December 3, 2008

Christopher Hoenig

President and Chief Executive Officer

State of the USA, Inc.

1146 19th Street, NW Suite 300 Washington, DC 20036

Dear Mr. Hoenig:

The Institute of Medicine established the Committee on the State of the USA Health Indicators to provide guidance to the State of the USA, Inc. (SUSA) on 20 potential indicators that could be used to track progress in the areas of health and health care. The body of this letter report provides the committee’s findings and recommendations regarding that task.

SUSA is a newly formed, nonprofit corporation established in 2007 to provide Americans with high-quality information about changing societal, economic, and environmental conditions via a website now under development. Financial support for SUSA is currently provided by the William and Flora Hewlett Foundation, the Rockefeller Foundation, the John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation, the Carnegie Corporation of New York, the Peter G. Peterson Foundation, and the F.B. Heron Foundation.

The SUSA website is intended to provide the most reliable and objective facts about the state of the USA and to serve as a tool for Americans to track the progress made on a broad range of issues, such as education, health, and the environment. Additionally, the website will allow users to make comparisons at the local and state level as well as nation-to-nation comparisons. The ultimate goal of the website is to help Americans become more informed and, thus, active participants in focusing public debate on important issues.

Data collected in public opinion polls over the past 20 years show that the American public has identified health as a key issue. In fact, while economic issues are of primary importance, “health care issues compete for the second priority” in terms of most important problems (Westat and AmericaSpeaks, 2008). Furthermore, there is widespread discussion about health care quality (IOM, 2000c, 2001), about disparities in health and access to health care (IOM, 2003b), and about the factors that contribute to the health of individuals and populations (IOM, 2000b, 2003a). Health and health care became major points of debate in the 2008 Presidential



The National Academies | 500 Fifth St. N.W. | Washington, D.C. 20001
Copyright © National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.
Terms of Use and Privacy Statement



Below are the first 10 and last 10 pages of uncorrected machine-read text (when available) of this chapter, followed by the top 30 algorithmically extracted key phrases from the chapter as a whole.
Intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text on the opening pages of each chapter. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.

Do not use for reproduction, copying, pasting, or reading; exclusively for search engines.

OCR for page 1
December 3, 2008 Christopher Hoenig President and Chief Executive Officer State of the USA, Inc. 1146 19th Street, NW Suite 300 Washington, DC 20036 Dear Mr. Hoenig: The Institute of Medicine established the Committee on the State of the USA Health Indicators to provide guidance to the State of the USA, Inc. (SUSA) on 20 potential indicators that could be used to track prog- ress in the areas of health and health care. The body of this letter report provides the committee’s findings and recommendations regarding that task. SUSA is a newly formed, nonprofit corporation established in 2007 to provide Americans with high-quality information about changing soci- etal, economic, and environmental conditions via a website now under development. Financial support for SUSA is currently provided by the William and Flora Hewlett Foundation, the Rockefeller Foundation, the John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation, the Carnegie Corpora- tion of New York, the Peter G. Peterson Foundation, and the F.B. Heron Foundation. The SUSA website is intended to provide the most reliable and objec- tive facts about the state of the USA and to serve as a tool for Americans to track the progress made on a broad range of issues, such as education, health, and the environment. Additionally, the website will allow users to make comparisons at the local and state level as well as nation-to- nation comparisons. The ultimate goal of the website is to help Americans become more informed and, thus, active participants in focusing public debate on important issues. Data collected in public opinion polls over the past 20 years show that the American public has identified health as a key issue. In fact, while economic issues are of primary importance, “health care issues compete for the second priority” in terms of most important problems (Westat and AmericaSpeaks, 2008). Furthermore, there is widespread discussion about health care quality (IOM, 2000c, 2001), about disparities in health and access to health care (IOM, 2003b), and about the factors that contribute to the health of individuals and populations (IOM, 2000b, 2003a). Health and health care became major points of debate in the 2008 Presidential 

OCR for page 1
 STATE OF THE USA HEALTH INDICATORS campaign with both parties advancing their solutions to the health care problems facing the United States. SUSA is now poised to begin populating its website with data and, with advice from The National Academies, is assembling a set of key indicators that measure specific conditions or trends. An early domain in which data will be made available is the health/health care domain. It is important to note that the SUSA website is not intended for researchers interested in pursuing in-depth analysis of various issues and relation- ships among variables. The intent of SUSA is to make it possible for members of the public and policymakers, in a relatively short period of time spent on the website, to discover interesting facts that are valid and important. COMMITTEE CHARGE The Committee on the State of the USA Health Indicators was asked to provide guidance on topic areas and indicators that should be included in the health/health care domain of the SUSA website. In conducting its task, the committee was asked to give consideration to the following: 1. Availability of high-quality data at the national level to accurately reflect the indicator construct, including the availability of data that can be broken down by important population subgroups (e.g., age, gender, socioeconomic status [SES], race/ethnicity), and geo- graphic region (states, cities, communities); 2. Reliability and quality of data and data sources; 3. Issues that are most salient for intended audiences and users of SUSA; 4. Indicators that are sensitive to changes in other societal domains (socioeconomic or environmental conditions or public policies); and 5. Indicators that permit cross-country comparisons. SUSA also asked that, to the degree possible, the indicators selected should be those that best reflect: (1) the overall health of the nation and the factors that are important in determining the current and future health of the nation and (2) the effectiveness and efficiency of the U.S. health care and public health systems. During the presentation by SUSA at the first committee meeting, SUSA President Christopher Hoenig stated that no more than 20 indicators should be developed for the health/health care domain. Additionally, because SUSA intends that official federal statistics will be the initial source of data (http://stateoftheusa.org/faqs/index. asp#5), the committee was charged with selecting only those indicators

OCR for page 1
 LETTER REPORT that could be measured with federally collected data. This letter report includes the committee’s recommendations to SUSA about the topic areas and 20 indicators that should be included in the health/health care domain of the SUSA website. COMMITTEE PROCESS Developing a set of 20 indicators that can be used to track the prog- ress of health and health care in the United States was a challenging task. During this 6-month study, the committee met three times. The first meet- ing was held in conjunction with an information gathering session with SUSA staff and consultants, and experts from organizations engaged in developing health indicators (see Appendix A for agenda). In addition, the committee reviewed existing health indicator sets and the data used to measure them. Because the study time frame was short, and to facilitate the committee’s work, SUSA provided a review of health indicator reports for the committee to use as background information (Wold, 2008). A list of the reports addressed in that review may be found in Appendix B. The committee also examined current national surveys that collect health data. These include the National Health Interview Survey, the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey, the National Vital Statistics System, the Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System, the Youth Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System, the National Immuni- zation Survey, the Medical Expenditure Panel Survey, the Current Popula- tion Survey, the American Community Survey, the Health Care Utilization Program, and the National Survey on Drug Use and Health. Information on the public’s perception of issues of importance in health and health care were also analyzed by the committee. These included reports of public opinion polls, focus groups, and the proceed- ings of a SUSA-convened working session for the policy analysis com- munity. A recently released report by The Commonwealth Fund (2008) was also reviewed, along with other published literature related to deter- minants of health and performance of the health care and public health systems. TRACKING PROGESS IN HEALTH AND HEALTH CARE Measuring and tracking the health of populations has a long history. The London “Bills of Mortality” were published annually beginning in 1629. They contained information that allowed authorities and residents to track the number of deaths associated with the plague and other causes (Last, 2001). Mortality rates were also used in early efforts to compare the health status of populations; those with lower mortality rates were

