Chapter 2. Effectiveness (continued)

National Healthcare Quality Report, 2010

End Stage Renal Disease (ESRD)

Importance

Mortality
Total end stage renal disease (ESRD) deaths (2007)87,81213
Prevalence
Total cases (2007)514,64214
Incidence
Number of new cases (2007)110,99613
Cost
Total ESRD Medicare program expenditures (2007 est.)$23.9 billion13

Measures

The NHQR tracks several measures of ESRD management to assess the quality of care provided to renal dialysis patients. The two core report measures and one supporting measure highlighted here are:

  • Adequacy of hemodialysis (core).
  • Registration for transplantation (core).
  • Use of arteriovenous fistula (AVF) at first outpatient dialysis (supporting).

Findings

Outcome: Adequate Hemodialysis

Dialysis removes harmful waste and excess fluid buildup in the blood that occurs when kidneys fail to function. Hemodialysis is the most common method used to treat advanced and permanent kidney failure. The adequacy of dialysis is measured by the percentage of hemodialysis patients with a urea reduction ratio equal to or greater than 65%; this measure indicates how well urea, a waste product, is eliminated by the dialysis machine.

 

Figure 2.9. Adult hemodialysis patients with adequate dialysis (urea reduction ratio 65% or greater), by age and gender, 2008

Multi-part bar chart (two part): Part one: Percentage of patients with adequate dialysis by gender. Male, 94.1, Female, 97.76. Part two: Percentage of patients with adequate dialysis by age. Age Less than 20, 94.23, Age 20-64, 94.27, Age 65 and over, 97.73. 2008 achievable benchmark: 98.1%.

Source: University of Michigan Kidney Epidemiology and Cost Center, 2009 Dialysis Facility Report.
Denominator: End stage renal disease hemodialysis patients age 20 and over.

  • In 2008, the overall percentage of adult hemodialysis patients receiving adequate dialysis was 95.8% (data not shown). The percentage of male adult hemodialysis patients receiving adequate dialysis was lower than that of females (94.1% compared with 97.8%; Figure 2.9).
  • In addition, the percentage of adult hemodialysis patients receiving adequate dialysis was higher for those age 65 years and over than for those ages 20-64 years (97.7% compared with 94.2%).
  • In 2008, the Top 5 State achievable benchmark was 98.1%.xi The available data were not sufficient to calculate time to benchmark.
Management: Registration for Transplantation

Kidney transplantation is a procedure that replaces a failing kidney with a healthy kidney. If a patient is deemed a good candidate for transplant, he or she is placed on the transplant program's waiting list. Dialysis patients wait for transplant centers to match them with the most suitable donor. Registration for transplantation is an initial step toward patients receiving the option of kidney transplantation.

Early transplantation that decreases or eliminates the need for dialysis can also lessen the occurrence of acute rejection and patient mortality. In 2006, 70,778 patients were on the Organ Procurement and Transplantation Network's deceased donor kidney transplant waiting list in the United States. Only 10,212 deceased donor kidney transplants were performed.15 In 2007, the number of kidney transplants from deceased donors decreased by 1.3%, and kidney transplants from living donors dropped by 6.1%.16

 

Figure 2.10. Dialysis patients who were registered on a waiting list for transplantation, by age and gender, 2000-2006

Trend line chart, percentage of patients awaiting transplant, by age, for the years 2000-2006. Total, 2000, 14.5, 2001, 14.1, 2002, 14.4, 2003, 14.5, 2004, 15.2, 2005, 15.8, 2006, 17.1. Age 0-19, 2000, 39.9, 2001, 41.3, 2002, 41.3, 2003, 46.8, 2004, 43.7, 2005, 47.5, 2006, 48. Age 20-39, 2000, 27.5, 2001, 26.4, 2002, 26.4, 2003, 25.3, 2004, 26.5, 2005, 25.9, 2006, 28. Age 40-59, 2000, 16.3, 2001, 15.9, 2002, 15.9, 2003, 15.9, 2004, 16.5, 2005, 17, 2006, 17.9. Age 60-69, 2000, 6.7, 2001, 6.7, 2002, 6.7, 2003    Trend line chart, percentage of patients awaiting transplant, by gender, for the years 2000-2006. Male, 2000, 15.8, 2001, 15, 2002, 15, 2003, 15.7, 2004, 16.4, 2005, 17, 2006, 18.2. Female, 2000, 12.9, 2001, 13.1, 2002, 13.1, 2003, 13, 2004, 13.7, 2005, 14.4, 2006, 15.6. 2006 achievable benchmark: 27.3%.

