This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?
CRS Report for Congress
Received through the CRS Web
Life Expectancy in the United States
Updated August 16, 2006
Laura B. Shrestha Specialist in Demography Domestic Social Policy Division
Congressional Research Service ˜ The Library of Congress
Life Expectancy in the United States
As a result of falling age-specific mortality, life expectancy rose dramatically in the United States over the past century. Final data for 2003 (the most recent available) show that life expectancy at birth for the total population has reached an all-time American high level, 77.5 years, up from 49.2 years at the turn of the 20th century. Record-high life expectancies were found for white females (80.5 years) and black females (76.1 years), as well as for white males (75.3 years) and black males (69.0 years). Life expectancy gaps between males and females and between whites and blacks persisted. In combination with decreasing fertility, the life expectancy gains have led to a rapid aging of the American population, as reflected by an increasing proportion of persons aged 65 and older. This report documents the improvements in longevity that have occurred, analyzing both the underlying factors that contributed to mortality reductions and the continuing longevity differentials by sex and race. In addition, it considers whether life expectancy will continue to increase in future years. Detailed statistics on life expectancy are provided. A brief comparison with other countries is also provided. While this report focuses on a description of the demographic context of life expectancy change in the United States, these trends have implications for a wide range of social and economic programs and issues that are likely to be considered by Congress. This report will be updated upon release of final data for 2004 by the National Center for Health Statistics (NCHS).
Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 Trends in the Level of Longevity Over the Past Century . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 A Quick Global Comparison . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 What Will Be the Future Course of American Longevity? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 Differentials in Life Expectancy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 Sex Differentials . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 Race Differentials . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 Appendix A. Glossary of Terms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23 Appendix B. Detailed Life Expectancy Tables . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
List of Figures
Figure 1. Life Expectancy at Birth, by Sex: 1900 to 2003. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 Figure 2. Trends in Life Expectancy at Birth, By Race and Sex, 1900 to 2003 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 Figure 3. Differences in Life Expectancy at Birth Between Whites and Blacks, by Sex, 1900-2003 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
List of Tables
Table 1. U.S. Life Expectancy at Birth, by Sex, in Selected Years . . . . . . . . . . . 3 Table 2. Age-adjusted Death Rates for Various Causes of Death . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 Table 3. Life Expectancy at Birth (in Years) in Selected Countries: A Global Comparison in 2006 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 Table 4. Projected Life Expectancies, SSA, in Selected Years . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 Table 5. Racial Disparity in Potential Life Years Lost . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 Table A1. Life Expectancy at Birth, by Race and Sex: 1900-2003 . . . . . . . . . . 26 Table A2. Life Expectancy at Various Ages in 2003, by Sex and Race . . . . . . . 30
Measures of life expectancy are published in official life tables. the median number of years that a population born in a particular year could expect to live. Deaths: Final Data for 2003).4 This tells us that. 14. for instance.3 It most commonly refers to life expectancy at birth. based on recently released final data. It would technically be more accurate to follow the cohort through time and apply the actual age-specific death rates that the cohort experiences as it moves through its life course. refers to the additional number of years that a person who has already attained age 60 will live beyond age 60. While this report concentrates on trends and differentials in life expectancy at birth. 19. Knowledge Services Group of the Congressional Research Service. 2006. 2006.1 Life expectancy is the expected number of years to be lived.5 years. 5 . The most recently Research assistance provided by Angela Napili. “United States Life Tables. 54. 4 National Center for Health Statistics (NCHS).2 years in the United States. the other half will live longer. no. data on mortality are collected and compiled through the vital statistics system by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC)/National Center for Health Statistics (NCHS). 2003. For instance. life expectancy at birth in 2003 was 77.5 A person who reached age 60 in 2003 was expected to live an additional 22. and would die at age 82. Life expectancy at age 60. as measured by life expectancy. Librarian. 2 3 1 Persons born in particular year.” National Vital Statistics Report (NVSR). for those born in calendar year 2003 in the United States. on average. Life expectancy is also routinely calculated for other ages.Life Expectancy in the United States Introduction This report considers population longevity in the United States.2 if current mortality trends continue for the rest of that cohort’s life. Appendix B Table A2 provides estimates of life expectancy at selected additional ages in 2003 (the most recent final data available). vol.2 years. 19. Life expectancy is a hypothetical measure that applies today’s age-specific death rates to predict the future survival of a cohort. National Center for Health Statistics. 50% will die before that age.” National Vital Statistics Report (NVSR).2. no. Apr. vol. Glossary. In the United States. Apr. but calculation of actual life expectancy would then require more then 100 years (until the death of the last survivor in the cohort). which are based on age-specific death rates. 54. “Deaths: Final Data for 2003. on average. see Appendix A. 13. by a particular cohort. Life expectancy at age 60 in the year 2003 was 22. (Hereafter cited as: NCHS.
164 days. Life spans are not considered further in this report. Census Bureau. when life expectancy was 83.html]. which considers the upper limit of human life that could be reached by an individual. While this report focuses on describing the demographic context of longevity change in the United States. 252 days. and housing for the older population. for a man.census. institutions for those with more severe disabilities or cognitive impairments. one consequence of lengthening life expectancies is that the older population’s needs for care — assistance with daily tasks to allow continued community-living for high-functioning seniors. For instance.2 years (the average for 1900-1902) to 77.8 There is a lively debate among researchers regarding whether the biological limits of life spans have been reached or whether future increases are probable. and.org/]. medical care. at [http://www. there is the recognition that government programs. who died at age 115 years. At the same time. Calment of France.supercentenarians. Mortensen (a Danish immigrant to the U. training of a specialized work force in geriatric care — are likely to increase.). analyzing both the underlying factors that contributed to mortality reductions as well as the continuing longevity differentials by sex and race. International Database on Longevity. is distinct from the concept of life span. . who died at age 122 years. 11.S. C. This report documents the improvements in life expectancy that have occurred. accessed Aug. International Data Base.CRS-2 released final data on deaths and mortality are for calendar year 2003.5 years in 2003. There are also questions with respect to ensuring basic income support.gov/ipc/www/idbnew. 6 7 8 NCHS. The concept of life expectancy. life expectancy at birth increased dramatically over the past century in the United States — from 49. such as Social Security and Medicare. Deaths: Final Data for 2003 At [http://www. the most recent year for which official data have been released by the Centers for Disease Control (CDC)/National Center for Health Statistics (NCHS). 2006. 11. it considers whether life expectancy will continue to increase in future years.6 years for males). The oldest authenticated female life span thus far recorded was for J. accessed Aug. 80.S.5 years for the total population (86.6 preliminary estimates are often released by NCHS but are generally not referred to in this report.6 years for females. According to the U. these trends have implications for a wide range of social and economic issues that are likely to be considered by Congress. Max Planck Institute for Demographic Research. What program changes are required to ensure the continued viability of such programs as the number of beneficiaries increases? What will be the federal government’s role in an environment of competing demands for limited resources? Trends in the Level of Longevity Over the Past Century As seen in Table 1 and Appendix B Table A1. will face financial pressures to meet the increasing needs. In addition.7 the highest attained life expectancy to date for a national population was that of Andorra in 2006. which considers the average experience for a population. particularly for the oldest-old. 2006.
8 67. 6. no.0 73. washing hands.2 51. no. the mortality experience of physicians and their families was not significantly different from that of the general population. Alaska and Hawaii are first included in 1959-1961 figures.H.9 65. The federal civil registration system began in 1900 with the setting up of the Death Registration Area (DRA).5 57. See (1) T.7 61. Haines.10 Beginning in the 1940s.1 Source: For data through 2002. 1. quarantining. Deaths: Final Data for 2003.9 75. et al.5 66.3 77.8 79. by Sex. especially among infants and children.8 73.) 10 9 . ventilating rooms. vol.6 68.9 71. protecting food from flies.6 78.1 71. These advances were largely attributed to “an enormous scientific breakthrough — the germ theory of disease” which led to the eradication and control of numerous infectious and parasitic diseases. 1991).6 65. National Bureau of Economic Research. germ theory (washing hands. Only 10 states and the District of Columbia were in the original DRA of 1900. in Selected Years (in years) Years 1900-1902 1909-1911 1919-1921 1929-1931 1939-1941 1949-1951 1959-1961 1969-1971 1979-1981 1989-1991 2002 2003 Total 49.9 70. Series on Long-Term Factors in Economic Development (Princeton. Nov. National Vital Statistics Reports. drugs. (continued. United States Life Tables. penicillin & sulfa drugs 3.0 70. McKeown . NJ: Princeton University Press.8 Females 50.6 77. Statistics prior to 1939-1941 are based on data from the DRA states (which increased in number over time). hospitals. 1975. vol. Evidence from other industrialized countries also supports this conclusion about early-century mortality declines.5 56.7 53.4 59. 10. Preston and M. Apr.S. 13. U. isolating sick children. Also note that data for years 1999-2001 are not reported in this data source. Notes: Later year estimates are more reliable than those of the early 20th century.5 Males 47.9 The new theory led to an entirely new approach to preventative medicine. 53. and improving water supply and sewage disposal.8 74. For 2003.9 55..5 74. as most of the decline had occurred before any effective therapies were available. treatment of chronic diseases of adulthood Gains in longevity were fastest in the first half of the 20th century.. States were only admitted as qualification standards were met. practiced both by departments of public health and by individuals.1 69. 2002. Interventions included boiling bottles and milk. 2004.CRS-3 Table 1. boiling bottles and milk) 2. Life Expectancy at Birth.9 49. National Vital Statistics Reports. the S.2 74.9 80. 54. and therapies) as the primary catalyst for longevity improvements during this period.2 57. NCHS.” Popl Studies. vol.4 77. the Congressional Research Service (CRS) compilation from National Center for Health Statistics (NCHS). 19.4 60. Fatal Years: Child Mortality in Late Nineteenth Century America. Preston and Haines rule out formal health care (doctors. “An Interpretation of the Decline of Mortality in England and Wales During the 20th Century.2 63.. Also. 2006.
