The second paper is difficult to argue about because I can't read it, but it is difficult to imagine that someone's quality of life could rise but their health worsens. That seems radically unlikely to the point where you need a pretty solid research base before taking the idea seriously. The paper is probably either making a mistake or says something different in the body text to what the title implies because it is likely that income inequality rose and living standards dropped.
It is the living standard that leads to outcomes. The inequality is a red herring. People are so bad at guessing relative income that they can't even detect real inequality. They usually pick up on poverty instead, which is completely different.