For the first time in 40 years, the infant mortality rate in the U.S. has increased, with seven out of every 1,000 children born in America dying within their first year of life, according to the annual report "America’s Health: State Health Rankings," issued by the United Health Foundation, together with the American Public Health Association (APHA) and Partnership for Prevention. The report, available online at http://www.unitedhealthfoundation.org, was released at the APHA meeting in Washington, D.C. on November 8.
Infant mortality is one of the more sensitive measures of a community’s health since data can be tracked in increments of months as opposed to years, said Georges Benjamin, executive director of APHA at a press conference.
""""""He pointed to a number of factors that may be associated with the increase, including women receiving less prenatal care or losing their jobs, cuts to nutrition programs, and climbing poverty rates.""""""""
A commentary published in the report pointed to an increase in premature births as a culprit, too.
The U.S. infant mortality rate is about double the rate found in Hong Kong (3.1) and Japan (3.4), according to "America’s Health." Those numbers were drawn from a 1999 report from the National Center for Health Statistics (NCHS) at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. In that NCHS survey, the U.S. ranked 28th among 37 nations.
"America’s Health: State Health Rankings" uses 18 measures that include prevalence of smoking, high school graduation rates, infant mortality rates, premature death, and per capita public health spending to produce a composite assessment of each state’s health. Authors of the report draw on information from sources such as the U.S. Departments of Health and Human Services, Education, and Labor and the National Safety Council. Led by the School of Public Health at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, a panel of public health scholars oversees the methodology for the rankings, and an independent research group analyzes the data to author the report.
Reed Tuckson, vice president of United Health Foundation, pointed out that the subtitle of the report is "A Call to Action for People and Their Communities." That may be because there is bad news on other fronts as well. Since 1990, the prevalence of obesity has increased by 97 percent,
and the number of uninsured rose by 16 percent, according to the report. Since just last year, there was an eight percent increase in the number of children living in poverty.
These unsettling statistics emerge against a backdrop in which improvements to the overall health of the nation have slowed dramatically since 2000. During the 1990s, health in the United States advanced by an annual rate of 1.5 percent each year, according to the report. However, during the 2000s, health improvement in the country slowed to an annual rate of only 0.2 percent each year–1/8th the rate of the 1990s.
Top 10 Healthiest States
1. Minnesota
2. New Hampshire
3. Vermont
4. Hawaii
5. Utah
6. Massachusetts
7. North Dakota
8. Connecticut
9. Wisconsin
10. Maine
Bottom 10 Healthiest States
41. North Carolina
42. Florida
43. Alabama (TIED)
43. West Virginia
45. Georgia
46. Arkansas
47. South Carolina
48. Tennessee
49. Mississippi
50. Louisiana
Rankings according to "America’s Health: State Health Rankings 2004" by the United Health Foundation.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Harvard Public Health NOW is published biweekly by the
Office of Communications
Harvard School of Public Health
665 Huntington Ave., SPH 1-1312
Boston, Massachusetts 02115
617-432-6052
Editor and Layout: Christina Roache
Contributing Writers: Michael Lasalandra and Eileen McCluskey
Photos Credits: John Drew Photography and Video Production; Jowdy Photography; and Suzanne Camarata
Archived Issues || HSPH Home
Copyright, 2004, President and Fellows of Harvard College
posted on May 21, 2005 08:07:31 PM new
Where did you get your information from?
Healthiest States, 2005
2005 rank State 2004 rank
1. Vermont 2.
2. New Hampshire 1.
3. Massachusetts 8.
4. Minnesota 5.
5. Maine 9.
6. Iowa 4.
7. Utah 6.
8. Hawaii 3.
9. Nebraska 7.
10. Connecticut 10.
11. North Dakota 12.
12. Rhode Island 18.
13. Washington 13.
14. Wisconsin 21.
15. Kansas 17.
16. New Jersey 11.
17. Virginia 22.
18. California 14.
19. Oregon 15.
20.. Idaho 20.
21. Pennsylvania 26.
22. South Dakota 19.
23. Michigan 25.
24. Indiana 28.
25.. Montana 23.
