Australians are healthier than ever, according to data from the Australian Institute of Health and Welfare, refuting claims of a public health crisis pushed by sectoral interests.
The AIHW’s Australian Burden of Disease Study released in May looks in detail at the impact of disease, conditions and injuries on Australians — both fatal and non-fatal. The most recent report examines data up to 2011 and uses the standard Disability-Adjusted Life Year (DALY) measure.
One unit of DALY represents a year of healthy life lost, either through premature death or from living with an illness or injury — in the latter case, the calculation weighted according to the disability caused by a disease, its progression and co-morbidities, to determine health loss. The study represents the first major study of the burden of disease in Australia since 2003.
In the intervening eight years, there was, surprisingly, a noticeable improvement in Australians’ health. The study found
“… after accounting for population increase and ageing, the burden of disease for the Australian population decreased by 10%, from 210.5 to 189.9 DALY per 1,000 people.”
That is, overall we were losing 10% fewer DALYs to death, illness and injury than in 2003.
The bulk of that improvement has come from Australians living longer — non-indigenous Australians are among the longest-lived people in the world. However, it’s difficult to identify what exactly has improved in this regard, because of the nature of the calculation involved. If you think about what a DALY represents, it’s a complex thing. Relatively few infants die each year, but they produce a very high loss of DALYs because of the lifespan lost, whereas most deaths are of elderly people, who lose relatively little lifespan; the greatest contributors to loss of DALYs are people in their 50s through to their 80s.
But it’s not merely that Australians are living longer — they may be living longer in poorer health, which is not a particularly optimal outcome. The study finds that there was also a:
“3.8% reduction in non-fatal burden, after accounting for population increases and ageing, [which] indicates that the substantial successes in preventing or delaying deaths between 2003 and 2011 has not increased the impact of ill health in the population; rather, it has decreased it slightly.”
That means we’re not merely living longer, but we’re in better health as well. The results place Australia well ahead of other OECD countries on virtually every major illness except asthma and depression, according to results from comparable methodology. And that’s despite Australia spending 9.4% of GDP on health during the period studied — well below the expenditure of many Western Europeans countries or Canada and of course nearly half the level of the United States.
Health outcomes for indigenous Australians continue to badly lag those of non-indigenous Australians, but the full extent of that gap won’t be clear until the AIHW releases a similar study on the burden of disease in indigenous communities in coming months.
The report contradicts claims that Australia is facing a health emergency of ever greater obesity and chronic disease. One of the country’s premier nanny statists, Professor Rob Moodie of University of Melbourne, recently wrote of how Australia was “losing the health fight”, that we faced “a looming health crisis” and “that we are losing the war against alcohol and weight-related illnesses” (this, hilariously, despite a huge drop in alcohol consumption in recent years that even anti-alcohol campaigns have had to acknowledge).
There are routine claims of an “obesity epidemic” destroying the lives of Australians (along with the need for bans and taxes on sugary foods and drink) — despite a regular flow of evidence that there is no such thing. Another public health lobbyist recently claimed diabetes threatened “the survival of the species” and that in western Sydney “we will have to build factories to cut off people’s toes, feet and limbs and help them when they go blind”. According to the AIHW study, Australia is well below the OECD average for DALYs lost to diabetes.
Oddly, the strong improvement in Australian health during the noughties attracted little media attention when the report was released in early May.
Bernard,
I am not in as much a hurry as you are to condemn nanny statists on the evidence you cite. Australia has had record high levels of immigration in the noughts and we tend not to allow people with diabetes into Australia. Clearly, Australia should strengthen its liberal status through strengthening rights to freedom of thought, free speech and freedom of occupation, subject to the usual limitations, where we accept limitations of freedom of speech to protect their freedom of occupation and basic rights. Australia falls far short of justice in these liberal rights, as aboriginal neglect and exclusion shows most starkly.
However, I do not think that removing all incentives to stop smoking or restrict sugar intake belong to the same core of liberal rights. Neo-liberal free markets do not promote liberal rights, although free markets in some potentially truly competitive areas (excluding health care and education) can contribute to free consumer choice.
Australians are getting healthier… except for indigenous and other disadvantaged Australians.
Australia is doing better on health measures than many other countries… but nowhere near as well as we are capable of.
Alcohol consumption has fallen… from a very high base level.
Bernard Keane specializes in omitting the ends of sentences. He loves to posture as a crusader against nanny statists.
It’s interesting how he dismisses doctors and public health professionals as just another “sectoral interest”, as though the interests they represent should carry no more weight in public policy than the interests of alcohol and food industries. Here’s the difference, Bernard: the “sectoral interest” that you constantly rail against has a professional responsibility to advocate policies that enhance public wellbeing. The sectoral interests that you let off the hook aim to sell as much alcohol and junk food as possible. The two goals are not equal in merit.
I think one of the primary reasons why Australians as a whole are getting healthier is precisely because of those “Nanny Statists” who were essential for getting many programs launched or improved that resulted in Australians getting healthier.
Dismissing them as just “sectoral interest” is very short sighted. I see them as something like a “Danger – High Voltage” sign. While the sign is there it may be tempting to remove it because no one ever touched those wires…
Thanks for helping Bernard with the completion of those sentences Nicholas, Mr. Keane does seem to struggle with them when he’s doing his “bloody nanny state health professionals” rant.
Congratulations Bernard. I’ve just read my final Crikey article. This story represents the kind of cherry-picking journalism I’d expect to find from sources which dont charge me a premium for reading. The article is either informed by poor fact-checking, or it’s author has chosen to be deliberately mis-informing. Either way, when a journalist is (clearly) not a professional in a particular industry, it pays to not pick ‘facts’ to support a pre-conceived conclusion. Otherwise said journalist ends up looking foolish to those who might actually be informed. Funny that most people would choose to ignore a report which was full of statiscically interesting, yet ultimately meaningless, information.
And if we are more long-lived and healthier, it is thanks to our Medicare system! SO DO NOT DAMAGE IT!
Yet another effort by BK to thrust his CV under the mudorc’s nose, begging for a job.
I am constantly amazed by his monomaniacal idee fixee about public health.
As he cannot be as stupid as this, and similar raving rants on his great bete noire, then we must assume that he does it with mendacity aforethought.
The puzzle is “WHY?”