Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Available Dashboards
Community Health Dashboard Disparities Dashboard Social Health Dashboard Service Area Dashboards
Mortality
Health Outcomes
Infant Mortality Low Birth Weight Births Morbidity Mental Health Status Cancer Screening
Pap Test Colon Cancer Screening Flu Shots for Adults 65+
Vaccinations
Violence and Injury Prevention High Risk Sexual Behavior Tobacco Use Alcohol Use
Health Factors
Access to Clinical Care
Diet and Exercise Percent Uninsured Percent with Personal Physician Physician-to-Population Ratio Non-Emergent Emergency Department Use
Access: Percent Without Health Insurance age 0-64, 2006 to 2009 Other Peer Counties include:
Maricopa, Los Angeles, MiamiDade, Cook Other Peer Counties Range, 2009
Percent
40.0%
Healthy People 2020 goal is to decrease the portion of persons without health insurance to 0% (target based on total coverage )
Dallas County Trend, Percent Uninsured, Ages 0-64, 2005, 2006, 2008 and 2009
Percent
2009 2008 32.9% 33.2% 30.8% 29.1% 10.0% 20.0% 30.0% 40.0%
35.0%
30.0%
2006
25.0%
18.8% - 33.8%
2005 0.0%
20.0%
Dallas Co.
15.0%
10.0%
23.0%
24.6%
26.3%
33.4%
17.2%
29.1%
25.0%
17.9%
25.9%
5.0%
27.6%
0.0%
2009 % Uninsured under 65
U.S. Bexar County Harris County
2008 and 2009 data is from: US Census American Community Survey, 2008 and 2009 2005 and 2006 data is from: US Census Small Area Health Insurance Estimates 2005-6, accessed from the following web site http://www.census.gov/did/www/sahie/data/2006/tables.html Healthy People 2020 Objective AHS 1.1 http://www.healthypeople.gov/2020/topicsobjectives2020/objectiveslist.aspx?topicId=1 City of Dallas, EBRI, Special run by Ken McDonnell, EBRI and ASEC Program Director, 2004-2009 202-775-6367, 2009 data is from : US Census American Community Survey, 2009
City of Dallas 4
Access to care
Doing better than the benchmark
Same as/not significantly different from the benchmark Worse than the benchmark
Percent Uninsured Percent with Personal Physician Physician-toPopulation Ratio Non-emergent Emergency Department Use
N/A
N/A
N/A
Disparity Ratios for 2009-2010 Combined Dallas County Percent Without Health Insurance Disparity Ratio
55.7
Letter Grade*
40.0
Male
Female
0.0 White White Some college Less than HS African American African American Less than HS Female Other HS diploma Female some college college grad Dallas County HS diploma Hispanic Hispanic College grad Texas
1.32
< High School High School Grad Some College College Grad
Male
Male
11.54
6.64
3.70
Source: Rates from Texas Department of State Health Services, Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance Program.
Better than the benchmark Same as/not significantly different from the benchmark Worse than the benchmark
Reference 6 6
*Letter grade based on New Mexico Department of Health Guidelines, see slide 4 for legend.
The Disparities Ratio is the score for the disparate group over the reference group. The reference group is the group with the best rates. For example, if Hispanics have the best rate for a measure, with 150 cases per 1000 (making them the reference group), and Whites have a rate of 300 per 1000, 300/150=2.0, so the disparity ratio for Whites would be 2.0, meaning their rate is twice as high as the lowest rate.
Source: New Mexico Department of Health, 2010 Racial and Ethnic Health Disparities Report Card, http://www.health.state.nm.us/dpp/DPPR.htm accessed 9-15-11
7 7
Access to Care
White
African American
Hispanic
Other Race
Male
Female
< HS
HS Grad
Some College
College Grad
Reference
Reference
Reference
Reference
Reference
Reference
Reference
Reference
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
Quality of care
Doing better than the benchmark
Same as/not significantly different from the benchmark Worse than the benchmark Diabetes Short
Term Comp Diabetes Long Term Comp Diabetes Lower Extremity Amputations Uncontrolled Diabetes Hypertension Preventable Hospitalizations Cardiovascular PQIs Congestive Heart Failure Angina w/o Procedure Preventable Hospitalizations Chronic Pulmonary PQIs Adult Asthma COPD Urinary Tract Infection Preventable Hospitalizations Acute/Infectious Disease PQIs Bacterial Pneumonia Dehydration Perforated Appendix 9
Quality of Care
White African American
F F
Hispanic
Other Race
Reference A Reference C B A Not Enough Data A Reference Reference A A A
Male
Female
A C
Reference A
F F D
B A A
D F A A C A
D A B A A A 10
Quality of Care
White African American Hispanic Other Race
Reference
Reference
Pediatric Gastroenteritis Pediatric Perforated Appendix Percentage Pediatric Urinary Tract Infection
Reference
Reference
Reference
11
Mammogram
Cancer Screening
12
White
African American
Hispanic
Other
Male
Female
< HS
HS Grad
Some College
College Grad
Mammogram
Reference
N/A
N/A
Reference
Cancer Screening
Pap Test
Reference
N/A
N/A
Reference
Reference
Reference
Reference
13
14
Same as/not significantly different from the benchmark Worse than the benchmark
All Unintentional Injuries Death Rate Motor Vehicle Crash Death Rate Falls Death Rate Violence Mortality and ED Visits for Injury Falls Death Rate Age 65+ Unintentional Poisoning Death Rate Suicide Death Rate Homicide Death Rate ED Visits for Injuries
N/A
N/A
15
All Unintentional Injuries Death Rate Motor Vehicle Crash Death Rate
Reference Not Enough Data Not Enough Data Not Enough Data A
A Not Enough Data Not Enough Data Not Enough Data Reference
Reference
Reference
Reference
Reference
Reference
Same as/not significantly different from the benchmark Worse than the benchmark
HIV/STD Rates
Reference
Reference
HIV/STD Rates
Reference
Reference
Reference
18
Same as/not significantly different from the benchmark Worse than the benchmark
Health Risks