OCR for page 1
 STATE OF THE USA HEALTH INDICATORS considered to be healthier than those with higher rates. Mortality rates are still used to compare the health of populations. In the early 1800s in the United States, Lemuel Shattuck spearheaded the effort to adopt and collect public health measures at local and state levels, advocating the use of statistical surveys to collect vital informa- tion. Then, as basic survival became less uncertain and more people lived longer, new health issues such as chronic disease emerged and measures of health expanded to include assessments of morbidity. The U.S. gov- ernment began, in the mid-1950s, to collect indirect measures of morbid- ity (e.g., symptom rates and use of health care services) through major surveys. These surveys produced population-based data that included information about specific illnesses, injuries, and levels of activity in the population (IOM, 1999). Additionally, surveys included measures of health system performance in terms of cost, efficiency, and quality. Today, measures include not only mortality and morbidity statistics but also data on health status and wellness, health systems, health expenditures and financing, and other information (IOM, 2003a). As measures for assessing health have changed over time, so too have the frameworks for thinking about the determinants of health. In the early 1970s, Lalonde (1974) proposed a framework for thinking about health and its determinants that includes environment, lifestyle, human biology, and health care organization. The report, Healthy People: The Surgeon General’s Report on Health Promotion and Disease Preention, iden- tified three categories of determinants of disease and disability in the United States—preventive health services, health protection, and health promotion (DHEW, 1979). Additionally, the report included areas where improvement could be achieved given concerted effort. Evans and Stoddart (1990) proposed a complex framework of health determinants that takes into account distinctions among disease, health, functioning, and well-being. Furthermore, that framework includes “both behavioral and biological responses to social and physical environments.” Kaplan and colleagues (2000) emphasized that there are multiple levels of determinants and that bridges should be built connecting these levels in order to understand their effects on health. They proposed that the major factors affecting health include pathophysiological pathways, genetic/ constitutional factors, individual risk factors, social relationships, living conditions, neighborhoods and communities, institutions, and social and economic policies. Kindig and colleagues (2008) proposed a population health framework for setting national and state health goals that included health outcomes, health determinants (health care, health behaviors, socioeconomic factors, and physical environment), and health policies and interventions. Other models that involve a multilevel understand- ing of health and its determinants include the works of Dahlgren and

OCR for page 1
 LETTER REPORT Whitehead (1991) and Grzywacz and Fuqua (2000). Several IOM reports (IOM, 2003a,c, 2006) have emphasized the need to understand that mul- tiple determinants of health are linked and related in many ways. FRAMEWORK FOR INDICATOR DEVELOPMENT No single measure can capture the health of the nation. Indicators are needed that reflect a broad range of factors such as health, risk for illness, and health system performance. As described earlier, SUSA intends that official federal statistics will be the initial sources of indicator data. Over time, as new information becomes available and the source of indicator data expands, important indicators may change. Therefore, the set of indicators presented in this report should not be viewed as perfect or permanent, rather the committee identified potential indicators that met the data constraints and then applied the framework described below to determine the final selection of indicators. The committee considered the previously discussed frameworks of determinants of health and developed a simplified framework (see Figure 1) to guide the selection of the 20 indicators for the SUSA website. This framework for indicator development should not be interpreted as a model of the determinants of health outcomes because a complete model would need to include other determinants such as biologic or genetic predispositions that influence the ways that social, environmental, behav- ioral, and health services shape health outcomes. Social and Physical Environment Health-Related Health Outcomes Behavior Health Systems FIGURE 1 Framework for health and health care indicator development.

OCR for page 1
 STATE OF THE USA HEALTH INDICATORS The indicator framework chosen shows health outcomes influenced by three types of determinants: the social and physical environment, health-related behaviors, and health systems. Health outcomes were cho- sen because these reflect both the well-being of the population as well as the burden of illness. Social and physical environmental determinants were selected because they play a particularly important role in health since they impact health outcomes both directly and indirectly by influ- encing the other determinants. Health-related behaviors were chosen because behavioral patterns account for 40 percent of the deaths in the United States (McGinnis and Foege, 1993). Finally, health systems deter- minants were selected because access to available services is crucial to the treatment and prevention of some illnesses. In Figure 1 the committee recognizes, but does not show for rea- sons of simplicity, that sometimes health outcomes also have impact on determinants and that interactions among determinants are many and complex. The entire framework is embedded in the understanding that a broad concept of health requires equity across subpopulations in both outcomes and determinants. Once the framework was developed (see Figure 1), each commit- tee member was asked to identify the top 20 indicators he or she would choose for health/health care that fit within that framework. The num- ber was limited to 20 because of the limit set by SUSA. The resulting list included almost 200 separate indicators. The next step was to place each of the indicators in one of the boxes of the framework—outcomes, health-related behaviors, health systems, or social and physical environ- ment. Then, the committee proceeded to discuss the various indicators, what they conveyed about health or health care, and how they might be measured. The committee examined potential indicators to make sure that there was a balance of indicators of health/health care across the life course, resulting in elimination of some. For example, life expectancy at age five was eliminated but life expectancy at birth and life expectancy at age 65 were retained. Others were eliminated because they were indicators of very similar things. For example, insurance coverage, unmet needs, and having a regular source of care were all highly related. The committee determined that, given the restriction on the number of indicators, it was necessary to eliminate one of these and decided to exclude having a regu- lar source of care from the indicator list. Some indicators were eliminated from consideration because ade- quate data are not available. For example, many quality of care indicators have been identified for particular subsets of the health care system (e.g., members of managed care plans or individual hospitals) but national data that cross health systems are not available. Indicators of state and

OCR for page 1
 LETTER REPORT local public health expenditures were eliminated for a variety of reasons including lack of comparability across jurisdictions, failure to capture a substantial portion of public health services and programs, or the fact that the data used reflects budgets rather than expenditures. Other potential indicators were eliminated from consideration because the committee believes that they will be captured in other domains of the SUSA website, for example, employment and income as indicators in the economy domain; air and water quality and pollution as indicators in the environmental domain; and educational attainment in the education domain. Indicators were selected for each of the components of the framework illustrated in Figure 1. Overall, each indicator was chosen because of its importance to health or health care; because reliable, high-quality data are available to measure change in the indicator over time; and because the data can be viewed by population subgroups or geographic region. While the committee believes that the chosen indicators reflect the overall health of the nation and the effectiveness and efficiency of U.S. health systems, it is important to note that these indicators do not fully reflect all the fac- tors that are important to health status, health care, and public health. To include all factors would require many more indicators than 20. Indicators are only as good as the data on which they are based. All of the indicators recommended in this report are based on data provided by the federal statistical system. The functioning of that system is often taken for granted and assumptions are made that budgets are sufficient to provide the high-quality data needed. Continuing and sufficient support for the federal statistical system is crucial to populating the SUSA website with high-quality data. For the various indicators, the committee has identified variables such as race/ethnicity, income, and education as “drill-down” variables. That is, a user should be able to take a single health/health care indicator (e.g., infant mortality rate) and select additional displays of the data that stratify that indicator by other factors. These factors may include demo- graphics (e.g., age, gender, race/ethnicity), socioeconomics (e.g., income, education, employment status, insurance status), and geographic region (e.g., state, county, or urban/rural). The variables available for drill-down analysis will vary by indicator because they must be available from the original source data set used for each indicator. Another form of drill-down analysis may involve taking a single indicator (e.g., infant mortality) and allowing a more fine-grained breakdown of that indicator into one or more component indicators (e.g., neonatal mortality, postneonatal mortality, etc.). Again, the ability to do this sort of analysis will vary by indicator, depending on the level of detail available in the underlying source data.

