Sixty-Five Plus in the United States SIXTY-FIVE PLUS IN THE UNITED STATES May 1995 Economics and Statistics Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce America's elderly population is now growing at a moderate pace. But not too far into the future, the growth will become rapid. So rapid, in fact, that by the middle of the next century, it might be completely inaccurate to think of ourselves as a Nation of the young: there could be more persons who are elderly (65 or over) than young (14 or younger)! The elderly population has grown substantially in this century .... During the 20th century, the number of persons in the United States under age 65 has tripled. At the same time, the number aged 65 or over has jumped by a factor of 11! Consequently, the elderly, who comprised only 1 in every 25 Americans (3.1 million) in 1900, made up 1 in 8 (33.2 million) in 1994.

Declining fertility and mortality rates also have led to a sharp rise in the median age of our Nation's population -- from 20 years old in 1860 to 34 in 1994. .... and will continue to rise well into the next century .... According to the Census Bureau's "middle series" projections, the elderly population will more than double between now and the year 2050, to 80 million. By that year, as many as 1 in 5 Americans could be elderly. Most of this growth should occur between 2010 and 2030, when the "baby boom" generation enters their elderly years. During that period, the number of elderly will grow by an average of 2.8 percent annually. By comparison, annual growth will average 1.3 percent during the preceding 20 years and 0.7 percent during the following 20 years. (See graph below.) .... especially for the oldest old. The "oldest old" -- those aged 85 and over -- are the most rapidly growing elderly age group. Between 1960 and 1994, their numbers rose 274 percent.

In contrast, the elderly population in general rose 100 percent and the entire U.S. population grew only 45 percent. The oldest old numbered 3 million in 1994, making them 10 percent of the elderly and just over 1 percent of the total population. Thanks to the arrival of the survivors of the baby boom generation, it is expected the oldest old will number 19 million in 2050. That would make them 24 percent of elderly Americans and 5 percent of all Americans. We're living longer. Back when the United States was founded, life expectancy at birth stood at only about 35 years. It reached 47 years in 1900, jumped to 68 years in 1950, and steadily rose to 76 years in 1991. In 1991, life expectancy was higher for women (79 years) than for men (72 years). Once we reach age 65, we can expect to live 17 more years. During the 1980's, post-65 life expectancy improved for all race/sex groups.

The biggest improvement (a rise of over 1 year) belonged to White men. The elderly are becoming more racially and ethnically diverse. In 1994, 1 in 10 elderly were a race other than White. In 2050, this proportion should rise to 2 in 10. Similarly, the proportion of elderly who are Hispanic is expected to climb from 4 percent to 16 percent over the same period. California has the largest number of elderly, but Florida has the highest percentage. Our most populous States are also the ones with the largest number of elderly. In 1993, nine States had more than 1 million elderly. California, with 3.3 million, led the way, followed by Florida, New York, Pennsylvania, Texas, Ohio, Illinois, Michigan, and New Jersey. Meanwhile, the States with the greatest proportion of elderly are generally different from those with the greatest number. Two exceptions, however, were Florida, where 19 percent of residents were elderly, and Pennsylvania, where 16 percent were. These 2 States led the Nation percentage-wise and, as just mentioned, ranked in the top 4 numerically.

In-migration of the elderly contributed to Florida's high rankings. Joining Florida and Pennsylvania in having high proportions of elderly (14 percent or more) were 10 other States, including several sparsely populated Farm Belt States, such as North Dakota and Nebraska. (See map below.) Out-migration of the young contributed to the high proportions in these States and in Pennsylvania. During the 1980's, the greatest percent increases in elderly population were mostly in Western States and Southeastern coastal States. Elderly women outnumber elderly men .... Men generally have higher death rates than women at every age. As a result, elderly women outnumbered elderly men in 1994 by a ratio of 3 to 2 -- 20 million to 14 million. This difference grew with advancing age. At ages 65 to 69, it was only 6 to 5. However, at age 85 and over, it reached 5 to 2. As more men live to older ages over the next 50 years, these differences may narrow somewhat. .... consequently, while most elderly men are married, most elderly women are not.

