Life expectancy for women in some Southern states has barely budged in more than 100 years
How long you live depends on where you live, new research suggests.
Americans' life expectancy increased throughout the 20th century, although in some states, particularly in the South, people aren't living much longer than they were 100 years ago. It's worse among women.
Researchers at the Yale School of Public Health analyzed the death data of 77 million women and 102 million men born from 1900 through 2000. The findings, published Monday in the journal JAMA Network Open, showed that nationwide life expectancy for women increased from 73.8 to 84.1 in that time frame, while it jumped from 62.8 to 80.3 for men.
Scientists and health officials calculate life expectancy at birth as a way of understanding a country's health over time. How long people in the United States lived since the last century varied drastically by state.
'What was surprising to me was that for some states, especially for women, there's basically no change,' said study co-author Theodore Holford, a senior research scientist in biostatistics at Yale University. 'Over 100 years, in some of these Southern states, they improved less than two years in the framework of all of the medical advances that we have seen during the 20th century.'
The bottom five states for life expectancy among women born in 2000, compared to women born in 1900, are:
West Virginia, 75.3, up from 74.3.
Oklahoma, 76, down from 76.7.
Kentucky, 76.5, up from 74.9.
Mississippi, 76.6, up from 73.2.
Arkansas, 76.6, up from 75.7.
Southern men born in 2000 also tended to have lower life expectancies, though they showed greater improvements than women since 1900:
Mississippi, 71.8, up from 62.3.
West Virginia, 72.6, up from 63.7.
Alabama, 72.6, up from 62.5.
Louisiana, 72.9, up from 61.5.
Tennessee 73.4, up from 63.6.
Not all Southern states show lower or stalled life expectancies for people born in 2000.
Florida, Texas and Virginia are among the Southern states featured in the top 20 of life expectancy for both men and women born in 2000.
States outside the South that ranked in the bottom 10 for both sexes include Ohio and Indiana.
The study also highlights life expectancy by state and sex at the midway point of 1950.
Men in particular showed greater improvement during the first half of the century. In North Dakota, for example, male life expectancy jumped 10 years from 66.4 in 1900 to 76.5 in 1950, but only one year, 77.8, from 1950 to 2000.
Data reflects the state in which a person died, not where they were born.
It's well-established that women live longer than men, but this latest research unveils geographic disparities in life expectancy at a turning point in federal public health administration. Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. lamented the state of the nation's health care system in an April 10 statement that was also published in the New York Post.
'Our country's health is declining. America has the highest rates of chronic disease in the world,' Kennedy said. 'We rank last in terms of health among developed nations. And life expectancy is declining for many groups of Americans.'
The Yale study claims to be the first to analyze historic state mortality trends by birth cohort, meaning entire generations are tracked.
Population health research more commonly involves a metric called period life expectancy, which estimates influences on mortality over a select year, such as during a pandemic.
'The idea here is to try to pick up on generational factors,' Holford said. 'There are lots of factors related to health that are more closely tied to generations than a calendar year.'
Cindy Prins, an associate professor in the department of population health sciences at the University of Central Florida College of Medicine, who wasn't involved in the study, said, 'This is a unique and important approach to examining life expectancies.'
That doesn't make the data any less alarming.
'It's concerning to know that cohort life expectancies in many Southern states, which have the lowest overall life expectancies, haven't changed much over time,' Prins said.
Overall, Americans are living longer, thanks to improvements in health care, sanitation, tobacco control, and the prevention of cancer, heart disease and other diseases, the study said. Previous research indicates that states with progressive public health policies are more likely to have higher life expectancies. Socioeconomic differences among states also impact longevity.
Dr. Marc Gourevitch, a professor in the department of population health at New York University's Grossman School of Medicine, said research shows that states with policies that support a more livable minimum wage and paid sick leave, as well as access to affordable medical care, are more likely to show significant life expectancy gains over time.
'Focusing on policies that help people better meet their everyday needs promises to go a long way in improving life expectancy and, with it, giving more people a chance at getting to watch their grandchildren grow,' said Gourevitch, who wasn't involved in the Yale study.
