Cutler et al. 2011 — Rising Educational Gradients in Mortality The Role of Behavioral Risk Factors

mortalityeducationhealth-inequalitysmokingobesityhealth-behaviorsNHANESNHISdecompositionoaxaca

Summary

The education-mortality gradient in the U.S. widened substantially at the end of the 20th century — by 2000, college-educated 25-year-olds could expect to live 7 years longer than their non-college peers, a gap that had grown ~30% in the prior decade. Using the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES I, 1971–75) and the National Health Interview Survey (NHIS, 1987–2000) with proportional hazard models and Oaxaca-style decompositions, the paper asks how much of this widening is explained by differential trends in smoking, obesity, hypertension, and cholesterol. The answer: essentially none. Behavioral risk factors explain almost none of the widening for men and no more than 8% for women. Instead, the widening reflects rising returns to education conditional on behaviors, and growing mortality consequences of the same risk factors — not changes in who has those risk factors.

Key Claims

Concepts Introduced or Extended

Entities Mentioned

Quotes

"The widening educational gaps in death rates are not explained by secular changes in key behavioral risk factors."

"Even the complete elimination of disparities in behavioral risks across education groups would be unlikely to substantially reduce education-related differentials in mortality."

"It is the return to education (conditional on health behaviors) and changes in returns to behaviors that are important."

"By 2000, college-educated 25-year olds could expect to live 7 years longer than their peers with less schooling."

My Take

The core finding is clean and well-identified: the Oaxaca-style decomposition is the right approach, the data (NHANES + NHIS) are the best available for this question, and the result is robust to multiple extensions. The paper's chief contribution is negative — ruling out the most plausible mechanism (behavioral convergence) for why the gradient widened — while pointing toward an unresolved positive mechanism (growing returns to education and to risk factors).

The age-stratification of the smoking result deserves special attention: smokers at the relevant ages for cancer mortality don't show differential declines by education during 1971–2000. This is the key reason the aggregate smoking differential doesn't show up in mortality trends. The widening smoking gap at younger ages may explain future gradient widening (as these cohorts age), but not what was observed in the study window.

Three hypotheses for the growing return to education are proposed (better medical care access, environmental differences, complex treatment adherence) but none are tested. Case and Deaton's Deaths of Despair work, published after this paper, adds a fourth mechanism post-2000: the opioid epidemic concentrated among less-educated whites. The Cutler et al. finding that behavioral factors don't explain the pre-2000 widening makes the post-2000 opioid period analytically distinct — opioids may be the behavioral mechanism that finally does show up as gradient-widening among older adults.

Limitation: restricted to non-Hispanic whites; the education-mortality dynamics for Black, Hispanic, and other populations may differ substantially, especially given evidence of smaller education gradients in mortality for women and Hispanics (Olshansky et al. 2012).