Life Expectancy Study Suggests U.S. Will Lag behind

New analysis shows many likely to live beyond 90 by 2030, but not Americans

Join Our Community of Science Lovers!

By Kate Kelland

Average life expectancy will rise in many countries by 2030, breaking through 90 years in some places, and policymakers need to make more efforts to plan for it, according to a large international study.

South Koreans are likely to have the highest life expectancy in the world by 2030 and the United States one of the lowest among developed countries, the study showed.


On supporting science journalism

If you're enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing. By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today.


"The fact that we will continue to live longer means we need to think about strengthening the health and social care systems to support an ageing population with multiple health needs," said Majid Ezzati, the lead researcher and a professor at Imperial College London's school of public health.

Led by Imperial scientists in collaboration with the World Health Organization, the study found that among high-income countries, the United States is likely to have the lowest life expectancy in 2030, with men and women expecting to live 79.5 and 83.3 years respectively - similar to middle-income countries like Croatia and Mexico.

This was partly due to a lack of universal healthcare in the United States, and also due to factors such as relatively high child and maternal mortality rates, and high rates of homicides and obesity, the study said.

In Europe, French women and Swiss men were predicted to have the highest life expectancies, averaging 88.6 years for French women and nearly 84 years for Swiss men.

South Korea came out top of the predictions, with the researchers predicting a girl born in South Korea in 2030 should expect to live 90.8 years, while a boy could reach 84.1 years.

"Many people used to believe that 90 years is the upper limit for life expectancy, but this research suggests we will break the 90-year-barrier," Ezzati said.

"We repeatedly hear that improvements in human longevity are about to come to an end.. (but) I don't believe we're anywhere near the upper limit of life expectancy - if there even is one."

The study, published in The Lancet medical journal on Wednesday, covered 35 developed and emerging countries, including the United States, Canada, Britain, Germany, Australia, Poland, Mexico and the Czech Republic.

South Korea's much greater average life expectancy would be due to several factors including good childhood nutrition, low blood pressure, low levels of smoking and good access to healthcare, new medical knowledge and technologies, the researchers said.

It’s Time to Stand Up for Science

If you enjoyed this article, I’d like to ask for your support. Scientific American has served as an advocate for science and industry for 180 years, and right now may be the most critical moment in that two-century history.

I’ve been a Scientific American subscriber since I was 12 years old, and it helped shape the way I look at the world. SciAm always educates and delights me, and inspires a sense of awe for our vast, beautiful universe. I hope it does that for you, too.

If you subscribe to Scientific American, you help ensure that our coverage is centered on meaningful research and discovery; that we have the resources to report on the decisions that threaten labs across the U.S.; and that we support both budding and working scientists at a time when the value of science itself too often goes unrecognized.

In return, you get essential news, captivating podcasts, brilliant infographics, can't-miss newsletters, must-watch videos, challenging games, and the science world's best writing and reporting. You can even gift someone a subscription.

There has never been a more important time for us to stand up and show why science matters. I hope you’ll support us in that mission.

Thank you,

David M. Ewalt, Editor in Chief, Scientific American

Subscribe