The short answer is, just a few of us. The catastrophic new data analysis from the Foundation for Health has revealed – to the fullest extent – that for many women in England, this is far from the case. Life expectancy for women in the poorest parts of England is less than the total life expectancy of women in every OECD country in the world except Mexico. Let it sink for a second. Lower than any other country in this club, bar one. In 2017-19 the life expectancy of women in the most degraded local areas of England was 78.7 years. In the richest areas, it was 86.4 years. What does this say about the situation for England’s poorest women in 2022? He tells us that women are the “absorbers of poverty”, according to the Women’s Budget Group. Women are more likely to be poor and have more debt than men. Due to unpaid care responsibilities they can often work fewer hours, resulting in less savings and lower pensions. For minorities and women with disabilities, the picture is even more bleak. When the social security net is cut – as it has been, repeatedly, for more than a decade – women are the first to fall into the cracks. “There is really clear evidence that poverty is associated with lower life expectancy,” said Jemima Olchawski, chief executive of the Fawcett Society. “Over a decade of austerity and rising levels of poverty have hit women hardest. “They are more likely to work with lower incomes, be single parents or retire with a lower pension.” It is not just poverty that has an impact on life expectancy – inequality in itself is bad for people, he adds. “So high levels of inequality will contribute to a shorter life expectancy for these women – that’s a really important part of this picture.” Mandu Reid, leader of the Women’s Equality Party, agrees. “Women are paying a heavy price for an approach that suits men in planning the economy,” she said. Reid, a woman who is not easily blinded by the sad statistics of gender inequality, admits that she is really shocked by the new analysis. “Political choices are made that benefit those who have always benefited,” he says. “These data tell us very clearly that we are not using our abundant wealth to tackle inequality. There is no way we can be in this position. No way.” The data snapshot was taken before the pandemic. A pandemic that resulted in twice as many (43%) young women from low-income households saying their financial situation had deteriorated, compared with 21% of higher-income young women and only 16% of higher-income men. In its report on the unequal economic impact of the pandemic, the Committee on Women and Equality of the Communities concluded that “existing gender disparities in the economy have been ignored and sometimes exacerbated by pandemic policy”. In December, the government pledged to “bring back the selector” for women’s health in England, with its Vision for Women’s strategy, as 100,000 women showed up to share their health concerns. With the murmur that it was a bloody moment when unbridled sexism was recognized in healthcare, this was welcomed. But even the most dazzling visions of healthcare can achieve nothing without resources and long-term commitment. And even then, it will have little impact on this more pronounced conclusion if the long-standing and persistently unequal position of women in society is not addressed. As the government refuses to review the cost of childcare that keeps so many women out of work, no commitment to restoring the αύξη 20 credit increase and the cost-of-living crisis weighs on. “We are going through a cost-of-living crisis, which, again, will hit women harder,” Olchawski said. “The potential impact of this is dire.”