OCR for page 1
 STATE OF THE USA HEALTH INDICATORS It is important to note that as one drills down into smaller units, such as counties or for small populations, the number of events, such as infant deaths, may become so small that they are statistically unreliable. The committee believes that SUSA should develop and apply a set of standards so that unreliable estimates are not included. (See Appendix C for further discussion of statistical reliability of drill-downs and methods for improving small-area estimates.) Moreover, the committee encourages SUSA to consider several statistical techniques to reduce the instability of estimates as described in Appendix C. The set of indicators identified by the committee is described below. For each indicator, information is provided about its importance as a mea- sure of health/health care, the data available to measure the indicator, and the kinds of drill down analyses that can be conducted. INDICATORS Health Outcomes The committee embraces a broad definition of health for the SUSA website, such as that proposed by the World Health Organization: “the state of complete physical, mental and social well-being and not merely the absence of disease or infirmity” (WHO, 1948) and the “extent to which an individual or group is able to realize aspirations and satisfy needs, and to change or cope with the environment. Health is a resource for everyday life, not the objective of living; it is a positive concept, emphasizing social and personal resources as well as physical capabilities” (WHO, 1984). Health outcome measures are used to quantify and track the health of nations, states, communities, and individuals. In light of the small number of indicators sought by SUSA, the committee recommends eight indica- tors in three general outcome categories: mortality, health related quality of life (or morbidity), and major health conditions. Particular attention was given to including major causes of morbidity and mortality in dif- ferent age groups, as well as important health outcomes that were not captured in the determinant categories (e.g., injury mortality). The health outcome indicators chosen are: Mortality • ife expectancy at birth: Number of years that a newborn is L expected to live if current mortality rates continue to apply • nfant mortality: Deaths of infants aged under 1 year per 1,000 live I births

OCR for page 1
 LETTER REPORT • ife expectancy at age 65: Number of years of life remaining to a L person at age 65 if current mortality rates continue to apply • njury-related mortality: Age-adjusted mortality rates due to inten- I tional and unintentional injuries Health-Related Quality of Life (Morbidity) • elf-reported health status: Percentage of adults1 reporting fair or S poor health • nhealthy days, physical and mental: Mean number of physically U or mentally unhealthy days in the past 30 days Condition-Specific Outcomes • hronic disease prevalence: Percentage of adults reporting one C or more of six chronic diseases (diabetes, cardiovascular disease, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease [chronic bronchitis and emphysema], asthma, cancer, and arthritis) • erious psychological distress: Percentage of adults with serious S psychological distress, as indicated by a score of ≥ 13 on the K6 scale Life Expectancy at Birth Indicator: Number of years that a newborn is expected to live if current mortality rates continue to apply. Life expectancy at birth is a standard for comparing populations both within countries and internationally. It reflects the overall mortality pattern of a population across all age groups (WHO, 2008d) and is often used as an overall measure of the state of a population’s general health (Human Resources and Social Development Canada, 2008). In 2005 in the United States, overall life expectancy at birth was 77.8 years. Table 1 provides data on life expectancy at birth for selected years broken down by race and sex. Life expectancy at birth is commonly used to identify disparities among populations. For example, Harper and colleagues (2007) used U.S. vital statistics data to assess the gap in life expectancy between blacks and whites. Meara and colleagues (2008) used life expectancy at birth to examine educational disparities in life expectancy among non-Hispanic blacks and whites. 1Adults are defined as 18 years and older for all surveys except for National Health Inter- view Survey which considers adults to be those 17 years and older.

OCR for page 1
0 STATE OF THE USA HEALTH INDICATORS TABLE 1 Life Expectancy at Birth by Race and Sex for Selected Years Black or All races White African American Year Male Female Male Female Male Female 1995 72.5 78.9 73.4 79.6 65.2 73.9 2000 74.3 79.7 74.9 80.1 68.3 75.2 2005 75.2 80.4 75.7 80.8 69.5 76.5 SOURCE: Adapted from NCHS, 2007. Life expectancy at birth is also used in international comparisons. Table 2 presents such comparisons for selected countries. The committee believes that the number of years that a newborn is expected to lie if current mortality rates continue to apply is an important indicator both of the health of the nation overall and as a means of iden- tifying disparities among populations within the United States. Data for this indicator can be found in the National Center for Health Statistics (NCHS) Vital Statistics reports (http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvsr/ nvsr56/nvsr56_10.pdf). Data can be analyzed by age, education level, ethnicity, marital status, national origin, place of residence, race, and sex. International data can be obtained through the World Health Organiza- tion (WHO) Statistical Information System. Infant Mortality Rate Indicator: Deaths of infants aged under 1 year per 1,000 live births. The infant mortality rate is a leading indicator that is used to compare popula- tions both within and across countries. Between 2002 to 2004, the infant mortality rate in the United States for all races was 6.9 but it is important to note that infant mortality varies by geographic region and race. For example, infant mortality for whites in New England was 4.3 but for blacks it was 11.0; in the West South Central Region, white infant mortal- ity was 6.5 but black infant mortality was 13 (NCHS, 2007). Infant mortality is used as an indicator of the level of child health and overall development and is often used to identify disparities among populations within a specific country. Although infant mortality is some- times criticized as focusing attention on a small part of the population, Reidpath and Allotey (2003) found that the infant mortality rate reflects the structural factors that affect population health. The committee believes that deaths of infants aged under  year per ,000 lie births is an important indicator of the health of the population.

OCR for page 1
TABLE 2 Life Expectancy at Birth for Selected Countries and Selected Years Male Female Country 1995 2000 2003 Rank 1995 2000 2003 Rank Australia 75.0 76.6 77.8 5 80.8 82.0 82.8 6 Bulgaria 67.4 68.5 68.9 34 74.9 75.1 75.9 35 Canada 75.1 76.7 77.4 7 81.1 81.9 82.4 9 Cuba 75.4 74.7 75.4 24 77.7 79.0 79.8 28 England and Wales 74.3 75.6 76.5 13 79.5 80.3 80.9 20 Greece 75.0 75.6 76.5 13 80.3 80.6 81.3 17 Japan 76.4 77.7 78.4 2 82.9 84.6 85.3 1 Puerto Rico 69.6 71.1 71.8 31 78.9 80.1 80.6 23 Romania 65.5 67.8 67.7 36 73.5 74.8 75.1 36 Spain 74.3 75.7 76.9 11 81.5 82.5 83.6 3 Sweden 76.2 77.4 77.9 4 81.4 82.0 82.5 7 United States 72.5 74.1 74.8 26 78.9 79.5 80.1 26 SOURCE: NCHS, 2007. 

