Southern States Ranked Worst for Seriously Sick.... (Columbia, Charleston: health insurance, schools)

[Luvsdabeach]

Well, it looks like we are on another "worst" list.

Southern States Ranked Worst for Seriously Sick | LiveScience

[Buckeye in SC]

Originally Posted by Luvsdabeach

Well, it looks like we are on another "worst" list.

Southern States Ranked Worst for Seriously Sick | LiveScience

While I won't dispute the article, think that one needs to remember that there tends to be a lot of small rural communities w/more people living in those areas in the south than in the north that contributes to this.

If you look at SC for example, combining the 3 major metros - Columbia, Greenville-Spartanburg, & Charleston - they account for about half the state's population (2.2 million). Compare that to Ohio, where they have 8 major metros - Cleveland, Columbus, Cincinnati, Dayton, Akron, Toledo, Youngstown, Canton - and they account for about 80% of the state's population (9.15 million). So while that would leave about 2 million in each state outside of those major metros i.e. a fair distance from adequate healthcare, it means the ratio is far worse in SC.

Even if you add in the minor metro areas of SC such as Conway-Myrtle Beach, HHI-Bluffton, Anderson, Florence, & Aiken (roughly 900k combined), that still leaves well over a million people out in very rural areas (over 25%) away from adequate health-care. Which if you want to do apples to apples comparison, OH has just as many smaller metro areas if not more than SC (Springfield, Lima, Sandusky, Mansfield, Ashtabula just to name a few).

So I'm not arguing w/the study, but when you have such a large portion of your population choosing to live in rural areas, it tends to skew the numbers - and I think the same holds true for most southern states w/the exception of Florida.

Living in Columbia, I feel there are plenty of healthcare options available (Providence, Palmetto, Lexington Hospitals) and we have not had problems finding doctors, dentists, etc.

Just my 2 cents on the article, hard to really give a lot of merit to these articles that rank state-by-state when there are so many variables that come into play.

[elvislives]

Talk about taking an article out of context ,the article was on pallintive care in hospitals. op did you read the article?

[Luvsdabeach]

Originally Posted by elvislives

Talk about taking an article out of context ,the article was on pallintive care in hospitals. op did you read the article?

Yes I did and I do not see where I have taken it out of context. I posted the articles title then commented on being on another worst list. How is that taking anything out of context?

[elvislives]

Originally Posted by Luvsdabeach

Yes I did and I do not see where I have taken it out of context. I posted the articles title then commented on being on another worst list. How is that taking anything out of context?

For starters the title of your thread???? ..

[Luvsdabeach]

Originally Posted by elvislives

For starters the title of your thread???? ..

It's the title of the article.

[Mrs. P]

Originally Posted by Buckeye in SC

While I won't dispute the article, think that one needs to remember that there tends to be a lot of small rural communities w/more people living in those areas in the south than in the north that contributes to this.

If you look at SC for example, combining the 3 major metros - Columbia, Greenville-Spartanburg, & Charleston - they account for about half the state's population (2.2 million). Compare that to Ohio, where they have 8 major metros - Cleveland, Columbus, Cincinnati, Dayton, Akron, Toledo, Youngstown, Canton - and they account for about 80% of the state's population (9.15 million). So while that would leave about 2 million in each state outside of those major metros i.e. a fair distance from adequate healthcare, it means the ratio is far worse in SC.

Even if you add in the minor metro areas of SC such as Conway-Myrtle Beach, HHI-Bluffton, Anderson, Florence, & Aiken (roughly 900k combined), that still leaves well over a million people out in very rural areas (over 25%) away from adequate health-care. Which if you want to do apples to apples comparison, OH has just as many smaller metro areas if not more than SC (Springfield, Lima, Sandusky, Mansfield, Ashtabula just to name a few).

So I'm not arguing w/the study, but when you have such a large portion of your population choosing to live in rural areas, it tends to skew the numbers - and I think the same holds true for most southern states w/the exception of Florida.

Living in Columbia, I feel there are plenty of healthcare options available (Providence, Palmetto, Lexington Hospitals) and we have not had problems finding doctors, dentists, etc.

Just my 2 cents on the article, hard to really give a lot of merit to these articles that rank state-by-state when there are so many variables that come into play.

Question (as a former Buckeye who thinks Cleveland Clinic is the best hospital in the world).

Yes most of Ohio's population WAS near major hospitals. However, the population in the major cities, one of which was mine is decreasing due to job loss. I think those figures will change down the road, sooner than later. Not only because the state is losing population around those areas you mentioned (maybe not Columbus) but so many people are out of work, they will not be able to afford the great medical care that state offers. As an example, Akron just closed down it's kidney transplant program, so now all have to go to Cleveland Clinic. Akron, could not keep the medical professionals involved in the program? why? Because of a dying enconomy, and so forth...many other reasons.

Most of Ohio's rural population works and they have benefits (medical) ...therein lies the difference. They have medical coverage, meaning if they say live in Cambridge Ohio, then can and do drive farther North, to Canton, or Akron, or Cleveland to get medical care (if it's above the ordinary care needed). It's been my short experience here, that the rural community, if indeed working, doesn't have benefits.

I think that will change down the road too. As more people relocate here, so will doctors etc. I think the healthcare system down here will improve dramatically in the next 20 years.

We won't be on that list long

[elvislives]

I must agree that if need help dying then the south does rate low on the scale But according to the title of this thread which is misleading there are much worse places to be seriously ill. The worse place to be seriously ill are Nevada,Arkansas,Texas,Mississipi,and Oklahoma..Hmm only one southern state...The best places you can hope to be seriously ill are as follows Hawaii,Iowa,New Hampshire,Vermont,and Maine.. No southern states there either. Its good that for the most part the south isn't the worse place to get seriously ill but if you live out west not so good. for the factcheckers .. www.cbsnews.com www.forbes.com

[emilybh]

The problem is, SC doesn't have any top rated medical schools. All you need to do is look at how uncompetetive MUSC is for example, as far as the number of Med School applicants ( only 2043 for 153 spaces) they have for the number of openings in the first year class. Its among the lesser competetive of all medical schools in the country. AAMC: FACTS Table 1: U.S. Medical School Applications and Matriculants by School, State of Legal Residence, and Sex. New Orleans, LA for example has Tulane with 6800 applicants for only 175 spaces. Similarly, NC has Duke and Wake Forest and GA has Emory which are all very competetive. The better schools get the smarter students and graduate the better doctors. Residents near the better schools are the beneficiaries of better care.

[usc_gal98]

I think this boils down to people not having health insurance, wrong diagnosis from physicians, and lack of money to go towards medical care. (you know that pay in SC is low)

Personally, I was just hospitalized for four days recently for two surgeries for something that was misdiagnosed twice.