Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
Florida
Ranking Highlights How Health Care in Florida
c
a b Has Changed
2018 Rank Change
Overall 48 -5 3
2 5 l Greatly Improved
Access & Affordability 49 0 l Improved
6
Prevention & Treatment 49 -1 l Little or No Change
Avoidable Use & Cost 49 -5 l Worsened
Disparity 49 -9
HI
MA
MN VT
Worse Than Average Overall Performance
UT
IA WA
WI CT
CO NH OR RI
CA ID ME SD MT NY MD NE DE ND PA NJ IL
MI VA AZ DC NM KS WY AK NC OH
IN SC
NV
GA TN KY AL
MO TX AR WV
Better Than Average Overall Performance LA OK
FL
MS
830,937 747,496 more adults would receive age- and gender-appropriate cancer screenings
59,066 35,856 more children (ages 19–35 months) would receive all recommended vaccines
fewer premature deaths (before age 75) would occur from causes that are potentially treatable or
4,986 133
preventable with timely and appropriate care
fewer employer-insured adults and elderly Medicare beneficiaries would seek care in emergency
610,032 372,469
departments for nonemergent or primary-care-treatable conditions
Table 1. State Health System Performance Indicator Data by Dimension
Best
Data State U.S. state State Data State U.S. Change over
Dimension and indicator year rate average rate ranking year rate average time (e)
Access & Affordability 2018 Scorecard Baseline
Adults ages 19–64 uninsured 2016 18 12 4 46 2013 29 20 Improved
Children ages 0–18 uninsured 2016 7 5 1 41 2013 12 8 Improved
Adults without a usual source of care 2016 28 22 11 45 2013 27 24 No Change
Adults who went without care because of
2016 17 13 7 47 2013 21 16 Improved
cost
Individuals with high out-of-pocket medical
2015-16 16 14 9 37 2013-14 15 15 No Change
spending
Notes. (a) The 2018 Scorecard rankings reflect 2015 or 2016 data. The 2018 Scorecard added or revised several performance measures since the March
2017 Scorecard report; rankings are not comparable between reports. (b) Change represents states' rank difference from the baseline data year (generally
2012 or 2013). Positive values represent an improvement in rank; negative values are a worsening in rank. (c) Trend data available for 37 of 43 total
Scorecard indicators. Greatly improved/worsened denotes a change of at least one full (1.0) standard deviation larger than the indicator’s distribution
among all states over the two time points; improved/worsened denotes a change of at least one-half (0.5) standard deviation. No change denotes no
change in rate or a change of less than one-half standard deviation. (d) Estimated impact if this state's performance improved to the rate of two
benchmark levels—a national benchmark set at the level of the best-performing state and a regional benchmark set at the level of the top performing
state in same census region (Midwest, Northeast, South, or West). Benchmark states have an estimated impact of zero (0). Equivalent estimated impact
based on national and regional benchmarks indicate that the best observed rate in the region was equal to the best observed rate nationally. Impact based
on national and regional benchmarks should not be interpreted as cumulative. (e) Change (improvement or worsening) refers to a change between the
baseline and current time periods of at least 0.5 standard deviations. (f) Rates are for the states' low income population, generally those whose household
income is under 200% FPL. (g) Disparity is the difference between the states' low-income and higher-income (400%+ FPL) populations. (h) Improvement
indicates that the low-income rate improved and the disparity between low- and higher-income populations narrowed; worsening indicates the low-
income rate worsened and the disparity between low- and higher-income populations widened.