
美國(guó)人的壽命比歐洲人短,,即便是富裕階層也不例外,。
在近日發(fā)布的一項(xiàng)新研究中,布朗大學(xué)的研究人員對(duì)過(guò)去12年間美國(guó)和歐洲老年人的存活率與財(cái)富狀況進(jìn)行了分析,。他們發(fā)現(xiàn),,在各個(gè)財(cái)富階層中,美國(guó)人的存活率均低于歐洲人,。北歐和西歐最富有人群的死亡率比美國(guó)最富有人群低約35%,。
布朗大學(xué)公共衛(wèi)生學(xué)院健康服務(wù)、政策與實(shí)踐教授,、該研究的資深作者伊琳娜·帕帕尼科拉斯(Irene Papanicolas)對(duì)《財(cái)富》雜志表示:“美國(guó)所經(jīng)歷的死亡率上升及預(yù)期壽命縮短的現(xiàn)象,,并非僅限于最貧困的群體。存在一些系統(tǒng)性問(wèn)題,,正波及每一位美國(guó)人,。”
在這份發(fā)表于《新英格蘭醫(yī)學(xué)雜志》的研究中,,研究人員使用了來(lái)自美國(guó)和16個(gè)歐洲國(guó)家超過(guò)7.3萬(wàn)名年齡在50至85歲成年人的數(shù)據(jù),。
帕帕尼科拉斯稱,盡管美國(guó)最富有階層擁有優(yōu)越的社會(huì)經(jīng)濟(jì)條件,,但研究人員發(fā)現(xiàn),這一階層的存活率“從統(tǒng)計(jì)學(xué)意義上講,,與北歐和西歐財(cái)富水平處于后四分之一區(qū)間的人口的存活率并無(wú)二致”,。“因此,,美國(guó)最富有階層的存活狀況并非僅僅遜色于其他國(guó)家同屬最富裕層級(jí)的群體,,而是從統(tǒng)計(jì)學(xué)意義上講,與北歐和西歐財(cái)富水平處于后四分之一區(qū)間的人口的存活情況處于同一水平,?!?/p>
帕帕尼科拉斯推測(cè),參與研究的部分歐洲國(guó)家,,如德國(guó),、荷蘭和瑞士,在醫(yī)療保健領(lǐng)域投入頗高,,并且在應(yīng)對(duì)那些致使健康與財(cái)富差距不斷拉大的社會(huì)決定因素時(shí),,相較于美國(guó)采取了更為有效的舉措。
財(cái)富仍然意味著更好的健康狀況
盡管美國(guó)最富裕人群的情況存在差異,,但總體而言,,這項(xiàng)研究強(qiáng)調(diào)了財(cái)富對(duì)健康的影響。帕帕尼科拉斯指出,,相較于最貧困的人群,,最富裕的人通常擁有更高的存活率,,這得益于他們有能力承擔(dān)自費(fèi)醫(yī)療費(fèi)用、獲取更為安全的生活環(huán)境,,以及接受旨在提升健康意識(shí)的教育,。
但研究發(fā)現(xiàn),美國(guó)最富有群體與最貧窮群體之間的健康差距極為顯著,。在所有參與研究的對(duì)象中,,美國(guó)最貧窮人群的存活率最低。
她說(shuō):“日益加劇的不平等現(xiàn)象可能導(dǎo)致越來(lái)越多的人無(wú)法獲取維持健康生活所必需的多項(xiàng)資源,。對(duì)于一個(gè)在相關(guān)領(lǐng)域投入如此巨大的國(guó)家而言,,我們確實(shí)應(yīng)當(dāng)付出更多努力來(lái)改善現(xiàn)狀?!毖芯咳藛T得出的結(jié)論是,,文化、政策以及環(huán)境等因素相互交織,,共同影響著財(cái)富對(duì)健康的作用程度,,而這一現(xiàn)象在美國(guó)體現(xiàn)得尤為突出。
帕帕尼科拉斯說(shuō):“在歐洲,,各個(gè)財(cái)富階層中擁有大學(xué)學(xué)歷的人口比例均高于美國(guó),。美國(guó)擁有大學(xué)學(xué)歷的人群,則主要集中于最富裕階層,。就連吸煙這類行為,,我們也發(fā)現(xiàn)歐洲的社會(huì)階層差異導(dǎo)致的行為分化遠(yuǎn)小于美國(guó)。在很多歐洲國(guó)家,,財(cái)富排名前75%的人群的情況更為相近,,因此財(cái)富差異似乎并未對(duì)其產(chǎn)生顯著影響。無(wú)論在哪個(gè)國(guó)家,,最貧困人群的境遇都較為艱難,,但在歐洲,大多數(shù)人的生活軌跡(與美國(guó)相比)更為相似,?!保ㄗ髡咧赋觯瑲W洲的樣本量并不足以代表所有歐洲國(guó)家的狀況,。)
帕帕尼科拉斯指出,,該論文雖未得出導(dǎo)致這些結(jié)果的確切原因,但對(duì)可能影響美國(guó)人口存活率的潛在系統(tǒng)性問(wèn)題進(jìn)行了推斷,。
帕帕尼科拉斯說(shuō):“當(dāng)我們考慮制定相關(guān)政策以解決這一問(wèn)題時(shí),,我們確實(shí)需要思考,哪些因素如此普遍,,以至于影響到每一個(gè)人,,而在其他國(guó)家卻不存在,?”
