as a surprise. Sure, we all know the health care system in the U.S. is broken, but life expectancy isn't just tied to medicine -- it's also related to quality of life in a larger sense. (I can live in a nation with the best health care system in the world, but if it's in the throes of civil war, my life expectancy will be short). As we all know, the American standard of living is the envy of the world.  After all, we're the richest country on the globe. So what gives?

While some of us are rich, the average American is not.  And while the rich are living longer, the poor are living shorter.  Factor in the profit motive that drives U.S. healthcare, and you will begin to understand why American medicine has done little to heal the gap between rich and poor.  Over the past twenty-five years, we have poured money into healthcare, but have paid relatively little attention to public health.

This may seem a bold claim, but last month the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) issued a report that provides the numbers:  "In 1980," the CBO found that "life expectancy at birth was 2.8 years more for the highest socioeconomic group than for the lowest. By 2000, that gap had risen to 4.5 years."

The report notes that "the 1.7-year increase in the gap" between socioeconomic groups "amounts to more than half of the increase in overall average life expectancy at birth between 1980 and 2000." In other words, even though the average life expectancy has increased in the U.S., it has grown more slowly because of widening socioeconomic disparities.

Citizens of countries that don't tolerate as much inequality enjoy longer lives. According to numbers from the Census Bureau and the National Center for Health Statistics, a baby born in the United States in 2004 will live an average of 77.9 years. In the U.K., an '04 baby can expect to live 78.7 years; in Germany, 79 years; in Norway, 79.7 years; in Canada, 80.3 years; in Australia, Sweden, and Switzerland, 80.6 years; and in Japan, a newborn can expect to live 81. 4 years.

Somehow or other, when they hear these figures, most Americans just shrug. Indeed, "it is remarkable how complacent the public and the medical profession are in their acceptance of" our low ranking when it comes to life expectancy, "especially in light of trends in national spending on health, " Dr. Steven Schroeder, a professor in the Department of Medicine at the University of California, San Francisco wrote in the New England Journal of Medicine last year.

"One reason for the complacency may be the rationalization that the United States is more ethnically heterogeneous than the nations at the top of the rankings, such as Japan, Switzerland, and Iceland. But," Schroeder pointed out, "even when comparisons are limited to white Americans, our performance is dismal. And even if the health status of white Americans matched that in the leading nations, it would still be incumbent on us to improve the health of the entire nation."

In the OECD countries that outrank us, the gaps between rich and poor are not as great and, not coincidentally, all have universal health insurance. (As Maggie wrote in an earlier post on Health Beat, in countries that are mainly middle-class, there tends to be more social solidarity. People identify with each other, and are more willing to pool their resources to pay for healthcare for everyone.)

But having access to health care is only a small part of health. Schroeder identifies five factors that determine health and longevity: "social circumstances, genetics, environmental exposures, behavioral patterns and health care."  Of these five, when "it comes to reducing early deaths," he points out, "medical care has a relatively minor role."  Indeed, "inadequate health care accounts for only 10% of premature deaths, yet it receives by far the greatest share of resources and attention." 


Digg!

See more stories tagged with: health

Maggie Mahar is a fellow at The Century Foundation and the author of Money-Driven Medicine: The Real Reason Health Care Costs So Much (Harper/Collins 2006).

Liked this story? Get top stories in your inbox each week from Health and Wellness! Sign up now »


Advertisement

 

Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
you reap what you sow...
Posted by: BlueBerry PickN on May 5, 2008 10:12 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
for a self-styled 'Christian Nation'... nobody can figure that out?

if your internationally propagated *make money* propaganda is dedicated to promoting a sick society based on sick values & profit over environment, health or individual respect...

...you wonder why people are dying?