5 43. In particular. 32(2).3 37.3 23.7 — 48.4 2002 832. 649-656..1 78. 1900-1999.”12 Table 2. death rates from two of the three major causes of death in 1950 — diseases of the heart (i.1 11. “Achievements in Public Health.3 31. Age-adjusted Death Rates for Various Causes of Death (per 100. Table 29.0 53.. United States.S.4 15.3 25. Aug. Since mid-century.1 18. 1978. CDC. U.8 193. 1900-1999.9 96.continued) 29:391:422. United States. on an age-adjusted basis11 since 1950 (see Table 2).039.1 412.2 28. including penicillin and sulfa drugs. Table 29.0 586.3 190.3 Source: CRS compilation from National Center for Health Statistics (NCHS). advances in life expectancy have largely been attributable to improvements in the prevention and control of the chronic diseases of adulthood.000 population) Cause All causes Diseases of heart Malignant neoplasms Cerebrovascular diseases Chronic lower respiratory diseases Influenza and pneumonia Chronic liver disease and cirrhosis Diabetes mellitus Unintentional injuries (incl.1 207. and rheumatic heart disease) and cerebrovascular diseases (stroke) — have fallen by approximately 60% and 70%. Health. 6. vol. 48(30).1 46.” Popl Studies. (. Preston. motor accidents) 1950 1. pp. respectively.CRS-4 control of infectious diseases was also aided by the increasing distribution and usage of antibiotics.0 9. coronary heart disease. pp.H. and E. 2005. improvements that the CDC has characterized as “one of the most important public health achievements of the 20th century.” MMWR Weekly. Uses 2000 standard population. Van de Walle. CRS calculations from NCHS. 2005.e.0 1980 1. “Urban French Mortality Decline. hypertensive heart disease.3 22. 275-97.9 180. With Chartbook on Trends in the Health of Americans. Decline in Deaths from Heart Disease and Stroke.446.. 1999. (2) S. vol. 2005 with Chartbook on Trends in the Health of Americans. Health..7 232. 12 11 10 .
October 2001. public health measures.CRS-5 The CDC13 attributes the declines in diseases of the heart and cerebrovascular diseases to a combination of ! medical advances. and — changes in the American diet (reductions in the consumption of saturated fat and cholesterol). NBER. Other social policies. affect income. and may affect health and well-being through that channel. healthier diets. and — an increase in coronary-care units. etc. They are briefly mentioned here. such as Medicare and Medicaid. and individual behaviors. — decreases in mean blood pressure levels. ! Beyond medical interventions. Social policies. especially through Medicaid. a number of additional factors are known to be associated with mortality decline. but it is beyond the scope of this report to discuss them in detail or to disentangle them from the factors already described: ! Socioeconomic status (SES). including — discoveries in diagnosing and treating heart disease and stroke. — an increase in persons with hypertension who have the condition treated and controlled. have higher incomes. — an increase in emergency medical services for heart attack and stroke.M. Cutler and E. — greater numbers of specialists and health-care providers focusing on cardiovascular diseases. Finally. D. including — declines in cigarette smoking. W8556. and practice better individual behaviors (less smoking. such as Social Security. Meara. Changes in the Age Distribution of Mortality Over the 20th Century. changes in individually controlled behaviors. and are more likely to have financial resources or health insurance to ensure access to medical care. with the ultimate goal of improving health for these groups. — a decrease in mean blood cholesterol levels.). Some social policies. . An example is the combination of civil rights legislation and improved health programs for the poor during the mid-1960s. Both programs were designed to increase access to health care for vulnerable populations. — development of effective medications for treatment of hypertension and hypercholesterolemia. the elderly and the poor. Working Paper No. are oriented to health improvements.14 ! 13 14 Ibid. Higher SES persons tend to be better educated. some social policies may affect health by changing the access that people have to already-established resources.
for both men and women. Liechtenstein. France. Table 3.5 84.2 79.R.0 73. Norway.R. Andorra.5 83. 10.8 63.4 79.8 80.2 62.gov/cia/ publications/factbook/ rankorder/2102rank.9 80. See.8 83. countries of North America (excluding Latin America and the Caribbean). accessed Aug. Aruba.CRS-6 A Quick Global Comparison Life expectancy in the United States. Netherlands.5 80. Hong Kong. 15 .5 80.8 Males 63.5 86. at [https://www. is significantly higher than the global average but is only slightly higher than the average for more developed countries15 (see Table 3).9 80. DC: GPO. Spain. International Population Reports WP/02. 2006.7 81.0 75. and Moldova).2 80. Estimates are provided for a non-comprehensive list of selected counties in Table 3. Australia.S.6 76. Singapore Japan Switzerland Australia Canada Greece United States Cyprus Denmark 64.5 83. html]. Europe.6 79. Life expectancy surpasses that of the United States in a large number of countries.7 83. the Baltics.2 80. the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA). Macau S.S. including but not limited to Japan.5 Females 66. also. and the four European countries of the NIS (Russia.4 75.8 77. and more. The United States was ranked 48th among 227 countries and territories for both sexes.6 85. Martinique. Monaco.4 76.2 81. Ukraine. Australia.2 77. Singapore.cia.7 75. Life Expectancy at Birth (in Years) in Selected Countries: A Global Comparison in 2006 Both Sexes World Less Developed Countries More Developed Countries Andorra Macau S.html].7 77.0 77. Global Population Profile: 2002 (Washington.census.A. Belarus. Sweden. New Zealand.2 Source: CRS compilation based on data from the U. Canada. 2004). Israel.5 82. Census Bureau’s International Data Base.9 76.8 77.5 64. Greece. Italy.A. This characterization by the Census Bureau divides 227 countries and territories into two groupings: “More developed” includes Japan. The World Factbook. Census Bureau. Other countries are considered to be “less developed.2 84.” U.3 80.1 78.7 81.gov/ipc/www/idbnew. available at [http://www.
7. remind us that mortality improvements will not be automatic.cdc. 1998. gov/ncidod/sars/factsheet. Gains from replacement organs and genetic engineering will be expensive. October 1998.S. and the United States. Canada’s approach assumes that Testimony of SSA S.C. accessed Feb. for instance. 2005.J.” both in North American Actuarial Journal. along with increasing obesity18 and declining levels of exercise. June 3. chief actuary. Goss. in U.” North American Actuarial Journal. 108-192 (Washington: GPO. Congress. life expectancy for the average American could decline by as much as five years unless aggressive efforts are made to slow rising rates of obesity. Canada. Goss further suggested that “matching the accomplishments of the past century will not be easy. 1138-1145. The Future of Human Longevity: How Important Are Markets and Innovation?. 2003. 108th Congress. (Hereafter cited as Friedland. a viral respiratory illness caused by a coronavirus. “Effect of Aging Population with Declining Mortality on Social Security of NAFTA Countries. The Future of Human Longevity: How Important Are Markets and Innovation?. similar approaches are also used in Canada and in the United Kingdom (UK). first session.htm]. See [http://www. According to Steven Goss. R. Olshanky and colleagues. no. 352:11. Congress.Hrg.20 In addition to being utilized by SSA.CRS-7 What Will Be the Future Course of American Longevity? The Social Security Trustees report to Congress on the actuarial status of the Trust Funds annually.C.C. 2. The long-range projections needed for this assessment depend critically on assumptions for the future course of longevity. Senate. in U. See also. 2003. S. Senate. no.17 and antibiotic resistant microbes. Special Committee on Aging. population aged 65 and older between 1900 and 2000. 4.16 He asserted that assuming future mortality improvement at nearly the same rate as for the last century — a little more than 0. This rate of improvement is more optimistic — about twice as large — as experienced during the last 18 years of the 20th century. Europe. 108-192 (Washington: GPO. June 3. 20 19 18 17 16 . first session. See. Oct. Goss and colleagues. “Historical and Projected Mortality for Mexico. Life Expectancy in the Future.S. SARS was first reported in Asia in Feb. Over the next few months.” New England Journal of Medicine. vol. chief actuary. vol. SARS.B. 1998). “A Potential Decline in Life Expectancy in the United States in the 21st Century. 2. hearings. pp. S. AIDS. chief actuary of the Social Security Administration (SSA). Friedland. and may be difficult to provide for the population as a whole. 2003). and Asia before the SARS global outbreak of 2003 was contained.” and (2) M. The researchers argue that. the illness spread to more than two dozen countries in North America. S. hearings.Hrg. 4. South America. with a roughly equal likelihood of doing better or worse. A benefit of the statistical methods that have emerged to extrapolate historical mortality trends to the future is that they have worked well and are relatively simple and efficient. 108th Congress. 2003. their future mortality assumptions are based on the recorded average annual mortality decline for the total U. Testimony of SSA S.”19 SSA’s projections of period life expectancy are shown in Table 4. over the next few decades.S. (1) S. Sze and colleagues. Special Committee on Aging. Goss. 2003). “Life Expectancy in the Future: A Summary of a Discussion Among Experts. SARS (Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome).7% annually — is a reasonable assumption.