以下是美國(guó)人壽命較短的三個(gè)原因:
可避免的死亡原因
與其他富裕國(guó)家相比,美國(guó)因槍支暴力,、酒精相關(guān)問(wèn)題以及自殺等外部因素導(dǎo)致的死亡人數(shù)更多,。
帕帕尼科拉斯說(shuō):“這表明美國(guó)的公共衛(wèi)生基礎(chǔ)設(shè)施較為薄弱,無(wú)法像其他高收入國(guó)家那樣保護(hù)民眾免受這些致命威脅的侵害,。我認(rèn)為我們確實(shí)需要思考如何加強(qiáng)公共衛(wèi)生體系建設(shè),,切實(shí)保護(hù)民眾?!?/p>
心血管疾病死亡率高
心臟病是引發(fā)過(guò)早死亡的關(guān)鍵風(fēng)險(xiǎn)因素之一,,而美國(guó)的心臟病發(fā)病率遠(yuǎn)超其他高收入國(guó)家,情況尤為嚴(yán)峻,。
帕帕尼科拉斯說(shuō):“我們需要考慮疾病的診斷與治療,,確保每個(gè)人都能獲得負(fù)擔(dān)得起的藥物,并能夠預(yù)防那些可能引發(fā)心臟病致死的風(fēng)險(xiǎn)因素,?!?/p>
社會(huì)保障體系較弱
帕帕尼科拉斯表示,相較于美國(guó),,歐洲國(guó)家“可能在構(gòu)建更加健全的社會(huì)福利體系上投入了更多資源,,這有助于民眾緩解失業(yè)帶來(lái)的壓力?!?/p>
她說(shuō):“在歐洲,,個(gè)人醫(yī)療保健不一定與就業(yè)掛鉤,而且鑒于教育機(jī)會(huì)更為均等,,人們?cè)谡麄€(gè)生命進(jìn)程中積累財(cái)富的機(jī)會(huì)也更加平等?!?/p>
社會(huì)狀況欠佳的另一個(gè)標(biāo)志是:上個(gè)月,,美國(guó)在年度《世界幸福報(bào)告》中的排名降至歷史最低。帕帕尼科拉斯說(shuō):“所有這些因素都會(huì)對(duì)民眾產(chǎn)生影響,,不僅是在短期內(nèi),,長(zhǎng)期來(lái)看,影響尤為顯著,?!?/p>
這項(xiàng)研究指出了一個(gè)緊迫的優(yōu)先事項(xiàng):制定公共衛(wèi)生戰(zhàn)略,旨在確保所有人都能平等地享有健康老齡化的機(jī)遇,,而此時(shí)特朗普政府卻在解散那些負(fù)責(zé)為老年人提供從心理健康護(hù)理到健康食品供應(yīng)等各類服務(wù)的衛(wèi)生機(jī)構(gòu),。
帕帕尼科拉斯說(shuō):“我們應(yīng)當(dāng)研究其他國(guó)家的做法,借鑒他們的成功經(jīng)驗(yàn),,因?yàn)橐暂^低的投入達(dá)成更高的存活率是切實(shí)可行的,。這或許給我們帶來(lái)了希望,,那就是我們能夠做得更好?!保ㄘ?cái)富中文網(wǎng))
譯者:中慧言-王芳
美國(guó)人的壽命比歐洲人短,,即便是富裕階層也不例外。
在近日發(fā)布的一項(xiàng)新研究中,,布朗大學(xué)的研究人員對(duì)過(guò)去12年間美國(guó)和歐洲老年人的存活率與財(cái)富狀況進(jìn)行了分析,。他們發(fā)現(xiàn),在各個(gè)財(cái)富階層中,,美國(guó)人的存活率均低于歐洲人,。北歐和西歐最富有人群的死亡率比美國(guó)最富有人群低約35%。
布朗大學(xué)公共衛(wèi)生學(xué)院健康服務(wù),、政策與實(shí)踐教授,、該研究的資深作者伊琳娜·帕帕尼科拉斯(Irene Papanicolas)對(duì)《財(cái)富》雜志表示:“美國(guó)所經(jīng)歷的死亡率上升及預(yù)期壽命縮短的現(xiàn)象,并非僅限于最貧困的群體,。存在一些系統(tǒng)性問(wèn)題,,正波及每一位美國(guó)人?!?
