How healthy can you expect to retire? The pension reform project, presented on January 10 by the Government, once again brings this issue to the fore, while the Executive wants to gradually raise the legal retirement age to 64, compared to the current 62.
Several variables can be taken into account when talking about health in France. Disability-free life expectancy is one. It allows estimating 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 years 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 points out that in recent years life expectancy without disability at age 65 has increased more rapidly than life expectancy at age 65. He explains it by “the decrease in the age of onset of disabling chronic diseases” and by “the improvement in their management.”
Between the ages of 60 and 64, 49.9% of women and 53.6% of men declared having a chronic or long-term illness or health problem in 2017, according to the survey “Statistics on resources and conditions of life” of the 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 2018, during the period 2012-2016, the life expectancy at birth of men belonging to the poorest 5% of the population is almost 13 years less than that of the richest 5%.
For the latter it amounts to 84.4 years, compared to 71.7 years for the poorest. Among women, this gap is 8 years (88.3 years among the richest compared to 80 years among the poorest).
INSEE points out that around a standard of living of 1,000 euros per month, “an additional 100 euros is associated with 0.9 years of life expectancy for men and 0.7 years for women.”
The Drees notes that, with the exception of certain types of cancer, chronic diseases “occur most frequently in people with the lowest incomes.” The poorest 10% of the population develop diabetes 2.8 times more than the richest 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 INSEE, 68% of people between the ages of 60 and 69 living in a home with poor living conditions reported suffering from a chronic or long-term illness or health problem in 2018, compared to 49.8% of people who live in a non-poor household.
The National Institute of Statistics defines a household with poor living conditions as one that has accumulated at least eight deficiencies or difficulties out of 27 related to insufficient resources, delinquency, consumption restrictions and difficulties related to housing.
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 the farmers. These data are 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”, “prevention behaviors”, “working conditions” and “use of care”. This last point is due both to the economic barriers that people from socio-professional categories with a lower standard of living may encounter and to “a differentiated relationship with the health system”.
A medical visit for the toughest jobs
In order to respond to the problem of careers most exposed “to the risk of professional burnout”, the Government foresees in its pension reform project the compulsory nature of a medical examination at the age of 61, which should allow “all those who cannot continue working and are therefore recognized as unfit for work” to leave at age 62 at full rate.
A measure that does not convince the SNPST, the union of occupational doctors, which believes on its site that “selection does not prevent” and that “public authorities must proactively undertake a policy to improve working conditions.”
Source: BFM TV