8 77. 2003). The Future of Human Longevity: How Important Are Markets and Innovation?. Table 4 presents the most recent data from the 2005 Trustees Report.B.0 21. An assumption is also made that there will be a gradual slowing of rates of improvement after the first 10 years. and is 13 to 14 years less than likely Japanese and French female life expectancy in 2050. an additional 19. director.5 18.3 Female 79. Vaupel was referring to the 2003 Social Security Trustees Report. cited in R.9 Male 16. 108th Congress. Max Planck Institute for Demographic Research.0 + 19.5 years today to 83. Dussalt.9 20. Life Expectancy in the Future.2 84.CRS-8 economic productivity is the overall driving factor for sustained longevity improvements. James Vaupel. first session.4 22.0 79. and projects a relationship between future mortality decline and future real growth in employment earnings. W.23 He notes that SSA’s forecast is that female life expectancy in the United States will gradually rise from 79. 108-192 (Washington: GPO. is less than current life expectancy in Japan and France. Note that cited figures differ slightly from those in Table 4. assuming that he or she has already attained age 65. in Selected Years (in years) At Birth Year 2005 2025 2050 2075 Male 74. The Changing Demographic Profile of the United States.0 years (65. A3.6 81.7 Source: CRS compilation from the 2005 Annual Report of the Board of Trustees of Federal Old-Age and Survivors Insurance and Disability Insurance Trust Funds. cited in Friedland.22 Table 4.21 The UK extrapolates trends from 15 years of past data to help define base starting points and establish initial rates of mortality improvement for projections. the average number of additional years that a person will live.0 20. 1998. Table V. Life Expectancy in the Future.Hrg. For example. a 65-year-old woman in the year 2005 will live. 24 . half-a-century from today. Future mortality and survival are. by Laura B. Special Committee on Aging. Senate. director of the Max Planck Institute for Demographic Research. argues that the Social Security projections are too pessimistic. Vaupel further suggests that it is unrealistic for SSA to assume that the United States will be 21 22 23 B. Congress. This section is also presented in CRS Report RL32701. S.S. Shrestha. June 3. 2003. difficult to predict and specialists disagree on not only the level but also the direction of future trends. Vaupel. however. Projected Life Expectancies. Testimony of J. Friedland. in U. 1998.4 81.0 years — to age 84. on average.2 83. Daykin. Notes: Interpretation of life expectancy at age 65.24 SSA’s projected level of life expectancy in 2050. Table refers to SSA’s intermediate-range period life expectancies.2 17. SSA. C. hearings.0).2 At Age 65 Female 19.4 years in 2050.
28. R. Sources: (1) S. pp. Oeppen. “Longevity Advances in High Income Countries.29 Differentials in Life Expectancy Sex Differentials. K. Technological advances also have the potential to expand life.27 a more rapid pace than suggested by current models. 1. Lee. 2002). pp. [http://www.pdf]. 1. 2006. 2005). “Broken Limits to Life Expectancy. March 2002. female life expectancy exceeded that of males in all years of the past century (see Figure 1). 11. May 10.CRS-9 unable to match the level of life expectancy in half-a-century that is already attained in other countries today.pdf]. and differential. useful analyses of the contributions of smoking behavior to mortality trends28 in the United States suggests that slow female gains in life expectancy over the past few decades may be temporary. (Hereafter cited as Preston and Wang. A number of articles suggested that current models may be too pessimistic in their assumptions about mortality and survival probabilities (i.ceda. Bongaarts. Americans may live longer than currently projected). 296.” Population and Development Review. Working Paper 2005-01. J. Los Angeles. at [http://rider. 2002).” Science. Wang. 30 29 28 27 26 25 . 2006. National Institute on Aging. (Hereafter cited as Pampel.e. Examples of technological advances and promising areas of research are provided in the testimony of R. pp. June 3. Vaupel. Also. and that the pace may pick up fairly soon.25 Two of these studies showed that there has been a tendency for international life expectancy to rise linearly by more than two years per decade over the past 40 years26 or the last 160 years. (3) R. vol. White. to a Hearing of the Senate Special Committee on Aging on The Future of Human Longevity: How Important Are Markets and Innovation?. 2005. 59-76.berkeley. 2002. rates of mortality due to HIV/AIDS) or in South Asia (where women’s mortality rates had traditionally been higher due to lower social status and difficult life conditions). Preston and H. no. 2006. as well as on the diseases and conditions that are responsible for premature death. Director..” Population and Development Review.H. CA.edu/~prc/PRC/WP/Preston-Wang%20BWP%201% 20-9-1-05. see the section in this report on Sex Differentials. 2002. “Sex Mortality Differentials in the United States: The Role of Cohort Smoking Patterns. paper presented at the annual meeting of the Population Association of American. vol. accessed Aug. Hodes. vol. note dated Sept. 11. (Hereafter cited as Lee. no. March 2002. Report for the Roundtable Discussion of the Mortality Assumption for the Social Security Trustees. Also.” University of Pennsylvania. “Cigarette Use and the Narrowing Sex Differential in Mortality. A handful of exceptions includes a few countries in Africa (with high. 2003. (2) F. Lee.30 The United States is no exception. and J. 77-104. Life expectancy worldwide is generally higher for females than for their male counterparts. and (4) J. 1029-1030. Pampel. 2002. 28. accessed Aug. The National Institute on Aging supports extensive analyses of genetic contributions to longevity in diverse species.upenn.edu/papers/rlee/ TrusteesPresentation02.wharton. 1955-96. “A Decomposition of Life Expectancy Levels and Trends”. 11.
Apr. by Sex: 1900 to 2003. as seen in parts of the former Soviet Union in recent years as a result of unusually high levels of current adult male mortality. 90 80 70 60 IN YEARS 50 40 30 20 10 0 1900 80. October 1998. 19.32 For the United States. 53.8 1. 2004. 10. National Vital Statistics Report.3 2000 Source: For 1900-2002. 2006. Deaths: Final Data for 2003. International Brief: Mortality and Health. 54.to late 1970s. Census Bureau. such large differences between the sexes in life expectancy — which were also being recorded in other developed countries — are a relatively recent phenomenon in demographic history. 13. Gist. . ST/ESA/SER. vol. the average gap in life expectancy approximated the average gap seen in developed countries today — roughly seven years. For 2003.0 1910 1920 1930 1940 1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 5. the difference in life expectancy increased from 2. NCHS attributed the increasing gap during these years to increases in male mortality due to ischemic heart disease and lung cancer. 31 32 Exact years not shown in Figure 1.CRS-10 The average girl born at the turn of the 20th century in the United States could expect to live 50. United Nations.N/25. K. Sex Differentials in Life Expectancy and Mortality in Developed Countries: An Analysis by Age Groups and Causes of Death from Recent and Historical Data.8 48.J. Gender and Aging.1 74. with females continuing to have the longevity advantage. Nov.0 years to 7. CRS analysis based on NCHS. no. 2002.33 The gap has been recorded as great as 13 years. IB/98-02.31 In the absence of war.7 years. Popul Bull of the United Nations. CRS analysis based on data contained in NCHS. no. 34 33 Ibid.3 Influenza Epidemic of 1918 Female Advantage 7. Notes: Later year estimates are more reliable than those of the early 20th century. Life Expectancy at Birth. United States Life Tables. 6. which were largely the result of men’s early and widespread adoption of cigarette smoking.3 Females Males 46. vol.34 Figure 1. 25-1988. From 1900 to 1975.8 years. No. Kinsella and Y. roughly three years more than an American boy born at the same time. National Vital Statistics Report. In the mid.
In the United States. Ibid.” vol. 54. why is life expectancy longer for women? The answer. Final Data for 2003.35 The average girl born in 2003 in the United States could expect to live 80. vol.3 years. and violence for 19%. social. reflecting proportionately greater increases in lung cancer mortality for women than for men and proportionately larger decreases in heart disease mortality among men. NVSR. 6.” NVSR. National Center for Health Statistics (NCHS). Sept. no. and behavioral conditions. It has long been argued that hormones play a role in longevity. the “female advantage” in life expectancy between the sexes in the United States has narrowed from 7. 2004. based on: (1) R. neoplasms (cancer) for 18%. 104.36 Diseases of the circulatory system were found to account for nearly 40% of the mean sex differential in life expectancy.R.. p.41 In contrast. “Births.”39 Biological Factors. In addition. Anderson. 10. 1.” Scientific American. may E.1 years compared to 74.8 to 5. Waldron. 1993. which is still being investigated.0 girls in 2003. December 2004.38 But. 2005. Desjardins.” Social Science and Medicine 36:451-62. 291. 1986.” Journal of the American Geriatrics Society. who argued that the sex differential in sex hormone levels gives rise to the sex differential in lipoprotein metabolism which in time (continued. but still informative. At birth. p. 1999.9 boys were born for every 100.) . 8.37 In general. “Biological Basis of the Sex Differential in Longevity. beginning in infancy and continuing through the oldestold age groups. Hazzard. vol. “Ask the Experts. Note that these results are not surprising.. 1988. 40 41 See W. 2. 39 38 37 36 35 B. “Sex Differentials in Life Expectancy and Mortality in Developed Countries: an Analysis by Age Groups and Causes of Death from Recent and Historical Data. and diseases of the respiratory system for nearly 10%. as cardiovascular disease and neoplasms were the two leading causes of death in the total population. suicide. no. vol. A now dated. United Nations.40 the female hormone estrogen helps to eliminate “bad” cholesterol (LDL) and thus may offer some protection against heart disease.CRS-11 Since 1979. Nov.N. study evaluated the contributions of various causes of death to the size of sex differentials in life expectancy in developed countries for the early 1980s. issue 6. 3. One researcher has suggested that the male advantage at birth is moderated by higher male mortality to “ensure that the number of men and women will be about the same at reproductive age. United States life tables. Arias. no. accidents.” UN Population Bulletin. “Recent Trends in Sex Mortality Ratios for Adults in Developed Countries. 455. boys have a clear advantage.25:65-107. testosterone. it differs according to age and to the underlying disease and mortality profiles for men and women. and (2) I. 118. 53. found in greater amounts in males. “Some trends and comparisons of United States life table data: 19001991. 2002. 34. some say. vol. male mortality exceeds that of females in every age group and for most major causes of death.8 years for a boy born in the same year. As described by Desjardins. involves the complicated interplay of a host of biological.