In 1993, noninstitutionalized elderly men were nearly twice as likely as their female counterparts to be married and living with their spouse (75 percent versus 41 percent). Elderly women, on the other hand, were more than three times as likely as elderly men to be widowed (48 percent versus 14 percent). The remaining men and women were either separated, divorced, had never married, or had absent spouses. Thus, while most elderly men have a spouse for assistance, especially when health fails, most elderly women do not. Many elderly live alone. Another consequence of the relative scarcity of elderly men is the fact that elderly women were much more likely than men to live alone. So much more likely, in fact, that 8 in 10 noninstitutionalized elderly who lived alone in 1993 were women. Among both sexes, the likelihood of living alone increased with age. For women, it rose from 32 percent for 65- to 74-year-olds to 57 percent for those aged 85 years or more; for men, the corresponding proportions were 13 percent and 29 percent. More of us may face dependency ....

Many assume health among the elderly has improved because they, as a group, are living longer. Others hold a contradictory image of the elderly as dependent and frail. The truth actually lies somewhere in between. Poor health is not as prevalent as many assume. In 1992, about 3 in every 4 noninstitutionalized persons aged 65 to 74 considered their health to be good. Two in three aged 75 or older felt similarly. On the other hand, as more people live to the oldest ages, there may also be more who face chronic, limiting illnesses or conditions, such as arthritis, diabetes, osteoporosis, and senile dementia. These conditions result in people becoming dependent on others for help in performing the activities of daily living. With age comes increasing chances of being dependent. For instance, while 1 percent of those aged 65 to 74 years lived in a nursing home in 1990, nearly 1 in 4 aged 85 or older did.

And among those who were not institutionalized in 1990-91, 9 percent aged 65 to 69 years, but 50 percent aged 85 or older, needed assistance performing everyday activities such as bathing, getting around inside the home, and preparing meals. (See graph below.) ... and increasing numbers of people will have to care for very old, frail relatives. As more and more people live long enough to experience multiple, chronic illnesses, disability, and dependency, there will be more and more relatives in their fifties and sixties who will be facing the concern and expense of caring for them. The parent-support ratio gives us an approximate idea of things to come. This ratio equals the number of persons aged 85 and over per 100 persons aged 50 to 64. Between 1950 and 1993, the ratio tripled from 3 to 10. Over the next six decades, it could triple yet again, to 29. Heart disease, cancer, and stroke are the leading causes of death among the elderly.

Of the 2.2 million Americans who died in 1991, 1.6 million (or 7 in 10) were elderly. Seven in 10 of these elderly deaths could be attributed to either heart disease, cancer, or stroke. Though death rates from heart disease have declined for the elderly since the 1960's, this malady remains the leading cause of death among them. Death rates from cancer, on the other hand, have increased since 1960. Poverty rates vary greatly among subgroups .... The perception of "elderly" and "poor" as practically synonymous has changed in recent years to a view that the noninstitutionalized elderly are better off than other Americans. Both views are simplistic. There is actually great variation among elderly subgroups. For example, in 1992 - The poverty rate, 15 percent for those under age 65, rose with age among the elderly, from 11 percent for 65- to 74-year-olds to 16 percent for those aged 75 or older. Elderly women (16 percent) had a higher poverty rate than elderly men (9 percent).

