"Will you still need me? Will you still feed me when I'm 64?"
Sixty-four! That was Paul McCartney's iconic anthem to a very old age, written in 1967.
Today, being 64 is closer to middle age in the average lifespan.
And government projections might significantly underestimate the future life expectancy of Americans, says a study from the MacArthur Research Network on an Aging Society.
Released Monday, the study finds that by 2050 Americans could live 3.1 to 7.9 years longer than official government projections — which means sharply higher costs for Medicare, Social Security and other programs that serve older citizens.
The researchers forecast that by 2050, life expectancy for women will rise from 89.2 to 93.3 years and from 83.2 to 85.9 years for men, says Dr. Jack Rowe, chair of the MacArthur Research Network and professor at the Columbia University Mailman School of Public Health. The former CEO of Aetna, Rowe chaired the 1990 study on aging that found factors predicting aging are not dominated by heredity but by lifestyle. The work resulted in the best-selling book, "Successful Aging." Rowe answered a few questions about the study:
Q. Why are government projections about future aging so far off the mark?
A. The Social Security Administration and the Census Bureau are charged with the responsibility of making government forecasts that are used to estimate the future costs of government-funded programs.
Both are making the assumption that advances in life expectancy that we've seen over the last several decades will decelerate over time, gaining less and less.
MacArthur scientists believe it is quite possible gains in life expectancy will accelerate rather than decelerate.
Q. Why such a dichotomy?
A. One reason is progressive advances in the treatment of disease and maybe some tangible slowing of the aging process.
We know that low calorie diets, diets with red wine, other diet changes suggest modifications in biology that allow people to live longer. We did conservative estimates of the changes that could occur and we came out with these new projections
Q. And these projections mean....?
A. The first is the obvious financial implications to government programs like Society Security and Medicare.
The second is the impact on the society that you and I live in.
The transportation system and design of cities, the workforce and retirement systems are all designed to support a population with a very different aging structure than we are going to have. We envision more walkers than strollers. And this can happen faster than we originally imagined.
So we have to understand how to handle the financial implications of more people living longer and also how to re-engineer the infrastructure of society so that core institutions can support the aging population.
Q. Some of your suggestions?
A. Working longer helps in a couple of ways. It reduces the financial burden on Social Security and increases revenue. It also keeps people engaged in our society, keeps them productive. We can't afford to have all those older people not engaged.
Obviously, we need to change policies and eliminate barriers that keep people from staying in the workforce.
Q. You are 65 and you like to say "the death rate hasn't changed. It's still one per person." What's the best future?
A. By the middle of the next decade, the United States will become an aging society with those over 60 outnumbering those under age 15.
Adding five or six additional years is an opportunity as well as a challenge for us. We can look at what we can add to the leisure box, yes. But if there will be a lot more healthy older people, it's important to find a productive role for them. We need to figure out how to unleash their potential.