Skip to main content
Search for Indicators

All Data

Indicator Gauge Icon Legend

Legend Colors

Red is bad, green is good, blue is not statistically different/neutral.

Compared to Distribution

an indicator guage with the arrow in the green the value is in the best half of communities.

an indicator guage with the arrow in the yellow the value is in the 2nd worst quarter of communities.

an indicator guage with the arrow in the red the value is in the worst quarter of communities.

Compared to Target

green circle with white tick inside it meets target; red circle with white cross inside it does not meet target.

Compared to a Single Value

green diamond with downward arrow inside it lower than the comparison value; red diamond with downward arrow inside it higher than the comparison value; blue diamond with downward arrow inside it not statistically different from comparison value.

Trend

green square outline with upward trending arrow inside it green square outline with downward trending arrow inside it non-significant change over time; green square with upward trending arrow inside it green square with downward trending arrow inside it significant change over time; blue square with equals sign no change over time.

Compared to Prior Value

green triangle with upward trending arrow inside it higher than the previous measurement period; green triangle with downward trending arrow inside it lower than the previous measurement period; blue equals sign no statistically different change  from previous measurement period.

More information about the gauges and icons

County: Placer

Health / Alcohol & Drug Use

Value
Compared to:

County: Placer

Health / Alcohol & Drug Use

Value
Compared to:

County: Placer Adults who Binge Drink: Last 30 Days

Current Value:
16.0%
(2021)
Compared to:
Compared to CA Counties, Placer has a value of 16.0% which is in the worst 25% of counties. Counties in the best 50% have a value lower than 15.3% while counties in the worst 25% have a value higher than 15.8%.
CA Counties
The distribution is based on data from 58 California counties.
Compared to U.S. Counties, Placer has a value of 16.0% which is in the 2nd worst quartile of counties. Counties in the best 50% have a value lower than 15.5% while counties in the worst 25% have a value higher than 17.0%.
U.S. Counties
The distribution is based on data from 3,074 U.S. counties and county equivalents.
Compared to the US Value (15.5%), Placer has a value of 16.0% which is higher and worse.
US Value
(15.5%)
The regional value is compared to the national value.

County: Placer Age-Adjusted Annual Opioid Prescription Rate

Current Value:
387.3
Prescriptions per 1,000 residents
(2022)
Compared to:
Compared to CA Counties, Placer has a value of 387.3 which is in the 2nd worst quartile of counties. Counties in the best 50% have a value lower than 371.0 while counties in the worst 25% have a value higher than 437.5.
CA Counties
The distribution is based on data from 58 California counties.
Compared to the CA Value (291.0), Placer has a value of 387.3 which is higher and worse.
CA Value
(291.0)
The regional value is compared to the California state value.
Compared to the prior value, Placer (387.3) is less and better than the previously measured value (414.0).
Prior Value
(414.0)
Prior Value compares a measured value with the previously measured value. Confidence intervals were taken into account in determining the direction of the comparison.
Over time, the Placer value is decreasing, significantly.
Trend
This comparison measures the indicator’s values over multiple time periods.<br>The Mann-Kendall Test for Statistical Significance is used to evaluate the trend<br>over 4 to 10 periods of measure, subject to data availability and comparability.

County: Placer Age-Adjusted Buprenorphine Prescription Rate

Current Value:
40.7
Prescriptions per 1,000 residents
(2022)
Compared to:
Compared to the CA Value (19.8), Placer has a value of 40.7.
CA Value
(19.8)
The regional value is compared to the California state value.
Compared to the prior value, Placer (40.7) is greater  than the previously measured value (38.7).
Prior Value
(38.7)
Prior Value compares a measured value with the previously measured value. Confidence intervals were taken into account in determining the direction of the comparison.
Over time, the Placer value is increasing significantly.
Trend
This comparison measures the indicator’s values over multiple time periods.<br>The Mann-Kendall Test for Statistical Significance is used to evaluate the trend<br>over 4 to 10 periods of measure, subject to data availability and comparability.

