Correlation does not imply causality. I'm pretty sure that an individual's real estate portfolio doesn't play any role in the equation if they experience a health problem that they are unable to treat.
Lack of access to healthcare, that's available in pretty much all civilized nations, would do a whole lot of good to bump up life expectancy among the US's homeless population.
I'm well aware that correlation does not imply causality. But I also know for a fact that homelessness helps shorten lifespans.
And in the US, even if it were the case that we simply dump our dying on the streets instead of providing hospice, that would be plenty atrocious right there. And we do, in fact, do a certain amount of that. But that's not the entire explanation for the statistic.
Homelessness is not and has never been purely about a lack of physical shelter. Articles on the topic routinely make a distinction between "homeless" and "unsheltered homeless."
Plenty of homeless people find shelter for the night. So being literally out in the weather all the time is not, per se, the entire definition of homelessness and it never was.
There are many, many ways in which lacking a home -- a fixed address with a sense of belonging -- negatively impacts health.
There are obvious direct effects that real estate ownership has on health. Homes provide protection from extreme heat and cold. They provide protection from.rain and pollution. They provide a relatively clean environment
Most homeless people are forced into the equivalent of leaving their bed sheets out for people to walk over all day long, then wrapping themselves up tightly in those bed sheets each night, while also eating food that has been thrown away.