Anastasia Bystritskaya, senior global life science market analyst at Thermo Fisher Scientific, explains why healthspan, not lifespan, should be the true measure of progress.

A new global analysis shows that while life expectancy is rising almost everywhere, the number of years lived in good health is not keeping pace. Researchers examined data from 183 countries and found that the healthspan/lifespan gap is widening, with many societies projected to face decades where added years are lived in disability or decline by the end of the century.

The truth behind those numbers is stark: people are surviving longer but often without vitality. The gap between years lived and years lived well is where human dignity falters.

In the US, the statistics are especially sobering. A study found that Americans now spend an average of 12.4 years of their lives in poor health before death – the highest burden among high-income countries. Twelve birthdays marked not with joy but with pain, dependency, or confusion. Twelve years when life is extended, but living is diminished.

Survivors’ accounts echo this reality. Many describe a paradox: they lived through treatment, but they do not feel alive. Anxiety, fatigue, and withdrawal often replace the vitality they once had. Medicine counts them among its victories. They count themselves among the forgotten.

This is why our fixation on survival alone distorts priorities. The question is not only how long people live, but how they live.

Measuring healthspan

Science is beginning to catch up. In June, researchers introduced a new blood-based biomarker tool. Called the Healthspan Proteomic Score, it was derived from more than 50,000 participants in the UK Biobank. The score can predict disease risk and mortality independent of chronological age, offering a way to estimate how many of our years are likely to be lived in health rather than decline. For the first time, healthspan is not just a concept. It is quantifiable.

Interventions are advancing as well. A randomised controlled trial in Switzerland followed older adults over three years. Those who combined daily omega-3 supplementation with vitamin D and exercise showed measurably slower biological ageing, as assessed by epigenetic clocks. The change was measured in months rather than years, but across populations, the potential is enormous. Small shifts in individual healthspan could mean vast improvements at scale.

Why systems resist change

So why do we continue to reward lifespan over healthspan? Because our systems are built that way. Clinical trials prize survival endpoints and side effects. Regulators approve drugs that add months of life, even if those months are filled with frailty. Insurers reimburse treatments that extend survival while ignoring whether patients remain independent. Investors cheer pipelines that promise longevity but rarely ask about quality of life. This is a distortion, and it carries real costs.

The same distortion has shaped philanthropy and funding priorities. For years, initiatives have emphasised projects that extend human lifespan. But when data showed that many of those added years were spent in disability, perspectives began to shift. Increasingly, research proposals emphasise independence, cognitive function, and resilience – not just survival curves. The mission grows sharper, not weaker.

What needs to change

That shift is possible across the entire ecosystem. Public health agencies could integrate health-adjusted life years into national reporting. Regulators could require healthspan endpoints in pivotal trials. Payers could reward therapies that keep people strong and independent. Universities could train scientists to ask how long people live well, not just how long they live.

The economic case is undeniable. A report from Columbia University’s Mailman School of Public Health argued earlier this year that adding even a single healthy year of life for every older adult could deliver trillions of dollars in global economic value. The savings come from reduced medical costs, greater workforce participation, and more active engagement in communities. At a time of strained budgets, this return on investment is extraordinary.

Yet the moral case is even stronger. To define success by lifespan alone is to accept survival without dignity. It is to measure progress in numbers that ignore lived experience. Patients deserve more than endurance. Families deserve more than prolonged caregiving. Societies deserve more than decades of decline dressed up as achievement.

A different future

Imagine a future where added years are marked not by dependency but by mornings free of pain, evenings filled with companionship, confidence in memory, and joy in work. That is healthspan. That is the standard that matters.

Until we measure healthspan with the same seriousness as lifespan, our vision of longevity will remain incomplete. We can do better. We can aspire not just to help people survive, but to help them thrive.