By Philippa Lewis, an aged care investor and executive with deep experience across ageing, care delivery and system design.
The world is ageing faster than at any other point in human history. By 2030, one in six people globally will be over the age of 60. By 2050, that number will double. Governments, investors and innovators know this. The spending curves, policy papers and pilot programs reflect it.
And yet, for all this activity, the uncomfortable truth remains: the world is not ageing well.
Across countries and social systems, ageing outcomes are uneven, sometimes opaque and often poorly understood. We invest billions in aged care, health services, housing and technology for older people, but we struggle to answer a deceptively simple question: what actually helps older people live well, and age with dignity?
The problem is not a lack of effort. It is a lack of shared evidence.
A sector that can’t learn from itself
Ageing is treated as a local issue that is governed nationally and delivered organisationally. Data lives inside individual providers, regions or programs. This wealth of data is rarely designed to be compared, shared (or learned from) beyond those boundaries.
The effect of these data siloes is that aged care and longevity-focused care is influenced by anecdotal observation, but objective insights less so. Decision-makers rely on assumptions instead of evidence, often because no practical, real-world data is available to challenge them. Poor models can persist when their shortcomings remain invisible.
Contrast this with what we saw during the global pandemic. Vaccine development advanced at unprecedented speed because data was shared openly and continuously across borders. Failures were documented and successes were replicated. Learning happened in real time.
Ageing systems, by comparison, remain defensive and closed. Data is guarded as a risk rather than treated as a public good. Even when lessons are learned, they are rarely translated beyond the organisation that learned them.
If we want ageing systems to improve, they must be able to learn from themselves.
Where people are really dying, and who knows?
One example highlights the cost of this data fragmentation.
Around the world, end-of-life care has been shifting away from hospitals and into aged care settings. This is happening because hospitals are under pressure and families often have nowhere else to turn, yet aged care facilities are not all expressly designed for palliative care.
The data on where people die is not lacking, however. Providers do know how many residents are dying in care, how often hospital transfers occur, and what resources are available at the end of life. But this information is locked inside individual organisations and jurisdictions. There is no shared view of what is happening at scale, and little visibility into which models of care deliver better experiences for residents, families or staff.
Without shared evidence, we cannot design aged care environments that properly support end-of-life needs. We cannot equip staff with the right skills. And we cannot have honest conversations with families about what care can, and cannot, realistically provide.
Closing the expectation gap
That last point matters more than we often acknowledge.
Many families assume aged care offers hospital-level medical support. In reality, most facilities are structured around daily living support, not complex clinical care. This conflict in expectations creates distress for families, moral injury for staff, and pressure on systems already stretched thin.
Transparent data can help close this expectation gap. When care outcomes, capabilities and limitations are visible, care models can be redesigned more realistically. Families can make better-informed decisions. Policymakers can fund services based on evidence rather than assumptions.
But this only works if data is shared openly, whether it tells a flattering story or not. .
From research silos to a knowledge commons
The ageing sector does not need more white papers that sit on shelves or hard drives. It needs a way to capture what is happening on the ground and translate it into shared learning.
That is the thinking behind Lumyn, an international platform designed to function as a knowledge commons for ageing. It has a simple yet ambitious purpose: to collect, analyse and share real-world data and experiences about what helps older people live well.
Our goal is to complement academic research with insights from providers, clinicians, technologists, researchers and communities. Hard data sits alongside qualitative experience. Local successes are shared so others can adapt them. Failures are documented so they are not repeated elsewhere.
Most importantly, the learning is designed to be shared across borders. Ageing is a global challenge, and solutions cannot remain trapped within national or organisational silos.
A culture shift, not a compliance exercise
For this to work, a cultural shift is necessary.
Sharing data is best understood as collective problem-solving. If you have learned something, whether through a formal trial or a local initiative, that learning has value beyond your organisation.
The most effective ageing systems of the future will not be those with the most proprietary information, but those most willing to learn in public.
This requires trust, governance and clear ethical frameworks. Older people’s data must be handled responsibly, transparently, and with consent. But these challenges are solvable. What is harder to justify is continuing to operate in the dark.
Learning in real time
Ageing systems are under pressure now. Demographic change is a present reality and no longer an imagined future risk. Waiting decades for longitudinal studies to trickle into policy is no longer sufficient.
We need mechanisms that allow ageing systems to learn from themselves in real time. This is the most efficient way to see what is working, where harm is occurring, and how care can be improved across settings.
The opportunity is enormous. With shared evidence, we can design better care models and ensure older people are not left navigating a system that was never built with their full needs in mind.
The world is ageing. The question is whether we are willing to age smarter.