26. Ohio 24.
27. Colorado 27.
28. West Virginia 34.
29. Maryland 32.
30. Wyoming 16.
31. New York 33.
32. Kentucky 29.
33. North Carolina 30.
34. Illinois 31.
35. Delaware 44.
36. Missouri 37.
37. Alaska 35.
38. Tennessee 36.
39. Arizona 40.
40. Arkansas 38.
41. Alabama 47.
42. Georgia 42.
43. South Carolina 46.
44. Florida 41.
45. Texas 42.
46. Oklahoma 39.
47. Nevada 45.
48. New Mexico 49.
49. Mississippi 50.
50. Louisiana 48.
Methodology: The Healthiest State designation is awarded on the basis of 21 factors selected from the 2005 edition of Morgan Quitno's annual reference book, Health Care State Rankings. These factors reflect access to health care providers, affordability of health care, and the general health of a state's population.
Source: Morgan Quitno Press. Web: www.morganquitno.com . See also Smartest States.
posted on May 21, 2005 08:34:48 PM new
Wow crowfarm whining and stupid are what you say about my posts when you are the one that is stalking. Get over it. Remember the thread where you said I was stalking you. Number of posts by you 10+ by me 3....
_________________
posted on May 21, 2005 09:07:47 PM new
well....it didnt take long for this post to turn to sh*t ROFLMAO!!
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Baseball season has started,but they have it all wrong.3 strikes and you're out,4 balls you walk.I can tell you right now a man with 4 balls could not possibly walk
posted on May 21, 2005 09:59:32 PM new
OP states: He pointed to a number of factors that may be associated with the increase, including women receiving less prenatal care or losing their jobs, cuts to nutrition programs, and climbing poverty rates.
Funny how none of those accusations are what the CDC believes are causing this increase. bet THAT's a surprise to everyone.
posted on May 21, 2005 11:04:04 PM new
:: Where did you get your information from? ::
Libra - I'm really beginning to wonder if you actually read posts. It's not all that difficult to find where Crow got the numbers... the source was in the very next line.
Rankings according to "America’s Health: State Health Rankings 2004" by the United Health Foundation.
~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~
If it's really "common" sense, why do so few people actually have it?
posted on May 22, 2005 04:42:52 AM new
Ya, linduh, everyone who doesn't support this present administration as being gods is lying...right, deary, now go back to bed and get some rest like the doctor said to do.
This administration may be against abortion and stem cell research but they have NO qualms about killing children or anyone else.
Our embarrassingly high infant mortality rate illustrates the need for improved maternal health care which can be provided by a universal health program. European countries with such programs and Canada, for example have lower infant mortality rates than the United States.
posted on May 22, 2005 09:28:54 AM newOur embarrassingly high infant mortality rate illustrates the need for improved maternal health care which can be provided by a universal health program.
Now a Universal Health Program, you used to want National Health Care
A high infant mortality rate is bad Helen, but in this state a mother can get medicaid if she is at or below poverty level.
I remember when Elizabeth,my daughter found she was pregnant. She did the home EPT test (twice) then she went to public health because that is where her friend told her to go. I went with her (wondering why she went there) well, yeah they said she was pregnant. And sat her down and started the process of the whole state pre natal care. She looked at it all, and said, 'no my husband has insurance' I took a booklet they had there. It was amazing. The first big thing you saw was 'Do you know if any of your friends are pregnant? Give them this pamphlet for free pre natal and post natal care'
How it is in other states? I have no idea.
Here you can apply online too! Someone told me that, and I went and checked, and yep you can apply for food stamps, medicaid, and cash. And you can get the above if your unemployed, its called General Unemployable something.
posted on May 22, 2005 09:39:56 AM new
She went because her friends went there. She was new to his insurance and frankly, she didn't know better. When she asked me to go, she didn't tell me it was public health. She found a OB GYN at Valley Medical Center the next week.
Anyone can go into public health and get pregnancy tests.
And here is just some of the services that you can apply online for
posted on May 22, 2005 09:44:16 AM new
What does this have to do with your original post?
You put: He pointed to a number of factors that may be associated with the increase, including women receiving less prenatal care or losing their jobs, cuts to nutrition programs, and climbing poverty rates
And I put the url for getting prenatal care and more, that is available in my state, and probably more states.
posted on May 22, 2005 09:47:26 AM new
Then, near, we would need a list of cuts and/or reduced services(due to tax cuts and cut budgets) because infant mortality in the U.S IS rising.
Are the SERVICES for these women the same as they were say five, six years ago?
posted on May 22, 2005 09:51:50 AM new
I don't know if they are the same from 5 or so years ago, I've never used them.