在這份發(fā)表于《新英格蘭醫(yī)學(xué)雜志》的研究中,,研究人員使用了來(lái)自美國(guó)和16個(gè)歐洲國(guó)家超過(guò)7.3萬(wàn)名年齡在50至85歲成年人的數(shù)據(jù)。
帕帕尼科拉斯稱,,盡管美國(guó)最富有階層擁有優(yōu)越的社會(huì)經(jīng)濟(jì)條件,,但研究人員發(fā)現(xiàn),這一階層的存活率“從統(tǒng)計(jì)學(xué)意義上講,,與北歐和西歐財(cái)富水平處于后四分之一區(qū)間的人口的存活率并無(wú)二致”,。“因此,,美國(guó)最富有階層的存活狀況并非僅僅遜色于其他國(guó)家同屬最富裕層級(jí)的群體,,而是從統(tǒng)計(jì)學(xué)意義上講,與北歐和西歐財(cái)富水平處于后四分之一區(qū)間的人口的存活情況處于同一水平,?!?/p>
帕帕尼科拉斯推測(cè),參與研究的部分歐洲國(guó)家,,如德國(guó),、荷蘭和瑞士,在醫(yī)療保健領(lǐng)域投入頗高,,并且在應(yīng)對(duì)那些致使健康與財(cái)富差距不斷拉大的社會(huì)決定因素時(shí),,相較于美國(guó)采取了更為有效的舉措。
財(cái)富仍然意味著更好的健康狀況
盡管美國(guó)最富裕人群的情況存在差異,,但總體而言,,這項(xiàng)研究強(qiáng)調(diào)了財(cái)富對(duì)健康的影響,。帕帕尼科拉斯指出,相較于最貧困的人群,,最富裕的人通常擁有更高的存活率,,這得益于他們有能力承擔(dān)自費(fèi)醫(yī)療費(fèi)用、獲取更為安全的生活環(huán)境,,以及接受旨在提升健康意識(shí)的教育,。
但研究發(fā)現(xiàn),美國(guó)最富有群體與最貧窮群體之間的健康差距極為顯著,。在所有參與研究的對(duì)象中,,美國(guó)最貧窮人群的存活率最低。
她說(shuō):“日益加劇的不平等現(xiàn)象可能導(dǎo)致越來(lái)越多的人無(wú)法獲取維持健康生活所必需的多項(xiàng)資源,。對(duì)于一個(gè)在相關(guān)領(lǐng)域投入如此巨大的國(guó)家而言,,我們確實(shí)應(yīng)當(dāng)付出更多努力來(lái)改善現(xiàn)狀?!毖芯咳藛T得出的結(jié)論是,,文化、政策以及環(huán)境等因素相互交織,,共同影響著財(cái)富對(duì)健康的作用程度,,而這一現(xiàn)象在美國(guó)體現(xiàn)得尤為突出。
帕帕尼科拉斯說(shuō):“在歐洲,,各個(gè)財(cái)富階層中擁有大學(xué)學(xué)歷的人口比例均高于美國(guó),。美國(guó)擁有大學(xué)學(xué)歷的人群,則主要集中于最富裕階層,。就連吸煙這類行為,,我們也發(fā)現(xiàn)歐洲的社會(huì)階層差異導(dǎo)致的行為分化遠(yuǎn)小于美國(guó)。在很多歐洲國(guó)家,,財(cái)富排名前75%的人群的情況更為相近,,因此財(cái)富差異似乎并未對(duì)其產(chǎn)生顯著影響。無(wú)論在哪個(gè)國(guó)家,,最貧困人群的境遇都較為艱難,但在歐洲,,大多數(shù)人的生活軌跡(與美國(guó)相比)更為相似,。”(作者指出,,歐洲的樣本量并不足以代表所有歐洲國(guó)家的狀況,。)
帕帕尼科拉斯指出,該論文雖未得出導(dǎo)致這些結(jié)果的確切原因,,但對(duì)可能影響美國(guó)人口存活率的潛在系統(tǒng)性問(wèn)題進(jìn)行了推斷,。
帕帕尼科拉斯說(shuō):“當(dāng)我們考慮制定相關(guān)政策以解決這一問(wèn)題時(shí),,我們確實(shí)需要思考,哪些因素如此普遍,,以至于影響到每一個(gè)人,,而在其他國(guó)家卻不存在?”