Source: National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases, U.S. Renal Data System, 2000-2006.
Denominator: End stage renal disease hemodialysis patients and peritoneal dialysis patients under age 70.

  • From 2000 to 2006, the percentage of dialysis patients who were registered on a waiting list for transplantation increased from 14.5% to 17.1% (Figure 2.10). Improvements were observed among all age groups except patients ages 20-39.
  • In all years, patients ages 20-69 were less likely than patients ages 0-19 to be registered on a waiting list.
  • In 2006, females were less likely than males to be registered on a waiting list (15.6% compared to 18.2%).
  • The 2006 top 5 State achievable benchmark was 27.3%.xii At the current rate of improvement, the benchmark would not be attained overall for almost 24 years.
  • At their current rates of improvement, male patients could attain the benchmark in about 20 years, whereas female patients could not attain the benchmark for more than 29 years.

Also, in the NHDR:

  • In 2006, Blacks and American Indians and Alaska Natives were less likely to be registered on a waiting list than Whites (10.8% and 9.8%, respectively, compared with 16.3%). However, Asians (27.5%) were more likely to be registered on a waiting list than Whites.
Management: Use of Arteriovenous Fistula for Vascular Access

For people with ESRD, vascular access is a way to reach the blood vessels so that harmful urea can be removed from the blood. An AVF is the preferred type of access for most hemodialysis patients for three reasons: (1) it provides adequate blood flow for dialysis, (2) it lasts a long time, and (3) it has a low complication rate compared with other methods. Although there is consensus that AVF should be the primary method of vascular access, the incidence rates of AVF have historically been very low. Therefore, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) has sought to increase rates of AVF for primary access across the country by forming a nationwide initiative and collaborative effort to increase overall use of AVF. In 2005, this effort, the Fistula First Breakthrough Initiative, set the goal for national prevalence at 66%.

 

Figure 2.11. Incident adult hemodialysis patients who used an arteriovenous fistula at first outpatient dialysis, by age and gender, 2008-2009

Trend line chart, percentage of hemodialysis patients who used an arteriovenous fistula, by age, for the years 2008-2009. Total, 2008, 13.65, 2009, 14.32. Age Less than 65, 2008, 13.3, 2009, 14. Age 65-74, 2008, 14.9, 2009, 15.7. Age 75-84, 2008, 14.1, 2009, 14.5. Age 85 and over, 2008, 10.2, 2009, 11.3. 2009 achievable benchmark: 26.7%.        Trend line chart, percentage of hemodialysis patients who used an arteriovenous fistula, by gender, for the years 2008-2009. Male, 2008, 15.6,2009, 16.13. Female, 2008, 11.2, 2009, 11.96. 2009 achievable benchmark: 26.7%.

Source: Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, Fistula First Incident AVF Dataset, 2008-2009.
Denominator: New ESRD hemodialysis patients.

  • From 2008 to 2009, the percentage of dialysis patients who used an AVF at first dialysis increased from 13.7% to 14.3% (Figure 2.11). Significant improvements were observed only among the 85 and over age group (10.2% to 11.3%).
  • Those ages 65-74 had higher rates of AVF at first dialysis than those younger than 65 (15.7% compared with 14%), but for dialysis patients age 85 years and over, the use of AVF at first dialysis was lower (11.3%).
  • In 2009, female dialysis patients had significantly lower rates of AVF at first dialysis than males (12.0% compared with 16.1%).
  • The 2009 top 5 State achievable benchmark was 26.7%.xiii The available data were insufficient to calculate time to benchmark.

Also, in the NHDR:

  • In 2009, a higher percentage of Asians than Whites used AVF at first dialysis, but a lower percentage of Blacks than Whites used AVF at first dialysis (17.6%, 14.7%, and 13.1%, respectively).