OCR for page 1
 STATE OF THE USA HEALTH INDICATORS Social determinants play a particularly important role in health in that they impact health outcomes directly as well as indirectly by influ- encing other determinants. Social determinants include socioeconomic status (income, education, and employment status), race/ethnicity, social support, health literacy and limited English proficiency, and the social environment in which people live, learn, work, and play. Furthermore, many health outcomes are linked to features of the physical environment such as air and water quality, temperature, and characteristics of the built environment. Because of the relationship of health to factors in the other domains that SUSA will be developing, the committee recommends that as the other domains in SUSA are developed and indicators become available which describe the important social and physical determi- nants of health, SUSA should make an effort to create appropriate, dynamic linkages to describe health more fully. The committee believes that it is important for the SUSA website to include an explanation of the framework used to develop the indicators for health/health care as introductory material to that domain. Therefore, the committee recommends that the following description of the frame- work be included on the website: The indicators in the health domain fall into two categories. The first is health outcomes, which track the health of nations, states, and commu- nities. The second is determinants of health outcomes, in other words, factors that influence health outcomes. In addition to an individual’s own biology, there are three main types of health determinants which all inter- act to influence health outcomes. These determinants are characteristics of the social and physical environment, health-related behaviors, and health systems performance. Although the social and physical environ- ments play a particularly important role in that they influence other de- terminants, this part of the website presents indicators relating to health outcomes, health-related behaviors, and health systems. Indicators of the social and physical environments can be found in other SUSA domains and can be linked to health. As discussed earlier, the charge to the committee explicitly mentions disparities as one of the areas to be included in the report. Because dis- parities are important in the examination of a variety of indicators across many of the domains that SUSA intends to include in its website, the com- mittee believes that disparity indicators are best derived from a subset of the national indicators. Therefore, the committee recommends that for each indicator in the various SUSA domains, SUSA should include the ability to explore disparities by socioeconomic status, race/ethnicity, and geographic region.

OCR for page 1
 LETTER REPORT REFERENCES AAP (American Academy of Pediatrics), Committee on Substance Abuse and Committee on Children with Disabilities. 2000. Fetal alcohol syndrome and alcohol-related neurode- velopmental disorders. Pediatrics 106(2 Pt 1):358–361. Abma, J. C., G. M. Martinez, W. D. Mosher, and B. S. Dawson. 2004. Teenagers in the United States: Sexual activity, contraceptive use, and childbearing, 2002. Vital and Health Sta- tistics 23(24):1–48. Adler, N., J. Stewart, S. Cohen, M. Cullen, A. D. Roux, W. Dow, G. Evans, I. Kawachi, M. Marmot, K. Matthews, B. McEwen, J. Schwartz, T. Seeman, and D. Williams. 2007. Reaching for a healthier life: Facts on socioeconomic status and health in the U.S. The John D. and Catherine T. Macarthur Foundation Research Network on Socioeconomic Status and Health. AHRQ (Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality). 2004. Eidence report/technology assess- ment Number : Literacy and health outcomes. Rockville, MD: HHS. AHRQ. 2005. National healthcare quality report. Rockville, MD: HHS. AHRQ. 2006. National healthcare disparities report. Rockville, MD: HHS. AHRQ. 2008a. The guide to clinical preentie serices, 00: Recommendations of the U.S. Preen- tie Serices Task Force. Rockville, MD: HHS. AHRQ. 2008b. Only about 1 in 10 adult Americans have all the skills needed to manage their health. AHRQ News and Numbers May 14. Allison, D. B., K. R. Fontaine, J. E. Manson, J. Stevens, and T. B. VanItallie. 1999. Annual deaths attributable to obesity in the United States. JAMA 282(16):1530–1538. Bamshad, M. 2005. Genetic influences on health: Does race matter? JAMA 294(8):937–946. Bergen, G., L. H. Chen, M. Warner, and L. A. Fingerhut. 2008. Injury in the United States: 00 chartbook. Hyattsville, MD: National Center for Health Statistics. Berkman, L. F., and T. Glass. 2000. Social integration, social networks, social support, and health. In Social epidemiology, edited by L. F. Berkman and I. Kawachi. New York: Ox- ford University Press. Pp. 137–173. Billings, J., G. M. Anderson, and L. S. Newman. 1996. Recent findings on preventable hos- pitalizations. Health Affairs 15(3):239–249. Booth, B. M., and W. Feng. 2002. The impact of drinking and drinking consequences on short-term employment outcomes in at-risk drinkers in six southern states. Journal of Behaioral Health Serices & Research 29(2):157–166. Bosworth, H. B., I. C. Siegler, B. H. Brummett, J. C. Barefoot, R. B. Williams, N. E. Clapp- Channing, and D. B. Mark. 1999. The association between self-rated health and mor- tality in a well-characterized sample of coronary artery disease patients. Medical Care 37(12):1226–1236. Boyer, C. B., M. A. Shafer, E. Teitle, C. J. Wibbelsman, D. Seeberg, and J. Schachter. 1999. Sexually transmitted diseases in a health maintenance organization teen clinic: Asso- ciations of race, partner’s age, and marijuana use. Archies of Pediatrics and Adolescent Medicine 153(8):838–844. Castaneda, R., N. Sussman, L. Westreich, R. Levy, and M. O’Malley. 1996. A review of the effects of moderate alcohol intake on the treatment of anxiety and mood disorders. Journal of Clinical Psychiatry 57(5):207–212. CDC (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention). 1996. Physical actiity and health: A report of the Surgeon General. Atlanta, GA: HHS, CDC, National Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion. CDC. 1998. Sexually transmitted disease sureillance, . Atlanta, GA: HHS, Public Health Service.