Women born in 2000 in the District of Columbia have both the highest life expectancy, 93 years, and the biggest improvement since 1900, when life expectancy was 63.9. Similarly, D.C. men born in 2000 have the third-highest life expectancy of 86.5 years, up from 48.7 at the start of the century.
'Urban areas tend to do a lot better than rural areas, presumably because of differences in access to health care,' Holford said of people living longer in the nation's capital.
Another change is the mix of the population in the District of Columbia.
'Many more people moving into the area who would have a lot of the monetary advantages that would give them better access to things affecting their health,' Holford said.
States with the longest life expectancies for women born in 2000 spanned both coasts and beyond the continental U.S.:
New York, 91.9, up from 71.2.
California, 91.3, up from 73.6.
Massachusetts, 88.8, up from 74.2.
Hawaii, 88.7, up from 75.6.
Other than D.C., these states show the longest life expectancy among men born in 2000:
New York, 87.8, up from 60.1.
California, 86.8, up from 62.7.
Massachusetts, 84.8, up from 63.4.
Washington, 84.3, up from 63.7.
Holford said the Yale study is part of his work with the National Cancer Institute's Cancer Intervention and Surveillance Modeling Network (CISNET). A goal of this and other CISNET research is to help health departments address state-specific disparities.
One downside to implementing promising public health policies, Holford said, is that it can take years — even generations — to measure their effects.
'Nevertheless, it's important to start it so that you put these things in place.'
This article was originally published on NBCNews.com
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


Health Line
an hour ago
- Health Line
5 Common Causes of Impotence
Key takeaways The risk of impotence increases with age and is higher in males who have been diagnosed with heart conditions. Other causes include endocrine diseases like diabetes, neurological disorders, certain medications, and lifestyle or emotional factors like depression and anxiety. What is impotence? Impotence occurs when you're unable to achieve an erection, maintain an erection, or ejaculate on a consistent basis. It's used interchangeably with ED. Several factors can contribute to the condition, including both emotional and physical disorders. According to the Urology Care Foundation, an estimated 30 million Americans experience ED. A 2007 study published in the American Journal of Medicine noted the risk of impotence increases with age. Research suggests it's even higher in men who have also been diagnosed with one or more cardiovascular risk factors. Impotence can often have a negative effect on your sex life, and it can also cause depression, additional stress, and low self-esteem. Impotence and erectile dysfunction symptoms A common misconception about erectile dysfunction is that you cannot achieve an erection at all. This is not always the case. Erectile dysfunction can also include symptoms like: being unable to achieve an erection inconsistently being able to achieve an erection each time you have a sexual encounter not being able to maintain an erection for the entire sexual encounter Impotence can begin to affect your quality of life and relationships with your sexual partners over time. However, there are several treatment options available for many of the root causes of ED. If you are experiencing any of these symptoms, consider talking with your doctor about what might be causing your ED and what treatment options might be best for you. What causes impotence? Understanding the most frequently diagnosed potential causes can help you identify why you may be experiencing the condition. Here are five common causes of impotence: 1. Endocrine diseases The body's endocrine system produces hormones that regulate metabolism, sexual function, reproduction, mood, and much more. One of the complications associated with chronic diabetes is nerve damage. This affects penis sensations. Other complications associated with diabetes include impaired blood flow and hormone levels. Both of these factors can contribute to impotence. 