Skip to main content

To Be Healthy, Live Among the Wealthy?


If you want to be healthy, then be wealthy. Or at least live in a wealthy county.

That’s the obvious message you get from combining the recently released County Health Rankings with poverty and income data from the 2010 U.S. Census.

Source: US Census and County Health Rankings, 2012
But if you look closer, you see something else.  It’s not just that poorer people are less healthy than their wealthier counterparts. 

People are less healthy where too few resources are invested in public health.

Earlier this month, the 2012 County Health Rankings were released by the University of Wisconsin Population Health Institute and the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation.  In the release, Dr. Risa Lavizzo-Mourey, President and CEO of RWJF, said that “where we live, work, learn, and play has a big role in determining how healthy we are and how long we live.”

She’s right.

The poorest counties – as measured by the percentage of people living below the poverty level – are usually home to the least healthy people.  And the wealthiest counties – as measured by income – are home to the healthiest.

That much isn’t news.  We’ve known for a long time about the relationship of poverty to poor health. 

But we usually think about that relationship in terms of individuals – the poorer the individual, the worse his or her health status is likely to be.

The county-level data suggest that we look at the relationship in another way – as a community problem.
Then we discover something more.

The poorest counties often have both the least healthy residents and some of the poorest public health infrastructures in their state. 

Consider these examples from three different states.
  • The three poorest counties in America – Ziebach (the only county in America where over 50% of the population lives in poverty), Todd, and Shannon – are in South Dakota.  Of the 59 South Dakota counties in the County Health Rankings, they are at the bottom, placing 53rd, 58th, and 59th, respectively.
  • Owsley County, Kentucky, is also one of the nation’s poorest counties.  It is the poorest county in Kentucky, and it ranks last in the state’s county Health rankings.
  • South Carolina’s Allandale County is one of the poorest counties in America.  It, too, ranks last in its state county health rankings. 


What do they share besides poverty and poor health?

The North Dakota communities are worst off.  They have very limited governmental infrastructure and services.  All are Native American reservations.  Two don’t even have a County Seat. 

Owsley County shares its health department with six other rural southeastern Kentucky counties.  The regional health department covers a geographical area larger than some states, and its central office is located over an hour away from Booneville, the Owsley County Seat.

Allandale County also lacks its own dedicated public health infrastructure, sharing public health services with several other South Carolina counties.

Is it poverty or poor public health infrastructure that matters most? 

That’s hard to say, but poorer public health infrastructures are common in relatively poorer counties in wealthier states – even when those counties are well-off compared to the nation as a whole.

  • Windham County, though relatively wealthy by national standards, is Connecticut’s poorest county.  It also ranks 7th of Connecticut’s eight counties in health. 
  • And Washington County, Maine, is Maine’s poorest and least-healthy county. 


What about their public health infrastructures?  Unlike many Connecticut cities, none of Windham County’s fifteen towns has its own public health department.  Public health services are delivered through three regional health districts shared by several communities. And in all of Washington County, there are just two district offices of the Maine Health and Human Services Department.

So it appears that poor health may go hand in hand with poverty because economically disadvantaged communities often don’t take care of their public health infrastructure – not just because poorer individuals often don’t take care of their health.

Florida is home to one of the exceptions that may prove the rule.  DeSoto County is Florida’s poorest county.  But DeSoto ranks in the top half – 28th – of Florida’s 67 counties in health.

Why?  It may be because of DeSoto County’s strong public health infrastructure.  Its residents have better-than-average access to diabetes screening and better-than-average low birth weight numbers.  Behind these achievements are a diabetes screening program housed in a county-run primary care clinic and a county-run women’s health clinic.

Living well isn’t always about how much wealth an individual has to spend for a healthy life.  It’s often about how much a community is willing and able to spend for healthy lives.
Labels:

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

States and Rebates

If you run a small business in Florida, are self-employed in Texas, or work for a large corporation in New Jersey ( see an update below ), then your state insurance regulators probably haven't been working for you. The news that 15.8 million people can expect $1.3 billion in rebates from insurers this year because of the Affordable Care Act (ACA) underscores how weak health insurance regulation has been in states across the country.  It may come as no surprise that Florida and Texas, two leaders in the fight against ACA, have been exposed as anti-consumer.  But they are not the only states with an anti-consumer bias. First, the good news: last week, the federal government announced that three-quarters of us will get letters beginning on July 1 telling us that our insurance plans paid out at least 80 to 85 cents in benefits for every premium dollar they collected. This means that under ACA they met the minimum standard for a reasonable benefit payout (which i...
Post a Comment
Read more

The Ten Best and Ten Worst States for Your Mental Health

Connecticut spends four times more per capita on state mental health services than Texas.  In Florida, 25 percent fewer people report having mental illnesses than in Washington. Across the nation, there are significant differences in the amounts states spend on mental health services.  Connecticut spends $189 per capita, while Texas spends only $39. But there are also significant differences in the reported prevalence of mental illnesses.  For example, fewer than 18 percent of Floridians report having a mental illness during the past year, but in Washington almost 24 percent do. But what happens when you put spending and prevalence together?  Some new rankings emerge that give you a measure of each state’s real commitment to protecting mental health – and treating mental illness – in their population.  This week, I have ranked all fifty states using both spending and prevalence data.       I have taken per capita m...
12 comments
Read more

Why the Republicans Have No Health Care Plan

There's a simple reason why (after more than a decade) Donald Trump and the Republicans have no plan to replace Obamacare. I'll explain in a few minutes. But first, some background. When the Affordable Care Act (or Obamacare) was passed in 2010, it was an effort to expand health care coverage to a lot of people who needed it, while controlling their costs. It had certain key provisions, not the least of which were that people couldn't be denied coverage for pre-existing conditions, that all chronic diseases needed to be covered fairly, and lifetime coverage caps had to be lifted. The problem was that if you left matters to insurers to set insurance premiums based on what this would cost, the price of insurance would rise dramatically. So the government took a look at three different programs and ultimately put them together into one system. For people whose income was so low that they couldn't afford any real cost-sharing, the government expanded Medicaid. For elders...
Post a Comment
Read more