 

 

Heart Disease

Importance

Mortality
Number of deaths (2007)616,0671
Cause of death rank (2007)1st1
Prevalence
Number of cases of coronary heart disease (2006)17.6 million4
Number of cases of heart failure (2006)5.8 million4
Number of cases of high blood pressure (2006)74.5 million4
Number of heart attacks (2006)8.5 million17
Incidence
Number of new cases of heart failure (2004)550,00018
Cost
Total cost of cardiovascular disease (2010 est.)$503.2 billion4
Total cost of heart failure (2010 est.)$39.2 billion17
Direct costs of cardiovascular disease (2010 est.)$324.1 billion4
Cost-effectiveness of hypertension screening$14,000-$35,000/QALY5

Measures

The NHQR tracks several quality measures for preventing and treating heart disease, including the following three core report measures:

  • Receipt of angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitor or angiotensin receptor blocker (ARB) for heart attack.
  • Inpatient deaths following heart attack.
  • Receipt of recommended care for heart failure.

Several measures related to heart disease are also presented in other chapters of this report. Timeliness of cardiac reperfusion for heart attack patients is tracked in Chapter 4, Timeliness, and receipt of complete written discharge instructions by patients with heart failure is tracked in Chapter 6, Care Coordination.

Findings

Treatment: Receipt of Angiotensin-Converting Enzyme Inhibitor or Angiotensin Receptor Blocker for Heart Attack

Heart attack, or acute myocardial infarction, is a common life-threatening condition that requires rapid recognition and efficient treatment in a hospital to reduce the risk of serious heart damage and death. Measuring processes of heart attack care can provide information about whether a patient received specific needed services, but these processes make up a very small proportion of all the care that a heart attack patient needs. Measuring outcomes of heart attack care, such as mortality, can provide a more global assessment of all the care a patient receives and usually is the aspect of quality that matters most to patients.

Significant improvements in a number of measures of quality of care for heart attack have occurred in recent years. Four measures that have been tracked in past NHQRs (administration of aspirin within 24 hours and at discharge, administration of beta blocker at discharge, and counseling to quit smoking) have attained overall performance levels exceeding 95%. These measures were included in the composite measure of care for heart attack in past NHQRs. However, the success of these measures creates a ceiling effect that limits the report's ability to track improvement over time. Moreover, administration of beta blocker within 24 hours as recommended practice has been discontinued. Hence, this NHQR focuses on one measure of heart attack care, ACE inhibitor or ARB treatment among patients with left ventricular systolic dysfunction.

 

Figure 2.12. Hospital patients with heart attack and left ventricular systolic dysfunction who received angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor or angiotensin receptor blocker, by age, 2005-2008

Trend line chart, percentage of heart attack patients, by age, for the years 2005-2008. Total, 2005, 83.4, 2006, 86.4, 2007, 91.3, 2008, 93.69. Age Less than 65, 2005, 86.5, 2006, 88.9, 2007, 93.1, 2008, 94.76. Age 65-74, 2005, 83.3, 2006, 86.4, 2007, 91.1, 2008, 93.58. Age 75-84, 2005, 81.4, 2006, 84.7, 2007, 90, 2008, 93.05. Age 85 and over, 2005, 78.7, 2006, 82.4, 2007, 88.6, 2008, 91.72. 2008 achievable benchmark: 97.2%.

Source: Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, Medicare Quality Improvement Organization Program, 2005-2008.
Denominator: Patients hospitalized with a principal diagnosis of acute myocardial infarction and left ventricular systolic dysfunction.

  • From 2005 to 2008, the percentage of heart attack patients with left ventricular systolic dysfunction who received an ACE inhibitor or ARB increased from 83.4% to 93.7% (Figure 2.12). Improvements were observed among all age groups during the same period.
  • The 2008 top 5 State achievable benchmark was 97.2%.xiv At the current rate, the 2008 achievable benchmark could be achieved in 1 year. At their current rates of improvement, the achievable benchmark could be reached by all age groups in 1 year. Additionally, all race and ethnic groups could reach the benchmark in about 1 year, with the exception of AI/ANs, who would reach the benchmark in a little over a year and a half.
Outcome: Inpatient Deaths Following Heart Attack

Survival following admission for heart attack reflects multiple patient factors, such as a patient's comorbidities, as well as health care system factors, such as the possible need to transfer patients to other hospitals for services. It also may partly reflect receipt of appropriate health services.