2. Neurological and nerve disorders Several neurologic conditions can increase the risk for impotence. Nerve conditions affect the brain's ability to communicate with the reproductive system. This can prevent you from achieving an erection. Neurological disorders associated with impotence include: Alzheimer's disease Parkinson's disease brain or spinal tumors multiple sclerosis (MS) stroke temporal lobe epilepsy If you've had prostate surgery, you can also experience nerve damage, resulting in impotence. Long-distance bicycle riders can experience temporary impotence. Repeated pressure on the buttocks and genitals can affect nerve function. 3. Taking medications Taking certain medications can affect blood flow, which can lead to ED. You should never stop taking a medication without your doctor's permission, even if it's known to cause impotence. Examples of medications known to cause impotence include: alpha-adrenergic blockers, including tamsulosin (Flomax) antihistamines, such as cimetidine (Tagamet) beta-blockers, such as carvedilol (Coreg) and metoprolol (Lopressor) chemotherapy medications central nervous system (CNS) depressants, such as alprazolam (Xanax), diazepam (Valium), and codeine CNS stimulants, such as cocaine and amphetamines diuretics, such as furosemide (Lasix) and spironolactone (Aldactone) selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs), such as fluoxetine (Prozac) and paroxetine (Paxil) synthetic hormones, including leuprolide (Eligard) 4. Cardiac-related conditions Conditions that affect the heart and its ability to pump blood well can cause impotence. Without enough blood flow to the penis, you cannot achieve an erection. Atherosclerosis, a condition that causes blood vessels to become clogged, can cause impotence. High cholesterol and high blood pressure (hypertension) are also associated with an increased risk for impotence. 5. Lifestyle factors and emotional disorders To achieve an erection, you must first go through what's known as an excitement phase. This phase can be an emotional response. If you have an emotional disorder, it can affect your ability to become sexually excited. Depression and anxiety are associated with an increased risk for impotence. Depression is a feeling of sadness, loss of hope, or helplessness. Fatigue-related to depression can also cause impotence. Performance anxiety can also cause impotence. If you haven't been able to achieve an erection in the past, you may fear you won't be able to achieve an erection in the future. You may find that you cannot achieve an erection with a certain partner. If you've been diagnosed with ED related to performance anxiety, you may be able to have full erections when masturbating or when sleeping, but unable to maintain an erection during intercourse. Substance use disorder involving drugs such as cocaine and amphetamines can also cause impotence. Alcohol misuse or alcohol use disorder (AUD) can affect your ability to achieve or maintain an erection as well. See your doctor if you suspect that you may have a substance use problem. Erectile dysfunction treatment Treatments are available for impotence, including medical interventions, natural remedies, and lifestyle changes. Medical interventions There are a variety of medical interventions that can be used to treat impotence. Prescription treatments for impotence include: alprostadil (Caverject, Edex, MUSE), which is available as an injection or as a suppository avanafil (Stendra) sildenafil (Viagra) tadalafil (Cialis) vardenafil (Staxyn, Levitra) testosterone replacement therapy (TRT) You may also want to consider vascular surgery (to improve blood flow in the penis) or penile implant surgery. Find Roman ED medication online. Natural remedies If you want to avoid prescription medication, there are a variety of natural remedies known to help treat impotence. It's important to note that the efficacy of these alternative remedies is not always tested or verified by the FDA so you may not see the advertised results of these products. Before you use any natural remedies, make sure you consult your doctor first. Some alternative remedies for impotence include: Penis pumps Penis pumps are another option if you're looking for noninvasive, nondrug treatments. They may be most effective if you have moderate ED. Lifestyle changes Whether your impotence has a physical or an emotional cause, there are many cases where lifestyle changes can reduce problems with ED. According to an article in the Journal of Restorative Medicine, examples of these lifestyle and behavioral changes include: quitting smoking if you smoke drinking alcohol in moderation practicing supportive communication in a romantic relationship exercising eating a well-balanced, nutritious diet reducing anxiety You may also want to