casket

(Photo by Mayron Oliveira on Unsplash)

Research Tracking 45 Years of American Mortality Finds Heart Disease, Cancer, Overdose Deaths Are All Getting Worse

In A Nutshell

  • Americans born after 1970 are already dying at higher rates from heart disease, cancer, and external causes than people born before them were dying at the same ages, a pattern researchers call alarming given how many years these cohorts still have ahead.
  • A separate nationwide deterioration in death rates began around 2010 and hit nearly every living adult at once, driven mainly by stalling progress against cardiovascular disease after decades of improvement.
  • Americans born in the 1950s marked the generational turning point: cohorts born before them tended to show steadily improving survival, while every generation since has fared progressively worse across most major causes of death.
  • Researchers warn that if current trends continue as post-1970 cohorts age further, the United States could face an unprecedented long-running stagnation, or even a sustained decline, in overall life expectancy.

For most of the 20th century, a quiet assumption ran through American life: each generation would outlive the one before it. Better medicine, better food, better lives. It held true, decade after decade, until it stopped. An analysis published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences finds that younger Americans are failing to outlive earlier generations, dying faster at the same ages from some of the most common causes in the country. Researchers behind the study warn that the worst may still be ahead.

Between 2010 and 2019, U.S. life expectancy improved by only 0.26 years, compared to an average gain of 1.78 years per decade over the previous five decades. Already trailing its peers, the United States has fallen further behind. Among 22 peer nations, the gap in life expectancy at birth between the US and the top-performing country grew from 2.6 years to 4.7 years between 1983 and 2009. Stagnation barely covers what those numbers describe.

A different approach from most mortality research drove this analysis. Rather than asking what happened to death rates in a given year, the researchers asked what happened to people born in a given generation and tracked their death rates as they aged. What they found reframes the entire problem.

How Researchers Tracked a Generation-by-Generation Decline in U.S. Life Expectancy

Most research on American mortality looks at trends year by year. That approach is useful, but it misses something important: people born in the same era share experiences that shape their health across their entire lives. A person born in 1975 grew up during a specific economic climate, faced particular public health crises, and developed habits shaped by the culture of their youth, carrying those influences into middle and old age.

To capture these generational patterns, the research team used a specialized chart called a Lexis diagram, which allows scientists to track death rates simultaneously by age, calendar year, and birth generation. Rather than plotting raw death numbers, the team mapped the rate of change in mortality over time, looking at whether death rates were improving, stagnating, or getting worse at any given age and year. Primary data ran from 1979 to 2019, with supplementary data extending to 2023, covering generations born from the 1890s through the 1980s, drawn from the National Center for Health Statistics and the Human Mortality Database.

Researchers examined deaths from all causes combined, as well as three major categories: cardiovascular disease, cancer, and external causes such as drug overdoses, suicides, homicides, and traffic accidents.

us mortality
Americans born after 1970 are dying at higher rates than earlier generations did at the same ages, and a new study warns the worst is still ahead. (Credit: Cara Rodriguez on Unsplash)

Americans Born in the 1950s Marked a Turning Point in Life Expectancy

One of the study’s clearest findings centers on Americans born between 1950 and 1959. Across every major cause of death examined, this group showed worse death rates compared to people born just before them, when both groups are measured at the same ages. People born in the 1940s tended to see steadily improving survival at each stage of life. For those born in the 1950s, that improvement slowed or reversed.

Researchers describe this cohort as a generational turning point, where a long run of improving survival rates gave way to a pattern of deterioration that has persisted and deepened in every generation since. Several explanations have been proposed in prior research: the widespread uptake of cigarette smoking at young ages, the long-term damage caused by the HIV/AIDS epidemic and early waves of opioid addiction, and the toll of a generation shaped partly by social instability. Sharply worse lung cancer death rates below age 60 for this cohort are consistent with early smoking patterns, the researchers note.

On top of these generational patterns, the researchers identified a separate, nationwide deterioration that began around 2010 and affected nearly every adult alive at the time, regardless of when they were born. Someone in their 30s in 2012 experienced worsening trends. So did someone in their 70s. This society-wide setback was driven primarily by cardiovascular disease, which had been declining for decades before its progress stalled.

In short, the country is contending with two overlapping crises: a generational one, in which successive birth cohorts have fared worse than those before them, and a more recent one, in which the entire country’s health trajectory bent downward at roughly the same moment.

Why cardiovascular disease improvement stalled so sharply after 2010 has no clean answer. Possibilities include rising obesity rates, diminishing returns from anti-smoking campaigns, and the likelihood that modern medicine has kept alive a larger pool of people with serious underlying heart conditions, meaning the population itself now carries more inherent risk. Continued improvements in other high-income countries suggest that “human-made factors are limiting U.S. life expectancy improvement,” rather than biological limits alone on how long humans can live, the researchers write.

Why Americans Born After 1970 Are the Generation Researchers Are Most Worried About

Among all the findings, the most alarming concerns Americans born after 1970. At the ages these people have already reached, roughly 30 to 49 depending on the cause of death examined, they are already dying at higher rates from heart disease, cancer, and external causes than people born just before them were dying at those same ages. Colon cancer, strongly tied to obesity and diet, is a particular concern, with death rates rising at younger ages beginning with cohorts born around 1955 and worsening from there.