The rate was higher for elderly Blacks (33 percent) and Hispanics (22 percent) than for Whites (11 percent). As the graph below shows, poverty became less prevalent during the 1980's for every elderly sex/race/ethnic group. In addition, within each race/ethnic group, poverty was more common for women than for men at both the decade's beginning and end. .... as does median income. In constant 1992 dollars, the median income for elderly persons more than doubled between 1957 and 1992 (from $6,537 to $14,548 for men, from $3,409 to $8,189 for women). However, income disparities persist among various elderly subgroups. Age, sex, race, ethnicity, marital status, living arrangements, educational attainment, former occupation, and work history are characteristics associated with significant income differences. For instance, elderly White men had much higher median incomes than other groups. In 1992, their income was more than double that of elderly Black and Hispanic women ($15,276 versus $6,220 and $5,968, respectively).

The difference in median income between Black and Hispanic women was not statistically significant. The elderly of the future will be better educated. Research has shown that the better educated tend to be healthier longer and better off economically. In 1993, noninstitutionalized elderly were less likely than those aged 25 to 64 to have completed at least high school (60 percent versus 85 percent) and more likely to have only an eighth grade education or less (24 percent versus 6 percent). The percent with less than a 9th-grade education rose with age for the elderly. Fortunately, the proportion of elderly with at least a high school education will increase in the coming decades. That's because nearly 8 in 10 persons aged 55 to 59 in 1993 had at least a high school education; the same was true for nearly 9 in 10 persons aged 45 to 49. Additionally, while only 12 percent of the elderly had college degrees, 20 percent of 55- to 59-year-olds and 27 percent of 45- to 49-year-olds did.

More information: Sixty-Five Plus in the United States, an upcoming report supported by funding from the National Institute on Aging (NIA), greatly expands on the information in this Brief. It will be released in summer 1995. Call Customer Services (301-763-INFO(4636)) then for ordering information. In addition, "Housing of the Elderly," Statistical Brief 94-33, contains information on topics such as the chances of elderly householders owning their home, the type of structures they lived in, and the odds of their lacking amenities such as plumbing and telephones in their homes. Customer Services can send you a free copy. Contacts: Which U.S. States Are the 'Oldest'? Which U.S. States Are the 'Oldest'? Christine L. Himes Print (April 2003) There were 35 million Americans age 65 or older counted in the 2000 Census. One quarter of these elderly Americans live in one of three states: California, Florida, and New York.

Six other states — Illinois, Michigan, New Jersey, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Texas — have more than 1 million elderly each and account for another one-quarter of Americans age 65 or older. These nine states are also the most populous, and include about one-half of the total U.S. population. Sparsely populated states such as Alaska, Wyoming, Vermont, and North Dakota have very small elderly populations — less than 100,000 each in 2000. But the states with the most elderly do not necessarily have the oldest population age profiles. California is still a relatively young state even though it has the greatest number of elderly residents: Less than 11 percent of the state's total population was age 65 or older in 2000. In contrast, nearly 18 percent of Florida's population was age 65 or older, the highest proportion of any state (see table). The older population also exceeded 15 percent of the populations of Pennsylvania and West Virginia. While southern states are regarded as retirement magnets, states in the Northeast and Midwest have among the largest proportional share of the elderly.

States Ranked by Percent of Population Age 65 or Older, 2000 Rank 5.7 Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Demographic Profiles: Census 2000, accessed at on Sept. 19, 2001). The differences in states' age profiles are determined primarily by fertility and migration — mortality is fairly uniform among states. States with relatively high fertility rates, such as Utah, tend to have a younger age profile: A smaller proportion of state residents are age 65 or older. Migration, both internal and international, has a large impact on the elderly population's distribution. States in the Midwest and Northeast have seen steady outflows of younger people looking for job opportunities. As these younger people move south and west, the older population is left to "age in place." California has been a traditional destination for state-to-state and international migrants, which has kept its population relatively young. States that have attracted older retirees, Florida in particular, have greater proportions of older residents. Christine L. Himes is associate professor of sociology and senior research analyst at the Center for Policy Research at Syracuse University. Excerpted from PRB's Population Bulletin "Elderly Americans," by Christine L. Himes.