consider meeting with a mental health professional if you feel your ED is due to psychological causes. How to increase blood flow to the penis naturally Naturally increasing blood flow to the penis often requires a combination of lifestyle changes. Here are a few changes that you can consider trying: If you smoke, consider quitting. Smoking can affect your blood flow and worsen erectile dysfunction. Engage in regular physical activity. Exercise can help improve blood flow in your entire body and aid in maintaining a moderate weight, which also may reduce erectile dysfunction. Try to choose heart-healthy foods. These include low sodium and low fat foods. Consider seeing a physical therapist who specializes in pelvic floor physical therapy. It's important to start these exercises under the advice of a therapist as appropriately performed exercises can help erectile dysfunction, but inappropriately performed exercises can be problematic. However, it's important to remember that some causes of decreased blood flow require medical treatments. If you try techniques at home to increase blood flow to your penis yet still experience erectile dysfunction, it's worthwhile to seek out medical attention. When to see a doctor While erectile dysfunction is commonly tied to aging, it is not an inevitable part of the aging process. Many people have been able to treat the condition, regardless of their age. If you experience problems achieving or maintaining an erection, consider talking with a doctor. Both primary care professionals and urologists can help you create a treatment plan for erectile dysfunction. However, if your condition is related to an underlying medical condition, they may refer you to a specialist. It's completely understandable if you feel self-conscious about speaking with a doctor about erectile dysfunction. However, it's important to keep in mind that sexual health is an important part of your overall health and how you feel about yourself. It's important that you are able to talk with healthcare professionals openly and honestly about your symptoms and to get help for any underlying medical conditions. Frequently asked questions about the causes of impotence How long can the average person with a penis stay erect? There is not a specific answer for how long the average person with a penis can stay erect. What matters is if you are unable to maintain an erection for a long enough time to have satisfying sexual intercourse. There is also an alternative where the penis stays erect for too long, a condition known as priapism. If your erection exceeds 4 hours, you should seek emergency medical attention. What causes erectile dysfunction? Erectile dysfunction can be caused by impaired blood flow, problems with the nerves in and around the penis, or nervous system changes that may affect sexual desire. Sometimes, erectile dysfunction can occur as a side effect of taking some medications, including: antidepressants anxiolytics muscle relaxants diuretics antihypertensives What is the main cause of impotence? For older people experiencing impotence, an estimated 70 to 80 percent of cases are related to a physical issue that affects blood flow to the penis. In some instances, erectile dysfunction can be one of the earliest signs of blood flow problems in the body. Because erectile dysfunction can potentially signal underlying medical conditions like cardiovascular disease, it's important to talk with your doctor if you experience ED or impotence for several weeks. Can impotence be cured? If the underlying cause of impotence is treatable, impotence can be cured. Treatment can include: taking medications to improve blood flow participating in talk therapy changing medications that may contribute to impotence Medications, such as sildenafil (Viagra) or tadalafil (Cialis) can also help to improve erectile dysfunction symptoms. However, it should be kept in mind that not all causes will have cures, and it may take time for a doctor to properly diagnose your specific issue. Takeaway Impotence can change your life and affect your self-esteem. Though ED can have a negative effect on your sex life, it's ultimately a treatable condition. Many interventions exist that can help you regain your sexual function, including natural remedies, medications, and lifestyle changes. Because impotence can signal an underlying health problem, it's important to make an appointment with a doctor if it becomes a consistent problem, even if you think it's just stress.


