The Problem With Counting Only Years

Medicine is comfortable with survival curves. We count deaths prevented, median survival extended, hospitalizations avoided, and life expectancy gained. These are powerful outcomes because they are measurable, comparable, and difficult to dismiss.

But they are incomplete.

A person may live longer yet spend more years unable to climb stairs, remember appointments, hear conversation, tolerate medications, afford care, or participate in the life they value. Another person may live fewer years but retain function, relationships, decision-making capacity, and independence until very near the end.

The first life is not a failure. The second is not automatically a success. But the contrast reveals an uncomfortable truth: survival is not the only outcome that matters.

Life expectancy is a population estimate of average remaining years. Lifespan refers to the length of an individual life. Healthspan, by contrast, refers to the portion of life lived in good health, although “good health” can be defined in different ways. That definitional uncertainty is not a weakness to ignore. It is the center of the issue.

Healthspan Is Not Simply “Years Without Disease”

A common mistake is to define healthspan as years lived free of chronic disease. That is clean, but too narrow.

Many older adults live well with hypertension, osteoarthritis, atrial fibrillation, diabetes, hearing loss, or a history of cancer. A person with controlled chronic illness may have high functional ability, meaningful relationships, intellectual engagement, and independence. Conversely, a person without a major diagnosis may have frailty, loneliness, cognitive vulnerability, poor mobility, or severe financial barriers to care.

WHO’s healthy-aging framework is useful because it shifts attention from disease absence to functional ability. WHO defines healthy ageing as the process of developing and maintaining the functional ability that enables wellbeing in older age. Functional ability includes the capabilities that allow people to be and do what they value.

This framing is especially important for clinicians. It prevents a subtle but common error: equating “medically managed” with “well.”

A patient may have excellent laboratory values and still be unable to live independently. Another may have multiple diagnoses but remain active, socially connected, and capable of making informed choices. Healthspan requires us to look beyond the problem list.

The Healthspan-Lifespan Gap Is Not Just a Slogan

The tension between longer life and healthy life is increasingly measurable.

A 2024 JAMA Network Open analysis of 183 WHO member states found that the global healthspan-lifespan gap had widened over two decades and reached 9.6 years. Women had a larger mean gap than men, and the United States had the largest reported gap at 12.4 years, associated with noncommunicable disease burden.

This does not mean that living longer is bad. It means that longevity gains can outpace gains in healthy functioning. In high-income countries, one reason the gap can appear larger is that more people survive diseases that previously caused earlier death. That is a medical achievement. But survival without sufficient attention to function, rehabilitation, prevention, social support, and treatment burden creates a different kind of unfinished work.

The Global Burden of Disease 2021 analysis also underscores why healthy life expectancy, or HALE, matters. HALE attempts to combine mortality and morbidity into a population-level estimate of years lived in full health.

Why Lifespan Became the Dominant Outcome

Lifespan is easier to measure than healthspan. Death is a clear endpoint. Function is not.

Clinical trials can count mortality, myocardial infarction, stroke, hospitalization, disease progression, or tumor response. These outcomes matter. They are often essential. But they do not always tell us whether patients remain able to walk, think clearly, avoid falls, manage medications, sleep, work, drive, cook, communicate, or live without overwhelming caregiving needs.

The modern health system also rewards what can be coded, billed, audited, and compared. Blood pressure can be entered into a registry. LDL-C can be graphed. A1c can be tracked. A gait-speed decline, new dependence in instrumental activities of daily living, fear of falling, hearing-related social withdrawal, or medication-related fatigue may be less visible.

The result is a measurement bias. We can become better at prolonging biological survival than at preserving the capabilities that make survival feel like life.

Geroscience: Promise Without Hype

Geroscience asks whether targeting biological processes of aging could delay multiple age-related diseases at once. That is a serious scientific question, not merely a wellness slogan. Aging biology is linked to chronic disease risk, and research has identified interconnected mechanisms such as genomic instability, epigenetic alterations, loss of proteostasis, mitochondrial dysfunction, cellular senescence, altered intercellular communication, chronic inflammation, and dysbiosis.

But translation into clinical practice remains early.

The fact that aging mechanisms can be modified in model organisms does not mean that a supplement, drug, blood test, or commercial “longevity protocol” improves human healthspan. The field deserves careful investment, but it also deserves disciplined language. Promising is not proven. Associated is not causal. A biomarker shift is not the same as fewer fractures, better cognition, preserved mobility, or longer independent living.

Metformin, rapamycin-related pathways, senolytics, caloric restriction biology, and epigenetic clocks are all scientifically interesting. None should be marketed to the public as established healthspan-extending medicine without outcome evidence.

The Biomarker Trap

The language of “biological age” is appealing because it turns a complex life process into a number. That number feels actionable. It may even motivate behavior. But it can also mislead.

