‘We are still here, yet invisible.' Study finds that U.S. government has overestimated Native American life expectancy
Official U.S. records dramatically underestimate mortality and life expectancy disparities for Native Americans, according to a new, groundbreaking study published in the Journal of the American Medical Association. The research, led by the Boston University School of Public Health, provides compelling evidence of a profound discrepancy between actual and officially reported statistics on the health outcomes of American Indian and Alaska Native (AI/AN) populations in the U.S.
The study, novel in its approach, tracks mortality outcomes over time among self-identified AI/AN individuals in a nationally representative cohort known as the Mortality Disparities in American Communities. The researchers linked data from the U.S. Census Bureau's 2008 American Community Survey with official death certificates from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's National Vital Statistics System from 2008 through 2019, and found that the life expectancy of AI/AN populations was 6.5 years lower than the national average. They then compared this to data from the CDC's WONDER database, and found that their numbers were nearly three times greater than the gap reported by the CDC.
Indeed, the study found that the life expectancy for AI/AN individuals was just 72.7 years, comparable to that of developing countries.
The researchers also uncovered widespread racial misclassification. The study reports that some 41% of AI/AN deaths were incorrectly classified in the CDC WONDER database, predominantly misrecorded as 'White.' These systemic misclassifications drastically skewed official statistics, presenting AI/AN mortality rates as only 5% higher than the national average. When they adjusted the data to account for those misclassifications, the researchers found that the actual rate was 42% higher than initially reported.
The issue of racial misclassification 'is not new for us at all,' said Nanette Star, director of policy and planning at the California Consortium for Urban Indian Health. The recent tendency for journalists and politicians to use umbrella terms like 'Indigenous' rather than the more precise 'American Indian and Alaska Native' can obscure the unique needs, histories and political identities of AI/AN communities, Star noted, and contribute to their erasure in both data and public discourse. 'That is the word we use — erasure — and it really does result in that invisibility in our health statistics,' she said.
Issues related to racial misclassification in public records persist across the entire life course for AI/AN individuals, from birth to early childhood interventions to chronic disease and death. Star noted that in California, especially in urban regions like Los Angeles, Native individuals are frequently misidentified as Latino or multiracial, which profoundly distorts public health data and masks the extent of health disparities. 'It really does mask the true scale of premature mortality and health disparities among our communities,' Star said.
Further, said Star, the lack of accurate data exacerbates health disparities. 'It really is a public health and justice issue,' she said. 'If you don't have those numbers to support the targeted response, you don't get the funding for these interventions or even preventative measures.'
According to U.S. Census data, California is home to the largest AI/AN population in the United States. That means it has a unique opportunity to lead the nation in addressing these systemic issues. With numerous federally and state-recognized tribes, as well as substantial urban AI/AN populations, California can prioritize collaborative and accurate public health data collection and reporting.
Star noted that current distortions are not always malicious but often stem from a lack of training. She suggested that California implement targeted training programs for those charged with recording this data, including funeral directors, coroners, medical doctors and law enforcement agents; allocate dedicated resources to improve the accuracy of racial classification on vital records; and strengthen partnerships with tribal leaders.
The study authors suggest similar approaches, and there are numerous examples of successful cases of Indigenous-led health partnerships seen across Canada and the U.S. that have helped reduce health disparities among AI/AN communities that could be used as a template.
These efforts would not only help to move toward rectifying historical inaccuracies, but also ensure that AI/AN communities receive equitable health resources and policy attention.
'When AI/AN people are misclassified in life and in death, it distorts public health data and drives inequities even deeper,' said Star. 'Accurate data isn't just about numbers — it's about honoring lives, holding systems accountable and making sure our communities are seen and served.'
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Hill
37 minutes ago
- The Hill
Dangerous AI therapy-bots are running amok. Congress must act.