OCR for page 1
0 STATE OF THE USA HEALTH INDICATORS CDC. 1999. Achievements in public health, 1900–1999 impact of vaccines universally recom- mended for children—United States, 1990–1998. Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report 48(12):243–248. CDC. 2007a. Health-related quality of life: Findings. http://www.cdc.gov/hrqol/findings. htm#key (accessed September 28, 2008). CDC. 2007b. Healthier worksite initiatie: Selected preentatie screening recommendations. http://www.cdc.gov/nccdphp/dnpa/hwi/resources/screening_matrix.htm (accessed September 30, 2008). CDC. 2007c. Nation’s childhood immunization rates remain at or aboe record leels. http://www. cdc.gov/media/pressrel/2007/r070830.htm (accessed September 25, 2008). CDC. 2008a. ACIP recommendations: Introduction and biology of influenza. http://www.cdc. gov/flu/professionals/acip/background.htm (accessed September 30, 2008). CDC. 2008b. Alcohol-related disease impact (ARDI). http://www.cdc.gov/alcohol/ardi.htm (accessed September 25, 2008). CDC. 2008c. Behaioral Risk Factor Sureillance System prealence and trends data: Physical actiity—00. Adults with 0+ minutes of moderate physical actiity fie or more days per week, or igorous physical actiity for 0+ minutes three or more days per week. http://apps. nccd.cdc.gov/brfss/list.asp?cat=PA&yr=2007&qkey=4418&state=All (accessed Novem- ber 16, 2008). CDC. 2008d. Behaioral Risk Factor Sureillance System prealence and trends data: Tobacco use— 00. Adults who are current smokers. http://apps.nccd.cdc.gov/BRFSS/list.asp?cat= TU&yr=2007&qkey=4396&state=All (accessed November 16, 2008). CDC. 2008e. Box . Summary of influenza accination recommendations, 00: Adults. http:// www.cdc.gov/flu/professionals/acip/flu_vax_adults0809.htm#box2 (accessed Sep- tember 30, 2008). CDC. 2008f. Chronic disease preention and health promotion. http://www.cdc.gov/nccdphp/ (accessed September 30, 2008). CDC. 2008g. Chronic disease preention and health promotion: Chronic disease oeriew. http:// www.cdc.gov/nccdphp/overview.htm (accessed September 30, 2008). CDC. 2008h. Influenza accination: A summary for clinicians. http://www.cdc.gov/flu/ professionals/vaccination/vax-summary.htm (accessed September 30, 2008). CDC. 2008i. Oerweight and obesity: Health consequences. http://www.cdc.gov/nccdphp/ dnpa/obesity/consequences.htm (accessed September 28, 2008). CDC. 2008j. Targeting arthritis: Improing quality of life for more than  million Americans. Atlanta, GA: HHS. CDC. 2008k. Update: Measles—United States, January–July 2008. Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report 57(33):893–896. CDC, NCHSTP (National Center for HIV/AIDS, Viral Hepatitis, STD, and TB Prevention). 2008l. 00 disease profile. Washington, DC: HHS. Census Bureau. 2004. People with health insurance: A comparison of estimates from two sureys, SIPP Working Paper . Washington, DC: Department of Commerce. Chapman, D. P., and G. S. Perry. 2008. Depression as a major component of public health for older adults. Preenting Chronic Disease 5(1):A22. Chen, C. M., and H. Yi. 2007. Trends in alcohol-related morbidity among short-stay community hospital discharges, United States, –00. Bethesda, MD: National Institutes of Health, National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism. Chou, R., A. K. Smits, L. H. Huffman, R. Fu, and P. T. Korthuis. 2005. Prenatal screening for HIV: A review of the evidence for the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force. Annals of Internal Medicine 143(1):38–54. CMS (Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services). 2008. National Health Expenditures (NHE) tables. http://www.cms.hhs.gov/NationalHealthExpendData/downloads/tables.pdf (accessed November 16, 2008).

OCR for page 1
 LETTER REPORT Congressional Budget Office. 2003. How many people lack health insurance and for how long? Washington, DC: Congressional Budget Office. Corrao, G., L. Rubbiati, A. Zambon, and S. Arico. 2002. Alcohol-attributable and alcohol- preventable mortality in Italy. A balance in 1983 and 1996. European Journal of Public Health 12(3):214–223. Corrao, G., V. Bagnardi, A. Zambon, and C. La Vecchia. 2004. A meta-analysis of alcohol consumption and the risk of 15 diseases. Preentie Medicine 38(5):613–619. Crimmel, B. L., and M. N. Stagnitti. 2005. Prescription drugs: Out-of-pocket expenses and unmet need relatie to family income, 00, Statistical brief #0. Rockville, MD: AHRQ. Cunningham, P. J., and L. E. Felland. 2008. Falling behind: Americans’ access to medical care deteriorates, 2003–2007. Tracking Report 19(June 2008). Dahlgren, G., and M. Whitehead. 1991. Policies and strategies to promote social equity in health. Stockholm: Institute for the Future Studies. DHEW (Department of Health, Education, and Welfare). 1979. Healthy people: The Surgeon General’s report on health promotion and disease preention. Washington, DC: Government Printing Office. Dietary Guidelines Advisory Committee. 2005. Report of the Dietary Guidelines Adisory Committee on the dietary guidelines for Americans, 00. http://www.health.gov/dietary guidelines/dga2005/report/default.htm (accessed September 28, 2008). Dorn, S. 2008. Uninsured and dying because of it: Updating the Institute of Medicine analysis on the impact of uninsurance on mortality. Washington, DC: Urban Institute. Eurosurveillance Editorial Team. 2008. Measles once again endemic in the United Kingdom. Eurosureillance 13(27). Evans, R. G., and G. L. Stoddart. 1990. Producing health, consuming health care. Social Sci- ences and Medicine 31(12):1347–1363. Fielding, J. E., C. G. Husten, and M. P. Eriksen. 1998. Tobacco: Health effects and control. In Public health and preentie medicine. 14th ed., edited by K. F. Maxcy, M. J. Rosenau, J. M. Last and R. B. Wallace. Stamford, CT: Appleton & Lange. Filia, A., M. De Crescenzo, T. Seyler, A. Bella, M. L. Ciofi Degli Atti, L. Nicoletti, F. Magurano, and S. Salmaso. 2008. Measles resurges in Italy: Preliminary data from September 2007 to May 2008. Eurosureillance 13(29). Fisher, E. S., D. E. Wennberg, T. A. Stukel, D. J. Gottlieb, F. L. Lucas, and E. L. Pinder. 2003a. The implications of regional variations in Medicare spending. Part 1: The content, qual- ity, and accessibility of care. Annals of Internal Medicine 138(4):273–287. Fisher, E. S., D. E. Wennberg, T. A. Stukel, D. J. Gottlieb, F. L. Lucas, and E. L. Pinder. 2003b. The implications of regional variations in Medicare spending. Part 2: Health outcomes and satisfaction with care. Annals of Internal Medicine 138(4):288–298. Flegal, K. M., M. D. Carroll, C. L. Ogden, and C. L. Johnson. 2002. Prevalence and trends in obesity among U.S. adults, 1999–2000. JAMA 288(14):1723–1727. Flegal, K. M., B. I. Graubard, D. F. Williamson, and M. H. Gail. 2007. Cause-specific excess deaths associated with underweight, overweight, and obesity. JAMA 298(17):2028– 2037. Forhan, S. E., S. L. Gottlieb, M. R. Sternberg, F. Xu, S. D. Datta, S. Berman, and L. E. Markowitz. 2008 (March 13). Prealence of sexually transmitted infections and bacterial aginosis among female adolescents in the United States: Data from the National Health and Nutrition Examination Surey (NHANES) 00–00. Paper presented at 2008 National STD Prevention Conference, Chicago, IL. Gauderman, W. J., E. Avol, F. Gilliland, H. Vora, D. Thomas, K. Berhane, R. McConnell, N. Kuenzli, F. Lurmann, E. Rappaport, H. Margolis, D. Bates, and J. Peters. 2004. The effect of air pollution on lung development from 10 to 18 years of age. New England Journal of Medicine 351(11):1057–1067.

