California health by county (insurance, violent crime, unemployment)

[nullgeo]

Fascinating map and data presentation ... a person could spend all day perusing this ... go to link and click on California map (it's a national study) ...fiddle around with categories and sidebar information links. The coast from Marin south looks mostly pretty good. But, whoa!, inland! What's up with that!??

County Health Rankings

[NewToCA]

Keep in mind, this map is only related to "self reporting" of health status, no objective measures except premature death rates.

[nullgeo]

Originally Posted by NewToCA

Keep in mind, this map is only related to "self reporting" of health status, no objective measures except premature death rates.

I assume you only looked at a very few of the categories offered under the "Health Outcomes" opening map. Click also on "Health Factors", in the blue bar at the bottom of the left hand scroll sidebar. There are many many many categories. Much of the information gathered is from various, hard statistical sources -- some from surveys.

The study comes from the Univ. of Wisconsin's Robert Woods Johnson Foundation -- a very highly respected source. This is a huge study.

[felinius]

Originally Posted by nullgeo

The coast from Marin south looks mostly pretty good. But, whoa!, inland! What's up with that!??

Marin is high-income -- doesn't the inland tend to be more lower income? Income and health status follow hand in hand.

[NewToCA]

Originally Posted by nullgeo

I assume you only looked at a very few of the categories offered under the "Health Outcomes" opening map. Click also on "Health Factors", in the blue bar at the bottom of the left hand scroll sidebar. There are many many many categories. Much of the information gathered is from various, hard statistical sources -- some from surveys.

The study comes from the Univ. of Wisconsin's Robert Woods Johnson Foundation -- a very highly respected source. This is a huge study.

I guess I view stuff like level of education, recreational facilities and number of fast food restaurants as pretty irrelevant indicators of health. I know many posters here think those are great measures, but I see them as pretty irrelevant. Frankly, I find many of these studies to be fairly politically motivated (as in who provides funding for the studies).

I know a whole lot of folks who are now in their 80's and a few in their 90's, who were high school dropouts (many due to needing to help their families earn income long ago), worked in factories for decades and then retired to places where they never participated in any recreational activities, and love to eat fast and fried foods too.

Didn't hurt them at all.

Not trying to be dismissive here, but that is my own point of view.

[nullgeo]

Originally Posted by NewToCA

I guess I view stuff like level of education, recreational facilities and number of fast food restaurants as pretty irrelevant indicators of health. I know many posters here think those are great measures, but I see them as pretty irrelevant. Frankly, I find many of these studies to be fairly politically motivated (as in who provides funding for the studies).

I know a whole lot of folks who are now in their 80's and a few in their 90's, who were high school dropouts (many due to needing to help their families earn income long ago), worked in factories for decades and then retired to places where they never participated in any recreational activities, and love to eat fast and fried foods too.

Didn't hurt them at all.

Not trying to be dismissive here, but that is my own point of view.

Huh. I think there are several interesting points to make about your thoughts, New.

With regard to the longevities of the elderly you cite as not having lived with a focus on healthy lifestyles: consider that they grew up before a lot of the toxicities of our present time were well established. Thus their foundational health was much cleaner than that of people now half or less their age.

Secondly: you are citing anecdotal examples, whereas the study looks at hard statistics, pretty much all scientifically established.

Third, below is the list of many of the factors in the study, the majority of which I wouldn't consider a bit irrelevant:

Health Behaviors
Adult smoking
Adult obesity
Physical inactivity
Excessive drinking
Motor vehicle crash death rate
Sexually transmitted infections
Teen birth rate
Clinical Care
Uninsured
Primary care physicians
Preventable hospital stays
Diabetic screening
Mammography screening
Social & Economic Factors
High school graduation
Some college
Unemployment
Children in poverty
Inadequate social support
Children in single-parent households
Violent crime rate
Physical Environment
Air pollution-particulate matter days
Air pollution-ozone days
Access to recreational facilities
Limited access to healthy foods
Fast food restaurants

[MtnSurfer]

Yes, there will always be exceptions to the rule - the guy/gal who lived to 100 while smoking, drinking and eating junk food the majority of their life. Those are the one in thousands or statistical outliers. But there is enough scientific evidence to support the facts which clearly demonstrate these things are bad for your health and in most cases lead to an early demise. Knowing a few may who have beaten the odds doesn't improve yours or mine. That's how insurance companies make money and underwritters make good business decisions. Its all based on the numbers which are already known.

Derek

[user_id]

Originally Posted by nullgeo

But, whoa!, inland! What's up with that!??

A lower, overall, socioeconomic cohort....

[nullgeo]

ummmm, yeah ... it was a rhetorical exclamation ... guess I need to spell that out on this forum?

[BeauCharles]

I'm not surprised by Butte County's low rating. The town I live in is horrible - seems every other adult smokes, is overweight and almost no one has a college degree. Far Northern California counties are a mess from a health perspective (and I didn't need a list to tell me that - I noticed for years after moving here from the Bay Area).