A national crisis is unfolding in plain sight. Earlier this month, the Federal Trade Commission received a formal complaint about artificial intelligence therapist bots posing as licensed professionals. Days later, New Jersey moved to fine developers for deploying such bots. But one state can't fix a federal failure. These AI systems are already endangering public health — offering false assurances, bad advice and fake credentials — while hiding behind regulatory loopholes. Unless Congress acts now to empower federal agencies and establish clear rules, we'll be left with a dangerous, fragmented patchwork of state responses and increasingly serious mental health consequences around the country. The threat is real and immediate. One Instagram bot assured a teenage user it held a therapy license, listing a fake number. According to the San Francisco Standard, a bot used a real Maryland counselor's license ID. Others reportedly invented credentials entirely. These bots sound like real therapists, and vulnerable users often believe them. It's not just about stolen credentials. These bots are giving dangerous advice. In 2023, NPR reported that the National Eating Disorders Association replaced its human hotline staff with an AI bot, only to take it offline after it encouraged anorexic users to reduce calories and measure their fat. This month, Time reported that psychiatrist Andrew Clark, posing as a troubled teen, interacted with the most popular AI therapist bots. Nearly a third gave responses encouraging self-harm or violence. A recently published Stanford study confirmed how bad it can get: Leading AI chatbots consistently reinforced delusional or conspiratorial thinking during simulated therapy sessions. Instead of challenging distorted beliefs — a cornerstone of clinical therapy — the bots often validated them. In crisis scenarios, they failed to recognize red flags or offer safe responses. This is not just a technical failure; it's a public health risk masquerading as mental health support. AI does have real potential to expand access to mental health resources, particularly in underserved communities. A recent NEJM-AI study found that a highly structured, human-supervised chatbot was associated with reduced depression and anxiety symptoms and triggered live crisis alerts when needed. But that success was built on clear limits, human oversight and clinical responsibility. Today's popular AI 'therapists' offer none of that. The regulatory questions are clear. Food and Drug Administration 'software as a medical device' rules don't apply if bots don't claim to 'treat disease'. So they label themselves as 'wellness' tools and avoid any scrutiny. The FTC can intervene only after harm has occurred. And no existing frameworks meaningfully address the platforms hosting the bots or the fact that anyone can launch one overnight with no oversight. We cannot leave this to the states. While New Jersey's bill is a step in the right direction, relying on individual states to police AI therapist bots invites inconsistency, confusion, and exploitation. A user harmed in New Jersey could be exposed to identical risks coming from Texas or Florida without any recourse. A fragmented legal landscape won't stop a digital tool that crosses state lines instantly. We need federal action now. Congress must direct the FDA to require pre-market clearance for all AI mental health tools that perform diagnosis, therapy or crisis intervention, regardless of how they are labeled. Second, the FTC must be given clear authority to act proactively against deceptive AI-based health tools, including holding platforms accountable for negligently hosting such unsafe bots. Third, Congress must pass national legislation to criminalize impersonation of licensed health professionals by AI systems, with penalties for their developers and disseminators, and require AI therapy products to display disclaimers and crisis warnings, as well as implement meaningful human oversight. Finally, we need a public education campaign to help users — especially teens — understand the limits of AI and to recognize when they're being misled. This isn't just about regulation. Ensuring safety means equipping people to make informed choices in a rapidly changing digital landscape. The promise of AI for mental health care is real, but so is the danger. Without federal action, the market will continue to be flooded by unlicensed, unregulated bots that impersonate clinicians and cause real harm. Congress, regulators and public health leaders: Act now. Don't wait for more teenagers in crisis to be harmed by AI. Don't leave our safety to the states. And don't assume the tech industry will save us. Without leadership from Washington, a national tragedy may only be a few keystrokes away. Shlomo Engelson Argamon is the associate provost for Artificial Intelligence at Touro University.