County: Placer Age-Adjusted Death Rate due to Drug Use

Current Value:
17.1
Deaths per 100,000 population
(2019-2021)
Compared to:
Compared to CA Counties, Placer has a value of 17.1 which is in the best 50% of counties. Counties in the best 50% have a value lower than 22.3 while counties in the worst 25% have a value higher than 31.0.
CA Counties
The distribution is based on data from 57 California counties.
Compared to the CA Value (21.4), Placer has a value of 17.1 which is lower and better.
CA Value
(21.4)
The regional value is compared to the California state value.
Compared to the prior value, Placer (17.1) is not statistically different from the previously measured value (15.5).
Prior Value
(15.5)
Prior Value compares a measured value with the previously measured value. Confidence intervals were taken into account in determining the direction of the comparison.
Over time, the Placer value is increasing significantly.
Trend
This comparison measures the indicator’s values over multiple time periods.<br>The Mann-Kendall Test for Statistical Significance is used to evaluate the trend<br>over 4 to 10 periods of measure, subject to data availability and comparability.

County: Placer Age-Adjusted Death Rate due to Fentanyl Overdose

Current Value:
11.2
(2022)
Compared to:
Compared to CA Counties, Placer has a value of 11.2 which is in the best 50% of counties. Counties in the best 50% have a value lower than 14.8 while counties in the worst 25% have a value higher than 22.3.
CA Counties
The distribution is based on data from 58 California counties.
Compared to the CA Value (16.6), Placer has a value of 11.2 which is lower and better.
CA Value
(16.6)
The regional value is compared to the California state value.
Compared to the prior value, Placer (11.2) is greater and worse than the previously measured value (9.7).
Prior Value
(9.7)
Prior Value compares a measured value with the previously measured value. Confidence intervals were not taken into account in determining the direction of the comparison.
Over time, the Placer value is increasing significantly.
Trend
This comparison measures the indicator’s values over multiple time periods.<br>The Mann-Kendall Test for Statistical Significance is used to evaluate the trend<br>over 4 to 10 periods of measure, subject to data availability and comparability.

County: Placer Age-Adjusted Drug and Opioid-Involved Overdose Death Rate

14.4
Deaths per 100,000 population
(2018-2020)
Compared to:
Compared to CA Counties, Placer has a value of 14.4 which is in the best 50% of counties. Counties in the best 50% have a value lower than 17.8 while counties in the worst 25% have a value higher than 22.0.
CA Counties
The distribution is based on data from 48 California counties.
Compared to U.S. Counties, Placer has a value of 14.4 which is in the best 50% of counties. Counties in the best 50% have a value lower than 25.3 while counties in the worst 25% have a value higher than 35.8.
U.S. Counties
The distribution is based on data from 1,303 U.S. counties and county equivalents.
Compared to the CA Value (16.5), Placer has a value of 14.4 which is lower and better.
CA Value
(16.5)
The regional value is compared to the California state value.
Compared to the US Value (23.5), Placer has a value of 14.4 which is lower and better.
US Value
(23.5)
The regional value is compared to the national value.
Compared to the prior value, Placer (14.4) is not statistically different from the previously measured value (12.9).
Prior Value
(12.9)
Prior Value compares a measured value with the previously measured value. Confidence intervals were taken into account in determining the direction of the comparison.

County: Placer Buprenorphine prescriptions per 1,000 residents

Current Value:
18
Prescriptions per 1,000 residents
(2013)
Compared to:
Compared to CA Counties, Placer has a value of 18 which is in the best 50% of counties. Counties in the best 50%  have a value higher than 11 while counties in the worst 25% have a value lower than 6.
CA Counties
The distribution is based on data from 58 California counties.
Compared to the prior value, Placer (18) is greater and better than the previously measured value (12).
Prior Value
(12)
Prior Value compares a measured value with the previously measured value. Confidence intervals were not taken into account in determining the direction of the comparison.
Over time, the Placer value is increasing, not significantly.
Trend
This comparison measures the indicator’s values over multiple time periods.<br>The Mann-Kendall Test for Statistical Significance is used to evaluate the trend<br>over 4 to 10 periods of measure, subject to data availability and comparability.