Related States With The Largest Elderly Population - WorldAtlas.com Society States With The Largest Elderly Population Since the dawn of the 20th century, the total population of elderly in the United States has grown elevenfold. With the advancements of modern medicine, the average life expectancy and therefore the percentage of senior citizens within the US continues to rise. In 2013, there were 44.5 million elderly persons in the United States. This constitutes about 14.1 percent of America’s total population translating to one elderly person in every seven Americans. Statistics also show that come 2060 there will be approximately 98 million elderly people in the United States. By elderly we are referring to those who are aged 65 years and above. Number of American Senior Citizens Will Continue to Rise Interestingly enough, the age group of those aged 85 years old and above have shown the fastest growth in the United States over the last ten years. In the centuries since the country’s founding, US life expectancy at birth has more than doubled. It had increased to 47 years by the early 1900s, and further rose to 68 years by the year 1950.

By 1991, life expectancy for women was at 79 years while men were at 72 years. Today, experts say that when American reach the age of 65, they can, on average, be expected to live for 17 years more. What’s more, with the technological advancements brought about by the medical field as well as the populace’s heightened awareness of healthy lifestyles and the benefits of exercise, it won’t come as a surprise that, with the spike in birth rates that brought them into the world and their longer life expectancies, the ‘Baby Boom’ generation has pushed the US elderly population to record levels as well. California and Florida's Leading Positions Of all the states in the United States, Florida has the highest percentage of senior citizens, followed closely by Maine, West Virginia, Vermont, Pennsylvania, Montana, Delaware, Hawaii, Oregon and Arizona. However, as far as the absolute statistics are concerned, California still holds the record as having the largest actual number of elderly persons. It’s only logical that America’s most densely populated states are also those having the greatest numbers of persons who are 65 years of age and older.

Back in 1993, there were nine states who had over 9 million elderly people. California, of course, topped the list then too, with Florida, New York, Pennsylvania, Texas, Ohio, Illinois, Michigan, and New Jersey behind it. Regional Trends in Age Group Demographics Intriguingly, the states with the biggest proportions of senior citizens were typically not the same as the states with the largest actual numbers of elderly. Exceptions to this were Pennsylvania, where 16 percent were 65 years and above, and Florida, where 19 percent were elderly. These two states were among the top 10 in terms of both total numbers and relative percentages of elderly, which were attributed to a net positive immigration of elderly greater than that seen among younger persons. Indeed, the younger generation’s migration patterns across the US have often been quite contrary to those seen in the older population. The variations in each of the states’ age profiles are identified mainly by migration and fertility, especially since mortality rates are more or less uniform across the states. Furthermore, even though the southern states are considered alluring for people who are moving on to retirement, the Midwest and the Northeast states do have the highest percentages of elderly relative to their total populations.

Percentage Of Elderly Population per State View information as a: Florida Has Highest Percentage Of Elderly Residents, Study Says - NYTimes.com Florida Has Highest Percentage Of Elderly Residents, Study Says UPI Published: February 8, 1981 GAINESVILLE, Fla., Feb. 7— Florida leads the nation in the percentage of residents who are 65 years old or older, but California and New York have the highest numbers of elderly residents, according to a study. There were 1,510,000 Floridians over the age of 64 in 1979, or 17.6 percent of the state's total population, according to the 1980-81 edition of ''Older People in Florida: A Statistical Abstract.'' California had 2,243,000 elderly residents, 10.1 percent of the state's total population, the researchers said, while New York had 2,095,000, 11.8 percent of its population.

The elderly population of Arizona's Mohave County increased 124.5 percent from 1970 to 1977, while the statewide increase was 56.8 percent in the same period. The study, made public Tuesday, said that Arizona, with a total population of 2,295,800, had 252,700 people age 65 or older in 1977. Report: States with the worst health coverage Report: States with the worst health coverage 24/7 Wall St. looks at lowest rates of health insurance coverage state by state in 2012. Post to Facebook Report: States with the worst health coverage 24/7 Wall St. looks at lowest rates of health insurance coverage state by state in 2012. Check out this story on USATODAY.com: CancelSend A link has been sent to your friend's email address. Posted! A link has been posted to your Facebook feed. 87 To find out more about Facebook commenting please read the Conversation Guidelines and FAQs Report: States with the worst health coverage Alexander E.M. Hess, Michael B. Sauter and Thomas C.

