New research reveals how education shapes health and longevity in Australia
“Education is the best provision for old age,” wrote Aristotle more than two millennia ago, recognising even then that the benefits of learning extend far beyond the classroom or the working years. For the ancient Greek philosopher, education was not just a tool for personal growth or civic engagement – it was a foundation for a well-lived life, particularly in later years when health, independence, and wellbeing often come under strain.
Today, that timeless insight finds new relevance in contemporary Australia.
In a country renowned for its universal healthcare and high standard of living, a new study has revealed that education may indeed be one of the most powerful – yet often overlooked – determinants of health and longevity. According to the research, your level of education may dramatically influence how long, and how well, you live.
Socioeconomic inequality is not a new issue in Australia, but its impact on health outcomes is becoming harder to ignore. While policymakers and health experts have long tracked health disparities across geographic and income lines, a growing body of evidence suggests that individual factors, such as educational attainment, are just as critical.
Now, the research from Monash University has brought this into sharper focus, showing that Australians with lower levels of education can expect not only to live shorter lives, but also to spend more of those years in poorer health.
The findings, published in the journal PharmacoEconomics, provide some of the clearest evidence yet of the strong and lasting link between education and health in Australia.
The study, led by the Centre for Medicine Use and Safety (CMUS) within the Monash Institute of Pharmaceutical Sciences (MIPS), found that Australian men aged 25 with a university degree could expect to live 7.3 years longer than their peers who did not finish Year 11.
For women, the gap was slightly smaller but still significant – a difference of 3.9 years in life expectancy.
But the researchers went further than just measuring the number of years lived. They looked at quality-adjusted life expectancy (QALE), a metric that accounts for both the length and the quality of life – essentially, how many years a person can expect to live in good health.
This concept is widely used in healthcare economics to evaluate the value of medical interventions, but it is less commonly applied to broader social determinants such as education.
What they discovered was alarming – the gap in QALE between high and low-education Australians was even wider than the difference in life expectancy.
At age 25, highly educated males were projected to live 11.1 more years in full health compared to their less-educated counterparts. For females, the figure was 7.6 additional healthy years – a 26% relative difference in QALE.
“These are not small differences,” says Professor Zanfina Ademi, senior author of the study, and head of the Health Economics and Policy Evaluation Research (HEPER) group at CMUS. “They speak to the deep-rooted inequities in our health system and how they manifest not just in how long people live, but in the quality of those years.
“Monitoring inequalities related to educational attainment is essential to inform policy for health equity. So, it’s our hope this national snapshot of education-related health inequality can help measure progress and support intersectoral policy discussion.”
The study drew on data from the nationally representative Household, Income and Labour Dynamics in Australia (HILDA) Survey, and used mortality information from the Person Level Integrated Data Asset (PLIDA).
First author and CMUS PhD candidate Sheridan Rodda notes that while disparities in general health outcomes across socioeconomic strata have been well-documented in Australia, this is the first study to deliver detailed estimates of QALE by educational level.
“Understanding these disparities allows us to be more targeted and informed in how we allocate resources within and beyond the healthcare system,” says Rodda. “It also supports the case for incorporating equity more systematically into health technology assessments and policy evaluations.”
This research arrives at a time when Australian policymakers are increasingly focused on addressing health inequity. But most efforts still focus on broader regional or income-based approaches, which may overlook key individual-level variables such as education.
According to the study’s authors, educational attainment offers another lens for understanding and addressing inequality.
“We often talk about the postcode lottery when it comes to health outcomes,” says Professor Ademi. “But postcode only tells part of the story. Education level can be a more specific predictor of health, and it’s something we can actually design policy around, whether that’s through improved access to education, public health programs, or targeted interventions within and outside of healthcare.”
The implications of this research are far-reaching. Not only does it offer a new framework for understanding health disparities, but it also creates opportunities to better-factor equity into Australia’s healthcare decisions. Equity-informed economic evaluations are still a relatively new concept, but this study lays the groundwork for their broader adoption.
The findings are also a call to action. If Australia is serious about achieving health equity, improving access to quality education must be part of the strategy.
As the study’s authors make clear, closing the education gap isn’t just about economic opportunity – it could mean the difference between a long, healthy life, and one cut short by preventable illness.