Boston Globe
an hour ago
- Boston Globe
FDA looks to AI to enhance efficiency
Get Starting Point A guide through the most important stories of the morning, delivered Monday through Friday. Enter Email Sign Up The agency plays a central role in pursuing the agenda of the US health secretary, Robert F. Kennedy Jr., and it has already begun to press food makers to eliminate artificial food dyes. The new road map also underscores the Trump administration's efforts to smooth the way for major industries with an array of efforts aimed at getting products to pharmacies and store shelves quickly. Advertisement Some aspects of the proposals outlined in JAMA were met with skepticism, particularly the idea that AI is up to the task of shearing months or years from the painstaking work of examining applications that companies submit when seeking approval for a drug or high-risk medical device. Advertisement 'I don't want to be dismissive of speeding reviews at the FDA,' said Stephen Holland, a lawyer who formerly advised the House Committee on Energy and Commerce on health care. 'I think that there is great potential here, but I'm not seeing the beef yet.' A major AI rollout closely follows the release of a report by Kennedy's MAHA Commission, which uses an acronym for Make America Healthy Again, that was found to be rife with references to scientific research apparently fabricated by an AI program. For some cases, the FDA officials proposed speeding major drug approvals by requiring only one major study in patients rather than two, a practice the agency has used in recent years. The pandemic provided a precedent, they said, for accelerating the process. 'We believe this is clear demonstration that rapid or instant reviews are possible,' Makary and Prasad wrote. But Holland pointed out that during the pandemic, many staff members were transferred from routine duties, including overseas inspections of food or drug facilities, and reassigned to hasten critical COVID product reviews. The agency was also better staffed. In recent months, the FDA shed about 1,940 employees, reducing the workforce to 8,000 from roughly 10,000. Last week, the agency introduced Elsa, an AI large-language model similar to ChatGPT. The FDA said it could be used to prioritize which food or drug facilities to inspect, to describe side effects in drug safety summaries and to perform other basic product-review tasks. The FDA officials wrote that AI held the promise to 'radically increase efficiency' in examining as many as 500,000 pages submitted for approval decisions. Advertisement Current and former health officials said the AI tool was helpful but far from transformative. For one, the model limits the number of characters that can be reviewed, meaning it is unable to do some rote data analysis tasks. Its results must be checked carefully, so far saving little time. Staff members said the model was hallucinating, or producing false information. Employees can ask the Elsa model to summarize text or act as an expert in a particular field of medicine. Makary said the AI models were not being trained by data submitted by the drug or medical device industry. When it comes to food oversight, Makary and Prasad said there would be a renewed focus on 'our increasingly chemically manipulated diet,' a goal embraced by Republicans and Democrats. 'For all additives,' the article said, 'the benefit-to-harm balance must be reevaluated.' Although the Trump administration is seeking steep cuts in the FDA's budget for the next fiscal year, the food division is expected to receive additional funds. Others noted the fine line agency officials were walking, given Kennedy's complaints that the FDA is too close to the drug industry and the Trump administration's business-friendly approach. Makary and Prasad wrote that the FDA must be 'partners with industry' while avoiding 'a cozy relationship that has characterized the agency in the past.' Dr. Reshma Ramachandran, a director of the Yale Collaboration for Regulatory Rigor, Integrity and Transparency, pointed out that Makary and Prasad were going on a six-city, closed-door listening tour to meet with chief executives of the drug industry. 'How is this guarding the agency 'against a cozy relationship' with industry?' she asked. The FDA priorities 'read as though they're straight out of PhRMA's playbook,' she said, referring to the trade group. Advertisement This article originally appeared in


Scientific American
2 hours ago
- Scientific American
How RFK, Jr.'s Dismissal of CDC Immunization Committee Panelists Will Affect America's Vaccine Access
In a striking move on Monday, Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., secretary of the U.S. Department Health and Human Services, announced the dismissal of all sitting public health experts of an independent vaccine committee that counsels the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Called the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices, or ACIP, the group holds public meetings to review the latest scientific evidence on vaccine safety and effectiveness and to make clinical recommendations for people in the U.S.—guidance that greatly influences access to disease-preventing shots. In his announcement in a Wall Street Journal op-ed, Kennedy— who has a long history of as an antivaccine activist —framed the firings as taking 'a bold step in restoring public trust by totally reconstituting the Advisory Committee for Immunization Practices.' He also alleged there were 'persistent conflicts of interest' among committee members. Public health experts had been bracing for such a move. 'This was everybody's fear about having RFK, Jr., as our HHS secretary,' says Jennifer Nuzzo, an epidemiologist and director of the Pandemic Center at Brown University. 