OCR for page 1
 STATE OF THE USA HEALTH INDICATORS Gold, M., P. Franks, and P. Erickson. 1996. Assessing the health of the nation. The predictive validity of a preference-based measure and self-rated health. Medical Care 34(2):163– 177. Greenfeld, L. A. 1998. Alcohol and crime: An analysis of national data on the prealence of alcohol inolement in crime. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics. Grzywacz, J. G., and J. Fuqua. 2000. The social ecology of health: Leverage points and link- ages. Behaioral Medicine 26(3):101–115. Hagman, B. T., C. D. Delnevo, M. Hrywna, and J. M. Williams. 2008. Tobacco use among those with serious psychological distress: Results from the National Survey of Drug Use and Health, 2002. Addictie Behaiors 33(4):582–592. Hall, H. I., R. Song, P. Rhodes, J. Prejean, Q. An, L. M. Lee, J. Karon, R. Brookmeyer, E. H. Kaplan, M. T. McKenna, and R. S. Janssen. 2008. Estimation of HIV incidence in the United States. JAMA 300(5):520–529. Harper, S., J. Lynch, S. Burris, and G. Davey Smith. 2007. Trends in the black-white life ex- pectancy gap in the United States, 1983–2003. JAMA 297(11):1224–1232. Heron, M. 2007. Deaths: Leading causes for 2004. National Vital Statistics Reports 56(5):1–95. Heslin, K. C., W. E. Cunningham, M. Marcus, I. Coulter, J. Freed, C. Der-Martirosian, S. A. Bozzette, M. F. Shapiro, S. C. Morton, and R. M. Andersen. 2001. A comparison of unmet needs for dental and medical care among persons with HIV infection receiving care in the United States. Journal of Public Health Dentistry 61(1):14–21. HHS (Department of Health and Human Services). 1989. Reducing the health consequences of smoking:  years of progress. A report of the Surgeon General. Rockville, MD: HHS, Public Health Service, CDC. HHS. 1998. Tobacco use among U.S. Racial/ethnic minority groups: African Americans, American Indians and Alaska naties, Asian Americans and Pacific Islanders, and Hispanics. A report of the Surgeon General. Atlanta, GA: HHS, CDC. HHS. 2000. Healthy people 00: Understanding and improing health. 2nd ed. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office. HHS. 2001. Women and smoking: A report of the Surgeon General. Rockville, MD: HHS, CDC. HHS. 2004. The health consequences of smoking: A report of the Surgeon General. Atlanta, GA: HHS, CDC. HHS and USDA. 2005. Dietary guidelines for Americans, 00. Washington, DC: U.S. Govern- ment Printing Office. HRSA (Health Resources and Services Administration). 2008. Health literacy. http://www. hrsa.gov/healthliteracy/ (accessed September 28, 2008). Human Resources and Social Development Canada. 2008. Indicators of well-being in Canada. http://www4.hrsdc.gc.ca/indicator.jsp?indicatorid=3&lang=en (accessed September 30, 2008). Humphrey, L. L., M. Helfand, B. K. Chan, and S. H. Woolf. 2002. Breast cancer screening: A summary of the evidence for the U.S. Preventive services task force. Annals of Internal Medicine 137(5 Part 1):347–360. Idler, E. L., and Y. Benyamini. 1997. Self-rated health and mortality: A review of twenty- seven community studies. Journal of Health and Social Behaior 38(1):21–37. Idler, E. L., and S. V. Kasl. 1995. Self-ratings of health: Do they also predict change in func- tional ability? Journals of Gerontology: Series B, Psychological Sciences and Social Sciences 50(6):S344–S353. Idler, E. L., S. V. Kasl, and J. H. Lemke. 1990. Self-evaluated health and mortality among the elderly in New Haven, Connecticut, and Iowa and Washington counties, Iowa, 1982–1986. American Journal of Epidemiology 131(1):91–103. IOM (Institute of Medicine). 1999. Gulf war eterans: Measuring health. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.

OCR for page 1
 LETTER REPORT IOM. 2000a. Clearing the air: Asthma and indoor air exposures. Washington, DC: National Academy Press. IOM. 2000b. Promoting health: Interention strategies from social and behaioral research. Wash- ington, DC: National Academy Press. IOM. 2000c. To err is human: Building a safer health system. Washington, DC: National Acad- emy Press. IOM. 2001. Crossing the quality chasm: A new health system for the st century. Washington, DC: National Academy Press. IOM. 2003a. The future of the public’s health in the st century. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. IOM. 2003b. Unequal treatment: Confronting racial and ethnic disparities in health care. Washing- ton, DC: The National Academies Press. IOM. 2003c. Who will keep the public healthy?: Educating public health professionals for the st century. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. IOM. 2004a. Health literacy: A prescription to end confusion. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. IOM. 2004b. Insuring America’s health: Principles and recommendations. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. IOM. 2006. Genes, behaior, and the social enironment: Moing beyond the nature/nurture debate. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. Kaiser Commission on Medicaid and the Uninsured. 2008. Fie basic facts on the uninsured. Washington, DC: Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation. Kant, A. K., B. I. Graubard, and A. Schatzkin. 2004. Dietary patterns predict mortality in a national cohort: The national health interview surveys, 1987 and 1992. Journal of Nutri- tion 134(7):1793–1799. Kaplan, G. A., S. A. Everson, and J. W. Lynch. 2000. The contribution of social and behavioral research to an understanding of the distribution of disease: A multilevel approach. In Promoting health: Interention strategies from social and behaioral research, edited by B. D. Smedley and S. L. Syme. Washington, DC: National Academy Press. Karpati, A., B. Kerker, F. Mostashari, T. Singh, A. Hajat, L. Thorpe, M. Bassett, K. Henning, and T. Frieden. 2004. Health disparities in New York City. New York: New York City Department of Health and Mental Hygiene. Kawachi, I., and L. F. Berkman. 2001. Social ties and mental health. Journal of Urban Health 78(3):458–467. Kennedy, B. P., I. Kawachi, R. Glass, and D. Prothrow-Stith. 1998. Income distribution, socio- economic status, and self-rated health in the United States: Multilevel analysis. British Medical Journal 317(7163):917–921. Kessler, R. C., P. R. Barker, L. J. Colpe, J. F. Epstein, J. C. Gfroerer, E. Hiripi, M. J. Howes, S. L. Normand, R. W. Manderscheid, E. E. Walters, and A. M. Zaslavsky. 2003. Screen- ing for serious mental illness in the general population. Archies of General Psychiatry 60(2):184–189. Kim, J. 2008. Psychological distress and occupational injury: Findings from the national health interview survey 2000–2003. Journal of Preentie Medicine and Public Health 41(3):200–207. Kindig, D. A., Y. Asada, and B. Booske. 2008. A population health framework for setting national and state health goals. JAMA 299(17):2081–2083. Krieger, N. 2006. Using area-based socioeconomic measures to study social disparities in cancer. AACR Meeting Abstracts 2006(1):1359–1360. Kung, H. C., D. L. Hoyert, J. Xu, and S. L. Murphy. 2008. Deaths: Final data for 2005. National Vital Statistics Reports 56(10):1–120. Lalonde, M. 1974. A new perspectie on the health of Canadians. Ottawa: Ministry of Supply and Services.