...I think we've answered the question...


~~~
Spread Love...

BlueBerry Pick'n
can be found @
ThisCanadian com
~~~
"We, two, form a Multitude" ~ Ovid.
~~~
"Silent Freedom is Freedom Silenced"
"do no harm"

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Just from observation of my own life
Posted by: badkitty on May 5, 2008 3:07 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Just from observation of my own life, I would say that the United States has quickly, oh so quickly, declined in quality of life. When I went to school in the fifties and sixties, we learned all about the four basic food groups in school and at Girl Scouts. We had to take home economics in junior high. The food industry had not yet gone completely into faux foods, and most people made enough money to live on. Johnson, for all his flaws, gave us the WIC program. But I became an adult and watched as Kaiser moved heavily into preventive medicine at the same time as education funding in California dropped (thanks Prop 13!) and political correctness did in home economics in our area. Faux foods, fast food restaurants and high fructose corn syrup became pervasive in our country. Anything Kaiser might have done could not stem the downhill slide. Why do Americans have a shorter lifespan? Anyone who's 55 or older can point it out...

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Watercolorist
Posted by: Watercolors on May 5, 2008 4:27 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
What if corporate America began to notice that the more healthy people earning enough to buy what we need the more profit for businesses who meet those needs?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Socio Economic Groups.
Posted by: Paxmana1 on May 5, 2008 4:31 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The working class have always, and in every nation had to bear the brunt of Capitalist policies .. if by 'faux' foods, the author of this article meant the cheapest food available. Then we can see the source of the problem, the obesity, the diabetes, the asthma, the heart problems, the reproduction problems.

The cheapest food is nutritionally worthless a virtually dead food .. The American poor have also had to eat GM food which is not even labeled as such for a number of years .. this whilst they are deliberately experimented on by the current policies.

Poor people who are usually paid sweat shop wages have to spend 60% of their income to eat the junk that is sold as food .. compare this to the wealthy who spend less than 1% of their income on food and it becomes quite clear that greed is the cause of the problem.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Profits.
Posted by: JoshuaLudd on May 5, 2008 6:42 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The race for higher profits in various sectors has reduced our longevity.. whether it is lack of preventive medicine, lack of health insurance, low wages that contribute to a lackluster diet, pollution both of our food supply and our air and water, drugs that haven't been tested very thoroughly, etc...

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Reverend Pennie Mumm, CD, MS (Emeritus)
Posted by: pennie@penniemumm.com on May 5, 2008 10:12 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Plain and simple, people are dying at a statistically significant younger age in America because of the meth epidemic. A heavy meth abuser has a four year lifespan, takes 20-30 other people with him or her, poisons still others in the community, neglects his or her children to the point of death for the babies. Meth abusers are the most dangerous members of society--how many needless gun-related deaths and murders in the US last year? Shocking! Toxicity? Ten percent of Americans test positive for TCE in their blood (are YOU one?). Meth is not a harmless drug.

And lies don't cut it!

Let's get real here, it's not a lack of health care, a pundit put forth by the AMA to make still more money, it's a lack of good sense and a lack of control of the meth epidemic.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

What Happened Here (USA) in 1980?
Posted by: jvaljon1 on May 6, 2008 12:24 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
...that directly impacted life expectancy? The rise of the HMO. Profit-driven "healthcare" that has left BILLIONS OF PEOPLE (since 1980) out in the cold. Then there's the "death from a thousand cuts" administered to the EPA by Reagan's ideological successor, W. With all that going against us, my surprise is that American life expectancy--while fallen drastically from Liberal days--is even as high as it is now. But that's soon going to change.

Before this year, Karl Rove had been tearing what's left of his hair out, imagining another Clinton Presidency, this time with Universal Health Care. WHAT TO DO? HOW DO WE DERAIL THIS? HOW TO KEEP JUST ENOUGH PEOPLE AWAY FROM THE BALLOT BOX, TO RETAIN HEALTH-CARE INDUSTRY PROFITS?

Enter 1-term Senator from Illinois, Barack Obama, with his America-cursing pastor and his America-hating wife. With all the resources that the Republicans could muster, Barack Obama looks now to win the candidacy of the feckless Democratic Party--only (of course) to be eaten alive in November by McCain (he's the ONLY Dem. candidate that McCain could beat).

Congratulations, Karl. Just remember--your admitted political genius notwithstanding--you couldn't have done it, without us! Signed: The (soon-to-be-irrelevant) Democratic Party

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]