Slashdot Mirror


Rural Americans At Higher Risk From Five Leading Causes of Death: CDC (cbsnews.com)

An anonymous reader quotes a report from CBS News: Americans living in rural areas are more likely to die from five leading causes of death than people living in urban areas, according to a new government report. Many of these deaths are preventable, officials say, with causes including heart disease, cancer, unintentional injuries, stroke, and chronic lower respiratory disease. Approximately 46 million Americans -- about 15 percent of the U.S. population -- currently live in rural areas. According to the CDC report, several demographic, environmental, economic, and social factors might put rural residents at higher risk of death from these conditions. Rural residents in the U.S., for example, tend to be older and sicker than their urban counterparts, and have higher rates of cigarette smoking, high blood pressure, and obesity. People living in rural areas also report less leisure-time physical activity and lower seatbelt use than their those living in urban areas and have higher rates of poverty, less access to health care, and are less likely to have health insurance. Specifically, the report found that in 2014, deaths among rural Americans included: 25,000 from heart disease; 19,000 from cancer; 12,000 from unintentional injuries; 11,000 from chronic lower respiratory disease; 4,000 from stroke. The percentages of deaths that were potentially preventable were higher in rural areas than in urban areas, the authors report. For the study, the researchers analyzed numbers from a national database. The CDC suggests to help close the gap, health care providers in rural areas can: Screen patients for high blood pressure; Increase cancer prevention and early detection; Encourage physical activity and healthy eating; Promote smoking cessation; Promote motor vehicle safety; Engage in safer prescribing of opioids for pain.

8 of 375 comments (clear)

  1. Re:Conclusion: by ColdWetDog · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Nope. Ain't gonna go. I suspect there are a number of different reasons - it's usually complicated.

    - Poverty or at least fewer jobs without insurance. Remember folks, most non Medicare / Medicaid insurances in our Glorious Country are based on having a job with a largish employer. Small businesses - which tend to abound in places without lots of people - are famous for not carrying insurance for their employees.
    - Aging population. In my little rural town, the average age is older than Miami in the winter time. If it wasn't for the Coast Guard base and the schools we would have damned few kids in town (teachers tend to be younger with kids).
    - Poorer access to specialty care. As you age, you start to need the services of various -ologists. Which often means traveling to the Big City. Which often doesn't happen. Quite frequently, it is a conscious decision not to partake of the smorgasbord of potential medical treatments but finances and distance do play a part.
    - I'm not sure that lifestyle always plays a part. Here in Alaska we actually have a somewhat lower rate of obesity than in other states, but growing up in the South I was always struck with how many sedentary people spent their lives eating fried everything and smoking. Not too many vegans out here in the bush.
    - Education. Doesn't always correlate with health (or happiness) but trying to work your way around the mine field of recommendations these days takes at least an interest in doing so. Again, this is going to vary from place to place but access to above high school education isn't a given in a rural area (see also, poverty).

    I'm sure there are other bits to this. It's very likely Bush's fault.

    --
    Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
  2. Re:Smoking by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Most rural people smoke and are overweight.

    No. Smoking and obesity are higher in rural areas. But the majority are not smokers nor obese.

    "open areas" to exercise in

    If you live in the city, there are plenty of places to walk to, and even if you have a car, finding parking is a hassle. The bigger the city, the fewer fat people you see. In NYC, even the chefs are skinny. But if you live on a soybean farm in Iowa, anyplace you want to go is too far to walk. So you drive.

  3. Re:Thanks Obama! by germansausage · · Score: 1, Interesting

    I saw some Trump voters being interviewed on TV yesterday, and they were quite certain that Trump was not just going to repeal Obamacare, he was going to replace it with something cheaper and better. I'll be curious to see how he manages that.

  4. OK by Camel+Pilot · · Score: 4, Interesting

    OK I see your point regarding disputing with insurance companies... which leads me believe that the ACA was on the right path with defining certain standards that insurance companies have meet which reduces the number of loop holes found in complex cases. Yeah insurance now cost more but it is better insurance as the average joe doesn't read the fine print.

    I read recently about a man who had cancer and was treated and was in remission. The wife was worried about lifetime maximums in case it came back... they called their insurance company and were relieved to hear the words that there are no more life time maximums thanks to the ACA.

  5. Re:Thanks Obama! by Eunuchswear · · Score: 3, Interesting

    It wouldn't be too hard to create a more efficient public healthcare system that makes actual sense..

    In any place in the world except America.

    --
    Watch this Heartland Institute video
  6. Re: Amazing by drinkypoo · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Unfortunately, it has helped the insurance companies more than it should have, but that's called politics.

    No, that's called "The affordable care act". This was its intent from the very beginning, when republicans invented it.

    I eagerly await Mr. Trump and his Republican colleague's attempt at improving things.

    In the same way you await a train wreck? Or are you simply expecting to wait eternally? Because I have yet to see a republican attempt to improve anything.

    --
    "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
  7. Re: Thanks Obama! by radl33t · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Excellent example. For fun, I track all insurance spending and compare it to that amount that would sit in my index funds. I am only 32, but, minus claims, I would have $104,000+ sitting in an account right now from car, home, and medical insurance. It would be significantly more because, approximately 65% of that could have been tax advantaged. That is after subtracting my single ~28K medical claim, which, funny enough, may have killed me without 5 minute access to a level 1 trauma center.

  8. Re:Thanks Obama! by cayenne8 · · Score: 3, Interesting

    To start off, don't rely on private insurance providers or push any responsibilities out to individual states.

    The trouble with your proposed solution, would be taking even more power away from the states, where constitutionally, the most power in the US is supposed to reside.

    --
    Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........