Frohlich, 24/7 Wall St. Published 7:44 p.m. ET Sept. 30, 2013 | Updated 9:39 p.m. ET Sept. 30, 2013 24/7 Wall St. looks at lowest rates of health insurance coverage state by state in 2012. Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas (Photo: J. Scott Applewhite, AP) Story Highlights Texas, Nevada, Alaska, Florida, Georgia are top five states with worst health coverage Many of the states with lowest coverage have relatively low median household income There doesn't seem to be strong correlation between high Medicaid coverage and lower rates of uninsured residents 1564 CONNECT TWEET 12 LINKEDIN 87 COMMENTEMAILMORE Last year, just under 15% of the U.S. population did not have health insurance coverage. But as different stages of the Affordable Care Act roll out over the next few years — and more Americans become insured — this rate is likely to fall. For now though, health insurance remains out of reach for many Americans. In states such as Florida and Alaska, more than one in five residents are without insurance.

And an estimated 22.5% of Texans didn't have health insurance in 2012. Based on data recently released by the Census Bureau, 24/7 Wall St. reviewed the states with the lowest rates of health insurance coverage in the U.S. in 2012. People 65 and older are automatically eligible for Medicare. Nationally, 15.5% of the population is covered by this program. Several of the states with lower overall coverage rates have disproportionately fewer residents over 65, and as a result they have lower rates of Medicare coverage. REPORT: 24/7 Wall St. look at USA's richest and poorest states The opposite is also true. In Florida, where 20.1% of the population is without health insurance, it has the the second-highest proportion of residents covered by Medicare. The other large public health insurance program, Medicaid, covers Americans who cannot afford coverage. Roughly 18% of the population is covered under the program. Many of the states with the lowest health insurance coverage have relatively low median household income and high poverty rates.

But, like Medicare, there does not appear to be a strong relationship between high Medicaid coverage and lower overall rates of uninsured residents. In an interview with 24/7 Wall S t., Peter Cunningham, senior fellow at Center for Studying Health System Change, explained that Medicare and Medicaid can impact a state's health insurance coverage rate. Where Medicaid plays a small role, "it's really the variation in the rates of employer-provided private insurance coverage that drives the variation in uninsured rates," Cunningham said. In fact, more than 65% of the U.S. population is covered through private health insurance, and the vast majority of that is through employers. All of the states with the lowest overall health insurance coverage rates had among the lowest rates of employer-provided insurance. These states have low rates of employer-provided insurance, Cunningham explained, because of the industries that are common to these states. Most of these states have lower proportions of higher-paying jobs or unionized manufacturing jobs, in which employers tend to provide insurance. In fact, all but one of the 10 worst states had below the national average manufacturing employment.

"We all talk about the decline of American manufacturing, but it's still the case that in a lot of states, the traditional manufacturing jobs still play a pretty big role." INSURANCE: Exchanges open Tuesday, here's what to do Cunningham also explained that states with high uninsurance rates are typically poorer because lower-wage jobs are much less likely to provide health insurance coverage. Cunningham gave the example of Florida. "The economy in Florida is based on tourism. A lot of the service and hospitality sector jobs don't pay a lot and don't offer health benefits. It's a very different economy than states that have much lower uninsured rates." Florida had the lowest rate of employer-provided health insurance in the country. Based on the Census Bureau's 2012 American Community Survey, 24/7 Wall St. reviewed the 10 states with the lowest percentage of the population covered by a health insurance plan. We also reviewed a variety of additional data from the ACS for 2012, including age distribution, poverty, income, and the proportion of residents covered by private insurance, Medicaid and Medicare. We also reviewed 2012 average unemployment rates from the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics.

