California Report Card

Health Status Data C.I.* Year Rank† Grade‡ Physically Unhealthy Days 5.4 (4.6 - 6.2) 2004 16 Frequent Mental Distress 8.5 (6.9 - 10.5) 2003-2004 48 Oral Health: Complete Tooth Loss 13.8 (11.0 - 17.2) 2004 3 Disability 32.4 (28.5 - 36.6) 2004 21 Health Behaviors Data C.I.* Year Rank† Grade‡ No Leisure-Time Physical Activity 25.5 (21.9 - 29.5) 2004 3 Eating ≥ 5 Fruits and Vegetables Daily 36.2 (32.4 - 40.2) 2003 6 Obesity 18.6 (15.5 - 22.1) 2004 14 Current Smoking 6.3 (4.7 - 8.4) 2004 2 Preventive Care & Screening Data C.I.* Year Rank† Grade‡ Flu Vaccine in Past Year 70.9 (67.0 - 74.6) 2004 18 Ever Had Pneumonia Vaccine 63.6 (59.3 - 67.6) 2004 35 Mammogram Within Past 2 Years 82.8 (78.6 - 86.3) 2004 5 Colorectal Cancer Screening 68.1 (63.9 - 72.0) 2004 13 Up-to-date on Select Preventive Services (Male) 40.0 (33.6 - 47.0) 2004 17 Up-to-date on Select Preventive Services (Female) 34.8 (30.0 - 39.9) 2004 14 Cholesterol Checked in Past 5 Years 94.6 (92.6 - 96.1) 2003 2 Injuries¶ Data C.I.* Year Rank† Grade‡

= Upper Third (top performing 33%)   = Middle Third (middle 33%)   = Lower Third (lowest performing 33%)         * A confidence interval (CI) describes the level of uncertainty of an estimate and specifies the range in which the true value is likely to fall. The State of Aging and Health in America online report uses a 95% level of significance, which means that 95% of the time, the true value falls within these boundaries.         † Rankings are based on the relative numeric scores for each indicator, with a ranking of "1" indicating the highest rank.         ‡ Grades are calculated as tertiles (thirds) and show state performance relative to all other states.         ¶ No state-level data exist for Indicator 15, hip fracture hospitalizations.           Note: When comparing prevalence of variables across states or years, we recommend the use of confidence intervals. If the confidence intervals overlap, the difference is not statistically significant.

State Success Story: Condition of Older Adults, Orange County, California

The growth of Orange County, California’s older adult population has outpaced that of the state and the nation, increasing by 27% versus 14.7% for the state (California Long Term Care County Data Book 2002). More than 838,000 baby boomers live in Orange County according to the 2000 U.S. Census. While the current population of adults aged 60 and over is 75% white (non-Hispanic), the overall population is only 51% white (non-Hispanic), suggesting that the aging population will be increasingly diverse. Policy makers, service providers, and local community leaders need accurate and detailed information that will help them develop strategies to provide appropriate services for this increasingly diverse population.

In 2002, Orange County launched the Condition of Older Adults report series to provide a comprehensive picture of the general health and well-being of Orange County’s older adult population. The document compiles data from a variety of sources, including the nonprofit Orange County Health Needs Assessment (OCHNA http://www.ochna.org) in a user-friendly format for policy makers, professionals, and concerned citizens. The series of reports include information on key indicators and trends in several broad topic areas, economics, housing, transportation, civic and social engagement, health status, health risks and behaviors, mental health, and health care. The Condition of Older Adults: 2003 Report, the most recent in the series, took an expanded look at family care giving, an issue of growing importance to older adults, their families, and service providers. A copy of this report is available at http://www.officeonaging.ocgov.com/demographics.asp.

Orange County officials understand that balancing needs and resources will be an ever-growing issue as the baby boomer generation ages and adds to the demand for a range of social supports and health services. Finding ways to develop and finance additional service capacity that meets the needs of older adults, allows choice, and ensures quality care will be a challenge for local governments – one that will demand strategic planning, collaboration, and partnership with the broad spectrum of service providers.