How Healthy Could a State Be?

Population Health Institute, Department of Population Health Sciences, University of Wisconsin School of Medicine and Public Health, Madison 53726, USA.
Public Health Reports (Impact Factor: 1.55). 03/2010; 125(2):160-7. DOI: 10.2307/41434766
Source: PubMed


We predicted the amount of health outcome improvement any state might achieve if it could reach the highest level of key health determinants any individual state has already achieved.
Using secondary county-level data on modifiable and nonmodifiable health determinants from 1994 to 2003, we used regression analysis to predict state age-adjusted mortality rates in 2000 for those younger than age 75, under the scenario of each state's "ideal" predicted mortality if that state had the best observed level among all states of modifiable determinants.
We found considerable variation in predicted improvement across the states. The state with the lowest baseline mortality, New Hampshire, was predicted to improve by 23% to a mortality rate of 250 per 100,000 population if New Hampshire had the most favorable profile of modifiable health determinants. However, West Virginia, with a much higher baseline, would be predicted to improve the most-by 46% to 254 per 100,000 population. Individual states varied in the pattern of specific modifiable variables associated with their predicted improvement.
The results support the contention that health improvement requires investment in three major categories: health care, behavioral change, and socioeconomic factors. Different states will require different investment portfolios depending on their pattern of modifiable and nonmodifiable determinants.

Download full-text


Available from: Bridget Booske Catlin, Oct 06, 2015
13 Reads
  • Source
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: a The article by Kindig and colleagues 1 in this issue of Public Health Reports is a noteworthy contribution in a line of research that seems highly relevant for policy but violates unwritten rules of politics, especially, but not exclusively, in the United States. Beginning with William Farr in Britain in the 1850s, 2 many investigators have used epidemiologic methods to estimate the extent to which rates of mortality could be reduced within countries and their political subdivi- sions. 3-5 Most of these studies have calculated mortality that could be avoided by appropriate health care. Some studies have also estimated mortality that could be avoided as a result of some combination of reducing high-risk behavior by individuals, ameliorating deleterious social and economic circumstances, and reducing or eliminating environmental stressors. The authors of studies of avoidable mortality, as well as their funders and devoted readers have, however, frequently been disappointed by the reluctance of most policy makers to accord high priority to reducing unwarranted mortality—particularly when reducing it requires coordination across government departments, economic sectors, and civil society. Kindig and colleagues attribute the weak influence of research on avoid- able mortality to its methodological limitations. As relationships such as those described in this article gain better causal certainty, "they should be of substantial guidance to policy makers." 1 Similarly, Walter Holland, lead author of three edi-
    Public Health Reports 01/2010; 125(2):168-70. DOI:10.2307/41434767 · 1.55 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: This article describes recent events in the governance of standard-setting for 2 areas of US health policy - states' decisions about which prescription drugs to cover under Medicaid and other public programs and making health an aspect of foreign policy - and whether these events offer lessons for policy making. In prescription drug coverage, methodologic advances in research that evaluates health services and the politics of restraining the rate of growth in health expenditures enabled policy makers in most states to establish new public processes for assessing and applying evidence about the effectiveness of competing drugs. Their counterparts in foreign policy, in contrast, made few changes in existing processes for choosing which interventions to support. The history of governance in each area of policy making for health explains the selection of standards to evaluate evidence about interventions and whether and how to use this evidence to guide policy.
    Preventing chronic disease 11/2010; 7(6):A123. · 2.12 Impact Factor
Show more