Sexual dimorphism is a common case. Epel and colleagues.44 He offered an alternative hypothesis that has not yet been subject to long-term scientific scrutiny. Stindl. A larger body requires more cell doublings. 2004. Women’s social status and life conditions (such as the hardships associated with childbirth) may have nullified American women’s biological advantage at the beginning of the 20th century but are no longer major factors in gender differentials in life expectancy in the United States. a dimorphism refers to having two different distinct forms of individuals within the same species or two different distinct forms of parts within the same organism. E. Many researchers believe that behavioral and social factors also contribute significantly to the sex differentials observed between men and women. Accordingly. sizes. 151-154.” Social Sciences and Medicine. the replicative history of male cells might be longer than that of female cells. 2004:62. which refers to the fact that the two sexes have different shapes. a woman’s second X chromosome may be able to compensate. resulting in the exhaustion of the regeneration potential and the early onset of age-associated diseases predominantly in males. Waldron. pp. 101..46 Behavioral and Social Differences. The underlying mechanism is the gradual erosion of chromosome ends (telomeres). R.S. 49. argues that these classic biological explanations do not withstand critical analysis. “Accelerated Telomere Shortening in Response to Life Stress. Numerous studies also demonstrate links between chronic stress and indices of poor health. genes on men’s sole X chromosome may be expressed. And.. Higher male mortality (.continued) (given our lifestyle) contributes to the sex differential in atherosclerosis and this in turn to sex differentials in longevity. “Tying it All Together: Telomeres. etc. including risk factors for cardiovascular disease and poorer immune function. especially due to the ongoing regeneration of tissues over a lifetime.” Medical Hypotheses. from each other. Stindl shows that estrogen levels in postmenopausal women are virtually identical to estrogen levels in males and can hardly explain the discrepancy. with men being the larger/taller sex globally. especially if reinforced by cultural influences. He asserts that a strong positive correlation has been reported between sexual size dimorphism (SSD)45 and malebased mortality. the model might be of academic value only. vol. 46 . Sexual Size Dimorphism and the Gender Gap in Life Expectancy. 6. even if they are deleterious without compensation.42 Women may also gain an additional biological advantage because of their two X chromosomes. no. Dec. vol. In comparison. 45 44 43 42 41 In biology. I. If a gene mutation occurs on one X.43 however. 7. since it’s unlikely that mutations in genes on the X chromosome are involved in all agerelated diseases and that mutated versions of these genes occur in all men. 321-333.” PNAS. pp. 17. though these explanations are still relevant in a number of other countries. “Sex Differences in Human Mortality: the Role of Genetic Factors. Two recent studies confirm that men do have shorter telomeres than women at the same ages. no. Stindl.CRS-12 make men more likely to engage in violence and risk-taking behavior. He notes that testosterone got its bad reputation from one outdated study on a non-representative sample of men.
when the sex differential in mortality was increasing. D. Chenet. . Lee showed that the rate of decline for deaths not associated with smoking was actually faster for women (than men) while death rates associated with smoking actually increased for women while decreasing for men. as the sex differential is narrowing. 51 52 53 Pampel.” Westport. injuries. Smoking patterns are an obvious place to look for an explanation of sex mortality differences because the health risks are high and long-lasting.htm#alcconsump]. a new body of research is evaluating the role of cigarette smoking in explaining the trend. Preston. 1970.g. suicides. and smoking patterns differ between the sexes.” Public Health Reports 101:163-173. 1975.50 Now. 49 50 48 47 Pampel.52 Preston and Wang53 demonstrate that changes in sex mortality differences in the United States have been structured on a cohort rather than a period basis. such as alcohol consumption and occupational hazards. “Older Male Mortality and Cigarette Smoking: A Demographic Analysis”. 2005. I. Berkeley and (2) R. 2002. a team of researchers from the London School of Economics and the Russian Academy of Sciences observed that excessive alcohol consumption contributed both directly and indirectly to the marked increases in deaths from fatal events (e.48 More specifically. “The Changing Sex Differential in Mortality. 1986.49 In the 1970s. but also in 20 other industrial nations. and they are likely to decline more rapidly in the future as smoking recedes.3 years for Russian men during the period 1990 to 1995 — a level of decline that was unprecedented both in Russia and in other industrialized countries. Conn. “The Contribution of Smoking to Sex Differences in Mortality.uk/ ecohost/projects/mortality-russia. accessed Aug. Waldron. 11. Allowance for the smoking histories of cohorts significantly affects the assessment of mortality trends: national mortality levels would have declined more rapidly in the absence of smoking. large fractions of the population have engaged in the habit. Of California. Life expectancy in Russia. Leon. Lee.CRS-13 rates have been attributed to greater male exposure to specific risk factors. and that the cohort imprint is closely related to histories of cigarette smoking. for instance. cigarette smoking was implicated. (1) S. at [http://www. women’s uptake of smoking lagged behind that of men. 2006. fell by 6.ac.D. 2002 See. In investigating the cause of the sudden drop.H. Adult Mortality in Russia. He concludes that smoking behavior lies behind the changing pace of mortality decline not only in the United States. accidents.51 for instance.47 The most cited behavioral contributor to higher male mortality rates in the United States — and the subject of considerable research interest — has been the greater male exposure to cigarette smoking. Univ. for instance. Rutherford. while that of males has returned to its earlier trend of relatively rapid improvement — thus resulting in a narrowing life expectancy differential by gender.lshtm.: Greenwood Press. Pampel. 2002. McKee. Extending Pampel’s analysis. poisonings) and in deaths from cardiovascular disease. Institute for International Studies. L. documented that the rate of decline in female mortality in the United States has slowed since 1980 or so. Preston and Wang. M.
53. For females. as these are the main categories available in the NCHS life table publications that this analysis is based on. 2004. 32. however. respectively).4 years in 2003. National Vital Statistics Reports.0 years.2 years vs. 1900 to 2003 90 80 70 60 IN YEARS 50 40 30 20 10 0 1900 1910 1920 1930 1940 1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 White Females White Males Black Females Black Males Source: For 1900 to 2002. the improving situation for black women relative to their white counterparts was dramatic and mostly consistent throughout the century. Apr. vol. From its height of 17.8 years in 1904.5 years). For newborn boys. the differential had fallen to 6. 19. the expected longevity of a white newborn girl exceeded that of a black newborn girl by about 16. CRS compilation from National Center for Health Statistics (NCHS). National Vital Statistics Reports. From the height of the differential in 1904 — when white women survived. no. 2005. vol. no.1 years vs. 35. At that time. 54 . Nov.9 years longer than black women — the gap fell to 4.54 Life expectancy at birth for whites significantly exceeded that for blacks at the turn of the 20th century (see Figure 2 and Appendix B Table A1). the white advantage was 15. NCHS.CRS-14 Race Differentials. Notes: Later year estimates are more reliable than those of the early 20th century. 54. The improvement was most rapid in the first six decades of the past century. Figure 2. on average.0 years (with longevity measured at 51. By Race and Sex. 6. 17. This section considers only the differentials between blacks and whites. Since the mid-1950s. 10. For 2003.3 years in 2003.7 years (48. A significant reduction in the life expectancy gap between American white and black men was also observed over the 20th century. 14. The gap between whites and blacks in average longevity declined significantly over the past century (Figure 3). Trends in Life Expectancy at Birth.
the most recent year for which we have official data. Of the four race-sex groups considered. 2006. 19. and subsequent lower life expectancy for blacks. this trend obscures the fact that the differential had already been at or near this level for most of the mid-1950s to mid-1960s. no. CRS computation based on. who will live. however. 54. Deaths: Final Data for 2003.CRS-15 improvements for males have stagnated in the range of roughly 6. United States Life Tables.1 years and 75. Tracking Healthy People 2010. Within-sex groupings.3 fewer years than their white counterparts.0 years. on average. by Sex.0 to 8.5 years. Figure 3. still live. Apr. the highest life expectancy was observed for white females. Differences in Life Expectancy at Birth Between Whites and Blacks. Nov 10. 13. Black persons. While the male gap has been falling over the past decade.3 now). 1900-2003 18 16 14 Females Males 12 IN YEARS 10 8 6 4 2 0 1900 1910 1920 1930 1940 1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 Source: For 1900-2002. The gap in 1961 was narrower than that observed today — at that time. For 2003. the gap between white and black men was 5.5 years. 53. 5. and especially for black men in the United States? This has been a subject of research by medical and social scientists for at least a century. vol. Notes: Later year estimates are more reliable than those of the early 20th century. mortality rates in the United States have declined dramatically over the past century. 2004. on average. NCHS. The values for black females and white males are quite similar to each other — 76. In summary. 6. vol. In 2003.8 years (as compared to 6. What accounts for the higher mortality. Factors that contribute to the differential are discussed in later sections of this report.S.55 One of the two primary goals of Healthy People 2010 is to eliminate health disparities. and the issue stands at the heart of the current public health agenda in the United States. 2000.3 years. black males have the shortest average longevity — 69. . Dept. 80. NCHS. with black females having the slight advantage. of Health and Human Services. 55 U. no. whites have the advantage for both females and males.