Aging clocks and related biomarkers may eventually help researchers test interventions faster than waiting decades for mortality or disability outcomes. Yet current literature raises important concerns: clocks differ by model, training population, tissue, assay, and target outcome. Some predict chronological age well. Some predict mortality or disease risk better than chronological age. But clinical actionability remains unsettled. Recent reviews have emphasized inconsistent clinical validation, uncertainty, and the risk of overinterpreting these tools for individual decision-making.

For clinicians, the practical question is not “Can this test estimate biological age?” The better question is: “Does this result change management in a way that improves meaningful outcomes?”

If the recommendation after an expensive biological-age test is exercise, smoking cessation, sleep optimization, blood pressure control, vaccination, hearing correction, fall prevention, nutrition improvement, social connection, and medication review, then the test may have added drama more than clinical value.

That does not make the science unimportant. It means the endpoint must remain human.

What We Already Know How to Improve

Some of the strongest healthspan tools are not futuristic.

Physical activity has broad evidence for reducing health risks and preserving function. WHO guidelines provide evidence-based recommendations for adults and older adults and explicitly address sedentary behavior, chronic conditions, and disability.

Cardiometabolic prevention, smoking cessation, vaccination, hearing and vision correction, falls prevention, depression recognition, sleep-disorder treatment, medication simplification, and rehabilitation are not glamorous. They are also not trivial. They are healthspan interventions when they preserve function and prevent avoidable decline.

The challenge is that these interventions are often less profitable, less novel, and less emotionally seductive than the promise of a biological reset.

The future of healthspan medicine should not be a boutique layer added to care for the already advantaged. It should be a better organizing principle for ordinary care.

A Healthspan Lens for Clinicians

A healthspan lens does not replace disease-specific care. It changes the hierarchy of questions.

For a 45-year-old, the relevant outcome may be avoiding premature cardiovascular disease, maintaining work capacity, and preventing metabolic decline. For a 70-year-old, it may be preserving mobility, cognition, continence, sleep, hearing, social function, and medication tolerability. For an 88-year-old, it may be avoiding delirium, falls, institutionalization, caregiver collapse, and unwanted burdensome care.

The healthspan question is not always “How do we extend life?” Sometimes it is:

• What function are we trying to preserve?

• What tradeoff is the patient willing to accept?

• Will this intervention improve life, prolong decline, or both?

• What outcome would make this treatment worthwhile?

• What burden are we adding in exchange for the benefit?

Those questions do not make care less scientific. They make the science more complete.

Table: What the Evidence Suggests vs. What It Does Not Prove

Topic	What the evidence supports	What it does not prove
Life expectancy	Populations have gained years through public health and medical advances.	More years automatically mean better lived experience.
Healthspan	Function, independence, and morbidity burden are essential outcomes.	Healthspan has one universally accepted definition.
HALE	Useful population metric combining mortality and morbidity.	Precise individual prediction of future healthy years.
Geroscience	Aging biology is linked to chronic disease risk and is a valid research field.	Current anti-aging interventions reliably extend human healthspan.
Aging clocks	Promising research tools and possible future surrogate endpoints.	Validated clinical tools that should guide routine treatment decisions.
Lifestyle and prevention	Physical activity and risk-factor control have strong health benefits.	Individual behavior alone explains healthspan or removes structural inequity.

Sidebar: A Better Healthspan Outcome Set

Healthspan is easier to discuss when it is translated into outcomes that clinicians, patients, families, and health systems can recognize.

Outcome domain	Examples
Survival	Mortality, disease-free survival, hospital-free days
Function	Mobility, ADLs, IADLs, falls, frailty
Cognition	Memory, decision-making, delirium, dementia outcomes
Burden	Polypharmacy, adverse effects, appointments, cost
Lived priorities	Days at home, independence, caregiving strain, goal-concordant care

This sidebar is worth including. It is mobile-friendly, conceptually useful, and helps keep the article grounded in outcomes rather than slogans.

Equity Is Central, Not Optional

Healthspan is not only a personal discipline project. It is shaped by education, neighborhood safety, food access, work conditions, environmental exposures, disability access, healthcare quality, loneliness, poverty, and cumulative advantage or disadvantage.

WHO emphasizes that functional ability in older age reflects both intrinsic capacity and environmental factors, including the conditions that allow people to do what they value.

That point matters because healthspan language can easily become moralizing. “Live better longer” can sound empowering, but it can also imply that poor health in older age reflects poor choices. Clinicians know better. Behavior matters, but behavior occurs inside constraints.

A serious healthspan agenda must include prevention, rehabilitation, age-friendly environments, accessible primary care, safer medication use, social support, mobility infrastructure, hearing and vision care, and realistic caregiving systems.

Otherwise, healthspan becomes another luxury metric.

The Right Outcome Is Plural

The question “Are we measuring the right outcomes?” has no single answer because patients do not value only one thing.

Some want longevity above all. Some prioritize independence. Some fear dementia more than death. Some value relief from pain. Some want to stay at home. Some want to attend a wedding, finish a project, remain useful to family, keep driving, avoid nursing-home placement, or reduce the burden on a spouse.

