Disability-free life expectancy at the age of 65 has been increasing for several years, but the state of health depends strongly on the socio-economic situation of the people concerned.
How healthy can you expect to retire? The pension reform project, presented on January 10 by the government, brings this question back to the fore, while the executive wants to gradually raise the legal retirement age to 64, against 62 currently. .
Several variables can be taken into account when talking about health in France. Disability-free life expectancy is one. It makes it possible to estimate the number of years that a person can expect to live without being limited in the activities of daily living due to a health problem.
An average life expectancy of 11.5 for women, 10.4 years for men
According to DREES data, in 2019, a 65-year-old woman can expect to live another 11.5 years without disability. A 65-year-old man can expect to live 10.4 years without disability.
The Directorate of Studies of the Ministry of Health notes that in recent years, life expectancy without disability at age 65 has increased more rapidly than life expectancy at age 65. She explains it by “the decline in the age at which chronic disabling diseases occur” and by “the improvement in their management”.
Between the ages of 60 and 64, 49.9% of women and 53.6% of men reported having a chronic or long-lasting illness or health problem in 2017, according to the survey “Statistics on resources and living conditions” from INSEE. This figure increases to 56.4% for women and 53.9% for men in the next age bracket, 65-69.
Differences by income
But beyond gender differences, health status depends on other variables, such as income. According to a survey published by INSEE in 2018over the period 2012-2016, the life expectancy at birth of men belonging to the poorest 5% of the population is nearly 13 years lower than that of the wealthiest 5%.
For the latter, it amounts to 84.4 years, against 71.7 years for the poorest. Among women, this gap is 8 years (88.3 years among the wealthiest against 80 years among the poorest).
INSEE notes that around a standard of living of 1000 euros per month, “an additional 100 euros is associated with 0.9 years in life expectancy in men and 0.7 years in women” .
The Drees points out that with the exception of certain cancers, chronic diseases “occur more frequently in people with the lowest incomes”. The poorest 10% of the population thus develop diabetes 2.8 times more often than the wealthiest 10%. Chronic diseases of the liver or pancreas, excluding cystic fibrosis, present an increased risk of 2.2 compared to the wealthiest.
A difference according to living conditions
According to INSEE68% of people aged 60 to 69 living in a household with poor living conditions report suffering from a chronic or long-lasting illness or health problem in 2018, compared to 49.8% for people living in a non-poor household.
The National Institute of Statistics defines a household with poor living conditions as a household that has accumulated at least eight deprivations or difficulties out of 27 relating to insufficient resources, late payments, consumption restrictions and housing-related difficulties. .
Occupation influences health
The differences are also in the socio-professional categories. In the 2016 INSEE Social Portrait, 85% of executives and higher intellectual professions say they are in good or very good health, compared to 82% of intermediate professions, 75% of workers and employees, 67% of farmers. This data is from 2014.
“This link persists after having corrected the structure by sex and age within each PCS to make it comparable”, explains INSEE in its report.
The institute concludes that “the fact that farmers are on average older than executives is not enough to explain the difference between their perceived health status”.
The statistics institute explains the differences by differences in “lifestyles”, “behaviours in terms of prevention”, “working conditions” and “use of care”. This last point is due both to the financial barriers that people from socio-professional categories with a lower standard of living may encounter and to “a differentiated relationship to the health system”.
A medical visit for the toughest jobs
In order to respond to the problem of careers more exposed “to the risks of professional wear and tear”, the government plans in his reform plan pensions a compulsory medical examination at 61, which should allow “all those who are unable to continue to work and are thus recognized as unfit for work” to leave at 62 at full rate.
A measure that does not convince the SNPST, the union of occupational physicians, which estimates on his website that “selection does not lead to prevention” and that “the public authorities must proactively commit to a policy of improving working conditions”.
