‘We are still here, yet invisible.' Study finds that U.S. government has overestimated Native American life expectancy
Official U.S. records dramatically underestimate mortality and life expectancy disparities for Native Americans, according to a new, groundbreaking study published in the Journal of the American Medical Association. The research, led by the Boston University School of Public Health, provides compelling evidence of a profound discrepancy between actual and officially reported statistics on the health outcomes of American Indian and Alaska Native (AI/AN) populations in the U.S.
The study, novel in its approach, tracks mortality outcomes over time among self-identified AI/AN individuals in a nationally representative cohort known as the Mortality Disparities in American Communities. The researchers linked data from the U.S. Census Bureau's 2008 American Community Survey with official death certificates from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's National Vital Statistics System from 2008 through 2019, and found that the life expectancy of AI/AN populations was 6.5 years lower than the national average. They then compared this to data from the CDC's WONDER database, and found that their numbers were nearly three times greater than the gap reported by the CDC.
Indeed, the study found that the life expectancy for AI/AN individuals was just 72.7 years, comparable to that of developing countries.
The researchers also uncovered widespread racial misclassification. The study reports that some 41% of AI/AN deaths were incorrectly classified in the CDC WONDER database, predominantly misrecorded as 'White.' These systemic misclassifications drastically skewed official statistics, presenting AI/AN mortality rates as only 5% higher than the national average. When they adjusted the data to account for those misclassifications, the researchers found that the actual rate was 42% higher than initially reported.
The issue of racial misclassification 'is not new for us at all,' said Nanette Star, director of policy and planning at the California Consortium for Urban Indian Health. The recent tendency for journalists and politicians to use umbrella terms like 'Indigenous' rather than the more precise 'American Indian and Alaska Native' can obscure the unique needs, histories and political identities of AI/AN communities, Star noted, and contribute to their erasure in both data and public discourse. 'That is the word we use — erasure — and it really does result in that invisibility in our health statistics,' she said.
Issues related to racial misclassification in public records persist across the entire life course for AI/AN individuals, from birth to early childhood interventions to chronic disease and death. Star noted that in California, especially in urban regions like Los Angeles, Native individuals are frequently misidentified as Latino or multiracial, which profoundly distorts public health data and masks the extent of health disparities. 'It really does mask the true scale of premature mortality and health disparities among our communities,' Star said.
Further, said Star, the lack of accurate data exacerbates health disparities. 'It really is a public health and justice issue,' she said. 'If you don't have those numbers to support the targeted response, you don't get the funding for these interventions or even preventative measures.'
According to U.S. Census data, California is home to the largest AI/AN population in the United States. That means it has a unique opportunity to lead the nation in addressing these systemic issues. With numerous federally and state-recognized tribes, as well as substantial urban AI/AN populations, California can prioritize collaborative and accurate public health data collection and reporting.
Star noted that current distortions are not always malicious but often stem from a lack of training. She suggested that California implement targeted training programs for those charged with recording this data, including funeral directors, coroners, medical doctors and law enforcement agents; allocate dedicated resources to improve the accuracy of racial classification on vital records; and strengthen partnerships with tribal leaders.
The study authors suggest similar approaches, and there are numerous examples of successful cases of Indigenous-led health partnerships seen across Canada and the U.S. that have helped reduce health disparities among AI/AN communities that could be used as a template.
These efforts would not only help to move toward rectifying historical inaccuracies, but also ensure that AI/AN communities receive equitable health resources and policy attention.
'When AI/AN people are misclassified in life and in death, it distorts public health data and drives inequities even deeper,' said Star. 'Accurate data isn't just about numbers — it's about honoring lives, holding systems accountable and making sure our communities are seen and served.'