County: Placer Death Rate due to Drug Poisoning

Current Value:
17.1
Deaths per 100,000 population
(2019-2021)
Compared to:
Compared to CA Counties, Placer has a value of 17.1 which is in the best 50% of counties. Counties in the best 50% have a value lower than 22.5 while counties in the worst 25% have a value higher than 30.1.
CA Counties
The distribution is based on data from 54 California counties.
Compared to U.S. Counties, Placer has a value of 17.1 which is in the best 50% of counties. Counties in the best 50% have a value lower than 25.2 while counties in the worst 25% have a value higher than 35.8.
U.S. Counties
The distribution is based on data from 1,899 U.S. counties and county equivalents.
Compared to the CA Value (22.0), Placer has a value of 17.1 which is lower and better.
CA Value
(22.0)
The regional value is compared to the California state value.
Compared to the US Value (27.2), Placer has a value of 17.1 which is lower and better.
US Value
(27.2)
The regional value is compared to the national value.
Compared to the HP 2030 Target (20.7), the target has  been met.
HP 2030 Target
(20.7)
<div>SU-03: Reduce drug overdose deaths <strong>(LEADING HEALTH INDICATOR)</strong></div>

County: Placer Morphine milligram equivalents per resident per year (buprenorphine excluded)

1,002
Milligram equivalents per resident per year
(2013)
Compared to:
Compared to CA Counties, Placer has a value of 1,002 which is in the 2nd worst quartile of counties. Counties in the best 50% have a value lower than 875 while counties in the worst 25% have a value higher than 1,560.
CA Counties
The distribution is based on data from 58 California counties.
Compared to the prior value, Placer (1,002) is less and better than the previously measured value (1,066).
Prior Value
(1,066)
Prior Value compares a measured value with the previously measured value. Confidence intervals were not taken into account in determining the direction of the comparison.
Over time, the Placer value is decreasing, significantly.
Trend
This comparison measures the indicator’s values over multiple time periods.<br>The Mann-Kendall Test for Statistical Significance is used to evaluate the trend<br>over 4 to 10 periods of measure, subject to data availability and comparability.

County: Placer Non-fatal emergency department visits for opioids

40.1
Rate per 100,000
(2014)
Compared to:
Compared to CA Counties, Placer has a value of 40.1 which is in the 2nd worst quartile of counties. Counties in the best 50% have a value lower than 34.6 while counties in the worst 25% have a value higher than 46.6.
CA Counties
The distribution is based on data from 57 California counties.
Compared to the prior value, Placer (40.1) is greater and worse than the previously measured value (39.7).
Prior Value
(39.7)
Prior Value compares a measured value with the previously measured value. Confidence intervals were not taken into account in determining the direction of the comparison.
Over time, the Placer value is decreasing, not significantly.
Trend
This comparison measures the indicator’s values over multiple time periods.<br>The Mann-Kendall Test for Statistical Significance is used to evaluate the trend<br>over 4 to 10 periods of measure, subject to data availability and comparability.

County: Placer Number of waivered buprenorphine physicians

Current Value:
24.0
Physicians
(2013)
Compared to:
Compared to the prior value, Placer (24.0) is greater and better than the previously measured value (22.0).
Prior Value
(22.0)
Prior Value compares a measured value with the previously measured value. Confidence intervals were not taken into account in determining the direction of the comparison.
Over time, the Placer value is increasing significantly.
Trend
This comparison measures the indicator’s values over multiple time periods.<br>The Mann-Kendall Test for Statistical Significance is used to evaluate the trend<br>over 4 to 10 periods of measure, subject to data availability and comparability.