These are the 5 states with the worst health coverage. 5. Georgia • Pct. without health insurance (2012): 18.4% (tied-5th highest)• Unemployment rate (2012): 9.0% (9th highest) • Poverty rate: 19.2% (6th highest) • Pct. aged 65 and over: 11.5% (4th lowest) Last year 43.8% of unemployed workers in the U.S. did not have health insurance, while in Georgia, 53.6% of the unemployed were uninsured. However, Gov. Nathan Deal, an outspoken opponent of the Affordable Care Act, has elected not to expand Medicaid or set up a state-controlled insurance exchange. The state's Insurance Commissioner Ralph Hudgens drew scrutiny last month when he stated that Georgia was doing "everything in [its] power to be an obstructionist." 4. Florida • Pct.

without health insurance (2012): 20.1% • Unemployment rate (2012): 8.6% (12th highest) • Poverty rate: 17.1% (17th highest) • Pct. aged 65 and over: 18.2% (the highest) Florida is one of just four states where at least a fifth of the population didn't have health insurance in 2012. While the state's relatively large elderly population means that a disproportionately high percentage of Floridians were covered under Medicare, the younger adult population were much more likely to be without insurance than other states. As many as 28.8% of those between the ages of 18 and 64 didn't have health coverage compared to just over 20% nationally. The New York Times reported that, in defiance of the Affordable Care Act, Florida's government has been reluctant to offer its residents information on the the federal insurance exchanges that will allow residents to shop for the most affordable plan. 3. Alaska • Pct.

without health insurance (2012): 20.5% • Unemployment rate (2012): 7% (22nd lowest) • Poverty rate: 10.1% (2nd lowest) • Pct. aged 65 and over: 8.5% (the lowest) Although Alaska is one of the nation's wealthiest states, with a median income of $67,712 in 2012, it also has a relatively large number of residents who were uninsured. This may be due in part to the seasonal nature of much of Alaska's workforce — such workers often either do not receive insurance from their employers or do not keep their insurance after their work has ended. Last year, 21.4% of workers who were employed did not have health insurance, one of the highest rates in the nation. But for Alaskans hoping to obtain health insurance under the Affordable Care Act, premiums in the state will be higher than anywhere else in the nation, exempting for Wyoming. 2. Nevada • Pct.

without health insurance (2012): 22.2% • Unemployment rate (2012): 11.1% (the highest) • Poverty rate: 16.4% (19th highest) • Pct. aged 65 and over: 13.0% (11th lowest) Nevada minors were the most likely in the country to lack health insurance. An estimated 16.6% were not covered, more than double the national rate. In general, the likelihood of not having health insurance is much higher for those without a high school diploma. In Nevada, due to a poor graduation rate, the chances of this happening are significantly worse. Nevada also has the largest portion in the nation of households earning under $25,000 per year without health insurance. Under the Affordable Care Act in Nevada, those earning under 400% of the national poverty rate will be eligible for tax credits. Nevada will likely be one state relying on this provision the most. The state also has the highest proportion of residents employed in service jobs, which are less likely than many jobs to provide health benefits. 1. Texas • Pct.

without health insurance (2012): 22.5% • Unemployment rate (2012): 6.8% (17th lowest) • Poverty rate: 17.9% (11th highest) • Pct. aged 65 and over: 10.9% (3rd lowest) Not only did Texas have the highest rate of uninsured people in 2012, but the state also had among the highest portion of uninsured children, elderly, and unemployed people. Additionally, over 30% of adults under 65 were uninsured in the state. Lawmakers have been opposed to the Affordable Care Act, with Texas Sen. Ted Cruz speaking for over 20 hours in an attempt to block the law from taking effect. Florida CHARTS Florida Charts What are you looking for? FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH Division of Public Health Statistics & Performance Management Census Tract Maps (Under construction) Whats New On CHARTS Measure of variability (MOV) is the probable range of values resulting from random fluctuations in the number of events and tells whether a county rate or percentage is statistically different from the state.