 

Figure 2.13. Deaths per 1,000 adult hospital admissions with heart attack, by geographic location and gender, 2004-2007

Trend line chart, rate of deaths due to heart attack, by residence location, for the years 2004-2007. Large central metropolitan area, 2004, 77.8, 2005, 69.6, 2006, 69.1, 2007, 63.3. Large central metropolitan area, 2004, 77.7, 2005, 72.6, 2006, 69.6, 2007, 64. Medium metropolitan area, 2004, 81.4, 2005, 77.1, 2006, 69.1, 2007, 63.9. Small metropolitan area, 2004, 86, 2005, 80.9, 2006, 78, 2007, 74.2. Micropolitan, 2004, 95.3, 2005, 90.6, 2006, 82.9, 2007, 77.1. Noncore, 2004, 98.5, 2005, 96.8, 2006, 85.9,     Trend line chart, rate of deaths due to heart attack, by gender, for the years 2004-2007. Male, 2004, 70.5, 2005, 67.1, 2006, 60.2, 2007, 57.9. Female, 2004, 101.1, 2005, 92.9, 2006, 86.6, 2007, 77.4. 2007 achievable benchmark: 54.6%.

Source: Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, Healthcare Cost and Utilization Project, Nationwide Inpatient Sample, 2004-2007.
Denominator: Adults age 18 and over admitted to a non-Federal community hospital in the United States with acute myocardial infarction as principal discharge diagnosis.
Note: Rates are adjusted by age, gender, age-gender interactions, and all payer refined-diagnosis related group scoring of risk of mortality.

  • From 2004 to 2007, the overall inpatient mortality rate decreased significantly overall and for each geographic location and gender group (Figure 2.13).
  • In 2007, the overall rate of inpatient mortality was 67.3 per 1,000 admissions for heart attack (data not shown). Small metropolitan, micropolitan, and noncore groups had higher rates of inpatient heart attack mortality than large fringe metropolitan areas.
  • Also in 2007, females had higher rates of inpatient heart attack mortality than males.
  • The 2007 top 4 State achievable benchmark for inpatient heart attack mortality was 54.6 per 1,000 admissions.xv At the current rate, the achievable benchmark could be attained in about 2.5 years. Males could attain the benchmark in less than 1 year; however, females could not attain the benchmark for almost 3 years.
  • Although most geographic areas could attain the benchmark in 1 to 2 years, small metropolitan areas, micropolitan, and noncore areas could not attain the benchmark until later (about 5 years, 3.6 years, and 3 years, respectively).

Also, in the NHDR:

  • At their current rates of improvement, Blacks could attain the achievable benchmark in less than 1 year, but Asians could not attain the benchmark for more than 6 years.
Treatment: Receipt of Recommended Care for Heart Failure

The NHQR tracks the national percentages of receipt of the following services:

  • Recommended test for heart functioning (heart failure patients having evaluation of left ventricular ejection fraction).
  • Recommended medication treatment (patients with left ventricular systolic dysfunction prescribed ACE inhibitor or ARB at discharge).

In addition, an overall composite measure describes the percentage of all episodes in which heart failure patients receive recommended care.

 

Figure 2.14. Hospital patients with heart failure who received recommended hospital care: Overall composite, by age and gender, 2005-2008

Trend line chart, percentage of patients who received care, by age, for the years 2005-2008. Total, 2005, 87.73, 2006, 90.2, 2007, 93.1, 2008, 95. Age Less than 65, 2005, 89.72, 2006, 91.9, 2007, 94.2, 2008, 95.8. Age 65-74, 2005, 87.98, 2006, 90.3, 2007, 93.1, 2008, 95.1. Age 75-84, 2005, 87.32, 2006, 90, 2007, 93, 2008, 94.8. Age 85 and over, 2005, 85.01, 2006, 88.2, 2007, 91.5, 2008, 94. 2008 achievable benchmark: 97.2%.     Trend line chart, percentage of patients who received care, by gender, for the years 2005-2008. Male, 2005, 88.27, 2006, 90.5, 2007, 93.3, 2008, 95.2. Female, 2005, 87.19, 2006, 90, 2007, 92.8, 2008, 94.8. 2008 achievable benchmark: 97.2%.