5 2. Racial Disparity in Potential Life Years Lost (Percent contribution of specific cause of death to overall racial disparity) % of Disparity 34.5) 8.6 5. and a number of researchers have investigated which specific diseases contribute most to life expectancy differences between the races. “Contribution of Major Diseases to Disparities in Mortality.1 5. no.8 100.6 10.5 2. Wong and colleagues.0 0. 347. vol. causes of death are higher for blacks.2 0.D. sex.D. and level of education. Nov. Nov. See Appendix B Table A2. “Contribution of Major Diseases to Disparities in Mortality. and these estimates are for persons dying before the age of 75 years though the authors state that all results were similar when potential life-years lost before the age of 85 years were examined. Notes: Calculations adjust for differences between races in age. Note that trends and racial differentials at the oldest ages (85 and older) differ as black mortality rates are lower than those of whites for both men and women in official mortality data from NCHS.2 19. 14. 20. Table 5. 2002.7 2.2 0.” New England Journal of Medicine. 2002.” New England Journal of Medicine.4 11. vol. Wong and colleagues.6 5. 347. 20.CRS-16 Mortality from most. 14.1 3.8 15.6 0.0 5. 56 .8 4. Wong and colleagues.4 (5. M. numbers in parentheses show causes-of-death for which blacks fare better than whites. but not all.56 for instance. no.0 Cause of death Cardiovascular disease Ischemic heart disease Cerebrovascular stroke Hypertension Congestive heart failure Other arteriosclerotic Other CVD disease Cancer Lung disease Diabetes mellitus Liver disease Alcohol-related diseases Renal disease Rheumatologic diseases Cause of death Infection Tuberculosis Pneumonia Viral hepatitis Sepsis HIV Other infections All trauma Motor vehicle accident Suicide Homicide Other accidents All other causes Total Source: CRS adaptation from M.5 2.1 0.5 (2.4 % of Disparity 21.0 3. recently calculated potential years of life lost related to specific causes of deaths for blacks and whites in the United States (Table 5).0 1.8) 8.
and exposure to a broad range of toxins. such as birth weight and childhood nutrition. followed by HIV disease (11. uterus or ovary. Racial and Ethnic Differences in the Health of Older Americans. pp. and Health in Late Life.A.. and certain types of cancer (breast. 2.7%). if pertinent differences between whites and blacks in their underlying social. Hummer. 2002. deaths from cardiovascular disease contributed most to the racial disparity in mortality from any cause (34. 1571. R. scientific inquiry has shifted to explaining the underlying factors that account for these differences in health outcomes. and economic circumstances were eliminated. and health. behavioral factors. “Which Diseases Contribute to Life-Expectancy Differences Between Races?. [And. for instance. “Living and Dying in the U.] this adds to the credibility of public-health interventions aimed at reducing the exposure to these risk factors.: Sociodemographic Determinants of Death Among Blacks and Whites.A. Note that blacks had a lower mortality risk from respiratory diseases (lung disease). demographic. no.5%). 1571.2%). exposure to HIV.” Demography.0%). and obesity. Health Module. .” Academic Press. Rogers. smoking) and environmental (e. racial differences in mortality would be significantly reduced. workplace exposures). Smith and R. and homicide (8. the strain of physically demanding work..A. suicide. these factors combine to increase the demand for health care. “Living and Dying in the U.59 Beyond describing gross health disparities. 2000. 61 62 Ibid. when considering the major categories of disease. p.S. 287-303. 29. socioeconomic status.”58 The results may also offer hope for the elimination of racial disparities in health.57 and are said to show that “most of the influential diseases are ones in which the rates vary based on avoidable risks such as smoking.: Behavioral. while potentially limiting consumption of necessary health services. Lawrence. both behavioral (e. cited in D. Health. In See. When looking at specific diseases.g.P. 360. Rogers.” The Lancet.B.S. and leukemia or lymphoma. Relevant factors include both early-life differences. Socioeconomic Status. May 1992. These results are consistent with findings from other studies. Bach (Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center). familial. and mid-life variables (such as access to employer-provided health insurance.g.” in National Research Council. Nam. figures are in the original source but are not shown in table).61.1%). and Social Differentials of Adult Mortality. colon. the leading sources of the disparity were largely preventable causes of premature death — hypertension (which contributed 15. p. and C. “Race. Nov.S. Kington. diabetes (8. 16.G. P. 59 60 58 57 Ibid.CRS-17 As seen in Table 5. and trauma (10.60 Some have argued that. Over the life cycle. 1997. vol. R. bladder or kidney. R. followed by infection (21.0% to the disparity). vol.62 Socioeconomic arguments cite the consequences of lifelong poverty. J. Understanding these underlying causes requires disentangling the complex web of factors connecting the nexus among race.G.5%).
compared to 8.4% of blacks were poor. in addition to limiting the quantity and quality of health care received.000). Increased education appears to lower the risks for some chronic diseases — most notably. coronary heart disease (which is the leading cause of death in the United States) — while retarding the pace of disease progression for other conditions. Economic and Social Factors. In general. eds.67 In 2003.S. which was 62% of the median for non-Hispanic White households (about $48. 2003. The gap in educational attainment is also apparent among recipients of bachelor’s degrees — 30% of non-Hispanic whites aged 25 and older had attained a four-year college degree compared to 17% of blacks.000. M.G. housing. Note that the distribution of household income is influenced by many factors. Martin and Soldo64 note that there are differences between racial groups in norms regarding not only lifestyle and self-care behaviors.J. Poverty. respectively. B.D. Current Population Reports. In 2003. and cause of death. 2003.” in R. Census Bureau. R. Martin and B. U. Proctor. Black households had the lowest median income in the United States in 2003. Stoops.66 Recent research also highlights the enduring effects of education. L. and R. Their median money income was about $30. DeNavas-Walt. 66 67 68 CRS Report 95-1024. C.442 compared to $15.R.” in NRC. Hummers. U. 1997). P60226. these factors may affect the age of onset of both morbidity and disability.. Trends in Poverty in the United States. Population Characteristics. P20-550. such as the number of earners and household size.A. and health insurance. Current Population Reports. Soldo.J. mortality decreases. Mills. If a comparison is made instead on per capita income.63 In addition. and Health Insurance Coverage in the United States. the proportion of both blacks and non-Hispanic whites who had a high school diploma (of persons in the population aged 25 and over) reached record highs but at different levels for the two racial groups — 80% and 89%. Martin and B. Soldo. . the severity of symptoms.65 Poverty rates among African Americans are persistently higher than those of nonHispanic whites.2% of nonHispanic whites. Some of these factors that contribute to the racial gap in life expectancy will be discussed briefly in the following paragraphs. Income. “Introduction. Benjamins. National Research Council (Washington: The National Academies Press. and ultimately the age at. Racial and Ethnic Differences in the Health of Older Americans. 1997) (hereafter: NRC. 1997. Moreover. but also in access to health care providers and treatment compliance. 24. 64 65 63 Ibid. N. the experience of racial discrimination may have adverse psychological and physiological effects. “Introduction. as income increases.S. because high income provides access to high-quality health care.CRS-18 late life. the median money income for whites is $24. diet.583 for blacks.G.68 L.G. Census Bureau. Rogers. 2004.J. by Tom Gabe. Educational Attainment in the United States.
B. and W. R. blacks do not consistently adopt more beneficial behaviors than whites. both of which have been reported to be twice as common among blacks than among whites.A. Cubbin. Lack of exercise and obesity are associated with hypertension and diabetes. Prolific research over the past two decades has confirmed the link between certain diseases and health outcomes and various healthdamaging (such as smoking. 1992. See also. but it also enhances social integration and encourages healthful behaviors. Winkleby.” in NRC. National Research Council.69 Race differences in marital and cohabitational stability are substantial. eds. “Introduction. “Racial/Ethnic Disparities in Health Behaviors: a Challenge to Current Assumptions. Marriage.70 The degree of attachment to marriage among black Americans is similar to that of white Americans as measured by attitudes toward marriage. compared with 75% of black women. 2002. Mosher.S. and may be increasing over time. “How Health Behaviors and the Social Environment Contribute to Health Differences between Black and White Older Americans.” NCHS. Rogers. 29.J. Older blacks engage in less physical activity and are more likely to be obese (especially women). and black divorcees are less likely to remarry than white divorcees. One explanation offered by some researchers for the lower proportion of time spent in marriage among black Americans is the idea of a “marriage squeeze.D. Panel on Race. Married people consistently exhibit lower levels of mortality than those who are not married. Critical Perspectives on Racial and Ethnic Differences in Health in Late Life. 2004). if they have. M. 73 L.A. some researchers have explored the extent to which healthdamaging and health-promoting behaviors explain black-white differences in health status. and C. Soldo. but they are less likely to consume alcohol than whites. Bulatao.72 for instance. found that.A. Committee on Population.71 Behavioral Risk Factors. Vital Health Stat 23(22). 1997. Anderson. M. less likely to have quit. pp.” in which the “marriageable pool” of black men is low due to high rates of joblessness. low-fat diet) behaviors.” Demography. Marriage acts to select healthy individuals. “Cohabitation. Martin and B. 71 72 70 69 Ibid. with older blacks less likely to have smoked but. Bramlett. “Living and Dying in the U.F. L. 1997.. vol.” in NRC.73 R.” in N. and Health in Later Life. .: Sociodemographic Determinants of Death Among Blacks and Whites. Mullen. About 91 percent of white women born in the 1950s are estimated to marry at some time in their lives. Black married couples are more likely to break up than white married couples. Cohen. Berkman and J. 2004). pp. Berkman and Mullen.D. And.G. despite greater apparent concern on the part of blacks than whites about their health.M. alcohol abuse) and health-promoting (exercise. 310-352 (hereafter: NRC. Divorce.CRS-19 Marriage is also a socioeconomic determinant that is related to health outcomes. 287-303. Division of Behavioral and Social Sciences and Education (Washington: The National Academies Press. incarceration. Ethnicity. Racial differences in smoking patterns are complex.G. and B. 2. no. and mortality. and Remarriage in the United States. Employed men are more likely than unemployed men to marry.