County: Placer Opioid Prescription Patients

Current Value:
3.2%
(Q3 2022)
Compared to:
Compared to CA Counties, Placer has a value of 3.2% which is in the 2nd worst quartile of counties. Counties in the best 50% have a value lower than 2.7% while counties in the worst 25% have a value higher than 3.6%.
CA Counties
The distribution is based on data from 58 California counties.
Compared to the prior value, Placer (3.2%) is less and better than the previously measured value (3.3%).
Prior Value
(3.3%)
Prior Value compares a measured value with the previously measured value. Confidence intervals were not taken into account in determining the direction of the comparison.
Over time, the Placer value is decreasing, significantly.
Trend
This comparison measures the indicator’s values over multiple time periods.<br>The Mann-Kendall Test for Statistical Significance is used to evaluate the trend<br>over 4 to 10 periods of measure, subject to data availability and comparability.

County: Placer Opioid prescriptions per 1,000 residents (buprenorphine excluded)

852
Prescriptions per 1,000 residents
(2013)
Compared to:
Compared to CA Counties, Placer has a value of 852 which is in the 2nd worst quartile of counties. Counties in the best 50% have a value lower than 778 while counties in the worst 25% have a value higher than 1,105.
CA Counties
The distribution is based on data from 58 California counties.
Compared to the prior value, Placer (852) is greater and worse than the previously measured value (848).
Prior Value
(848)
Prior Value compares a measured value with the previously measured value. Confidence intervals were not taken into account in determining the direction of the comparison.
Over time, the Placer value is decreasing, not significantly.
Trend
This comparison measures the indicator’s values over multiple time periods.<br>The Mann-Kendall Test for Statistical Significance is used to evaluate the trend<br>over 4 to 10 periods of measure, subject to data availability and comparability.

County: Placer Quarterly Opioid Prescription Rate

Current Value:
417.3
Prescriptions per 10,000 population
(Q3 2022)
Compared to:
Compared to CA Counties, Placer has a value of 417.3 which is in the 2nd worst quartile of counties. Counties in the best 50% have a value lower than 333.4 while counties in the worst 25% have a value higher than 444.0.
CA Counties
The distribution is based on data from 58 California counties.
Compared to the prior value, Placer (417.3) is greater and worse than the previously measured value (408.2).
Prior Value
(408.2)
Prior Value compares a measured value with the previously measured value. Confidence intervals were not taken into account in determining the direction of the comparison.
Over time, the Placer value is decreasing, significantly.
Trend
This comparison measures the indicator’s values over multiple time periods.<br>The Mann-Kendall Test for Statistical Significance is used to evaluate the trend<br>over 4 to 10 periods of measure, subject to data availability and comparability.

County: Placer Residents on More than 90 Morphine Milligram Equivalents (MME) of Opioids Daily

9.4
Residents on >90 MMEs of Opioids per 1,000 residents
(2022)
Compared to:
Compared to CA Counties, Placer has a value of 9.4 which is in the 2nd worst quartile of counties. Counties in the best 50% have a value lower than 7.6 while counties in the worst 25% have a value higher than 9.9.
CA Counties
The distribution is based on data from 58 California counties.
Compared to the CA Value (6.3), Placer has a value of 9.4 which is higher and worse.
CA Value
(6.3)
The regional value is compared to the California state value.
Compared to the prior value, Placer (9.4) is less and better than the previously measured value (10.6).
Prior Value
(10.6)
Prior Value compares a measured value with the previously measured value. Confidence intervals were taken into account in determining the direction of the comparison.
Over time, the Placer value is decreasing, significantly.
Trend
This comparison measures the indicator’s values over multiple time periods.<br>The Mann-Kendall Test for Statistical Significance is used to evaluate the trend<br>over 4 to 10 periods of measure, subject to data availability and comparability.