以下是美國(guó)人壽命較短的三個(gè)原因:
可避免的死亡原因
與其他富裕國(guó)家相比,,美國(guó)因槍支暴力,、酒精相關(guān)問(wèn)題以及自殺等外部因素導(dǎo)致的死亡人數(shù)更多。
帕帕尼科拉斯說(shuō):“這表明美國(guó)的公共衛(wèi)生基礎(chǔ)設(shè)施較為薄弱,,無(wú)法像其他高收入國(guó)家那樣保護(hù)民眾免受這些致命威脅的侵害,。我認(rèn)為我們確實(shí)需要思考如何加強(qiáng)公共衛(wèi)生體系建設(shè),切實(shí)保護(hù)民眾,?!?/p>
心血管疾病死亡率高
心臟病是引發(fā)過(guò)早死亡的關(guān)鍵風(fēng)險(xiǎn)因素之一,而美國(guó)的心臟病發(fā)病率遠(yuǎn)超其他高收入國(guó)家,,情況尤為嚴(yán)峻,。
帕帕尼科拉斯說(shuō):“我們需要考慮疾病的診斷與治療,確保每個(gè)人都能獲得負(fù)擔(dān)得起的藥物,,并能夠預(yù)防那些可能引發(fā)心臟病致死的風(fēng)險(xiǎn)因素,。”
社會(huì)保障體系較弱
帕帕尼科拉斯表示,,相較于美國(guó),,歐洲國(guó)家“可能在構(gòu)建更加健全的社會(huì)福利體系上投入了更多資源,這有助于民眾緩解失業(yè)帶來(lái)的壓力,?!?/p>
她說(shuō):“在歐洲,個(gè)人醫(yī)療保健不一定與就業(yè)掛鉤,,而且鑒于教育機(jī)會(huì)更為均等,,人們?cè)谡麄€(gè)生命進(jìn)程中積累財(cái)富的機(jī)會(huì)也更加平等?!?/p>
社會(huì)狀況欠佳的另一個(gè)標(biāo)志是:上個(gè)月,,美國(guó)在年度《世界幸福報(bào)告》中的排名降至歷史最低。帕帕尼科拉斯說(shuō):“所有這些因素都會(huì)對(duì)民眾產(chǎn)生影響,,不僅是在短期內(nèi),,長(zhǎng)期來(lái)看,影響尤為顯著,?!?/p>
這項(xiàng)研究指出了一個(gè)緊迫的優(yōu)先事項(xiàng):制定公共衛(wèi)生戰(zhàn)略,旨在確保所有人都能平等地享有健康老齡化的機(jī)遇,而此時(shí)特朗普政府卻在解散那些負(fù)責(zé)為老年人提供從心理健康護(hù)理到健康食品供應(yīng)等各類服務(wù)的衛(wèi)生機(jī)構(gòu),。
帕帕尼科拉斯說(shuō):“我們應(yīng)當(dāng)研究其他國(guó)家的做法,,借鑒他們的成功經(jīng)驗(yàn),因?yàn)橐暂^低的投入達(dá)成更高的存活率是切實(shí)可行的,。這或許給我們帶來(lái)了希望,,那就是我們能夠做得更好?!保ㄘ?cái)富中文網(wǎng))
譯者:中慧言-王芳
Americans are dying earlier than Europeans—and the rich are not exempt.