” in NRC. A. 2004. pp.0% of blacks under age 65 and 12. Burchard and colleagues.”77 Those in favor of using race assert that there is a useful degree of association between genetic differences and racial classifications.” New England Journal of Medicine. Skinner.” in NRC. 21. 2004. no.CRS-20 Access to Health Care. The United States is the only developed country in the world that does not have national health coverage. Chandra and J.S.78 Research in this area is still in its infancy and tends to reflect two ways that genes may be relevant to the study of health differentials.” in NRC. 2003. Chandra and Skinner76 argue that there is differential access to health services in the United States. Cohen. p. Health Insurance Coverage: Characteristics of the Insured and Uninsured Populations in 2003. so that the use of race as a research variable is warranted. do not have sufficient health care coverage. Opponents. . “Introduction. Cohen. which may vary by racial 74 75 B. pp. 2004. by Chris Peterson. See R. 12. There are numerous historical examples of scientific mischief in the support of racism. Cooper. 16.79 First. there are a small number of conditions with single-gene disorders in populations that have descended from a relatively small number of people and that remain endogamous80 (an example is Tay-Sachs Disease among Ashkenazi Jews). such as hypertension and diabetes mellitus. vol. CRS Report 96-891. 1170-1175. and for life-threatening conditions.” in NRC. E. however. “Introduction. Minorities tend to seek care from different hospitals and from different physicians than non-Hispanic whites. “Geography and Racial Health Disparities. pp. 269-309.S. “Genetic Factors in Ethnic Differences in Health. More specifically. such as aplastic anemia. 348.9% of whites of the same age lacked private health insurance in 2003. p. genes may be relevant to the study of health differentials through environmental factors. and especially African Americans. especially because of geographic variation in treatment and outcome patterns. 2004. Genetic Factors. 77 78 76 B.74 and significant numbers of Americans. 604-642. however. argue that bundling the population into four or five categories based on skin color or other traits is not a useful way to summarize genetic variation when we know that there are at least 15 million genetic polymorphisms in humans. “Probably no aspect of the debate about the causes of racial differences in health is potentially more sensitive than the discussion about the extent to which genetic factors are in any way responsible. 9. of which an unknown number underlie variation in (normal and) disease traits.G. Some research suggests that there are race-related genetic factors both for predisposing conditions. “The Importance of Race and Ethnic Background in Biomedical Research and Clinical Practice. 80 79 Marriage within a specific group as required by custom or law. As recently noted by the National Research Council. in large part a reflection of the general spatial distribution of the United States population with concentrations of minorities in certain hospital referral regions.75 Beyond health insurance. Second.
with black males continuing to be the most disadvantaged group on this measure. Vaupel. Whether the life expectancy improvements will continue is the subject of intense debate.82 Some demographers.7% annually — while asserting that it may be difficult to match the accomplishments of the past century.C. in U. 83 82 81 . Senate.W.Hrg. hearings. 2003. Special Committee on Aging. and the introduction of new scourges. retirement. The Future of Human Longevity: How Important Are Markets and Innovation?. SARS. June 3. 2003. and later because of medical advances that led to large decreases in adult mortality. Life expectancy at birth in 2003 for black CRS Report RL32701.Hrg. and argue. in U.CRS-21 or ethnic group. Congress. S. chief actuary. and which might interact with genotype to produce different outcomes for different groups. June 3. declining levels of exercise. wealth and income security.S. feel that such projections are pessimistic. Special Committee on Aging. especially in light of increasing obesity. Testimony of J. including work. a phenomenon that is replacing the earlier “young” age-sex structure with that of an older population. based on historical trends and evidence from other developed countries. director. is that the United States is in the midst of a profound demographic change: rapid population aging. that American survival will be longer than that projected by SSA. The Changing Demographic Profile of the United States. 108-192 (Washington: GPO. first session. Goss. The Social Security Administration (SSA) assumes that the rate of future mortality improvements will be nearly the same as for the last century — a little more than 0.81 Hastened by the retirement of the “Baby Boom” generation (the cohort born between 1946 and 1964). 2003). Congress. 2003). antibiotic resistant microbes. on the other hand. the inexorable demographic momentum will have important implications for a large number of essential economic and social domains. This report also highlights the continuing differentials in life expectancy by race and sex in the United States. such as AIDS. by Laura B. and pensions. especially from two of the most prevalent causes of death — cardiovascular diseases and cerebrovascular diseases. Shrestha. S. A consequence of the improved survival. 108-192 (Washington: GPO. and the health and well-being of the aging population. hearings. coupled with declining fertility rates.S. 108th Congress. Senate. The Future of Human Longevity: How Important Are Markets and Innovation?.83 The outcome of the debate has important implications for determining the number of future beneficiaries and ultimately the financial soundness of the Social Security and the Medicare programs. Conclusion One of the most important public health achievements of the 20th century in the United States was the dramatic and widespread increase in life expectancy that occurred over the past century in the United States — first as a result of the control of the infectious and parasitic diseases that had plagued mostly infants and children in the early part of the century. Testimony of SSA S. first session. Max Planck Institute for Demographic Research. 108th Congress.
G. birth weight and childhood nutrition. M. marriage patterns.” in NRC. that shows that the leading specific diseases that are the main sources of the racial disparity in life expectancy are largely preventable causes of premature death offers hope that public-health interventions can reduce the racial disparities.3 years. the leading causes of the racial disparity were hypertension (which contributed 15. risky behaviors (such as smoking. Differences exist on a wide variety of important variables including lifetime income and wealth. and access to and quality of health care. followed by HIV disease (11.D. Nov.2%). Wong and colleagues. in addition to limiting the quantity and quality of health care received. the experience of racial discrimination may have adverse psychological and physiological effects. . vol. “Contribution of Major Diseases to Disparities in Mortality.5%). no. Martin and B.0 years. exercise). Soldo.” New England Journal of Medicine. The sources of the racial disparities in life expectancy are complex and require disentangling the complex web of factors connecting the nexus among race.5%) in a recent analysis.J. the strain of physically demanding work. The gap between black and white men has remained relatively stagnant since the mid-1950s.85 84 85 L.0% to the disparity). falling short of the comparable figure for white males by 6. and homicide (8. exposure to toxins.84 Recent research. socioeconomic status.CRS-22 males measured 69. and health. behavioral factors. 14. 2002. access to employer-provided health insurance. however. 1997. In addition. Specifically. “Introduction. adherence to preventative health measures (such as maintaining a healthy weight. high saturated diet). 20. 347. diabetes (8.
while the proportion of children and adolescents decrease. A rate that relates a given demographic event at a specific age (or age group) to the corresponding at-risk population in the same age (or age group).g. such as a year. The permanent disappearance of all evidence of life at any time after a live birth has taken place.g. Expectation of life. 2002). Glossary of Terms Age-adjustment. Crude rate. it is used as an approximation of “person-years lived.. Birth cohort. In the form of the population at the middle of a given period. Members of a population born in a given period (e. Cohort life expectancy. Cohort. Death. Aging (of population). death).. The persons to whom an event can potentially occur. For example. . The number of deaths per 1. A rate that relates a demographic event to the total population and makes no distinction concerning different exposure levels to the event. A method to calculate life expectancy using death rates not from a single year. usually estimated using a life table. A group of people who experience the same demographic event during a particular period of time such as their year of birth. Age-specific rate.. A process in which the proportion of adults and elderly increase in a population. as recorded by a death certificate.g. the age-specific death rate in a particular population for persons aged 40-44 = [(Deaths to persons aged 40-44)/(Total population aged 40-44)] * 1000. Death rate. In the United States. Procedure used to compare risks of two or more populations at one point in time or one population at two or more points in time. The loss of a member of a population. Cohorts are typically defined on the basis of an initiating signal event (e.000 persons in the population in a given year.” See also age-specific rate. Also referred to as the crude death rate. the states and local governments complying with federal standards for the registration of deaths. This process results in a rise in the median age of the population. It was established in 1900 and by 1933 encompassed all states. A statistical measure of the average amount of time (usually measured in years) remaining for a person or group of persons before death. At-risk population.CRS-23 Appendix A. time period 1946-1964. Age-adjusted rates eliminate differences in observed (crude) rates that result from age differences in population composition. year 1900. birth) but they can also be defined on the basis of a terminating signal event (e. Death Registration Area. See also age-specific rate. but from the series of years in which the individual will actually reach each succeeding age if he or she survives.