County: Placer Waivered buprenorphine physicians who actively prescribe

62.5%
(2013)
Compared to:
Compared to the prior value, Placer (62.5%) is greater and better than the previously measured value (54.5%).
Prior Value
(54.5%)
Prior Value compares a measured value with the previously measured value. Confidence intervals were not taken into account in determining the direction of the comparison.
Over time, the Placer value is increasing, not significantly.
Trend
This comparison measures the indicator’s values over multiple time periods.<br>The Mann-Kendall Test for Statistical Significance is used to evaluate the trend<br>over 4 to 10 periods of measure, subject to data availability and comparability.

County: Placer

Health / Cancer

Value
Compared to:

County: Placer

Health / Cancer

Value
Compared to:

County: Placer Adults with Cancer

Current Value:

County: Placer Adults with Cancer

7.9%
(2021)
Compared to:
Compared to CA Counties, Placer has a value of 7.9% which is in the 2nd worst quartile of counties. Counties in the best 50% have a value lower than 6.6% while counties in the worst 25% have a value higher than 8.5%.
CA Counties
The distribution is based on data from 58 California counties.
Compared to U.S. Counties, Placer has a value of 7.9% which is in the best 50% of counties. Counties in the best 50% have a value lower than 7.9% while counties in the worst 25% have a value higher than 8.6%.
U.S. Counties
The distribution is based on data from 3,074 U.S. counties and county equivalents.
Compared to the US Value (7.0%), Placer has a value of 7.9% which is higher and worse.
US Value
(7.0%)
The regional value is compared to the national value.

County: Placer Age-Adjusted Death Rate due to Breast Cancer

Current Value:
18.0
Deaths per 100,000 females
(2019-2021)
Compared to:
Compared to CA Counties, Placer has a value of 18.0 which is in the best 50% of counties. Counties in the best 50% have a value lower than 18.5 while counties in the worst 25% have a value higher than 19.9.
CA Counties
The distribution is based on data from 56 California counties.
Compared to the CA Value (17.8), Placer has a value of 18.0 which is higher and worse.
CA Value
(17.8)
The regional value is compared to the California state value.
Compared to the US Value (20.0), Placer has a value of 18.0 which is lower and better.
US Value
(20.0 in 2016)
The regional value is compared to the national value. The source for the national value is National Cancer Institute
Compared to the prior value, Placer (18.0) is not statistically different from the previously measured value (16.9).
Prior Value
(16.9)
Prior Value compares a measured value with the previously measured value. Confidence intervals were taken into account in determining the direction of the comparison.
Over time, the Placer value is decreasing, significantly.
Trend
This comparison measures the indicator’s values over multiple time periods.<br>The Mann-Kendall Test for Statistical Significance is used to evaluate the trend<br>over 4 to 10 periods of measure, subject to data availability and comparability.
Compared to the HP 2030 Target (15.3), the target has not been met.
HP 2030 Target
(15.3)

County: Placer Age-Adjusted Death Rate due to Cancer

Current Value:
121.6
Deaths per 100,000 population
(2019-2021)
Compared to:
Compared to CA Counties, Placer has a value of 121.6 which is in the best 50% of counties. Counties in the best 50% have a value lower than 131.2 while counties in the worst 25% have a value higher than 143.2.
CA Counties
The distribution is based on data from 58 California counties.
Compared to the CA Value (124.9), Placer has a value of 121.6 which is lower and better.
CA Value
(124.9)
The regional value is compared to the California state value.
Compared to the US Value (155.9), Placer has a value of 121.6 which is lower and better.
US Value
(155.9 in 2016)
The regional value is compared to the national value. The source for the national value is National Cancer Institute
Compared to the prior value, Placer (121.6) is not statistically different from the previously measured value (123.0).
Prior Value
(123.0)
Prior Value compares a measured value with the previously measured value. Confidence intervals were taken into account in determining the direction of the comparison.
Over time, the Placer value is decreasing, significantly.
Trend
This comparison measures the indicator’s values over multiple time periods.<br>The Mann-Kendall Test for Statistical Significance is used to evaluate the trend<br>over 4 to 10 periods of measure, subject to data availability and comparability.
Compared to the HP 2030 Target (122.7), the target has  been met.
HP 2030 Target
(122.7)