A mortality endpoint cannot capture all of that.

The best clinical outcome set may include survival, function, cognition, symptom burden, treatment burden, falls, hospital-free days, days at home, medication complexity, caregiver strain, and goal-concordant care.

This is especially important in older adults, but it is not limited to geriatrics. A cancer therapy, antihypertensive regimen, diabetes plan, psychiatric medication, surgery, or device intervention can all look different when measured against the full human outcome, not just the disease-specific endpoint.

What Clinicians Should Be Careful Not to Overstate

Clinicians should be cautious with three claims.

First, do not imply that healthspan is fully under individual control. It is not.

Second, do not imply that a biomarker of aging is the same as aging itself. It is a proxy, and proxy measures can be useful, misleading, or both.

Third, do not imply that longer life is a lesser goal. For many patients and families, more time is profoundly meaningful. The point is not to replace lifespan with healthspan. The point is to stop pretending that lifespan alone is enough.

A Practical Framework: The F-I-V-E Questions

A simple healthspan framework can help clinicians, writers, and policymakers keep the right outcomes in view.

• Function: What abilities are we trying to preserve or restore?

• Independence: Will this plan help the person remain self-directed and engaged?

• Value: Does the outcome match what the patient actually values?

• Equity: Who has access to the conditions required for this outcome?

• Evidence: Are we measuring outcomes that matter, or only markers that are easy to count?

This framework does not replace clinical judgment. It gives clinical judgment a wider field of view.

References

Apsley, A. T., Etzel, L., Ye, Q., & Shalev, I. (2025). From population science to the clinic? Limits of epigenetic clocks as personal biomarkers. Epigenomics, 17(18), 1447-1461. https://doi.org/10.1080/17501911.2025.2603880

Bull, F. C., Al-Ansari, S. S., Biddle, S., Borodulin, K., Buman, M. P., Cardon, G., Carty, C., Chaput, J. P., Chastin, S., Chou, R., Dempsey, P. C., DiPietro, L., Ekelund, U., Firth, J., Friedenreich, C. M., Garcia, L., Gichu, M., Jago, R., Katzmarzyk, P. T., … Willumsen, J. F. (2020). World Health Organization 2020 guidelines on physical activity and sedentary behaviour. British Journal of Sports Medicine, 54(24), 1451-1462. https://doi.org/10.1136/bjsports-2020-102955. PMID: 33239350.

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National Center for Health Statistics. (2026). Mortality in the United States, 2024 (NCHS Data Brief No. 548). https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/products/databriefs/db548.htm. PMID: 41678830.

Ferrari, A. J., Santomauro, D. F., Aali, A., et al. (2024). Global incidence, prevalence, years lived with disability, disability-adjusted life-years, and healthy life expectancy for 371 diseases and injuries in 204 countries and territories and 811 subnational locations, 1990-2021: A systematic analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study 2021. The Lancet, 403(10440), 2133-2161. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(24)00757-8. PMID: 38642570.

Fries, J. F. (1980). Aging, natural death, and the compression of morbidity. The New England Journal of Medicine, 303(3), 130-135. https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJM198007173030304. PMID: 7383070.

Garmany, A., & Terzic, A. (2024). Global healthspan-lifespan gaps among 183 World Health Organization member states. JAMA Network Open, 7(12), e2450241. https://doi.org/10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2024.50241. PMID: 39661386.

Kaeberlein, M. (2018). How healthy is the healthspan concept? GeroScience, 40(4), 361-364. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11357-018-0036-9. PMID: 30084059.

Kennedy, B. K., Berger, S. L., Brunet, A., Campisi, J., Cuervo, A. M., Epel, E. S., Franceschi, C., Lithgow, G. J., Morimoto, R. I., Pessin, J. E., Rando, T. A., Richardson, A., Schadt, E. E., Wyss-Coray, T., & Sierra, F. (2014). Geroscience: Linking aging to chronic disease. Cell, 159(4), 709-713. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cell.2014.10.039. PMID: 25417146.

Kriukov, D., Efimov, E., Gelfand, M. S., & others. (2025). Do we actually need aging clocks? npj Aging, 12, Article 15. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41514-025-00312-2.

López-Otín, C., Pietrocola, F., Roiz-Valle, D., Galluzzi, L., & Kroemer, G. (2023). Hallmarks of aging: An expanding universe. Cell, 186(2), 243-278. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cell.2022.11.001. PMID: 36599349.

World Health Organization. (2020). Healthy ageing and functional ability. https://www.who.int/news-room/questions-and-answers/item/healthy-ageing-and-functional-ability

World Health Organization. (2020). WHO guidelines on physical activity and sedentary behaviour. https://www.who.int/publications/i/item/9789240015128

World Health Organization. (n.d.). Healthy life expectancy (HALE): Indicator metadata registry. https://www.who.int/data/gho/indicator-metadata-registry/imr-details/7752