Mombu the Medicine Forum sponsored links

Go Back   Mombu the Medicine Forum > Medicine > Best and Worst states for Health (diet crisis eye heart exercise)
User Name
Password
REGISTER NOW! Mark Forums Read

sponsored links


Reply
 
1 9th April 22:23
greegor
External User
 
Posts: 1
Default Best and Worst states for Health (diet crisis eye heart exercise)


Risk factors quoted from below in full article.
Couldn't some of these be carrying a political
agenda besides simply health?

Prevalence of smoking ??
[Would the number of smokers really make a state
less healthy for a non smoking family?]

Motor vehicle deaths
Violent crime
Risk for heart disease ??
[Isn't this more of an individual thing?]

High school graduation
Children in poverty
Adequacy of prenatal care
Lack of [health] insurance ??
[ Would this matter in a place that
is a hangout for the rich?]

Financial support for public health care ??
[This is what caught my eye and made it
seem like a politically skewed survey.]

-------------------------
Tuesday, November 18, 2003
What's the State of Your State's Health?
Minnesota, New Hampshire Rated Healthiest, Mississippi Ranks at Bottom
By Jennifer Warner WebMD Medical News Reviewed By Michael Smith,
MD
on Friday, November 14, 2003
Nov. 17, 2003 -- Minnesota and New Hampshire residents can take solace
this winter in the fact that the snowy states topped the list of
America's healthiest states in 2003. But sun worshippers in the South
may get cold comfort from the fact that their states ranked at the
bottom of the list.

Minnesota and New Hampshire tied for first place this year in the
annual American's Health: State Health Rankings announced today at the
American Public Health Association's conference in San Francisco.
South Carolina, Louisiana, and Mississippi rounded out the bottom of
the list.

Each state was assigned a health score based on many different
criteria.

2003 Overall Health Score Rankings:

Rank State Score
1 Minnesota 24.3
1 New Hampshire 24.3
3 Utah 19.5
4 Vermont 19.0
5 Massachusetts 16.3
6 Connecticut 14.7
7 Iowa 14.6
8 Maine 13.8
9 Colorado 13.7
10 Hawaii 13.4
11 Washington 12.9
12 North Dakota 12.5
13 Rhode Island 12.1
14 Wisconsin 11.7
15 South Dakota 11.5
16 Nebraska 10.1
17 Idaho 9.0
18 New Jersey 8.9
19 Oregon 8.8
20 Kansas 8.3
21 Virginia 6.9
22 California 5.7
23 Wyoming 5.2
24 Pennsylvania 4.1
25 Montana 2.8
26 Ohio 2.2
27 Indiana 1.9
28 Michigan 1.8
29 Maryland 0.8
30 Illinois 0.4
31 New York -0.5
32 Arizona -2.1
33 Missouri -2.7
34 Delaware -3.4
35 Texas -3.8
36 Nevada -4.6
36 North Carolina -4.6
38 Alaska -5.5
39 Kentucky -7.0
40 New Mexico -7.5
41 Ge****a -7.6
42 Florida -10.8
43 Alabama -11.1
44 West Virginia -11.3
45 Oklahoma -12.1
46 Tennessee -13.2
47 Arkansas -14.2
48 South Carolina -15.5
49 Louisiana -19.5
50 Mississippi -22.0

*Scores presented in this table indicate the percentage a state is
above or below the national norm.

Overall, the report shows that Americans are 17% healthier now than
they were 13 years ago thanks to major improvements in reducing the
number of motor vehicle deaths, combating infectious diseases, and
reducing infant deaths.

But the report also highlights some disturbing trends that might soon
offset those gains, such as an alarming increase in the number of
Americans without health insurance, which rose from 41 million to near
44 million from 2002-2003.

"This does not bode well for the health for millions of Americans,"
says Reed Tuckson, MD, vice president of the UnitedHealth Foundation,
which sponsored the report. "I think the pressures that this is going
to put on the public health infrastructure will be significant at a
time when it is already challenged by the fiscal crisis affecting most
states and by the necessary preparedness for bioterrorism and new
disease outbreaks like SARS."

Health, State by State

Little has changed among the top and the bottom of the list in recent
years with the top two and two worst performing states simply
exchanging places. Last year, New Hampshire was in the top spot,
followed by Minnesota. Louisiana ranked 50th last year, but moved up
to 49th in 2003, followed by Mississippi in 50th, which ranked 49th
last year.

But don't pack your bags yet, researchers say there was improvement in
at least some areas among even the lowest ranked stated.

"Although they rank states, the purpose of this report was not to say
this or that state is a better place to live," says Georges C.
Benjamin, MD, executive director of the American Public Health
Association. "The important point is to look at how states did over
time, and even states in the lower tier all have done better over
time."