County: Placer Age-Adjusted Death Rate due to Colorectal Cancer

Current Value:
11.6
Deaths per 100,000 population
(2019-2021)
Compared to:
Compared to CA Counties, Placer has a value of 11.6 which is in the best 50% of counties. Counties in the best 50% have a value lower than 11.7 while counties in the worst 25% have a value higher than 14.0.
CA Counties
The distribution is based on data from 58 California counties.
Compared to the CA Value (11.7), Placer has a value of 11.6 which is lower and better.
CA Value
(11.7)
The regional value is compared to the California state value.
Compared to the US Value (13.7), Placer has a value of 11.6 which is lower and better.
US Value
(13.7 in 2016)
The regional value is compared to the national value. The source for the national value is National Cancer Institute
Compared to the prior value, Placer (11.6) is not statistically different from the previously measured value (12.2).
Prior Value
(12.2)
Prior Value compares a measured value with the previously measured value. Confidence intervals were taken into account in determining the direction of the comparison.
Over time, the Placer value is decreasing, not significantly.
Trend
This comparison measures the indicator’s values over multiple time periods.<br>The Mann-Kendall Test for Statistical Significance is used to evaluate the trend<br>over 4 to 10 periods of measure, subject to data availability and comparability.
Compared to the HP 2030 Target (8.9), the target has not been met.
HP 2030 Target
(8.9)

County: Placer Age-Adjusted Death Rate due to Lung Cancer

Current Value:
21.9
Deaths per 100,000 population
(2019-2021)
Compared to:
Compared to CA Counties, Placer has a value of 21.9 which is in the best 50% of counties. Counties in the best 50% have a value lower than 24.6 while counties in the worst 25% have a value higher than 30.7.
CA Counties
The distribution is based on data from 58 California counties.
Compared to the CA Value (21.6), Placer has a value of 21.9 which is higher and worse.
CA Value
(21.6)
The regional value is compared to the California state value.
Compared to the US Value (38.5), Placer has a value of 21.9 which is lower and better.
US Value
(38.5 in 2016)
The regional value is compared to the national value. The source for the national value is National Cancer Institute
Compared to the prior value, Placer (21.9) is not statistically different from the previously measured value (22.7).
Prior Value
(22.7)
Prior Value compares a measured value with the previously measured value. Confidence intervals were taken into account in determining the direction of the comparison.
Over time, the Placer value is decreasing, significantly.
Trend
This comparison measures the indicator’s values over multiple time periods.<br>The Mann-Kendall Test for Statistical Significance is used to evaluate the trend<br>over 4 to 10 periods of measure, subject to data availability and comparability.
Compared to the HP 2030 Target (25.1), the target has  been met.
HP 2030 Target
(25.1)

County: Placer Age-Adjusted Death Rate due to Prostate Cancer

Current Value:
16.1
Deaths per 100,000 males
(2019-2021)
Compared to:
Compared to CA Counties, Placer has a value of 16.1 which is in the best 50% of counties. Counties in the best 50% have a value lower than 19.1 while counties in the worst 25% have a value higher than 22.4.
CA Counties
The distribution is based on data from 57 California counties.
Compared to the CA Value (18.4), Placer has a value of 16.1 which is lower and better.
CA Value
(18.4)
The regional value is compared to the California state value.
Compared to the US Value (19.4), Placer has a value of 16.1 which is lower and better.
US Value
(19.4 in 2016)
The regional value is compared to the national value. The source for the national value is National Cancer Institute
Compared to the prior value, Placer (16.1) is not statistically different from the previously measured value (16.9).
Prior Value
(16.9)
Prior Value compares a measured value with the previously measured value. Confidence intervals were taken into account in determining the direction of the comparison.
Over time, the Placer value is decreasing, not significantly.
Trend
This comparison measures the indicator’s values over multiple time periods.<br>The Mann-Kendall Test for Statistical Significance is used to evaluate the trend<br>over 4 to 10 periods of measure, subject to data availability and comparability.
Compared to the HP 2030 Target (16.9), the target has  been met.
HP 2030 Target
(16.9)