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Fast Company
41 minutes ago
- Fast Company
AI users have to choose between accuracy or sustainability
PREMIUM New research shows the smarter and more capable AI models become, the larger their environmental impact. [Images: hramovnick/Adobe Stock; yLemon/Adobe Stock] BY Listen to this Article More info 0:00 / 2:38 Cheap or free access to AI models keeps improving, with Google the latest firm to make its newest models available to all users, not just paying ones. But that access comes with one cost: the environment. In a new study, German researchers tested 14 large language models (LLMs) of various sizes from leading developers such as Meta, Alibaba, and others. Each model answered 1,000 difficult academic questions spanning topics from world history to advanced mathematics. The tests ran on a powerful, energy-intensive NVIDIA A100 GPU, using a specialized framework to precisely measure electricity consumption per answer. This data was then converted into carbon dioxide equivalent emissions, providing a clear comparison of each model's environmental impact. The researchers found that many LLMs are far more powerful than needed for everyday queries. Smaller, less energy-hungry models can answer many factual questions just as well. The carbon and water footprints of a single prompt vary dramatically depending on model size and task type. Prompts requiring reasoning, which force models to 'think aloud,' are especially polluting because they generate many more tokens. One model, Cogito, topped the accuracy table—answering nearly 85% of questions correctly—but produced three times more emissions than similar-sized models, highlighting a trade-off rarely visible to AI developers or users. (Cogito did not respond to a request for comment.) 'Do we really need a 400-billion parameter GPT model to answer when World War II was, for example,' says Maximilian Dauner, a researcher at Hochschule München University of Applied Sciences and one of the study's authors. advertisement The final deadline for Fast Company's Next Big Things in Tech Awards is Friday, June 20, at 11:59 p.m. PT. Apply today. Subscribe to see the rest. Already Subscribed? Login. GET UNLIMITED ACCESS TO FAST COMPANY Enjoy the latest trends from the world-leading progressive business media brand just $1 Join for $1 Sign up for our weekly tech digest. SIGN UP This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply. Privacy Policy ABOUT THE AUTHOR Chris Stokel-Walker is a contributing writer at Fast Company who focuses on the tech sector and its impact on our daily lives—online and offline. He has explored how the WordPress drama has implications for the wider web, how AI web crawlers are pushing sites offline, as well as stories about ordinary people doing incredible things, such as the German teen who set up a MySpace clone with more than a million users. More Explore Topics Artificial Intelligence
Yahoo
2 hours ago
- Yahoo
Why This Beaten Down Biotech Stock Might Be a Hidden Gem
In the volatile biotech industry, it is easy to overlook small-cap medical device companies, particularly those that are not yet profitable. But every now and then, a company slips under the radar despite having the ideal combination of innovation, market opportunity, and long-term strategic execution. One such company is Alphatec Holdings (ATEC), a medical technology firm specializing in advanced spine surgery solutions. Alphatec uses artificial intelligence (AI) technologies to improve surgical precision, automate signal monitoring, and provide intraoperative analytics. While it is not a pure-play AI company, AI is becoming more integrated into its platform, helping to shape the future of spine surgery. Dear Tesla Stock Fans, Mark Your Calendars for June 22 Nvidia Says Quantum Computing Is Nearing an 'Inflection Point.' Here Are the 3 Best Stocks to Buy Now to Profit. Warren Buffett Loves This Cheap Dividend Stock and So Do Company Insiders Markets move fast. Keep up by reading our FREE midday Barchart Brief newsletter for exclusive charts, analysis, and headlines. With consistent revenue growth, ATEC is gradually gaining traction. Valued at a market capitalization of $1.6 billion, Alphatec stock has risen 21% year to date (YTD), outperforming the S&P 500 Index's ($SPX) gain of 2.2% YTD. Long-term investors who are willing to dig deeper may find this beaten-down growth stock to be a hidden gem. Founded in 1990, Alphatec initially focused on spinal implants and surgical instrumentation. However, it is now reimagining spine surgery as a fully integrated experience, with cutting-edge implants, navigation systems, and surgical software. The company's platform is intended to assist spine surgeons in operating with greater precision, reducing complications, shortening patient recovery times, and collecting