A Window of Opportunity to Address the Critical Issue of U.S. Male Longevity and Disease Burden Gaps: A Call for U.S. Federal Oversight

Men in the United States face a stark, demonstrable, and growing health crisis characterized by a significant and widening lifespan and disease burden gap compared to women (Arias et al., 2025). Despite advancements in medical technology and increased access to health care, men, across all demographics, live sicker and die younger than their female counterparts. On average, American men live 6 years less than women, and experience disproportionately high mortality rates in nine out of the 10 leading causes of death (Curtin et al., 2024). This growing longevity gap, a direct consequence of the broader disease burden gap, underscores a critical need for focused attention and action to address the underlying causes of these disparities in men’s health outcomes (Hayes & Gupta, 2023).

The stark reality of the male lifespan and disease burden gap, though readily apparent, is often met with inertia in policy and resource allocation. While acknowledging the undeniable importance of women’s health, the U.S. federal government’s approach has prioritized the needs of women and girls, resulting in a conspicuous and unintended gap in addressing the unique and often complex wellness and health challenges—and thus the disproportionate disease burden and reduced lifespan—confronting men and boys. Over the decades this imbalance has become systemic and deeply ingrained at multiple levels of health care infrastructure, including at the federal level. Consider, for example, the allocation of resources and dedicated offices within the Department of Health & Human Services (HHS, n.d.). There are now five funded and staffed offices within HHS dedicated to women’s and girls’ health—including the Office on Women’s Health, the Office of Research on Women’s Health, and others, but there is no parallel structure for men’s health (US Health and Human Services website). This raises a fundamental question of equity.

Why, given the almost two decades of documented disparities in male lifespan and disease burden, does not at least one similarly, centralized, and adequately funded entity dedicated to the health of men and boys remain an aspiration? As Griffith (2020) points out in his review of the history of attempts to establish male health equity at the federal level, this absence is not simply a matter of a haphazard omission; it represents a deliberate and consequential gap in national health policy. It hinders the development of targeted research agendas, impedes the allocation of appropriate funding, and effectively silences the articulation of public health campaigns that resonate with the specific needs and sociocultural contexts of male populations. This disparity in attention to men and boys extends beyond the federal level. It is also seen at the state-level public health infrastructure (Fadich et al., 2018). and even the private sector. While many state public health departments correctly dedicate resources to the advancement of women’s and girls’ health, the allocation for men’s health, when it exists at all, is often significantly smaller in comparison. This disparity further marginalizes men’s health, limiting the capacity of local communities and even private sector providers to address the unique needs of men and boys. Such an imbalance not only compromises the well-being of individual men but also weakens the foundations of community health. This underinvestment in men’s health infrastructure and the seeming indifference to the documented disparities, reflects a broader, and perhaps subconscious, societal perception that men’s health is somehow less critical, less deserving of attention, than the health of women. This perception has real and measurable adverse health outcome consequences for men and boys. It hinders efforts to improve men’s health outcomes, impedes research into identifying and addressing the root causes of the lifespan and disease burden gap, and ultimately compromises the health and well-being of men, their families, and the nation.

Given the documented and widening disparities in men’s health outcomes, and the underinvestment in men’s health infrastructure, the timely review of HHS activities as a part of the recently issued February 13, 2025, Executive Order “Establishing The President’s Make America Healthy Again Commission” (White House [2025] Executive Order MAHA) presents a crucial, and much needed, opportunity to correct these imbalances. While the framing of this Commission’s mandate focuses primarily on other areas, the significant and long-neglected health needs of men and boys require explicit incorporation into its mandate. Men’s Health Network (n.d.) recommends the following actions to ensure that this review comprehensively addresses the male lifespan and disease burden gaps:

1. Formal Review of Resource Allocation for Equitable Health Care: The EO On MAHA directs HHH to conduct a comprehensive and transparent review of current HHS resource allocation across all programs and initiatives, specifically examining the balance between funding and support for women’s and girls’ health initiatives and those focused on men’s and boys’ health. This review should not only analyze funding for research, program development, and public health campaigns, but also critically assess the infrastructure supporting both male- and female-specific health needs to ensure equitable access and outcomes.

2. Establishment of a Dedicated Office of Men’s Health: To address the current lack of centralized leadership and coordination in men’s health—a gap that has persisted for far too long—we strongly recommend the establishment of a dedicated Office of Men’s Health within HHS, analogous to the existing and demonstrably effective offices focused on women’s and girls’ health. This office would be responsible for developing and implementing a national men’s health strategy, coordinating research efforts, allocating funding, and raising public awareness about men’s health issues, thus finally providing a much-needed focal point for this critical area.

3. Targeted Research Funding to Address Male Health Disparities: A significant portion of the reviewed and, where necessary, reallocated resources, should be directed toward research specifically focused on men’s health disparities. This research should prioritize identifying the root causes of the lifespan and disease burden gap, exploring the complex sociocultural factors influencing men’s health behaviors, and developing effective, gender-sensitive interventions tailored to the unique needs of male populations.

4. Integration of Men’s Health into Existing and Future HHS Programs: Beyond the establishment of a dedicated office, it is crucial to systematically integrate men’s health considerations into all existing and future HHS programs and initiatives. This includes ensuring that programs are designed and implemented with attention to the specific needs and preferences of male populations, and that data collection and analysis are consistently disaggregated by sex to track progress, identify disparities, and evaluate program effectiveness.

5. Strategic Public-Private Partnerships to Maximize Impact: To maximize the impact of federal efforts and leverage existing expertise, HHS should actively foster strategic public–private partnerships with non-profit organizations, health care providers, academic institutions, and other stakeholders dedicated to improving men’s health. These partnerships can leverage existing resources, specialized expertise, and established community connections to expand the reach and effectiveness of men’s health initiatives.

By adopting the targeted and pragmatic recommendations outlined above, the Presidential commission can take a decisive step toward creating a truly equitable and effective health care system for all Americans. This is not merely a matter of fairness; it is a strategic imperative for the health, prosperity, and security of our nation.