YuLin Zhen, Photography Editor

A new report finds that the U.S. life expectancy can increase by 1.6 years if alcohol, drugs and firearms-related deaths are eliminated.

The Association of American Medical Colleges Research and Action Institute recently published a data snapshot, co-authored by the Yale School of Public Health Dean Megan Ranney, that demonstrates the negative impact alcohol, drugs and firearms have on the U.S. life expectancy. This data snapshot shows that the U.S. life expectancy can increase without changes to our healthcare system, as these deaths are all unrelated to clinical outcomes. 

According to Dr. Ranney, the purpose of this data snapshot was “to illustrate some of these main drivers of our decreased life expectancy in the U.S.”

The most recent life expectancy at birth data shows that even though the U.S. has the highest per capita spending on health care, the United States life expectancy of 77.6 years is one of the lowest among nations in the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, where the average is 80.6 years. 

While life expectancy is not the only measure of a nation’s healthcare system outcomes, it can be used as a standard comparison between peer nations. The study used the County Health Rankings & Roadmaps mortality calculator, a standard way of calculating life expectancies using mortality data. This calculator uses a given population’s mortality age and rates, among other health factors and outcomes, to calculate a measure of life expectancy in that population.

“When we think about premature mortality, understanding what is influencing life expectancy can point to avenues for prevention and control,” Dr. Mayur Desai, a professor of epidemiology at the Yale School of Public Health, said. Desai explained that this data can inform policymakers on healthcare reforms. 

The researchers used data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s Wonder database to analyze causes of death across different populations, including racial, ethnic and geographic groups. The researchers also used data from the World Health Organization database of leading causes of death to compare death rates in other countries in relation to the United States. 

When looking at the alcohol, drug and firearm deaths in OECD countries, the researchers found that the U.S. remains an outlier in the death rates from these causes because they consistently have the highest rate of firearm-related deaths in children and teenagers. 

Some other findings include that if drug-related deaths did not occur, the average American would get about 0.9 years added to their life expectancy. The U.S. would also see an increase in life expectancy of 0.4 years if firearm-related deaths were eliminated and 0.3 years if alcohol-induced deaths were eliminated. Arguably the most striking result of this snapshot, however, is that 10 states and the District of Columbia would see an increase of at least two years in life expectancy if deaths due to these three causes were eliminated.

There are also significant differences between certain racial and ethnic groups in terms of life expectancy increases. The report found that American Indian, Alaska Native, Black, Hispanic and white populations in the United States would see the largest increases in life expectancy from the elimination of these deaths, whereas Asian populations would see minimal increases, and Native Hawaiin and Pacific Islander populations would see no increase or change in life expectancy. This highlights the grave differences in the impact of alcohol, drug and firearm-related deaths in the U.S. based on race, ethnicity and geographic location. 

The results of the report indicate that policy interventions that invest in mental health and social services and firearm restrictions could prevent significant causes of death and increase the U.S. life expectancy. Even though it would be highly unlikely that all alcohol, drug and firearm-related deaths would be eliminated, this report shows how it is still possible to increase the U.S. life expectancy by preventing these non-health related deaths. 

Specific policies that could decrease deaths related to alcohol and drugs would increase access to substance abuse care and mental health care, which is not attainable to certain populations due to social and economic limitations. Further firearm restrictions and regulations could also prevent firearm-related deaths, and investments in mental health and social services could also impact firearm-related deaths as the report says that “more than half” of the deaths are related to suicide. 

The largest problem, however, is not what policies would help prevent these deaths but the actual implementation of these policies. 

There is a significant gap between research and policy implementation that “is not unique to public health research,” Dr. Ranney told the News. She added that “in pure biomedical research, there’s an 18 year gap between research and implementation.”

The School of Public Health has adopted this problem as part of their mission, where they are aiming to “link science and society, helping communities everywhere to thrive based on a foundation of public health,” according to their strategic plan for 2025-2030. 

One of the ways that researchers have been trying to bridge this gap has been through creating briefs that are accessible to both policymakers and the general public, hence reports like this data snapshot that are easy to understand. 

“One of the biggest premises of the Research and Action Institute [is that] we are trying to take these complex research topics and turn them into tangible pieces that can go to policymakers,” Kendal Orgera, lead research analyst for this report and at the AAMC Research and Action Institute, said. “We have been successful in that, there’s been a few instances where we know that Vice President Harris has had a few of our pieces on her desk. This is how we can measure the success [of our work].” 

The burden of bridging this gap between research and policy implementation is not only on researchers but also policymakers and the general public. People and policymakers have the power to restore trust in public health officials by talking about research in their own circles, bringing up public health issues and explaining science to those who don’t understand or don’t have the resources to help. 

“I think we all have a responsibility to make sure that we are educating ourselves and others in whatever circles we’re in,” Dr. Desai told the News. 

The public also has the power to lobby for implementation of policies to their policymakers based on science that they read as researchers often cannot do that themselves. 

Bridging this gap must be a joint effort between researchers working toward communicating science, policymakers working towards creating effective policies that are informed by science and the general public working toward educating themselves to make change in their communities. 

The Yale School of Public Health was founded in 1915, making it one of the oldest schools of public health in the country.

Correction, Oct. 29: Due to editing errors, the incorrect pronouns were used for Dr. Ranney. The story has been updated with the correct information.

Correction, Oct. 31: This story has been updated with the correct spelling of Dr. Megan Ranney’s name.

ROHAN LOKANADHAM