Source: Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, Medicare Quality Improvement Organization Program, 2005-2008.
Denominator: Patients hospitalized with a principal diagnosis of acute heart failure.

  • From 2005 to 2008, the overall percentage of patients with heart failure who received recommended care increased from 87.7% to 95% (Figure 2.14). The percentage also increased for those age 85 years and over (from 85% to 94%).
  • During the same period, the gap decreased between the best performing age group (those under age 65) and the worst performing age group (those age 85 and over).
  • The 2008 top 5 State achievable benchmark for patients with heart failure who received recommended hospital care was 97.2%.xvi At the current rate, the achievable benchmark could be attained in less than 1 year.
  • At their current rates of improvement, all age and gender groups could attain the benchmark in about 1 year.

Also, in the NHDR:

  • From 2005 to 2008, the percentage of Asian patients who received recommended care for heart failure increased (from 86.6% to 96.6%).
  • Although the other racial and ethnic groups could attain the achievable benchmark in less than 1 year, AI/ANs and Hispanics could not attain the benchmark until later (about 3 years and 1.5 years, respectively).
 

HIV and AIDS

Importance

Mortality
Number of deaths of people with AIDS (2007)18,08919
Prevalence
Number of people living with HIV infection (2007)599,81919
Number of people living with AIDS (2007)470,90219
Incidence
Number of new HIV infections (2008)42,43919
Number of new AIDS cases (2008)37,99119
Cost
Federal spending on domestic HIV/AIDS care, cash and housing assistance, and prevention and research (fiscal year 2011 est.)$20.5 billion20

HIV is a virus that kills or damages cells of the body's immune system. AIDS is the most advanced stage of HIV infection. HIV is spread through unprotected sex with an infected person, by sharing drug needles, or through contact with the blood of an infected person. Also, women with HIV can transmit it to their babies during pregnancy, childbirth, or breastfeeding.

The impact of HIV infection and AIDS is disproportionately higher for racial and ethnic minorities and people of lower income and education levels. Although access to care has improved, research shows that Blacks, Hispanics, women, and uninsured people with HIV remain less likely to have access to care and less likely to have optimal patterns of care.21

According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, HIV and AIDS disproportionately affect African Americans in the United States. In 2008, African Americans accounted for 52% of all diagnoses of HIV infection and had a rate of 73.7 per 100,000 population compared with 8.2 per 100,000 for Whites.22 The spread of HIV is linked to complex social and economic factors, including poverty, concentration of the virus in specific geographic areas and smaller sexual networks, sexually transmitted co-infections, stigma (negative attitudes, beliefs, and actions directed at people living with HIV/AIDS or directed at people who engage in behaviors that might put them at risk for HIV), and injection and non injection drug use and associated behaviors.23

The HIV/AIDS epidemic is also a serious threat to the Hispanic community. Hispanics accounted for 15% of the population but had an estimated 17% of the new HIV infections in 2006, which was 2½ times the rate of Whites.24 In addition to being seriously affected by HIV, Hispanics continue to face challenges in accessing health care, preventive services, and HIV treatment. Undocumented Hispanics face an even greater challenge in accessing care and information regarding HIV and AIDS, but data are limited on HIV infection rates of undocumented immigrants.25 In 2006, HIV/AIDS was the fourth leading cause of death among Hispanic men and women ages 35-44.26 Having Medicaid and a usual source of care decreased the likelihood of delaying care for HIV, but research shows that delay in care is still greater for Hispanics and African Americans.27

The White House Office of National AIDS Policy launched the National HIV/AIDS Strategy (NHAS) in July 2010. The NHAS is a comprehensive plan focused on: (1) reducing the number of people who become infected with HIV, (2) increasing access to care and optimizing health outcomes for people living with HIV, and (3) reducing HIV-related health disparities. The plan will serve as a roadmap for policymakers, partners in prevention, and the public on steps the United States must take to lower HIV incidence, get people living with HIV into care, and reduce HIV-related health disparities.

