Mistakes are commonly made when using life expectancy figures, as real lifespans are likely to be higher than quoted examples of life expectancy, the Institute and Faculty of Actuaries has pointed out.
The Institute and Faculty of Actuaries' Longevity Bulletin, argues that period life expectancy, commonly quoted as the average number of additional years a person can be expected to live for, is not realistic as it assumes mortality rates are frozen to that time period.
Alison O'Connell, editor of the Bulletin, said: "Period life expectancy does not take into account likely future mortality changes, needed to produce a realistic picture of future lifespans.
"Instead, cohort life expectancy, increasingly used by actuaries, demographers and policy makers, does make an allowance for how mortality is expected to change in future."
She added: "A period life expectancy at birth for women of 82 years gives us a summary of average mortality for the UK at the current time to be compared with that for men of 78 years, for example.
"More useful to answer the question "How long can we be expected to live?" is cohort life expectancy. This is regularly updated with projections of what future mortality levels might be. This tells us that women born now are estimated to live on average for over 92 years, and men for nearly 90 years.
"I have collected many examples of mistaken commentary using period life expectancy figures as if they forecast future lifespans. But to use them this way means we underestimate lifespans, and underestimate how fast lifespans have been improving in recent decades."
Get that Friday feeling!
The news that the ABI and British Medical Association (BMA) agreement on GP report (GPR) fees has broken down will usher in a period of uncertainty.
Lack of innovation investment in the UK insurance market has been highlighted by recognition of RGA's work in the US.
Protection business in 2012 and 2013 will be affected by events this year and some fundamental changes to the way customers policies are priced into the next. Richard Verdin explains.
Employee assistance programmes are in the spotlight due to a schizophrenic approach by government. But as Sue Weir points out, they are backed by solid research.