Tag: "life expectancy"

Are We Underestimating Future Life Expectancy?

The International Monetary Fund  asks what would happen if life expectancy by 2050 turns out to be three years longer than current projected in government and private retirement plans:

[I]f individuals live three years longer than expected–in line with underestimations in the past–the already large costs of aging could increase by another 50 percent, representing an additional cost of 50 percent of 2010 GDP in advanced economies and 25 percent of 2010 GDP in emerging economies. … [F]or private pension plans in the United States, such an increase in longevity could add 9 percent to their pension liabilities. Because the stock of pension liabilities is large, corporate pension sponsors would need to make many multiples of typical annual pension contributions to match these extra liabilities.

HT: Timothy Taylor in the Conversable Economist blog.

Apr 19, 2012 | 4 comments | by

Why Do Good Times Cause More People to Die?

The Center for Retirement Research points out that when employment goes up, mortality increases disproportionately among the elderly—who are far less likely to be employed or drive long distances—and among older women, in particular. “Deaths among people ages 65 and older accounted for 75 percent of the 6,700 additional deaths,” the paper points out. “Notably, women over 65 alone accounted for 55 percent of the additional deaths.”

Full Suzy Khimm post (Ezra Klein blog).

Apr 19, 2012 | 3 comments | by

Cancer Treatment Costs are Worth It

[T]he cost of cancer treatment in the United States was higher than such care in ten European countries from 1983 to 1999. However, they also found that for most cancer types investigated, U.S. cancer patients lived longer than their European counterparts. Cancer patients diagnosed during 1995-99, on average, lived 11.1 years after diagnosis in the United States, compared to just 9.3 years from diagnosis in Europe.

The researchers concluded that by standard metrics that value additional years of life in dollar terms, U.S. cancer patients paid more but achieved better results in terms of longevity. Even after considering higher U.S. costs for treatment, their calculations showed the extra longevity was worth an aggregate of $598 billion — an average of $61,000 for an individual cancer patient. The value of additional survival gains was highest for prostate cancer patients ($627 billion) and breast cancer patients ($173 billion).

Full Health Affairs study worth reading.

Apr 11, 2012 | 11 comments | by

Something Life Insurance Companies Need to Know

The average life span for someone with a serious mental illness is 25 years shorter than someone in the general population, a gap that has been largely overlooked even though an estimated 10.4 million American adults … fall into that category, said Dr. Stephen Bartels, director of Dartmouth College’s Centers for Health and Aging.

People with serious mental illnesses such as depression or schizophrenia are more likely to smoke and be obese, putting them at greater risk for diabetes, heart disease and other chronic disease. And medications used to treat their mental illnesses often cause weight gain or leave them feeling too lethargic to exercise.

Full article on the In SHAPE program for mentally ill individuals in The Washington Post.

Feb 24, 2012 | 4 comments | by

Why Torture Patients at the End of Life?

We wouldn’t do it to a pet. So why do it to mom and dad? Here is a doctor’s plea:

[W]ithout a realistic, tactile sense of how much a worn-out elderly patient is suffering, it’s easy for patients and families to keep insisting on more tests, more medications, more procedures. … When their loved one does die, family members can tell themselves, “We did everything we could for Mom.” … At a certain stage of life, aggressive medical treatment can become sanctioned torture. When a case such as this comes along, nurses, physicians and therapists sometimes feel conflicted and immoral. … A retired nurse once wrote to me: “I am so glad I don’t have to hurt old people anymore.”

Full Washington Post editorial via Robin Hanson.

Feb 22, 2012 | 4 comments | by

The Value of Health Care

Or is it really just the value of living longer, for whatever reason. This is from a Kevin Murphy and Robert Topel article in the JPE in 2006:

During the twentieth century life expectancy at birth for a representative American increased by roughly 30 years. In 1900, nearly 18 percent of males born in the United States died before their first birthday; today, cumulative mortality does not reach 18 percent until age 62….

Reductions in mortality from 1970 to 2000 had an (uncounted) economic value to the 2000 U.S. population of about $3.2 trillion per year. Cumulative longevity gains during the twentieth century were worth about $1.3 million per person to the representative member of the 2000 U.S. population. Valued at the date they occurred, the production of longevity-related “health capital” would raise estimates of per capita output in the United States by from 10 to 50 percent, depending on the time period in question.

For the revival of this classic piece, thanks to Austin Frakt, who adds more references and commentary.

Feb 17, 2012 | 5 comments | by

The Weaker Sex

Is the distribution of health unjust? See our last post. This is from a paper by Princeton historian, Angus Deaton:

Men die at higher rates than women at all ages after conception. Although women around the world report higher morbidity [= sickness] than men, their mortality [= death] rates are usually around half of those of men. … Women get sick and men get dead. … Biology cannot be the whole explanation. The female advantage in life expectancy in the US is now smaller than for many years, 5.3 years in 2008 compared with 7.8 years in 1979, and it has been argued that there was little or no differential in the preindustrial world. The contemporary decline in female advantage is largely driven by cigarette smoking; women were slower to start smoking than men, and have been slower to quit.

HT to Robin Hanson, with commentary here.

Oct 18, 2011 | 5 comments | by

Life Expectancy Paradox Explained by Smoking

People with greater income or formal education tend to live longer and enjoy better health.  The trend holds true wherever researchers look — in poor countries or rich ones, in Europe, Asia or the Americas — but two notable exceptions stand out.

  • Immigrants to countries as diverse as the U.S., Australia, Germany and Canada live longer than their new native-born neighbors even though they tend to be less well educated and more likely to live in poverty in those countries.
  • People of Hispanic descent (typically of Spanish, Mexican, Cuban, Puerto Rican, or Central or South American origin) live longer than non-Hispanic whites, who on average happen to be richer and better educated

What accounts for the two exceptions? Smoking.

Source: Scientific American

Oct 13, 2011 | 7 comments | by

Are Seniors Getting Too Many Tests?

Every year like clockwork, Anna Peterson has a mammogram. Peterson, who will turn 80 next year, undergoes screening colonoscopies at three- or five-year intervals as recommended by her doctor, although she has never had cancerous polyps that would warrant such frequent testing. Her 83-year-old husband faithfully gets regular PSA tests to check for prostate cancer. … But increasingly, questions are being raised about the over-testing of older patients, part of a growing skepticism about the widespread practice of routine screening for cancer and other ailments of people in their 70s, 80s and even 90s. Critics say there is little evidence of benefit — and considerable risk — from common tests for colon, breast and prostate cancer, particularly for those with serious problems such as heart disease or dementia that are more likely to kill them.

Sandra G. Boodman in the Washington Post.

Sep 16, 2011 | 8 comments | by

Acupuncture for Dogs, Criminal Tendencies Somewhat Hereditary, and Other News Items

Animal cruelty: acupuncture for dogs

Are criminal tendencies hereditary? Yes, to some degree.

Straight A students live longer than D students.

Women surf the Web for health information more than men: Is this supposed to be news?

We have no evidence that antioxidants are beneficial in humans.  In fact, the best available data demonstrate that antioxidants are bad for you—so long as you count an increased risk of death as “bad.”

People who live to 95 and older are no more virtuous than the rest of us in terms of their diet, exercise routine or smoking and drinking habits.  As a group, they were more obese, more sedentary and exercised less than other, younger cohorts.

Aug 09, 2011 | 5 comments | by
Next Page »