.jpg) |
| Health reporters at work |
The information reported in the media was taken from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's Sept. 3 Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report. As the DMCB understands it, the CDC authors pulled 2001-2010 mortality data from the National Vital Statistics System. Once that was done, they counted up the number of persons aged less than 75 years who died of "ischemic heart disease," "cerebrovascular disease," hypertensive disease" or "chronic rheumatic heart disease."
So what did MMWR really say?
The total of "less-than-75" deaths in 2001 was 227,961. For 2010, it was lower at 200,070. Since the population in the U.S. has changed over the last decade, the totals for each of the two comparison years were then expressed as a "per 100,000" statistic.
Since 2001, the "less-than-75" death rate per 100,000 declined by 29%. The decline averaged 3.8% a year.* Persons age 65-74 years had an average decline of 5.1% vs. 3.3% persons between the ages of 55-64.
The good news is that Black (3.9%) and Hispanic (4.5%) persons had greater declines than whites (3.6%). The bad news is that they started and ended with a higher death rate.
Here's a visual display of the data:
The DMCB's take
1. "Avoidable?" The CDC definition implies that perfect control of all cardiac risk factors (for example, cholesterol and weight) for everyone under the age of 75 will result in a 0 per 100,000 cardiovascular death rate. Not so, because those risk classic factors capture some, but not all, persons who succumb to heart attack and stroke.
2. So, this is bad news? "200,000" deaths is an impressive number, but, on an unadjusted basis, that's about 28,000 fewer compared to 10 years ago. Some additional good news is that the U.S. rate of non-fatal heart attack and stroke appears to have dropped significantly also. We are making significant headway in the battle against heart disease.
3. The real story? Persons of color have had the greatest relative benefit but still have the greatest absolute need. That lingering health care disparity went shamefully unmentioned by CNN and was only briefly mentioned by USAToday.
4. Something for everyone: In their "Conclusions and Comments," the authors of the MMWR paper speculated on the benefits of the (still unproven) Million Hearts Initiative (a Berwick-era idea) as well as "health information technology" and various "community prevention strategies" The DMCB's colleagues in the care management service industry will really like the authors' nods toward "team based care" and how "individuals can work toward reducing their own heart disease and stroke risk." If the CDC says so, it must be true - assuming there's a good business model.
5. Speaking of speculation, the authors wondered if the greater decline in the Medicare age group (65-74 years) versus the younger age group (55-64) was because of the presence of health insurance. Maybe, but maybe not. The DMCB also wonders if heart disease is more lethal and less amenable to intervention among younger persons, but can't find any literature to back that up.
6. Politics intrude: Naturally, the scientists who write MMWR are too classy than to curry favor with the appointees that populate the upper echelons of the federal bureaucracy, but that didn't stop the CDC Vital Signs from shamefully putting in a "making it easier for Americans to afford regular preventive health care through the Affordable Care Act" plug. The ACA was not mentioned in the MMWR report because the declines mentioned above occurred in the absence of the ACA.
The DMCB predicts that when the "avoidable" death rate continues to decline by 3.8% in the coming years, Obamacare advocates will take the credit.
*The DMCB isn't sure how 3.8% for 10 years makes for 29% either, but that's statistics for you.
Image from Wikipedia