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. ACIP's decisions shape immunization schedules —affecting which groups will be recommended vaccines, when and how often they should get them and whether health insurance will cover costs. The panelists hold three open meetings each year to assess and vote on the clinical use of various existing and new vaccines, including ones that protect people against pneumonia, chicken pox, shingles, measles, mumps and rubella (MMR), polio, respiratory syncytial virus (RSV), influenza and COVID. According to the agenda of ACIP's next meeting, slated for June 25–27, members are expected to vote on highly anticipated recommendations that would influence the next winter respiratory illness season—including guidance for COVID, flu and RSV vaccines for adults and children. In response to various questions about the plans for ACIP, an HHS spokesperson directed Scientific American to the agency's statement about the announcement and said the committee is still scheduled to meet on June 25–27. According to the statement, new committee members are currently under consideration. The secretary of health and human services gives the final approval of newly appointed ACIP members. 'I cannot imagine that they could compose a new ACIP that has been sufficiently vetted in [less than] three weeks,' Nuzzo says. 'One of the reasons why there's so much concern right now is that changing the composition of ACIP, potentially stacking it with antivaccine members, as many fear could happen, could make it harder for Americans to access vaccines that they want, that their doctors think are beneficial for them.' Scientific American spoke with Nuzzo about how the ACIP dismissal may affect vaccine policy and access and people's health. [ An edited transcript of the interview follows. ] What is the primary role of ACIP? There are a few features of the committee that make it important. One is expertise. The membership of the committee is somewhat diverse to represent a range of expert backgrounds because when you're talking about vaccines, there are pediatric issues, adult issues—a lot of different types of expertise need to be brought to bear. It's also an independent group, meaning that it's not populated by any particular political party. ACIP's members are outside experts who are appointed through a very transparent, open process, up to a fixed term. These are independent, nonpolitical actors who also have their conflicts of interests managed. Who they get money from is public knowledge. [ Editor's Note: Members withdraw themselves from deliberations and voting on any product for which they have disclosed a conflict of interest. ] How does ACIP make its decisions? During the meeting, [the members] have documents, they have people giving presentations. Sometimes those presentations are given by government scientists who have reviewed evidence, or sometimes [the members will look at] evidence from studies on vaccines. All of the meetings are open: either you could show up in public or, usually, [see a] broadcast on the web. So all of the data that are used in the discussion about vaccines and vaccine policies are made public, and they are reviewed. And not only are they reviewed, but the rationale and the interpretation of those data are public. So the public can see, interrogate, and vet the conclusions and the data that the committees use to base their conclusions. It's a very open [process], and that openness adheres to a governance structure has existed throughout multiple presidential administrations, multiple political parties presiding [over] it. It's also important to note that the CDC director does not have to accept ACIP's recommendations—the CDC director usually does, but the CDC director does not have to. My worry is not just that politics enters into ACIP; it's also just that 'Will the will of ACIP be adhered to?' How do ACIP's recommendations affect people? ACIP is one of two key advisory committees that serve the U.S. government related to vaccines [the other is the Food and Drug Administration's Vaccines and Related Biological Products Advisory Committee (VRBPAC) ]. ACIP makes recommendations regarding vaccine policies and utilization—and those recommendations are important, not just because they represent the scientific consensus that exists at the time but also because they usually influence people's access to vaccines. One real concern is: if ACIP doesn't recommend a vaccine, insurers may decide not to cover the cost , and some of these vaccines have important out-of-pocket costs. Some of us can afford that, but a lot of us can't. And so there are real issues about who is going to be able to benefit from vaccines, and it creates a real inequity. It may also have an effect on the market and companies' willingness to incur the risks of making vaccines. Vaccines are not like making a car. There are a discovery process and research-and-development process that have to occur. If vaccine manufacturers fear that they're not going to be able to sell vaccines, that people aren't going to be able to access them, then they may simply decide not to make them. They might decide that the U.S. market is not where they want to invest their resources and may decide to instead serve other countries. So it's not just that ACIP provides advice that the American public can use to make their own vaccine decisions but also [that it] is often the basis by which [vaccine] providers and insurers make vaccines available. So it's not just about information; it's also about access. What does this action potentially mean for future vaccine policies? I'm worried about all vaccines at this point. I can't rule out that that isn't just the first warning shot. Some of the rationale around who should or should not get COVID boosters, in my view, feels like an opening to removing the availability of flu vaccines. We've seen the secretary of HHS wrongly malign MMR vaccines amid one of the worst measles outbreaks the U.S. has seen in decades. So I fear that everything's fair game.