intraoperative data for better long-term outcomes. Alphatec has achieved double-digit revenue growth lately, owing to increased surgeon adoption and new product launches. In the first quarter of 2025, total revenue increased 22% year on year to $169 million, with surgical revenue up 24%. Procedure volume is increasing as more surgeons use Alphatec's approaches. The company is quickly becoming a preferred partner for spine surgeons because of its technological capabilities. In Q1, Alphatec experienced an 18% increase in new surgeon adoption. Like most growth companies, Alphatec has yet to turn a profit despite increasing revenues. These losses are largely the result of aggressive reinvestment in growth, research and development (R&D), and surgeon support. During the quarter, the company spent $16.58 million on R&D. Adjusted gross margin reached 70.4% in the quarter. Looking at the firm's consistent revenue growth and margins, profitability may not be far away, especially if the company continues to increase procedure volumes and expand its ecosystem. Adjusted EBITDA stood at $10.5 million in the quarter, up from a $3 million loss in the year-ago quarter. At the end of Q1, Alphatec had $153.2 million in cash and cash equivalents. Management expects adjusted EBITDA of $78 million in 2025, compared to $31 million in the previous year. Analysts covering Alphatec predict that revenue will increase by 20.1% in 2025, in line with management's expectations. Revenue could rise by 18.3% in 2026, with losses gradually declining. The U.S. spine surgery market is large and growing, with a projected value of $20 billion by 2031. Chronic back pain and spinal deformities are on the rise, owing to the aging population and climbing obesity rates. While Alphatec's market share remains small, this allows the company plenty of room to grow. As demand for more precise and less invasive surgeries increases, the few companies like Alphatec with integrated, AI-capable surgical platforms may lead their industry. Of course, growing biotech stocks can be risky. Alphatec faces stiff competition from larger, established players in the medical technology industry, such as Intuitive Surgical (ISRG), Stryker (SYK), and Medtronic (MDT). Furthermore, continued losses may necessitate additional capital raises or risk share dilution. For a company in its early growth stages, however, these risks are manageable, especially given Alphatec's strong traction with both products and customers. Its sole focus on spine surgery also distinguishes the firm as an expert in its field, which is also known as a moat. Still, because Alphatec is a growing biotech company, ATEC is better suited for aggressive investors willing to hold the stock until it reaches its full potential. Last month, H.C. Wainwright analyst Sean Lee reiterated his 'Buy' rating on ATEC stock, citing the company's strong Q1 2025 performance and growth trajectory. Lee emphasized Alphatec's improved profitability, citing consecutive quarters of positive adjusted EBITDA and a decrease in cash burn. The company now expects positive cash flow by year-end, with a projected increase in adjusted EBITDA for 2025. Despite regulatory and financial risks, Lee believes Alphatec is well-positioned for long-term growth. Backed by valuation metrics like EV-to-sales and DCF analysis, Lee set a 12-month price target of $20 per share. Separately, Barclays also maintained a 'Buy' rating on ATEC with a price target of $21. Recently, Lake Street initiated coverage of ATEC stock with a price target of $18 and a 'Buy' rating. According to the analyst, Alphatec is the only major spine company fully committed to improving spinal surgery outcomes, while the rest of the industry appears disorganized or uncertain. Lake Street also predicts that Alphatec's exceptional growth rate will continue. On Wall Street, ATEC is rated a 'Strong Buy' by consensus. Of the 11 analysts covering the stock, nine have rated it a 'Strong Buy' while one analyst recommends a 'Moderate Buy' rating and one rates the stock a 'Hold.' Based on its mean price target of $18.32, Wall Street expects the stock to climb as high as 66% from current levels. Furthermore, the Street-high estimate of $22.50 per share implies potential upside of nearly 105% over the next 12 months. On the date of publication, Sushree Mohanty did not have (either directly or indirectly) positions in any of the securities mentioned in this article. All information and data in this article is solely for informational purposes. This article was originally published on Error in retrieving data Sign in to access your portfolio Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data
Yahoo
5 hours ago
- Yahoo
'We are still here, yet invisible.' Study finds that U.S. government has overestimated Native American life expectancy