County: Placer Breast Cancer Incidence Rate

Current Value:
136.8
Cases per 100,000 females
(2016-2020)
Compared to:
Compared to CA Counties, Placer has a value of 136.8 which is in the worst 25% of counties. Counties in the best 50% have a value lower than 121.0 while counties in the worst 25% have a value higher than 129.6.
CA Counties
The distribution is based on data from 56 California counties.
Compared to U.S. Counties, Placer has a value of 136.8 which is in the worst 25% of counties. Counties in the best 50% have a value lower than 122.1 while counties in the worst 25% have a value higher than 133.5.
U.S. Counties
The distribution is based on data from 2,478 U.S. counties and county equivalents.
Compared to the CA Value (121.0), Placer has a value of 136.8 which is higher and worse.
CA Value
(121.0)
The regional value is compared to the California state value.
Compared to the US Value (127.0), Placer has a value of 136.8 which is higher and worse.
US Value
(127.0)
The regional value is compared to the national value.
Compared to the prior value, Placer (136.8) is not statistically different from the previously measured value (142.8).
Prior Value
(142.8)
Prior Value compares a measured value with the previously measured value. Confidence intervals were taken into account in determining the direction of the comparison.
Over time, the Placer value is decreasing, not significantly.
Trend
This comparison measures the indicator’s values over multiple time periods.<br>The Mann-Kendall Test for Statistical Significance is used to evaluate the trend<br>over 4 to 10 periods of measure, subject to data availability and comparability.

County: Placer Cancer: Medicare Population

Current Value:
13.0%
(2022)
Compared to:
Compared to CA Counties, Placer has a value of 13.0% which is in the worst 25% of counties. Counties in the best 50% have a value lower than 10.0% while counties in the worst 25% have a value higher than 11.0%.
CA Counties
The distribution is based on data from 58 California counties.
Compared to U.S. Counties, Placer has a value of 13.0% which is in the worst 25% of counties. Counties in the best 50% have a value lower than 11.0% while counties in the worst 25% have a value higher than 12.0%.
U.S. Counties
The distribution is based on data from 3,129 U.S. counties and county equivalents.
Compared to the CA Value (11.0%), Placer has a value of 13.0% which is higher and worse.
CA Value
(11.0%)
The regional value is compared to the California state value.
Compared to the US Value (12.0%), Placer has a value of 13.0% which is higher and worse.
US Value
(12.0%)
The regional value is compared to the national value.
Compared to the prior value, Placer (13.0%) is greater and worse than the previously measured value (12.0%).
Prior Value
(12.0%)
Prior Value compares a measured value with the previously measured value. Confidence intervals were not taken into account in determining the direction of the comparison.
Over time, the Placer value is increasing significantly.
Trend
This comparison measures the indicator’s values over multiple time periods.<br>The Mann-Kendall Test for Statistical Significance is used to evaluate the trend<br>over 4 to 10 periods of measure, subject to data availability and comparability.