I have to babysit my grandkid now, but I'll look up the Washington state pre and post natal services later. I do know that her friend (the one that told her to go to Public Health) received, and still does, full medical, for her and baby, cash, and food stamps
posted on May 22, 2005 10:08:20 AM new
N.T.S. ...although the very poor, may qualify for medical assistance in your state , there is a group of mothers making enough money to survive but not enough to qualify for such help. Since most conditions that may cause an infant's death are related to lack of maternal care, don't you believe that everyone should be covered?
posted on May 22, 2005 10:12:24 AM new
LOL - IF anyone would read the stats ....especially those comparing us to the 'world'....they would see we have long had a higher rate of infant mortality than many other countries.
To try and make it appear like this is something recent...and of course, THIS President's fault...only shows their inability to READ and COMPREHEND the FACTS... The link I posted has all the years, including back past the clinton administration.
FACTS? who needs FACTS? Certainly NOT the 'blame Bush for everything club' would.
Oh yes....now the CDC can't be trusted or believed in giving THEIR reasons for these changes 2002. what a joke......
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Four More Years....YES!!!
posted on May 22, 2005 10:18:38 AM new
Repeat repeat:""Oh,by the way, linduh the information in your post does in no way contradict my post.
In your haste to stalk me you must not have noticed that."""
READ linduh READ....
linduh says,""LOL - IF anyone would read the stats ....especially those comparing us to the 'world'....they would see we have long had a higher rate of infant mortality than many other countries. ""
Only linduh could "LOL" about the fact that we have higher infant mortality rates than other countries....what? Are you proud of this???
The POINT was the rate is RISING for the reasons stated in the OP...that's shameful...not something to "LOL" about.
You take THIS so lightly but rail against abortion or stem cell research ??????
There are 141 countries with better infant survival rates than the United States. Don't try to excuse this state of affairs by comparing this report to Clinton's report. This is a problem for everyone in America regardless of their political affiliation.
posted on May 22, 2005 11:04:01 AM new
Oh...taken to mis-spelling my name now, helen?
You're so childish it's unbelievable. But..hey with CF as your 'mentor' 'model' it doesn't surprise me you're sinking this low.
Yes, helen, I understand you're an Internationalist. But many voters in America AREN'T.
The link you've provided has already been posted TWICE. Think posting it once again will change anything?
There are none in American who can't get the help and health care they need. YOU always bring up how many are UNINSURED...and your gripes about that.
The fact, AS I ALREADY MENTIONED is the US has LONG had these high infant mortality rates...but over the years we've seen improvement.
But hey helen...since everything your country does is wrong/inadequate/etc...might just consider moving to a more 'socialistic' country where I'm sure you'd be happier. [well...maybe not...I personally don't think ANYTHING would EVER make you happy]
President Bush's administration IS NOT causing this 2002 increase in our infant mortality rate....
...but I understand....won't keep the radical socialists here from trying to make it appear that way.
The good thing is...MOST American's don't 'buy' this socialist tripe you so support.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Four More Years....YES!!!
posted on May 22, 2005 11:14:11 AM new
lollinda, Get down and roll on the floor again. Then, get up and laugh out loud. Then sit down and chuckle for awhile. After wasting so much time laughing you must need a break.. Are you close to the potty? Hurry back now so that you can lol at the next poster.
I suppose it's a defensive mechanism of sorts for you....when words fail...It's not effective but what else can we expect from you but that laugh that's not really a laugh.
posted on May 22, 2005 11:41:41 AM new"There are none in American who can't get the help and health care they need. YOU always bring up how many are UNINSURED...and your gripes about that.
lollinda, Your ignorance is staggering. Do you think that doctors and hospitals are welcoming those without insurance?
A study by the consumer group Families USA released March 4 finds that nearly 75 million Americans lacked health insurance some time in the past two years—amounting to almost one-third of all Americans younger than 65. And of these 74.7 million individuals, the survey found 30.1 percent had no coverage at some time in 2001 and 2002 while 65 percent had no coverage for at least six months. Nearly a quarter—24 percent—had no insurance during the entire two years.
Previously, the most widely cited statistic on lack of insurance was the U.S. Census Bureau statistic that 41.2 million Americans lacked health insurance in 2001.
This topic is 6 pages long: 1new2new3new4new5new6new
bet THAT's a surprise to everyone. 
??