10.07.2015 Views

An Unhealthy America: The Economic Burden of ... - Milken Institute

An Unhealthy America: The Economic Burden of ... - Milken Institute

An Unhealthy America: The Economic Burden of ... - Milken Institute

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

YUMPU automatically turns print PDFs into web optimized ePapers that Google loves.

<strong>An</strong> <strong>Unhealthy</strong> <strong>America</strong><strong>Milken</strong> <strong>Institute</strong>State-Level Avoidable Indirect ImpactsAlthough every disease category is projected to cause a rise in avoidable direct impacts—the economic toll <strong>of</strong> lostworkdays and lowered productivity—the state rankings experience no change due to those impacts over the period2003–2023. In general, a state’s score depends on the relative distribution <strong>of</strong> future GDP or wage rates, its employedpopulation, and disease-specific PRC totals, which cause most <strong>of</strong> the variation between baseline and optimistic scenarios.When a state ranks high for disease-specific indirect impacts despite having a low PRC, the ranking is attributable tohigh GDP or wage rates. <strong>The</strong> following table depicts states that rank at the top and bottom <strong>of</strong> per capita projected GDPand wage rates in 2023.Projections <strong>of</strong> GDP and WagesProjections <strong>of</strong> GDP and Wages - Per Capita, 2023Per Capita, 2023Top 5 States Expenditures PRC* Bottom 5 Expenditures/PRCStatesDisease GDP Wages (Billions) (Millions) GDP (Thousands)WagesCancer Delaware Colorado 48.1 West Virginia 10.6 Montana 4.5Breast Connecticut Cancer Nevada5.5 Montana 1.1 West Virginia 4.8Colon Massachusetts Cancer Delaware3.9 Mississippi 0.3 Mississippi 11.5Lung Cancer New York Connecticut6.3 Oklahoma 0.4 Louisiana 17.1Prostate California Cancer Washington4.3 Arkansas 1.0 Oklahoma 4.1Other Sources: Cancers U.S. Census, Economy.com 28.0 7.7 3.6Pulmonary Conditions 45.2 49.2 0.9Diabetes 27.1 13.7 2.0Hypertension 32.5 36.8 0.9When a state ranks low Heart for Disease disease-specific indirect impacts 64.7 despite having 19.2 a high PRC, the 3.4 ranking is attributable to lowprojected GDP or wage Stroke rates. Again, the net effect depends 13.6 on the relative 2.4 strength <strong>of</strong> GDP 5.6 or wage rates, and PRC.Mental Disorders 45.8 30.3 1.5Projections <strong>of</strong> the labor Total force size will also influence 277.0 avoidable indirect 162.2 impacts and some 1.7 variations among staterankings.PRC: Population Reporting ConditionEmployment and PopulationEmployment and Population - Projected Rankings, 2023Projected Rankings, 2023Top 5 States Expenditures Bottom PRC* 5 States Expenditures/PRCDisease Employment Population (Billions) Employment (Millions) Population (Thousands)Cancer California California48.1 Wyoming 10.6 Wyoming 4.5Breast Cancer Texas Texas 5.5 Vermont 1.1 North Dakota 4.8Colon Cancer Florida Florida 3.9 Alaska 0.3 Vermont 11.5Lung Cancer New York New York 6.3 North Dakota 0.4 Alaska 17.1Prostate Cancer Illinois Illinois 4.3South Dakota 1.0 South Dakota 4.1Other Sources: Cancers U.S. Census, Economy.com28.0 7.7 3.6Pulmonary Conditions 45.2 49.2 0.9Diabetes 27.1 13.7 2.0Hypertension 32.5 36.8 0.9Heart Disease 64.7 19.2 3.4Stroke 13.6 2.4 5.6Mental Disorders 45.8 30.3 1.5Total 277.0 162.2 1.7PRC: Population Reporting Condition[ 158 ]

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!