OCR for page 1
 STATE OF THE USA HEALTH INDICATORS Last, J. M. 2001. A dictionary of epidemiology. 4th ed. New York: Oxford University Press. Lee, Y. 2000. The predictive value of self assessed general, physical, and mental health on functional decline and mortality in older adults. Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health 54(2):123–129. Leonard, K. E., and J. C. Rothbard. 1999. Alcohol and the marriage effect. Journal of Studies on Alcohol Supplement 13:139–146. Long, S. K., T. A. Coughlin, and S. J. Kendall. 2002. Unmet need among rural Medicaid beneficiaries in Minnesota. Journal of Rural Health 18(3):437–446. Long, S. K., J. King, and T. A. Coughlin. 2005. The implications of unmet need for future health care use: Findings for a sample of disabled Medicaid beneficiaries in New York. Inquiry 42(4):413–420. Maciosek, M. V., L. I. Solberg, A. B. Coffield, N. M. Edwards, and M. J. Goodman. 2006. Colorectal cancer screening: Health impact and cost effectiveness. American Journal of Preentie Medicine 31(1):80–89. McCaig, L. F., and C. W. Burt. 2005. National hospital ambulatory medical care survey: 2003 emergency department summary. Adance Data From Vital and Health Statistics (358):1–37. McGee, D. L., Y. Liao, G. Cao, and R. S. Cooper. 1999. Self-reported health status and mortal- ity in a multiethnic U.S. cohort. American Journal of Epidemiology 149(1):41–46. McGinnis, J. M., and W. H. Foege. 1993. Actual causes of death in the United States. JAMA 270(18):2207–2212. McGuire, T. G., M. Alegria, B. L. Cook, K. B. Wells, and A. M. Zaslavsky. 2006. Implementing the Institute of Medicine definition of disparities: An application to mental health care. Health Serices Research 41(5):1979–2005. Meara, E. R., S. Richards, and D. M. Cutler. 2008. The gap gets bigger: Changes in mortality and life expectancy, by education, 1981–2000. Health Affairs 27(2):350–360. Mental Health America. 2007. Ranking America’s mental health: An analysis of depression across the states. Alexandria, VA: Mental Health America. Miilunpalo, S., I. Vuori, P. Oja, M. Pasanen, and H. Urponen. 1997. Self-rated health status as a health measure: The predictive value of self-reported health status on the use of physician services and on mortality in the working-age population. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology 50(5):517–528. Mokdad, A. H. 2005. Correction: Actual causes of death in the United States, 2000. JAMA 293(3):293–294. Mokdad, A. H., J. S. Marks, D. F. Stroup, and J. L. Gerberding. 2004. Actual causes of death in the United States, 2000. JAMA 291(10):1238–1245. Montonen, J., P. Knekt, T. Harkanen, R. Jarvinen, M. Heliovaara, A. Aromaa, and A. Reunanen. 2005. Dietary patterns and the incidence of type 2 diabetes. American Jour- nal of Epidemiology 161(3):219–227. Moum, T. A. 1999 (July 28). Health-related quality of life in Norway—a nationwide mixed-mode panel study of the CDC healthy days measures. Paper presented at CDC Quality of Life Seminar, Atlanta, GA. Naimi, T. S., L. E. Lipscomb, R. D. Brewer, and B. C. Gilbert. 2003. Binge drinking in the preconception period and the risk of unintended pregnancy: Implications for women and their children. Pediatrics 111(5 Part 2):1136–1141. National Center on Addiction and Substance Abuse at Columbia University. 1999. No safe haen: Children of substance-abusing parents. New York: National Center on Addiction and Substance Abuse at Columbia University. NCHS (National Center for Health Statistics). 2007. Health, United States, 00: With chartbook on trends in the health of Americans. Hyattsville, MD: HHS. Newacheck, P. W., D. C. Hughes, Y. Y. Hung, S. Wong, and J. J. Stoddard. 2000. The unmet health needs of America’s children. Pediatrics 105(4 Pt 2):989–997.

OCR for page 1
 LETTER REPORT Newschaffer, C. J. 1998. Validation of behaioral risk factor sureillance system (BRFSS) HRQOL measures in a statewide sample. Atlanta, GA: CDC. NIS (National Immunization Survey). 2007a. Estimated accination coerage with indiidual accines and selected accination series among children – months of age by poerty leel and race/ethnicity. http://www2a.cdc.gov/nip/coverage/nis/nis_iap.asp?fmt=r&rpt= tab32_pov_race&qtr=Q1/2007-Q4/2007 (accessed September 25, 2008). NIS. 2007b. Estimated accination coerage with indiidual accines and selected accination series among children – months of age by state and local area, q/00–q/00. http://www2a. cdc.gov/nip/coverage/nis/nis_iap.asp?fmt=v&rpt=tab02_antigen_iap&qtr=Q1/2007- Q4/2007 (accessed September 25, 2008). NRC (National Research Council). 2004. Eliminating health disparities: Measurement and data needs. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. NRHA (National Rural Health Association). 2008. What’s different about rural health care? http://www.ruralhealthweb.org/go/left/about-rural-health/what-s-different-about- rural-health-care (accessed November 16, 2008). Ockene, I. S., and N. H. Miller. 1997. Cigarette smoking, cardiovascular disease, and stroke: A statement for healthcare professionals from the American Heart Association. American Heart Association Task Force on Risk Reduction. Circulation 96(9):3243–3247. ODPHP (Office of Disease Prevention and Health Promotion). 2008. Quick guide to health literacy: Fact sheet. http://www.health.gov/communication/literacy/quickguide/ factsbasic.htm (accessed September 28, 2008). Office of the Surgeon General. 2007. Oerweight and obesity: Health consequences. http://www. surgeongeneral.gov/topics/obesity/calltoaction/fact_consequences.htm (accessed September 27, 2008). Ogden, C. L., M. D. Carroll, L. R. Curtin, M. A. McDowell, C. J. Tabak, and K. M. Flegal. 2006. Prevalence of overweight and obesity in the United States, 1999–2004. JAMA 295(13):1549–1555. Ogden, C. L., M. D. Carroll, M. A. McDowell, and K. M. Flegal. 2007. Obesity among adults in the United States—no statistically significant change since 00–00. No. 1, NCHS data brief. Hyattsville, MD: CDC, National Center for Health Statistics. Olden, K., and S. L. White. 2005. Health-related disparities: Influence of environmental fac- tors. Medical Clinics of North America 89(4):721–738. Pappas, G., W. C. Hadden, L. J. Kozak, and G. F. Fisher. 1997. Potentially avoidable hospi- talizations: Inequalities in rates between US socioeconomic groups. American Journal of Public Health 87(5):811–816. Pijls, L. T., E. J. Feskens, and D. Kromhout. 1993. Self-rated health, mortality, and chronic diseases in elderly men. The Zutphen Study, 1985–1990. American Journal of Epidemiol- ogy 138(10):840–848. Pratt, L. A., A. N. Dey, and A. J. Cohen. 2007. Characteristics of adults with serious psycho- logical distress as measured by the K6 scale: United States, 2001–04. Adance Data From Vital and Health Statistics (382):1–18. Ratzan, S. C., and R. M. Parker. 2000. Introduction. In Current bibliographies in medicine: Health literacy, edited by C. R. Selden, M. Zorn, S. C. Ratzan, and R. M. Parker. Bethesda, MD: HHS, National Institutes of Health, National Library of Medicine. Rehm, J., G. Gmel, C. T. Sempos, and M. Trevisan. 2003. Alcohol-related morbidity and mortality. Alcohol Research & Health 27(1):39–51. Reidpath, D. D., and P. Allotey. 2003. Infant mortality rate as an indicator of population health. Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health 57(5):344–346. Reinhardt, U. E., P. S. Hussey, and G. F. Anderson. 2004. U.S. Health care spending in an international context. Health Affairs 23(3):10–25. Rural Assistance Center. 2008. Rural Health Disparities. http://www.raconline.org/info_ guides/disparities/ (accessed November 16, 2008).