Measures

This year, five supporting measures are presented on the prevention of opportunistic infections in HIV and AIDS patients and one on HIV infection deaths:

  • Eligible patients receiving prophylaxis for Pneumocystis pneumonia (PCP).
  • Eligible patients receiving prophylaxis for Mycobacterium avium complex (MAC).
  • Adult HIV patients who had at least two outpatients visits during the year.
  • Adult HIV patients who received two or more CD4 tests during the year.
  • Adult HIV patients who received highly active antiretroviral therapy (HAART).

Findings

Management: HIV Patients Receiving Care

Management of chronic HIV disease includes outpatient and inpatient services. Without adequate treatment, as HIV disease progresses, CD4 cell counts fall and patients become increasingly susceptible to opportunistic infections.

HIV/AIDS core clinical performance measures are indicators used to monitor the quality of care provided to adults and adolescents living with HIV. Based on the set of quality measures developed by the HIV/AIDS Bureau of the Health Resources and Services Administration, performance can be measured for various HIV prevention and treatment services. Services needed by patients with HIV include:

  • Two or more CD4 T-cell counts performed in the measurement year.
  • HAART for patients with AIDS.
  • Two or more medical visits in an HIV care setting in the measurement year.28
  • PCP prophylaxis for patients with CD4 T-cell count below 200.

Currently, national data on HIV care are not routinely collected. HIV measures tracked in the NHQR and NHDR are from the HIV Research Network, which consists of 18 medical practices across the United States that treat large numbers of patients living with HIV. Data from the voluntary HIV Research Network are not nationally representative of the level of care received by all Americans living with HIV. HIV Network data represent only patients who are actually receiving care (about 14,000 HIV patients per year) and do not represent patients who do not receive care. Furthermore, data shown below are not representative of the HIV Research Network as a whole because they represent only a subset of network sites that have the best data. Below are data from the HIV Research Network that capture four of the HRSA quality measures. In addition, when CD4 cell counts fall below 50, medicine to prevent development of disseminated MAC infection is routinely recommended, and we track this measure as well.29

 

Figure 2.15. Adult patients with HIV who received care, by age, 2007

Multi-part bar chart. Percentage of HIV patients who received care, by age, 2007: Part 1: 2 or more outpatient visits, Total, 89.2, 18-44, 87.1, 45 and over, 91.3. Part 2: 2 or more CD4 tests, Total, 81.7, 18-44, 79.5, 45 and over, 83.8. Part 3: HAART, Total, 78.6, 18-44, 79.5, 45 and over, 84.8. Part 4: PCP, Total, 89.1, 18-44, 88.3, 45 and over, 90. Part 5: MAC, Total, 87.5, 18-44, 86.1, 45 and over, 89.8.

Key: HAART = highly active antriretroviral therapy; PCP = Pneumocystis pneumonia; MAC = Mycobacterium avium complex.
Source: Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, HIV Research Network, 2007.
Note: For HAART measure, adult HIV patients had to be enrolled in an HIV network clinic and receive at least one CD4 test and have at least one outpatient visit in addition to having at least one CD4 test result of 350 or less.

  • Overall, in 2007, about 89.2% of patients with HIV had two or more outpatient visits during the year, and 81.7% of patients with HIV had two or more CD4 tests during the year. In addition, 78.6% of HIV patients in care received HAART, 89.1% of HIV patients with CD4 count less than 200 received PCP prophylaxis, and 87.5% of HIV patients with CD4 count less than 200 received MAC prophylaxis (Figure 2.15).
  • Adult HIV patients age 45 and over were more likely to receive recommended care than HIV patients ages 18-44.

Also, in the NHDR:

  • Black patients with HIV were less likely than White patients to receive the minimum care for HIV, except in the receipt of MAC and PCP prophylaxis.
  • Female patients with HIV were more likely to have had two or more outpatient visits than male patients but were less likely to receive HAART and MAC prophylaxis.
Outcome: Deaths of People With HIV Infection

Improved management of HIV infection has contributed to declines in the number of new AIDS cases in the United States since the 1990s.30 HIV infection deaths reflect a number of factors, including underlying rates of HIV risk behaviors, prevention of HIV transmission, early detection and treatment of HIV disease, and management of AIDS and its complications.