Official U.S. records dramatically underestimate mortality and life expectancy disparities for Native Americans, according to a new, groundbreaking study published in the Journal of the American Medical Association. The research, led by the Boston University School of Public Health, provides compelling evidence of a profound discrepancy between actual and officially reported statistics on the health outcomes of American Indian and Alaska Native (AI/AN) populations in the U.S. The study, novel in its approach, tracks mortality outcomes over time among self-identified AI/AN individuals in a nationally representative cohort known as the Mortality Disparities in American Communities. The researchers linked data from the U.S. Census Bureau's 2008 American Community Survey with official death certificates from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's National Vital Statistics System from 2008 through 2019, and found that the life expectancy of AI/AN populations was 6.5 years lower than the national average. They then compared this to data from the CDC's WONDER database, and found that their numbers were nearly three times greater than the gap reported by the CDC. Indeed, the study found that the life expectancy for AI/AN individuals was just 72.7 years, comparable to that of developing countries. The researchers also uncovered widespread racial misclassification. The study reports that some 41% of AI/AN deaths were incorrectly classified in the CDC WONDER database, predominantly misrecorded as 'White.' These systemic misclassifications drastically skewed official statistics, presenting AI/AN mortality rates as only 5% higher than the national average. When they adjusted the data to account for those misclassifications, the researchers found that the actual rate was 42% higher than initially reported. The issue of racial misclassification 'is not new for us at all,' said Nanette Star, director of policy and planning at the California Consortium for Urban Indian Health. The recent tendency for journalists and politicians to use umbrella terms like 'Indigenous' rather than the more precise 'American Indian and Alaska Native' can obscure the unique needs, histories and political identities of AI/AN communities, Star noted, and contribute to their erasure in both data and public discourse. 'That is the word we use — erasure — and it really does result in that invisibility in our health statistics,' she said. Issues related to racial misclassification in public records persist across the entire life course for AI/AN individuals, from birth to early childhood interventions to chronic disease and death. Star noted that in California, especially in urban regions like Los Angeles, Native individuals are frequently misidentified as Latino or multiracial, which profoundly distorts public health data and masks the extent of health disparities. 'It really does mask the true scale of premature mortality and health disparities among our communities,' Star said. Further, said Star, the lack of accurate data exacerbates health disparities. 'It really is a public health and justice issue,' she said. 'If you don't have those numbers to support the targeted response, you don't get the funding for these interventions or even preventative measures.' According to U.S. Census data, California is home to the largest AI/AN population in the United States. That means it has a unique opportunity to lead the nation in addressing these systemic issues. With numerous federally and state-recognized tribes, as well as substantial urban AI/AN populations, California can prioritize collaborative and accurate public health data collection and reporting. Star noted that current distortions are not always malicious but often stem from a lack of training. She suggested that California implement targeted training programs for those charged with recording this data, including funeral directors, coroners, medical doctors and law enforcement agents; allocate dedicated resources to improve the accuracy of racial classification on vital records; and strengthen partnerships with tribal leaders. The study authors suggest similar approaches, and there are numerous examples of successful cases of Indigenous-led health partnerships seen across Canada and the U.S. that have helped reduce health disparities among AI/AN communities that could be used as a template. These efforts would not only help to move toward rectifying historical inaccuracies, but also ensure that AI/AN communities receive equitable health resources and policy attention. 'When AI/AN people are misclassified in life and in death, it distorts public health data and drives inequities even deeper,' said Star. 'Accurate data isn't just about numbers — it's about honoring lives, holding systems accountable and making sure our communities are seen and served.' This story originally appeared in Los Angeles Times.
