Chronological measure of "old age" out of date

Much has been made in the recent news of the increasing social burden of the ageing population in industrialised countries. A recent study has however suggested that this may not be an accurate estimate of the effects of old age.

Scientists from the International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis in Austria, Stony Brook University in the United States and the Vienna Institute of Demography, have conducted a study to suggest that the current measure of ageing is no longer accurate.

Improved medical science and an approach to a greater focus on healthy living has resulted in a population that not only has a higher life expectancy, but also one who reaches this life expectancy in better general health than before.

For this reason, the chronological measure of old age and retirement has become out of date. According to the traditional measure of age, persons reaching 65 are considered “old.” Clearly, this is no longer the case.

The problem is that the traditional measure of old age is still used by policy-makers when determining the burden of ageing on health care and pension schemes. The reality is that health becomes a “burden” only much later in life.

According to a BBC News report, the increasingly ageing population will certainly pose challenges, but at the same time, these challenges should be assessed accurately and realistically.

What's this?