Figure 2.16. HIV infection deaths per 100,000 population, by age, 1999-2007, and residence location, 2004-2007

Trend line chart, rate of HIV deaths, by age, for the years 1999-2007. Age 0-17, 1999, N/A, 2000, 0.1, 2001, 0.1, 2002, 0.1, 2003, 0.1, 2004, 0.1, 2005, N/A, 2006, 0.1, 2007, N/A. Age 18-44, 1999, N/A, 2000, 7.6, 2001, 7.3, 2002, 6.8, 2003, 6.3, 2004, 5.7, 2005, 5.1, 2006, 4.7, 2007, 4.3. Age 45-64, 1999, 8.4, 2000, 8.7, 2001, 8.4, 2002, 8.7, 2003, 8.7, 2004, 8.5, 2005, 8.4, 2006, 8.1, 2007, 7.7. Age 65 and over, 1999, 1.4, 2000, 1.4, 2001, 1.4, 2002, 1.4, 2003, 1.5, 2004, 1.5, 2005, 1.5, 2006, 1.6, 2007, 1     Trend line chart, rate of HIV deaths, by residence location, for the years 2004-2007. Large central metropolitan area, 2004, 8.2, 2005, 7.6, 2006, 7.1, 2007, 6.5. Large central metropolitan area, 2004, 3.1, 2005, 2.9, 2006, 2.8, 2007, 2.5. Medium metropolitan area, 2004, 3.5, 2005, 3.4, 2006, 3.3, 2007, 3.2. Small metropolitan area, 2004, 2.6, 2005, 2.4, 2006, 2.5, 2007, 2.2. Micropolitan, 2004, 2.1, 2005, 2.2, 2006, 2.1, 2007, 2.3. Noncore, 2004, 1.8, 2005, 1.8, 2006, 1.8, 2007, 1.9.

Source: Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National Center for Health Statistics, National Vital Statistics System—Mortality, 1999-2007.
Denominator: Civilian noninstitutionalized population.
Note: Rates are age adjusted to the 2000 standard population, except for age group data. Data for county residence location were not available for years 1999-2003. Data did not meet criteria for statistical reliability, data quality, or confidentiality for ages 0-17 in 1999 and 2005, and for ages 18-44 in 1999.

  • Overall, from 1999 to 2007, the rate of HIV infection deaths decreased from 5.3 per 100,000 population to 3.7 per 100,000 population (data not shown).
  • From 1999 to 2007, the rate of HIV infection deaths decreased for adults ages 45-64 (from 8.4 per 100,000 population to 7.7 per 100,000 population) but was still highest among all age groups (7.7 compared with 4.3 for ages 18-44 and 1.5 for age 65 and over; Figure 2.16).
  • In 2007, the rates of HIV infection deaths were highest for residents in large central metropolitan areas and lowest in noncore areas (6.5 per 100,000 population and 1.9 per 100,000 population respectively).

Also in the NHDR:

  • The HIV infection death rate decreased for Blacks but remains significantly higher than the rate for Whites.
  • The HIV infection death rate decreased for Hispanics (from 6.9 per 100,000 to 4.1 per 100,000) but remains more than twice as high as the rate for non-Hispanic Whites.
  • In 2007, the HIV infection death rate for males was more than twice that of females.

xi The top 5 States that contributed to the achievable benchmark are Colorado, Connecticut, Hawaii, Rhode Island, and Texas.
xii The top 5 States that contributed to the achievable benchmark are California, Minnesota, New Hampshire, Pennsylvania, and South Dakota.
xiii The top 5 States that contributed to the achievable benchmark are Hawaii, Maine, Montana, New Hampshire, and Oregon.
xiv The top 5 States that contributed to the achievable benchmark are Alaska, Minnesota, New Hampshire, North Dakota, and Oregon.
xv The top 4 States that contributed to the achievable benchmark are Arizona, Florida, Maryland, and Michigan.
xvi The top 5 States that contributed to the achievable benchmark are Connecticut, Maine, New Hampshire, New Jersey, and South Carolina.



Proceed to Next Section

Current as of February 2011
Internet Citation: Chapter 2. Effectiveness (continued): National Healthcare Quality Report, 2010. February 2011. Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, Rockville, MD. http://www.ahrq.gov/research/findings/nhqrdr/nhqr10/Chap2a.html