First the good news. Since the mid 19th century, every generation in Europe has lived longer than its parents. So, most of us have more years to enjoy. But since it is the wealth generated by the working age population that pays for the pensions of a growing proportion of retired people, governments have been raising retirement ages to keep the balance stable. In the UK, the state pension age is currently rising in stages to 67 by 2028. But not everybody is winning, and a new report from the Office for National Statistics (ONS) finds widening gaps between the best off and the worst.
‘Retirement age’
There is no such thing as a ‘retirement age’ in the UK. People can leave paid work at any age they choose. But in practice the decision depends on what income they will receive in retirement, which in turn depends on one or more of three factors. For most, it is State Pension Age, when people become eligible for a state pension, paid for by working taxpayers. But many people also have private or occupational pensions, which may have different rules and retirement ages. A few have private wealth and savings. And some people choose to ‘retire’, and begin to draw their pension, while continuing to work part time.
Rising life expectancy
Apart from dips for two world wars, life expectancy in the UK has been rising steadily for well over a century. This is the result of many factors, including improved sanitation, vaccination, elimination of childhood diseases and the decline of smoking and heavy industry. Children born in 1900 could expect to live on average to around 47, though those who survived childhood would live longer. Today the figure is around 80 (always longer for women than men).
Life expectancy dipped during the Covid pandemic, but has now begun to rise again, bringing it back to the 2019 level. The average man who lives to 65 can now expect to live to 84, and the average woman to 86.
In response to the continuing upward trend, the government has announced that state pension age will rise to 68 in 2044 (i.e. for people younger than 50 today). They have commissioned an independent review, which will consider the most recent evidence.
‘Healthy life expectancy’
But simple life expectancy is not the whole picture, and the ONS publishes two kinds of life expectancy data. Simple life expectancy is a calculation of how many more years a person of a given age is likely to live. Figures are available for all ages, but the most commonly quoted are life expectancy at birth and at age 65.
They also measure ‘healthy life expectancy’, by asking people whether they are in ‘good or very good health’.
Both measures matter, for the individual and the state. Living longer can be a bonus for the individual, even if the pensions are a cost to the state. But living in poor health is a much less attractive proposition for the individual, and usually involves much higher costs to the NHS and social services.
What is changing?
The new report from the ONS shows that while overall life expectancy continues to rise, the reverse is true for healthy life expectancy. People are now spending fewer years in “good” general health. Healthy life expectancy in the UK has now dropped to the lowest level since records began 15 years ago. And worse, the gap in healthy life expectancy between local authority areas is at record highs, and the gap between richer and poorer people is growing.
A child born at the end of the Covid pandemic could expect a healthy lifespan of nearly 63 years for boys and nearly 64 years for girls. But three years later, these figures had fallen by two years for boys and two and a half years for girls. As a result, people born today can expect to spend the last quarter of their lives in poor health.
Geographical variation
There are striking regional differences. Healthy life expectancy at birth is highest in the South East (over 63), and lowest in North East (57).
And at local level differences are even more stark. There is almost a 20-year difference between the healthy life expectancy for people in Blackpool (51 for men and 52 for women) and Richmond upon Thames (69 for men and 70 for women). And worryingly, the gap between these two places has increased by nearly three years since before the pandemic.
The same pattern is evident across East Anglia. A child born in Hertfordshire can expect to remain healthy to 65, while one born in Peterborough will no longer be in good health by 59. Someone in their late 60s in Hertfordshire can expect another 13 years of healthy life. Their counterpart in Thurrock or Peterborough will only have 10.
We are all losers
A growing proportion of people living longer, but in poorer health, is bad for those people, and spells ballooning health and care bills for the state. This report is a wake-up call. As Sarah Wilkinson, of the Centre for Ageing Better, says:
“Getting older is a vastly different experience for different people. Where you live, how much money you earn – these are significant factors in shaping our health in later life. Even though some older people are comfortable, many are not. It’s a gross simplification to assume that older equates to wealthier. We continue to see a gap between different parts of the country – and this shows no signs of closing.
Getting older is part of the human condition. If we live, we age. Our later years shouldn’t be experienced as a time of misery and hardship. We therefore urge government to look at the problems that affect older people and act accordingly.”
More from East Anglia Bylines
Friends of Bylines Network
There has never been a greater need for grassroots journalism that investigates the stories that really matter, holds power to account and champions the voices of everyday citizens. We are proudly powered by volunteers but what we do isn’t free.
STAND WITH US for independent, citizen-led journalism that makes democracy stronger, and you will even get some exclusive benefits.