Diet and Exercise
N/A
19
Physical Activity
Reference
Reference Reference
Reference
Reference Reference
Reference
Reference
Reference
Health Outcomes
Mortality
N/A
21
Reference A
A Reference
Reference Reference
Reference
Reference
Outcomes
Mortality
Reference
Not Enough Data Not Enough Data Not Enough Data Reference
Reference Reference
Reference
Reference
N/A
N/A
Reference
22
Same as/not significantly different from the benchmark Worse than the benchmark
Years of Potential Life Lost Infant Mortality Very Low Birth Weight Births
Campylobacteriosis
N/A
Health Outcomes
Very Low Birth Weight Births Aseptic Meningitis Incidence Rate Campylobacteriosis Incidence Rate Pertussis Incidence Rate Salmonellosis Incidence Rate Mental Health General Health
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
Reference
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
Disease Incidence
Reference
Not Enough Data Not Enough Data Not Enough Data Not Enough Data Not Enough Data
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
Reference
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
Outcomes
Reference
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
Health Status
Reference Reference
Reference Reference
Reference
Reference
24
Adult Fruit and Vegetable Consumption Adult Overweight and Obesity Rate Sufficient Physical Activity Current Smokers Binge Drinkers
Education Employment
Health Literacy High School Diploma Unemployment Rate Weekly Wages Children in Poverty Income Inequality
Income
Health Factors
Households and Social Support Housing Affordability & Supply Community Safety
Social and Emotional Support Single Parent Households Minimum Wage Work Hours to Afford a 2-Bedroom Apartment Renters Spending 30% or More of Household Income on Rent Pedestrian Death Rate All Injury Fatalities Motor Vehicle Accident Fatalities Suicide Rate Homicide Rate People 65+ Living Below Poverty Level
Poverty
People Living Below 200% of Poverty Level People Living Below Poverty Level Food Desert Grocery Store Density
Physical Environment
Built Environment
25
Percent of the children under the age of 6 living below the poverty level 2005-2009
Percent of Children Under the Age of 6 Living Below the Poverty Level, 2005-2009 data
Literacy Rates
Education
High School Diploma
27
Unemployment Rate
Employment
Weekly Wages
28
Income
29
30
Minimum Wage Hours Worked to Afford the Median Rent for a TwoBedroom Dwelling Percentage of Renters That Pay More Than 30% of Income in Rent
31
Poverty
People Living Below 200% of the Federal Poverty Level People Living Below the Poverty Level
32
Source: http://www.ers.usda.gov/data/fooddesert/
33
34
47.4% 47.3% 42.7% 41.1% 44.0% 43.9% 43.1% 20.0% 40.0% 60.0%
25% 21%
31% 27%
12% 11%
20% 17%
2010
2006
Source: 2006 Solucient, Inc.; 2010 Market Planner Plus; Denominator population data from Claritas, Inc.; except 2010 from Nielson/Claritas, Inc. Pop-Facts mid 2010 version; Dallas County and Texas rates from US Census Bureaus American Community Survey 2009
35
35
Demographics:
The demographic composition of Dallas taken in the context of the state and the nation, profoundly influences the service size, scope and priorities for Parkland Health & Hospital System. This section examines the significant demographic drivers outlined below:
Market Demographic Characteristics Population size and growth trends Population age distribution and trends Population ethnic composition and trends Per capita income and trends Poverty and unemployment trends Population educational attainment and trends
37
Household Income 2010 less than $25,000 $25,000 to $74,999 $75,000 to $99,999 $100,000 and over Totals
Sources: U.S. Census, PO11 Age Data Set, 1990 Summary Tape File 1 (STF 1) 100 Percent data; U.S. Department of Commerce, Economics and Statistics Administration. W.s. CENSUS BUREAU Population Distribution and Change; 2000 to2010. Income 2010 American Community Survey 1-year est
39
Assumptions
Green Doing better than the benchmark Yellow Same as/not significantly different from the benchmark Red Worse than the benchmark Healthy People 2010 benchmark higher, lower or same Peer County Comparison benchmark if Dallas County is in first or second quartile, green; third quartile, yellow; fourth quartile, red (method used for county rankings by Health Matters). Dallas County Trend benchmark if only 1-3 years of previous Dallas County data are available, calculate percent difference from earliest years data to most recent, assign red/yellow/green for worse/same/better; if 4 or more years of previous Dallas County data are available, calculate 95% Confidence Interval (see next page for notes about this procedure) and assign green for statistically significantly better, red for statistically significantly worse, or yellow for no significant difference.
40
Assumptions
Confidence Intervals For common events (such as ED visits for Injuries, non-emergent ED visits, percent of population under 200% FPL) 95% Confidence Intervals were calculated on previous years data using a binomial approach. For uncommon events (rates less than 5%), which includes many of these measures, 95% Confidence Intervals were calculated on previous years data using a Poisson formula. This approach does not use population size. For survey data, such as BRFSS data, where possible the 95% Confidence Interval of the most recent years survey was compared with the 95% Confidence Interval of the previous years survey, to determine whether there was significant change. Because BRFSS surveys include a fairly small percentage of the Dallas County population, these 95% CIs are fairly wide, and few show statistically significant improvement from one year to the next for Dallas County data.
41