A statistical model composed of a combination of age-specific mortality rates for a given population. as calculated from a life table. The maximum age that human beings could attain under optimum conditions. the number alive between two birthdays. the number of deaths to those surviving to a given birthday before they reach a subsequent birthday. Longevity. See also Cohort life expectancy and Period life expectancy. A period life table is constructed by using mortality and age data from a single point in time. An estimate of the average number of additional years a person could expect to live if the age-specific death rates for a given year prevailed for the rest of that person’s life. The period life expectancy for a particular year may be viewed as the expected remaining life at a selected age only if it is assumed that will be no change in death rates after that year. Mean age at death. illness. The fundamental elements of a life table include number surviving to a given age. Also refers to the average number of years of life remaining to a group of persons who reached a given age. can also be calculated for other ages. “Average longevity” usually refers to life expectancy. Life table functions. life span. Period life expectancy. The extreme upper limits of human life. Life table. Period life table. It is a useful summary statistic for illustrating the overall level of the death rates experienced in a single year. and the years of life remaining for those who survive to a given birthday (including birth). .CRS-24 Life expectancy. Morbidity. The frequency of disease. injuries. It is closely related to the age-sex-adjusted death rate. the probability of dying before reaching a subsequent birthday for those who survived to a given birthday. In the life table. Most commonly refers to life expectancy at birth. It is approximated by computing the product of (1) the number of persons in the population or population segment and (2) the amount of time in years (and fractions thereof) lived by these persons during the time in question. The total number of years (and fractions thereof) lived by a given population or population segment during a given period of time. Person-years lived. A method to calculate life expectancy for a given year using the actual or expected death rates at each age for that year. population. A life table based on mortality data collected at a given point in time (frequently one year) for a given population. Length of life. Life span. A general term for the incidence of deaths in a population. See also: at-risk population and life table. The arithmetic mean age at death of the reported deaths in a given year. a generational life table is based on the mortality of an actual birth cohort followed over time (to its extinction). the mean age at death of life table deaths is equal to life expectancy at birth in the same life table. and disabilities in a Mortality.
Demography: Measuring and Modeling Population Processes. Years of potential life lost. United States. The Methods and Materials of Demography. Classification of the population into the categories of male and female.CRS-25 Population. 2004. 2004. In the United States decennial census. Survival rate. May 1. See years of potential life lost. Elsevier Academic Press. usually an age group. Population Reference Bureau’s Population Handbook. DC. Siegel and D. Sometimes referred to as potential life years lost. Haupt and T. 2nd ed. Hyattsville. Guillot.H. including national ethnic affiliations. from one date to another and from one age to another.A. classification of the members of a population in terms of biological ancestry. 2004. P. Kane. 2001. A rate expressing the probability of survival of a population group. classification of the members of a population in terms of socially constructed definitions of membership in categories in which skin color or other characteristics. Measure of the relative impact of various diseases and lethal forces on society. Blackwell Publishing. (3) A. Sex. See Population projection. persons are self-identified by race. 1998. at [http://www. Projection. Potential life years lost.ssa. Survival. computed by estimating the years that people would have lived if they had not died prematurely from injury or disease. Primarily a condition where an individual or group remains alive after a specified interval. Can be based on life tables or two censuses. 2006 Annual Report of the Trustees of the Federal Old-Age and Survivors Insurance and Disability Trust Funds. Race. and M. With Chartbook on Trends in the Health of Americans. it is a conditional statement about the size of a future population (often along with its composition and distribution).S. In theory.T. may be the basis of assignment by census or survey enumerators or by self-enumeration. MD. Strictly speaking. (5) Social Security Administration. Preston. table V. Appendix Source: CRS compilation based on: (1) J. 4th International Edition.gov/ OACT/TR/TR06/tr06. 2006. eds. The “inhabitants” of a given area at a given time. (2) S. Appendix 2.pdf]. Population projection. Heuveline. Population Reference Bureau. Health. Swanson.. . (4) National Center for Health Statistics. The numerical outcome of a particular set of implicit and explicit assumptions regarding future values of the components of population change for a given area in combination with an algorithm. A3. Wash. In demographic practice.
4 78.7 72.5 79.9 69.7 74.5 75.6 69.8 73.4 72.9 73.8 70. by Race and Sex: 1900-2003 (in years) All Races Yr.4 71.8 71.7 63.8 75.1 78.2 72.6 74.7 77.5 75.5 75.1 68.6 75.8 67.5 76.8 79.1 78.6 75.2 66.4 75.9 69.8 79.8 78.7 79.3 73.4 73.0 79.6 73.7 64.4 76.8 79.5 69.9 78.9 62.5 68.4 71.3 73.3 72.3 76.1 75.2 64.9 72.1 78.8 68.6 73.2 72.3 75.1 77.5 64.2 69.5 72.0 64.6 65.5 80.0 70.8 71. Detailed Life Expectancy Tables Table A1.8 69.3 77.4 75.2 76.3 73.7 74.6 67.6 77.1 71.1 65.6 69.9 73.5 63.9 72.1 79.1 71.9 77.2 72.0 71.1 74.6 78.9 73.7 77.7 74.9 79.4 79.1 68.4 70.2 73.6 73.4 72.8 74.9 75.5 74.6 75.9 79.8 71.6 79.1 75.0 63.0 73.9 73.6 73.2 76.7 78.9 78.7 78.4 68.6 68.1 79.3 72.0 69.3 69.6 69.6 79.3 69.0 77.9 74.2 71.0 70.0 74.9 68.9 78.7 78.7 74.5 74.6 79.2 78.9 72.3 75.7 75.7 73.8 77.9 71.4 79.4 74.4 79. Life Expectancy at Birth.2 75.3 72.9 80.1 75.6 71.1 69.8 80.9 79.4 73.2 80.7 74.4 62.4 74.7 76.9 73.7 79.5 76.7 72.6 64.3 73.8 74.1 73.1 67.3 72.5 80.5 76.2 69.4 77.5 71.1 74.0 77.7 71.3 77.8 76.3 80.4 71.9 73.7 76.5 73.4 73.5 74.1 69.3 77.8 77.6 74.5 77.5 76.5 69.5 69.2 78.8 65.3 75.5 72.9 64.5 72. Sex Both M F Both White M F Both Blacka M F United Statesb 2003 2002 2001 2000 1999 1998 1997 1996 1995 1994 1993 1992 1991 1990 1989 1988 1987 1986 1985 1984 1983 1982 1981 1980 1979 1978 1977 1976 1975 77.6 71.3 64.4 64.2 74.9 71.4 73.2 78.3 78.1 71.1 73.8 73.8 75.7 67.3 71.8 64.2 71.1 72.3 .2 77.5 79.3 76.1 70.5 77.2 65.0 78.7 70.4 75.7 73.1 74.1 78.6 74.0 76.5 73.1 70.0 65.8 68.3 78.1 64.2 66.8 78.0 71.4 70.9 74.6 73.9 74.1 75.1 68.3 67.2 72.8 74.3 65.0 68.8 70.7 78.2 69.4 78.4 69.2 73.CRS-26 Appendix B.5 78.3 77.8 76.2 78.6 74.
7 69.3 70.6 67.0 72.5 66.0 60.5 70.3 64.6 66.5 68.1 57.5 67.5 63.9 69.2 71.3 66.2 67.8 60.6 67.6 66.4 67.9 62.1 75.4 67.0 68.2 74.9 67.5 64.7 76.2 M 69.8 65.0 63.5 66.4 F 76.2 63.4 60.4 74.4 67.6 69.1 75.1 58.8 70.1 64.0 70.7 64.8 66.4 72.4 71.8 66.7 73.5 70.6 53.2 55.4 55.1 74.8 66.7 74.4 63.6 67.4 67.9 73.3 69.1 74.5 69.8 Both 72.9 72.8 Blacka M 61.7 66.6 74.3 69.8 74.3 66.1 68.4 60.0 71.0 59.0 64.0 71.7 66.6 75.1 66.2 72.7 64.7 56.7 71.2 69.8 72.6 68.2 66.8 67.6 65.2 60.7 73.9 64.1 59.6 73.8 72.7 74.7 69.2 67.9 66.5 70.1 57.7 56.9 68.4 64.8 73.7 69.4 67.4 64.8 70.2 65.7 67.8 68.3 61.1 59.6 63.7 69.6 70.8 66.4 63.8 74.8 66.6 68.4 61.6 55.6 56.8 68.9 64.2 69.4 66.0 65.5 63.4 52.8 66.9 66.6 67.5 69.4 65.9 70.0 65.1 64.4 62.2 70.9 75.1 70.4 67.5 70.4 64.8 75.6 67.1 61.7 59.7 73.6 66.2 64.5 66.3 68.4 61.5 67.1 64.9 63.3 61.9 61.4 71.7 60.9 73.7 69.2 64.6 72.5 Both 66.7 59.9 61.5 63.8 63.8 66.5 73.7 62.7 73.5 69.9 71.9 68.9 67.6 63.0 61.8 55.6 71.2 63.8 65.5 F 70.7 67.6 66.2 68.0 66.5 56.0 67.8 72.0 67.6 65.6 66.9 69.5 67.2 61.3 68.1 71.9 71.7 66.2 59.6 64.0 75.2 64.3 66.0 70.0 59.7 70.4 68.5 61.6 62.5 65. Sex 1974 1973 1972c 1971 1970 1969 1968 1967 1966 1965 1964 1963 d White F 75.1 71.1 66.5 70.0 70.2 64.5 70.1 70.6 67.7 63.4 68.3 66.9 64.4 71.0 61.4 74.7 65.2 67.1 70.2 64.7 67.3 Both 72.0 71.2 73.1 71.9 65.2 70.1 66.9 60.6 67.3 68.CRS-27 All Races Yr.8 64.6 63.7 63.5 65.7 66.0 74.0 60.1 73.3 75.0 72.9 73.6 69.5 67.1 68.9 58.5 66.3 69.2 65.1 65.1 66.4 67.4 71.6 60.5 74.4 61.1 55.3 61.7 72.3 75.7 69.6 60.0 61.6 62.3 69.9 75.6 64.5 60.8 M 68.4 62.0 67.9 57.1 1962d 1961 1960 1959 1958 1957 1956 1955 1954 1953 1952 1951 1950 1949 1948 1947 1946 1945 1944 1943 1942 1941 .5 67.7 61.2 65.2 72.3 73.5 66.5 68.4 73.6 57.2 70.2 71.4 67.8 67.9 72.1 58.
