Fight Aging!

Even small changes in the trajectory of aging bring enormous economic gains, and here I'll point out an interview with one of the few economists to have modeled these gains, albeit for small increases in healthy life span after the Longevity Dividend view of slightly slowing the progression of aging via calorie restriction mimetic drugs and the like. Most expenditure on healthcare occurs due to aging, and increases greatly in the final stages of life. Care of those disabled by aging and the provision of largely palliative therapies for late stage age-related disease are both expensive undertakings, and because existing treatments don't target the causes of aging and age-related disease they are also unreliable and of only marginal benefit. This situation will change radically in the years ahead as the first therapies following the SENS vision for rejuvenation biotechnology arrive in the clinic, capable of repairing the cell and tissue damage that causes aging, with senescent cell clearance and transthyretin amyloid clearance first out of the gate. The deployment of the full spectrum of SENS treatments will do far more than add just a couple of years to life.

ResearchGate: What are the economic benefits of delayed aging?

Dana Goldman: We need to think about benefits more broadly than just traditional measures like Gross Domestic Product (GDP). Now that people are living longer, we need to make decisions about a whole host of treatments for diseases like cancer and Alzheimer's that are much more prevalent post-retirement. Thus, economists have developed ways to think about - and measure - the benefits of a healthy, productive life using the concept of a quality-adjusted life year. Thus, the 'economic' benefits come from better functioning, improved cognition, and a life free of comorbidities as much as possible. The key benefit of delayed aging is not just to extend life, but to also reduce the amount of time we spend with disability and disease - all of which can be measured and valued.

RG: How do the projected benefits compare with the costs?

DG: Once we do a good job valuing the health gains - both in terms of life expectancy and quality of life - it is clear that the benefits likely outweigh the costs by a factor of ten or more. This does not mean that delayed aging will pay for itself in reduced health care spending - quite the contrary. However, it is a very different question to ask if the medical spending is less or more than to ask if the benefits outweigh the costs. That is because the benefits include all the value we place on healthier, longer life. For example, we find that if the promise of delayed aging is fully realized - based on the best animal models - we could increase life expectancy by an additional 2.2 years, most of which would be spent in good health. The economic value of would be about $7.1 trillion over fifty years - with little additional government costs if we index Medicare and Social Security to the life expectancy increases.

RG: Research has shown that delayed aging simultaneously lowers the risk of all fatal and disabling diseases. What changes to healthcare systems and related costs do you foresee?

DG: This makes delayed aging a lot like other important interventions we know about, like reduced smoking, more physical activity, or a better diet. All of those 'treatments' have benefits for a constellation of illnesses. The big change we need is to make sure the health care system is rewarded for keeping people free of disease, rather than getting paid only when people get sick.

Link: https://www.researchgate.net/blog/post/delayed-aging-to-bring-7-1-trillion-by-2060