Drug overdose deaths, which increased sharply beginning in the late 1990s, hit post-1970 cohorts especially hard. Among women, suicide death rates began worsening around 2000 and, by 2010, affected nearly every age group. Homicide and traffic accident death rates also worsened in the 2010s.

Because people born after 1970 are still in the middle stages of their lives, the full damage has not yet shown up in overall life expectancy figures. These generations have decades of aging ahead of them, and if their elevated death rates at young and middle ages are any indication, their outcomes in old age could drag down American life expectancy in ways not yet fully felt. Researchers describe this trajectory as pointing toward a possible “unprecedented longer-run stagnation, or even sustained decline, in US life expectancy.”

No single cause explains any of this, and the paper does not test which factors mattered most. Cigarette smoking laid the groundwork for cancer and heart disease deaths in older generations. Obesity is shaping the health of younger ones. Researchers point to rising economic and social inequality, the opioid epidemic, and stress as likely forces, noting that these upstream factors may affect multiple causes of death simultaneously: smoking drives both cancer and heart disease, stress is linked to cardiovascular risk and substance abuse, and cancer treatments can in turn worsen heart health.

Researchers do not test specific policy solutions in this paper, but they point to rising economic and social inequality as a driver of American mortality trends, and note that “policies aimed at reducing social inequalities and improving resources for socioeconomically disadvantaged groups can be powerful levers in improving national trends.” Worth noting as well: modest improvements in death rates in 2018 and 2019 were erased by sharply rising mortality between 2019 and 2022, with only partial recovery by 2023.

For the generations coming up behind the baby boomers, what this analysis describes is less a temporary stumble in an otherwise upward march than a long-running warning sign that has been building for decades. Successive cohorts are arriving at middle age already carrying higher mortality burdens than their predecessors did, and they have decades left to age into a system still struggling to explain why.


Disclaimer: This article is for informational purposes only and is not intended to provide medical advice, diagnosis, or treatment. Readers should consult a qualified healthcare professional with questions about personal health, risk factors, symptoms, or prevention strategies related to heart disease, cancer, substance use, mental health, or any other medical condition.


Paper Notes

Limitations

Researchers are clear that their analytical approach is designed to reveal patterns, not test specific explanations. While the Lexis diagram method powerfully illustrates where and when death rate trends changed, it cannot establish why those changes occurred or which particular social, economic, or biological factors were responsible. A smoothing technique used to clarify visual patterns, which reduces year-to-year noise in the data, can also spread fluctuations across adjacent years, meaning the exact timing of when trends shifted should not be interpreted too precisely. Researchers also caution against over-interpreting changes among people born before 1920, as those estimates are based on comparatively small numbers of individuals. Lexis diagram data cover 1979 to 2019 for the primary analysis, with supplementary data extending to 2023; the COVID-19 years are handled separately due to methodological considerations around smoothing.

Funding and Disclosures

This research was supported by several National Institute on Aging grants (R01AG075208, P30AG024832, and R56AG086279), the Max Planck–University of Helsinki Center from the Max Planck Society (grant 5714240218), the Jane and Aatos Erkko Foundation (grant 210046), the Faculty of Social Sciences at the University of Helsinki (grant 77204227), and the Cities of Helsinki, Vantaa, and Espoo. The authors declare no competing interests. AI tools were not used in the analysis; Claude Sonnet 4 was used to edit manuscript text for sentence structure and grammar, with all edits reviewed by the authors.

Publication Details

Title: “Insights into US life expectancy stagnation from birth cohort mortality dynamics” | Authors: Leah Abrams (Department of Community Health, Tufts University, Medford, MA); Octavio Bramajo (Institute for Evolutionary Medicine, University of Zürich, Switzerland); Alyson van Raalte (Max Planck Institute for Demographic Research; Max Planck–University of Helsinki Center for Social Inequalities in Population Health); Mikko Myrskylä (Max Planck Institute for Demographic Research; University of Helsinki); Neil K. Mehta (Department of Epidemiology, School of Public and Population Health, University of Texas Medical Branch, Galveston, TX) | Journal: Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, Vol. 123, No. 11, e2519356123 | DOI: 10.1073/pnas.2519356123 | Published: March 9, 2026

About StudyFinds Analysis

Called "brilliant," "fantastic," and "spot on" by scientists and researchers, our acclaimed StudyFinds Analysis articles are created using an exclusive AI-based model with complete human oversight by the StudyFinds Editorial Team. For these articles, we use an unparalleled LLM process across multiple systems to analyze entire journal papers, extract data, and create accurate, accessible content. Our writing and editing team proofreads and polishes each and every article before publishing. With recent studies showing that artificial intelligence can interpret scientific research as well as (or even better) than field experts and specialists, StudyFinds was among the earliest to adopt and test this technology before approving its widespread use on our site. We stand by our practice and continuously update our processes to ensure the very highest level of accuracy. Read our AI Policy (link below) for more information.

Our Editorial Process

StudyFinds publishes digestible, agenda-free, transparent research summaries that are intended to inform the reader as well as stir civil, educated debate. We do not agree nor disagree with any of the studies we post, rather, we encourage our readers to debate the veracity of the findings themselves. All articles published on StudyFinds are vetted by our editors prior to publication and include links back to the source or corresponding journal article, if possible.

Our Editorial Team

Steve Fink

Editor-in-Chief

John Anderer

Associate Editor

Leave a Comment