5 55.5 40.3 62.5 45.5 62.3 63.9 59.0 60.8 56.2 51.6 45.5 52.7 63.1 63.8 53.8 48.7 50.0 39.7 51.9 54.3 50.8 62.5 58.6 48.4 50.7 48.3 63.1 55.5 49.9 53.2 54.6 61.2 44.3 64.7 59.3 56.9 38.6 56.8 52.0 54.3 59.0 61.8 61.7 Both 64.5 36.4 48.8 55.9 37.9 45.3 45.8 57.7 61.9 49.6 43.5 57.2 52.0 50.4 35.0 52.0 59.3 45.7 61.3 65.3 36.5 47.4 62.4 51.6 59.0 51.5 53.8 54.0 53.0 38.4 64.6 52.3 60.0 60.7 57.0 61.5 52.2 59.1 49.1 60.3 62.0 58.7 53.0 .1 58.4 59.0 54.3 40.6 59.0 53.2 55.2 F 66.9 62.1 40.9 50.0 54.1 63.8 47.9 63.9 51.5 52.1 36.2 65.4 54.2 54.9 36.4 58.6 58.3 46.6 66.6 48.7 47.0 56.0 59.5 58.8 34.1 63.9 53.6 66.1 59.8 52.2 60.3 48.2 53.2 53.6 66.6 63.5 52.6 35.5 37.6 62.2 57.0 58.5 61.6 37.5 31.1 38.4 32.4 59.7 50.1 46.6 58.3 47.6 47.8 60.9 45.2 59.1 54.5 60.0 53.6 50.8 51.9 34. Sex 1940 1939 1938 1937 1936 1935 1934 1933 1932 1931 1930 1929 Both 62.5 57.0 54.5 37.5 44.3 62.9 62.6 45.2 64.3 52.0 60.7 39.4 63.3 44.5 29.9 52.0 50.7 57.1 55.5 51.9 38.1 51.0 51.4 65.3 Both 53.9 60.5 55.0 55.7 61.1 58.7 56.6 61.4 58.4 58.0 59.7 56.5 63.8 62.2 33.4 51.9 55.0 52.5 37.3 51.6 46.6 53.6 33.8 39.2 53.3 58.7 44.8 51.1 59.4 56.3 52.7 34.7 F 54.2 53.5 61.5 57.8 F 65.9 65.8 58.9 63.8 41.9 55.8 59.2 37.1 M 60.9 45.0 55.5 57.8 63.8 Death Registration Statese 1928 1927 1926 1925 1924 1923 1922 1921 1920 1919 1918 1917 1916 1915 1914 1913 1912 1911 1910 1909 1908 56.9 56.6 57.8 54.7 62.7 46.7 63.2 44.9 53.0 64.3 55.CRS-28 All Races Yr.1 56.3 38.1 54.5 54.4 60.1 54.9 65.5 53.7 57.0 48.9 58.8 49.8 54.5 47.8 43.5 51.6 60.8 54.8 54.1 50.4 55.5 49.0 63.5 60.6 White M 62.6 50.9 59.5 40.3 48.3 49.2 47.1 91.6 61.6 51.7 35.0 42.1 61.4 49.3 50.9 49.4 43.7 54.0 60.8 40.1 52.9 51.4 61.7 Blacka M 51.4 37.5 64.3 52.0 61.1 51.5 50.3 61.2 62.4 60.1 61.
3 46.1 48.1 31. Only 10 states and the District of Columbia were in the original death registration area of 1900.7 32.9 47.6 White M 46.3 30. e.6 49.1 52.6 36. 2002.5 F 34.3 F 49.8 47.8 29.5 53.5 Source: For historical data: CRS compilation from National Center for Health Statistics (NCHS). and beginning 1970.0 33. 2006. Table 12.6 49.6 46. Data shown for 1900-1969 are for nonwhite population.7 33.5 52.1 31. data for black population are not available.6 46.7 34. National Vital Statistics Report. Figures by race in this year exclude data for residents of New Jersey. For selected years.4 35. States were only admitted to the registration areas as qualification standards were met.0 48. c. 2004. 10. Sex 1907 1906 1905 1904 1903 1902 1901 1900 Both 47. .3 33. the number of states included increased with time.0 50.8 33. Notes: Life expectancy at age 0 (at birth) measures the number of years that a newborn could expect to live. Data for 1900-1928 are based on deaths in the “Death Registration States”.1 32.1 49. life table values shown are estimates.3 49. For most recent year: NCHS. 19.6 48.9 31. on average.0 Blacka M 31. a. excludes deaths of nonresidents of the United States. d. if mortality trends in the year of birth were to continue for the rest of the newborn’s life. Deaths: Final Data for 2003.2 49.4 47.6 33.6 46.3 47.4 50.5 49.2 48.9 51. United States Life Tables.1 49.1 47.3 M 45. Prior to 1970.0 46.0 47.9 32.1 34.3 Both 48.9 49.8 51.4 51.6 F 50.7 Both 32.5 32. Nov.5 51.7 47.4 50. not the entire United States. Alaska included in 1959 and Hawaii in 1960. National Vital Statistics Report. b.0 53. Apr.5 50.9 33.9 50. Deaths based on a 50% sample.6 29.2 49. The federal civil registration system began in 1900 with the setting up of the Death Registration Area.6 48.6 50.7 48.8 50.CRS-29 All Races Yr.2 32.
5 3.0 6.9 3. Notes: Life expectancy at age 0 (at birth) measures the number of years that a child born in 2003 could expect to live.5 2. and Wisconsin reported multiple-race data in 2003.5 8.1 65.7 68. Hawaii. Data are based on a continuous file of records from the States.1 18.8 43. in years) White Population Age 0 1 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75 80 85 90 95 100 All 78.7 1.7 46.0 14.4 50.9 0.8 35.7 3.4 2.6 2.2 49.5 22.0 5.3 0.8 19.6 41.3 12. National Vital Statistics Report.4 0. on average.5 10.2 56.6 23.8 16.6 58.4 Difference (White-Black) All 5.6 3.5 79.5 68.3 51.0 54.6 4.1 2.5 4.9 3.9 -0.0 F 76. Idaho.2 -0.7 4.1 49.3 5.7 72.9 37.1 29.5 Black Population All 72.1 76.9 13.8 3.3 57.9 12.1 2. . no.” vol.3 44.0 40.4 36.3 74. 2006.3 3.8 20.3 5. Seven states California.9 76.2 -0.5 0. 19.0 1.0 12.9 M 6.8 70.1 -0.6 16.0 71.6 4.1 61.0 69.1 5. The multiple-race data for these States were bridged by NCHS to the single categories of the 1977 OMB standards for comparability with other States.2 30.9 -0.7 -0.4 52.8 3.7 5.4 5.5 -0.2 F 80.2 37. given that he had already attained age 65 in 2003.2 2.9 59.2 32.2 17.5 14.3 41.3 4.2 67. by Sex and Race (final data. Life expectancy at age 65 measures the number of additional years of life a person at age 65 will live.7 9.5 3.7 0.2 62.4 4.9 4. “Deaths: Final Data for 2003. Calculations of life expectancy employ populations estimated as of July 1.4 3.0 77.1 3.8 26.5 46.0 72.1 38.5 4.0 31.0 3.4 9.8 37.7 3.8 54.7 4.8 6.3 4.8 F 4.9 -0.7 2.2 1.6 27. if the mortality trends observed in 2003 were to continue for the rest of the newborn’s life.6 28.6 4.0 11.6 20. Data are subject to sampling or random variation.7 0.9 6.6 5.9 Source: CRS compilation from National Center for Health Statistics.6 34.8 3.5 39.1 23.9 63. 54.6 7.0 4.5 M 75.1 4.7 2.1 28.9 14.3 -0.3 55.3 60. Maine.9 22.6 5.2 7.4 9. 13.7 3. New York. Life Expectancy at Various Ages in 2003.0 3.7 5.9 66.9 25.9 11.4 73.5 63.6 9.9 4.3 3.5 15.9 42.3 32.6 4.8 24.4 M 69.6 47.3 51.0 56. Apr.8 -0.8 7.2 -0. on average.2 17.7 2. Race categories are consistent with the 1977 Office of Management and Budget guidelines.6 45.CRS-30 Table A2.6 5.7 24.7 -0.8 3. Montana.1 3.7 4.7 -0.0 61.8 7.6 33.8 3.4 5.3 18.7 -0.4 3.8 21.1 1.9 28.0 66.1 9.6 46.
This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?
We've moved you to where you read on your other device.
Get the full title to continue reading from where you left off, or restart the preview.