OCR for page 1
 STATE OF THE USA HEALTH INDICATORS SAMHSA (Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration). 2006a. Figure 1. Alcohol dependence or abuse in the past year among persons aged 12 or older, by substate region: Percentages, annual averages based on 2002, 2003, and 2004 NSDUH data. The NSDUH Report (25). SAMHSA. 2006b. Serious psychological distress and substance use among young adult males. The NSDUH Report (3):1–4. SAMHSA. 2008. Results from the 00 National Surey on Drug Use and Health: National find- ings, NSDUH Series H–. Rockville, MD: HHS. Schiff, E. R. 1997. Hepatitis C and alcohol. Hepatology 26(3 Suppl 1):39S–42S. Schroeder, S. A. 2007. Shattuck lecture. We can do better—improving the health of the Ameri- can people. New England Journal of Medicine 357(12):1221–1228. Sherman, A., R. Greenstein, and S. Parrott. 2008. Poerty and share of Americans without health insurance were higher in 00—and median income for working-age households was lower—than at bottom of last recession. Washington, DC: Center on Budget and Policy Priorities. Shih, M., and P. A. Simon. 2008. Health-related quality of life among adults with seri- ous psychological distress and chronic medical conditions. Quality of Life Research 17(4):521–528. Simpson, G., B. Bloom, R. A. Cohen, and P. E. Parsons. 1997. Access to health care. Part 1: Children. Vital and Health Statistics (196):1–46. Sing, M., J. S. Banthin, T. M. Selden, C. A. Cowan, and S. P. Keehan. 2006. Reconciling Medical Expenditure Estimates from the MEPS and NHEA, 2002. Health Care Financing Reiews 28(1):25–40. Smith, G. S., C. C. Branas, and T. R. Miller. 1999. Fatal nontraffic injuries involving alcohol: A metaanalysis. Annals of Emergency Medicine 33(6):659–668. Stansfeld, S. 1999. Social support and social cohesion. In Social determinants of health, edited by M. Marmot and R. Wilkinson. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Pp. 155–178. Stein, M. B., B. J. Cox, T. O. Afifi, S. L. Belik, and J. Sareen. 2006. Does co-morbid depressive illness magnify the impact of chronic physical illness? A population-based perspective. Psychological Medicine 36(5):587–596. Sudano, J. J., R. D. Cebul, and D. W. Baker. 2002. Access to care, regular source of care, and health care use among the intermittently uninsured. Academy for Health Serices Research and Health Policy Meeting 19:6. Szilagyi, P. G., and E. L. Schor. 1998. The health of children. Health Serices Research 33(4 Pt 2):1001–1039. The Commonwealth Fund. 2008. Why not the best? Results from the national scorecard on U.S. Health system performance, 00. New York: The Commonwealth Fund. UK Health Protection Agency. 2008. Confirmed measles cases in England and Wales—an update to end-May 2008. Health Protection Report 2(25). USDA Center for Nutrition Policy and Promotion. 2002. Report card on the quality of Ameri- cans’ diets. Alexandria, VA: USDA. USDA Center for Nutrition Policy and Promotion. 2008. Healthy eating index—00. http:// www.cnpp.usda.gov/Publications/HEI/healthyeatingindex2005factsheet.pdf (ac- cessed October 30, 2008). van Dam, R. M., E. B. Rimm, W. C. Willett, M. J. Stampfer, and F. B. Hu. 2002. Dietary patterns and risk for type 2 diabetes mellitus in U.S. Men. Annals of Internal Medicine 136(3):201–209. Wechsler, H., A. Davenport, G. Dowdall, B. Moeykens, and S. Castillo. 1994. Health and behavioral consequences of binge drinking in college. A national survey of students at 140 campuses. JAMA 272(21):1672–1677.

OCR for page 1
 LETTER REPORT Weinick, R. M., and S. K. Drilea. 1998. Usual sources of health care and barriers to care, 1996. Statistical Bulletin (Metropolitan Life Insurance Company) 79(1):11–17. Weinick, R. M., S. H. Zuvekas, and S. K. Drilea. 1997. Access to health care—sources and barriers, , MEPS research findings. No. . Rockville, MD: AHRQ. Weissman, J. S., R. Stern, S. L. Fielding, and A. M. Epstein. 1991. Delayed access to health care: Risk factors, reasons, and consequences. Annals of Internal Medicine 114(4):325–331. Westat and AmericaSpeaks. 2008. Analysis of data on historical public priorities. Rockville, MD: Westat. WHO (World Health Organization). 1948. Constitution of the World Health Organization. Geneva: WHO. WHO. 1984. Health promotion: A discussion document on the concept and principles. Copenhagen: WHO. WHO. 2008a. 0 facts on injuries and iolence. http://www.who.int/features/factfiles/ injuries/en/index.html (accessed September 28, 2008). WHO. 2008b. Management of substance abuse: Facts and figures. http://www.who.int/substance _abuse/facts/en/ (accessed November 16, 2008). WHO. 2008c. Management of substance abuse: Facts and figures. Alcohol. http://www.who.int/ substance_abuse/facts/alcohol/en/index.html (accessed November 16, 2008). WHO. 2008d. WHO statistical information system: Indicator definitions and metadata, 00. http://www.who.int/whosis/indicators/compendium/2008/en/ (accessed Septem- ber 29, 2008). Williams, J., B. Lyons, and D. Rowland. 1997. Unmet long-term care needs of elderly people in the community: A review of the literature. Home Health Care Serices Quarterly 16(1–2):93–119. Wold, C. 2008. Health Indicators: A Reiew of Reports Currently in Use. Pasadena, CA: Wold & Associates. Wright, D., and N. Sathe. 2006. State estimates of substance use from the 00–00 National Sureys on Drug Use and Health. Rockville, MD: SAMHSA. Zahran, H. S., R. Kobau, D. G. Moriarty, M. M. Zack, J. Holt, and R. Donehoo. 2005. Health- related quality of life surveillance—United States, 1993–2002. Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report Sureillance Summaries 28; 54(4):1–35.

OCR for page 1