The Hill
2 hours ago
- The Hill
Radon: The odorless, cancer-causing gas that may be in your home
(NEXSTAR) — While some of the advice shared on NBC's 'The Office' is not necessarily actionable, a frequently shared sentiment from character Toby Flenderson may just be. Toby, the human resources employee played by Paul Lieberstein, frequently asked for radon testing to be done in the office, at one point calling it a 'silent killer.' Technically speaking, he isn't far off. 'Radon is colorless. It is odorless,' Amanda Koch, the radon program manager at the Wisconsin Department of Health Services, explained to Nexstar. 'There are no obvious signs for when radon is inside your home.' Radon is formed naturally when radioactive metals uranium, thorium, and radium break down in rocks, soil, and groundwater, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency explains. Because it is naturally occurring, we're always exposed to it, but it is also capable of coming into buildings through cracks and gaps. If radon becomes trapped in your home, it can become dangerous. Despite its prevalence, there is no known level of radon that is safe, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. The EPA recommends taking action if your home or building is found to have a radon level higher than 4.0 pCi/L. Over time, exposure to higher levels of radon could lead to lung cancer. In the U.S., radon is the second leading cause of lung cancer deaths, the CDC reports, and the leading cause among non-smokers. Estimates blame radon for more than 21,000 lung cancer deaths annually. Treating lung cancer brought on by radon can be difficult, the CDC says, as symptoms may not develop for years. By then, it can be harder to treat. Does that mean you should pull a Toby and put radon test kits throughout your home? Not exactly. Several factors can contribute to whether your home has the potential for elevated radon levels. The EPA reviewed those factors — geology, aerial radioactivity, soil parameters, and home foundation types — and available indoor radon measurements to identify areas in the U.S. that are most at risk for having elevated levels of the radioactive gas. Areas found by the EPA to have the highest potential for elevated radon levels are primarily in the northern half of the U.S., stretching from northern Washington, through the Plains and Midwest, along the Great Smoky Mountains, and into New England. Portions of the states in those regions, as well as in the West, are considered to have a 'moderate potential.' Other regions throughout the Pacific Northwest, along the Gulf, and north along the East Coast are listed as having a lower potential for high indoor levels of radon. The map of radon zones, developed in 1993, doesn't show areas where radon is or isn't in homes, but rather to 'help governments and other organizations target risk reduction activities and resources.' Some states, including Wisconsin, provide data regarding recent radon test results. Like the EPA's map, any local data on recent radon tests doesn't represent the level of radon within your home. Your proximity to radon-producing sources and your home's foundation type aren't sure-fire ways to determine your risk, either. 'The way that radon moves through the ground and through soil underneath the home can vary greatly from home to home,' Koch emphasized, noting that your neighbor could have a high level of radon in their home while your tests come back consistently low, or vice versa. 'The only way to know is to test,' Koch said. Testing, according to Koch, is relatively simple. The kit — found at major hardware stores, online, or with your local health department — is typically placed on a surface in the middle of a room on the lowest level of your home for a few days before being sent to a lab for testing. Results are then available in about one to two weeks. Koch said it is recommended that testing be done every two years, or after you do a major renovation in your home, like replacing doors or windows, or any foundation work. Before you can perform a radon test, you'll need to maintain closed building conditions for at least 12 hours, according to Koch. Because of this, health officials typically recommend radon testing during winter or summer, when your windows and doors are more likely to be shut to keep in heat or the air conditioning, respectively. Should your test find a radon level above 4.0 pCi/L, you may be encouraged to get a mitigation system installed. As Koch explains, a pipe is installed in the building's foundation and connected to a small fan that pulls the gas up to your roofline and out into the ambient air. This can typically cost between $1,000 and $2,000. In homes with crawlspaces, a high-density plastic sheet may be used to cover the earth floor. Then, a vent pipe and fan can be put under the plastic to draw the radon out, the EPA explains. Sealing cracks can limit the flow of radon, but the EPA does not recommend using sealants only to reduce radon. The agency lists other methods of radon mitigation online. While you don't necessarily have to go as far as Toby did in 'The Office' by placing radon tests in every room, you may want to take it as seriously as he does. 'It doesn't matter what kind of foundation structure you have, or even where you are located geographically, the only way to know is to test, and that is why we recommend that everybody do it,' Koch said.
2 hours ago
CDC vaccine advisory board handpicked by RFK Jr. meets for first time
On 'This Week,' ABC News' Senior White House Correspondent Selina Wang reports on the latest from the CDC's vaccine advisory committee.