States that experienced the greatest overall health score improvement
from 2002-2003 included states at both the top and bottom of the
overall rankings: Louisiana (+3.1), Vermont (+2.9), and Minnesota
(+2.5). The major reasons for improvement included falling smoking
rates in both Louisiana and Vermont, increased access to prenatal care
in Vermont, and a falling violent crime rate in Minnesota.

Those states that saw the greatest decline in their overall health
scores included: Alaska (-6.1), Massachusetts (-2.3), West Virginia
(-2.1), and Virginia (-2.1). The principal reasons for decline in
these states were a rise in the number of uninsured residents in all
four states, increases in smoking rates in Alaska and Virginia,
decreased support for public health care in Massachusetts, and an
increase in motor vehicle deaths in West Virginia.

What Your State Says about Your Health

Experts say these rankings are important tools for public health and
government officials, but people shouldn't take these rankings
personally as a reflection of their own personal health.

"People shouldn't take a report like this to heart to say, 'What does
this mean to me as a person?'" says Joseph G. Grzywacz, PhD, assistant
professor in family and community medicine at Wake Forest University
School of Medicine in Winston-Salem, N.C. "That's not what the tool
was designed to do. It was designed to look at populations as a whole
for informing policy and how systems can change, not necessarily
individuals."

Grzywacz says this report actually has very little meaning for any
given person in an individual state.

"Clearly, people can change their behaviors, and that will help them.
And in the process that will change their state's rankings if enough
people collectively change their behaviors," says Grzywacz. "If
anything this is a measure of the health promotive capacity of a
state. What resources are in place and what are the things they are
doing for people to enable to realize better health."

Tuckson agrees and says that while this population-based information
is interesting and an important tool for officials, it really probably
doesn't mean very much to the realities of the individual person
living in a particular community in a particular state.

"Healthiness is local. People need to control the risk factors that
they can control," Tuckson tells WebMD. "That means not smoking,
appropriate use of alcohol, using a seatbelt when you get into an
automobile, exercise, and paying attention to your diet."

How the Rankings Were Determined

The rankings were based on a state-by-state ****ysis of several public
health statistics supplied by the federal government and other
sources. Those factors included risk factors that are indicators of
behaviors and activities that are related to the healthiness of a
population, including:

Prevalence of smoking
Motor vehicle deaths
Violent crime
Risk for heart disease
High school graduation
Children in poverty
Adequacy of prenatal care
Lack of heath insurance
Financial support for public health care

The ****ysis also included measures of death and disease, such as:

Occupational fatalities
Limited activity days
Heart-related deaths
Cancer deaths
Infectious disease cases
Total deaths per 100,000 population
Infant mortality
Premature death
-----------------------------------------
SOURCES: America's Health: State Health Rankings, presented at
American Public Health Association 131st Annual Meeting and
Exposition, San Francisco, Nov. 15-19, 2003. Georges C. Benjamin, MD,
executive director, American Public Health Association. Joseph G.
Grzywacz, PhD, assistant professor in family and community medicine,
Wake Forest University School of Medicine, Winston-Salem, N.C. Reed
Tuckson, MD, vice president, UnitedHealth Foundation. 2003 WebMD
Inc. All rights reserved.
  Reply With Quote


  sponsored links


2 13th April 11:21
dsulldan
External User
 
Posts: 1
Default Best and Worst states for Health


Don't ya ever read what you post, Greg?

From this article,

"Grzywacz says this report actually has very little meaning for any
given person in an individual state."

Don't ya ever read what you post, Greg?

From this article,

"Grzywacz says this report actually has very little meaning for any
given person in an individual state."
  Reply With Quote


  sponsored links


3 6th May 09:13
greegor
External User
 
Posts: 1
Default Best and Worst states for Health


I admit I was concentrating on the hard data
part of the story. I posted it here after I
noticed that the basis was in that way skewed.

The political bias of research such as this
is fascinating and I don't think gets
publicized enough.

That the author if the prose said the same
thing that I did is both a reason to be hopeful,
and a reason to complain about knowing yellow journalism.
  Reply With Quote
4 6th May 14:27
dan sullivan
External User
 
Posts: 1
Default Best and Worst states for Health


You missed the point, Greg. As usual.

The reason is that, oh?


What's facinating about it?


.... the author.. is both a reason to be hopeful, and a reason to complain
about knowing yellow journalism?

Does being this stupid come easily, Greg, or do you have to work on it?
  Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools
Display Modes




Copyright 2006 SmartyDevil.com - Dies Mies Jeschet Boenedoesef Douvema Enitemaus -
666