In a new study published today, researchers at Brown University analyzed the survival rates and wealth of older adults in the U.S. and Europe over 12 years. They found that Americans’ survival rate was lower than their European counterparts across all wealth tiers. The wealthiest in Northern and Western Europe had a mortality rate roughly 35% lower than that of the wealthiest Americans.
“Whatever is happening with mortality in the U.S. and these decreases that we see in life expectancy are not just things that are happening to the poorest Americans,” Irene Papanicolas, senior author of the study and a professor of health services, policy, and practice at Brown School of Public Health, tells Fortune. “There’s something systemic that’s happening that affects every American.”
In the study, published in the New England Journal of Medicine, researchers used data from over 73,000 adults between the ages of 50 and 85 in the U.S. and 16 European countries.
Despite socioeconomic privilege, the researchers found that the survival rate of the wealthiest bracket of Americans “was statistically equivalent to the poorest wealth quartile in North and Western Europe,” Papanicolas says. “So they’re not just doing worse than the richest quartile. They’re statistically equivalent to the poorest quartile in that region.”
Papanicolas hypothesizes that several of the European countries at play, like Germany, the Netherlands, and Switzerland, are high spenders on health care, but they address the social determinants that exacerbate the health and wealth gap more adequately than the U.S.
Wealth still equals better health
Despite the discrepancy for the wealthiest in the U.S., across the board, the study underscores that wealth impacts health. The richest have better survival rates than the poorest, explained by the ability to pay for out-of-pocket health care costs, access to safer living situations, and education that provides health literacy, says Papanicolas.
But the study found that America’s health gap between the richest and poorest was most stark. The poorest Americans had the lowest survival rates of all the study participants.
“Greater inequity might just make a lot of what we need for a healthy life inaccessible to more and more people,” she says. “For a country that spends so much more, we really should be doing more.” The researchers conclude that a mixture of culture, policy, and environment can influence how much wealth impacts health, which seems most notable in the U.S.
“Across all wealth quartiles [in Europe], people were more likely to have a college education as compared to the U.S. where that was much more concentrated across the most wealthy. Even things like smoking, we saw that there was less of a social gradient than we saw in the U.S,” Papanicolas says. “In a lot of the European countries, the top three quartiles were much more clustered together, so it didn’t really seem to make that much of a difference. The poorest do worse everywhere, but the majority of people had a much more similar trajectory in Europe [than in the U.S.].” (The authors note that the sample size in Europe cannot be generalized across all European countries).
Papanicolas notes that the paper does not conclude definitive causes for the results but does extrapolate on the potential systemic issues afflicting the U.S. survival rates.
“As we think of policies to address this, we really need to think, what are these factors that are so prevalent that they’re influencing everybody but that in other countries aren’t?” Papanicolas says.
Here are three reasons for shorter U.S. lifespans:
Avoidable causes of death
In the U.S., external deaths, such as from firearms, alcohol, and suicide, were higher compared to other wealthy countries.
“This points to a weaker public health infrastructure that isn’t protecting people, as well as other high-income countries are from these deaths,” says Papanicolas. “I think we really need to think about how we bolster public health and protect people.”
High rates of cardiovascular death
High rates of heart disease, a significant risk factor for early mortality, also plague the U.S more dramatically than other high-income countries.
“We need to think about diagnosis and treatment and making sure that everybody has access to affordable medications and is able to prevent the risk factors that can lead to deaths from heart disease,” Papanicolas says.
A weaker social state
Compared to the U.S., Papanicolas says European countries “invest in, potentially, a more robust social state that protects you from the stress of losing your job.”
“Your healthcare isn’t attached necessarily to your employment, and you have, maybe with more equal access to education, also more equal opportunities to become wealthy throughout the life course,” she says.
Another flag for a weaker social state: The U.S. dropped to its lowest rank on the annual World Happiness Report last month. “All of these play a role in the population, not only in the short term, but particularly in the long term,” Papanicolas says.
The study points to an urgent priority: a public health strategy with a goal of equal access to aging well, just as the Trump admin is dismantling health agencies charged with offering services to older adults, from mental health care to access to healthy food.
“Look to other countries and understand what they do, because it is possible to achieve a better survival with less,” says Papanicolas. “There’s also potentially a note of hope here that we can do better.”