When county rates are statistically different than state rates, they are marked with *. Florida's Population This section of the Florida Mortality Atlas provides a visual display of population trends in Florida over the past 33 years. Maps, graphs, and charts are used to depict Florida’s population growth from 1970 to 2003 by age, race, and gender. All files are provided in .pdf format for convenient printing. Mortality risk is related to demographic variations within a population. Such variations include differences in racial composition, gender composition, and age. Nonwhites have higher mortality rates than Whites for most causes of death. Males have higher mortality rates for many causes of deaths than females, which is reflected by the fact that females, on average, tend to have a greater life expectancy than males. Certain age groups are at greater risk of developing or contracting certain illnesses than other age groups. For example, Florida residents ages 85 and older are more likely to succumb to complications of Alzheimer’s disease than residents ages 55 to 64. Both the very young and the elderly are at an increased risk of developing influenza or pneumonia.

Awareness of the racial, gender, and age composition of a population may lead to a better understanding of mortality risks related to that population. The sources of data for the Florida Mortality Atlas are the Florida Department of Health’s Office of Vital Statistics, the US Census Bureau, the National Center for Health Statistics, the Bureau of Economic and Business Research, and the Florida Legislature Office of Economic and Demographic Research. Trends in Population Growth Florida is a large and diverse state with over 17 million residents and host to many elderly persons, immigrants, and national and international visitors. The state has experienced tremendous population growth in the last several decades. The population in Florida has increased by 134.6% from 1970 to 2000. The 1990s was the third consecutive decade in which Florida’s population grew by approximately 3 million residents. Florida currently ranks fourth among the fifty states in population and continues to be one of the most rapidly growing states in the nation. Source: Florida CHARTS; Florida Legislature, Office of Economic & Demographic Research; Florida Office of Vital Statistics The age distribution of Florida’s population has changed dramatically since 1970.

In 1970, the state’s population was concentrated among age groups under 30 years of age. By 2000, the middle-aged and elderly populations had grown due to the aging Baby Boomer generation and the migration of older adults into the state. Today Florida’s population distribution exhibits a greater percentage of elderly residents compared to the U.S. average . Persons over age 65 represent about 18% of Florida’s total population, making it the state with the largest proportion of elderly residents. Elderly residents comprise only 12.4% of the total U.S. population. Whites, who represent about 82% of Florida’s population , are more likely to survive to older ages than Nonwhites. This pattern is more evident among Florida residents than among the general U.S. populace. Whites in Florida comprise a higher percentage of the population in older age groups than do Whites in the U.S. population as a whole. Nonwhites in the overall U.S. population are likelier to survive to old age when compared to Nonwhites in the state of Florida. Around 1980, life expectancy in Florida surpassed the U.S. average.

White females, by far, have the longest life expectancy of any group in Florida and are the only race-sex group that has a life expectancy at birth of over 80 years. Population growth depends on two components--natural increase (the difference between the number of births and deaths) and net migration (the difference between the the number of people moving in -- in-migrants -- and the number of people moving out -- out-migrants). If natural increase is positive, then there are more births than deaths; conversely, natural decrease occurs when there are more deaths than births. Positive net migration occurs when there are more in-migrants than out-migrants. Net migration is negative when more people out-migrate than in-migrate. Population increased in all counties in Florida over the past 30 years, but primary reasons for the increase -- natural increase or net migration -- varied from county to county. In most states, the amount of natural increase largely determines population growth. Florida is an exception; 87.2% of the population growth in the state is due to net migration. Fifty-nine of Florida’s sixty-seven counties experienced a population increase from 1970 to 2000 that can be largely attributed to net migration.

