Abstract
Demographic ageing yields many societal consequences that depend strongly on the health status of the population. Special indicators have been developed for tracking and assessing population health, which are referred to with the overarching term healthy life expectancy (HLE). The derivation of HLE is intuitive and easily comprehensible. However, an overly simplistic interpretation hides the extreme complexity inherent in adding the health dimension to the life table. This makes HLE compared to classic life expectancy (LE) extremely sensitive to certain conceptual and methodological features. In the article, this is presented in more detail for three aspects: the underlying definition of health, the choice of survey data as a basis for estimating health status, and the reporting behavior of survey participants. It is shown that the impact on HLE can be enormous, leading to considerable bias in the interpretation of levels and trends, but also in the analysis of differences between populations. Nevertheless, the extension of classical LE to HLE is an important achievement that must not be abandoned. Therefore, the article also discusses ways in which the HLE indicator could be made more robust and reliable. Until this is achieved, however, the high methodological sensitivity of HLE must not be ignored if it is used to assess the health status of populations and as a basis for health policy measures.