County health rank improves in 2013

DAVE MOSIER/independent editor

Van Wert County improved its health ranking in 2012, according to County Health Rankings & Roadmaps, a program conducted by the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation and the University of Wisconsin’s Population Health Institute, although some neighboring counties did even better.

The county was ranked 26th out of Ohio’s 88 counties, with half of the ranking coming from length of life and the other half quality of life. The county’s rank was up one spot from last year’s ranking of 27th.

Putnam County was the healthiest of neighboring counties, ranking second in the state — and first in quality of life – while Mercer County was sixth in health outcomes and Auglaize County 15th. Allen County ranked 35th, up from 42nd in 2012, while Paulding County was ranked 55th in the state, mostly because of its high premature death rate of 8,579.

Van Wert County was ranked 13th in the state in premature deaths, with an average of 6,072 premature deaths, compared to a state average of 7,457.

While length of life was relatively high in Van Wert County, the county didn’t fare all that well in quality of life issues, with an overall ranking of 43rd statewide on those issues. Health factors weighed most heavily in that ranking, and county residents exceeded the state average (16-15 percent) in its percentage of population in poor or fair health.

County residents also had more poor health days (4.8) than the state average (3.6) and poor mental health days (4.5 versus 3.8), but fewer babies with low birthweight (6.7 percent versus 8.6 percent) than the state as a whole.

Van Wert County had slightly fewer smokers than the state average (21 percent versus 22 percent), but more residents who qualify as obese (35 percent versus 30 percent). The county ranked better than the state average in physical inactivity (25 percent to 27 percent) and fewer county residents drank to excess (13 percent versus 18 percent statewide). The motor vehicle death rate was a bit higher than the state average (12 versus 11), while the number of sexually transmitted diseases was considerably lower (191 versus 422 statewide). The teen birth rate in the county was about average for Ohio (37 versus 38 statewide).

Clinical care numbers showed the problems in finding adequate healthcare in a rural area. The number of uninsured county residents was slightly higher than the state average (15 to 14 percent), but the ratio of physicians to residents was nearly double the state average (2,050:1 versus 1,348:1 statewide). The same situation was seen with the ratio of dentists to county residents, with one dentist for every 3,636 residents, versus 1,928 residents to each dentist overall in Ohio.

Nevertheless, the average of preventable hospital stays was lower in Van Wert County (63) than the state as a whole (79), while diabetic screenings (85-83 percent), and mammography screenings (70-63 percent) were both higher than the statewide average.

In the area of social and economic factors, Van Wert ranked much higher than the state average in those who graduate from high school (90-78 percent), but also had fewer people who had taken some college courses (54-61 percent).

Unemployment average was higher than the state average (9.2-8.6 percent), while the percent of children in poverty (17-24 percent) and children in single-parent households (18-34 percent) were lower than the state average.

The violent crime rate was also less than half of the state average (122 incidents versus 332 statewide).

Van Wert County did especially well in the physical environment of the county. Although only slightly better than the state average in the ratio of daily fine particulate matter (13.0 versus 13.4) than the state average, drinking water safety was better (0-2 percent), while access to recreational facilities was average for Ohio (both at 10 percent), with more access to healthy foods and a lower incidence of fast food restaurants than the state average (53-55 percent).

Based on data available for each county, the rankings are unique in their ability to measure the overall health of each county in all 50 states on the many factors that influence health, and they have been used to garner support among government agencies, healthcare providers, community organizations, business leaders, policymakers, and the public for local health improvement initiatives.