Gadsden County is the only county in Florida in which natural increase was more than double the net migration. Also Gadsden County experienced greater out-migration than in-migration. The population density in the state of Florida has more than doubled since 1970. In 1970, Florida had a population density of 120.6 persons per square mile. By 2000, the state’s population density had increased to 282.9 persons per square mile. Many of the state’s most densely populated areas are located in the southern and central regions and along the Atlantic and Gulf coasts. These highly dense areas tend to be counties that experience higher shares of Florida’s net migration. Definitions and Data Interpretation Notes Race The Florida Mortality Atlas distinguishes residents as being either White (including White Hispanics) or Nonwhite (all other race and ethnic groups, including Blacks). Blacks comprise about 87% of the Nonwhite group. Life Expectancy Life expectancy is a measure often used to gauge the overall health of a population. As a summary measure of mortality, life expectancy represents the average number of years of life at birth that could be expected if current death rates were to remain constant.

Shifts in life expectancy are often used to describe trends in mortality. Life expectancy at birth is strongly influenced by infant and child mortality. Improvements in nutrition, housing, hygiene, medical care, and prevention and control of infectious diseases contribute to decreases in death rates throughout the lifespan and the consequent increases in average life expectancy. Quartiles Many of the maps in the Florida Mortality Atlas are colored using a quartile method. In this method, data (age-adjusted death rates) are calculated and then ranked from lowest to highest for all 67 counties. Next, the counties are divided into four groups. Each of the four groups is assigned a number from 1 to 4. The counties with the smallest quantities of the events being ranked are assigned to the first quartile (1) and are shaded with the lightest color, while the counties with the highest-quantities of the event are assigned to the fourth quartile (4) and are shaded with the darkest color. Because quartiles are calculated using data from all 67 counties, the color-coded map provides a relative ranking among counties. Three maps in the Population section of the Florida Mortality Atlas did not use the quartile method.

These maps are Percent of Population Change by Primary Reason, Percent of Population Change Due to Natural Increase, and Percent of Population Change Due to Net Migration. Instead, counties were manually assigned to groups to emphasize those that are outliers. Components of Growth There are four components of population growth: births, deaths, in-migration and out-migration. Births and in-migration increase the size of a population, whereas deaths and out-migration cause decreases. The overall growth (or decline) of the population is thus determined by the number of births, deaths, in-migrants, and out-migrants. --Natural Increase The natural increase (or decrease) of a population is a result of the difference between births (fertility) and deaths (mortality). The number of births and deaths, along with fertility and mortality rates, vary from place to place. In some areas of Florida, deaths actually outnumber births, mainly due to the high numbers of elderly people settling, and subsequently dying, in those areas. Between 1990 and 2000, natural increase in Florida accounted for about 14 percent of Florida's total population growth. The Office of Vital Statistics maintains the official records of births and deaths in Florida.

--Net Migration Net migration is not a process of population change, but the outcome of two migration processes (in-migration and out-migration). In this Atlas, in-migrant is defined as anyone moving into a county and out-migrant is defined as anyone moving out of a county. Most of Florida's growth between 1990 and 2000 can be attributed to net migration, which accounted for about 86 percent of the population growth during that decade. This stands in sharp contrast to the experience in many states, where net migration is small or even negative. Since data on births and deaths are many times more reliable (and are more likely to be available) than data on in-migration and out-migration, the effects of the two migration processes on the growth of a population are often estimated. In this Atlas, net migration is estimated using population estimates for two different years and birth and death data for the period between those two years, as detailed in the following formula: This formula provides an estimate of net migration in Florida, though it does mask trends in in-migration and out-migration.

Population density Population density is expressed in residents per square mile, which can be obtained simply by dividing the number of residents by the land area of the county measured in square miles.

Question: Among U.S. states, which has the highest percentage of elderly residents?
Answer: Florida