County: Placer Cervical Cancer Incidence Rate

Current Value:
6.4
Cases per 100,000 females
(2016-2020)
Compared to:
Compared to CA Counties, Placer has a value of 6.4 which is in the best 50% of counties. Counties in the best 50% have a value lower than 7.7 while counties in the worst 25% have a value higher than 9.1.
CA Counties
The distribution is based on data from 40 California counties.
Compared to U.S. Counties, Placer has a value of 6.4 which is in the best 50% of counties. Counties in the best 50% have a value lower than 8.0 while counties in the worst 25% have a value higher than 10.1.
U.S. Counties
The distribution is based on data from 696 U.S. counties and county equivalents.
Compared to the CA Value (7.3), Placer has a value of 6.4 which is lower and better.
CA Value
(7.3)
The regional value is compared to the California state value.
Compared to the US Value (7.5), Placer has a value of 6.4 which is lower and better.
US Value
(7.5)
The regional value is compared to the national value.
Compared to the prior value, Placer (6.4) is not statistically different from the previously measured value (6.7).
Prior Value
(6.7)
Prior Value compares a measured value with the previously measured value. Confidence intervals were taken into account in determining the direction of the comparison.
Over time, the Placer value is increasing significantly.
Trend
This comparison measures the indicator’s values over multiple time periods.<br>The Mann-Kendall Test for Statistical Significance is used to evaluate the trend<br>over 4 to 10 periods of measure, subject to data availability and comparability.

County: Placer Cervical Cancer Screening: 21-65

Current Value:
84.6%
(2020)
Compared to:
Compared to CA Counties, Placer has a value of 84.6% which is in the best 50% of counties. Counties in the best 50%  have a value higher than 81.4% while counties in the worst 25% have a value lower than 80.0%.
CA Counties
The distribution is based on data from 58 California counties.
Compared to U.S. Counties, Placer has a value of 84.6% which is in the best 50% of counties. Counties in the best 50%  have a value higher than 81.0% while counties in the worst 25% have a value lower than 79.3%.
U.S. Counties
The distribution is based on data from 3,141 U.S. counties and county equivalents.
Compared to the US Value (82.8%), Placer has a value of 84.6% which is higher and better.
US Value
(82.8%)
The regional value is compared to the national value.

County: Placer Colon Cancer Screening: Sigmoidoscopy Past 5 Years and FOBT Past 3 Years, Colonoscopy Past 10 Years, or FOBT Past Year

72.6%
(2018)
Compared to:
Compared to CA Counties, Placer has a value of 72.6% which is in the best 50% of counties. Counties in the best 50%  have a value higher than 67.8% while counties in the worst 25% have a value lower than 64.5%.
CA Counties
The distribution is based on data from 58 California counties.
Compared to U.S. Counties, Placer has a value of 72.6% which is in the best 50% of counties. Counties in the best 50%  have a value higher than 64.0% while counties in the worst 25% have a value lower than 61.0%.
U.S. Counties
The distribution is based on data from 3,142 U.S. counties and county equivalents.
Compared to the US Value (66.4%), Placer has a value of 72.6% which is higher and better.
US Value
(66.4%)
The regional value is compared to the national value.

County: Placer Colon Cancer Screening: USPSTF Recommendation

Current Value:
66.9%
(2020)
Compared to:
Compared to CA Counties, Placer has a value of 66.9% which is in the best 50% of counties. Counties in the best 50%  have a value higher than 62.6% while counties in the worst 25% have a value lower than 60.1%.
CA Counties
The distribution is based on data from 58 California counties.
Compared to U.S. Counties, Placer has a value of 66.9% which is in the worst 25% of counties. Counties in the best 50%  have a value higher than 70.7% while counties in the worst 25% have a value lower than 67.7%.
U.S. Counties
The distribution is based on data from 3,141 U.S. counties and county equivalents.
Compared to the US Value (72.4%), Placer has a value of 66.9% which is lower and worse.
US Value
(72.4%)
The regional value is compared to the national value.

County: Placer Colorectal Cancer Incidence Rate

Current Value:
33.2
Cases per 100,000 population
(2016-2020)
Compared to:
Compared to CA Counties, Placer has a value of 33.2 which is in the best 50% of counties. Counties in the best 50% have a value lower than 33.4 while counties in the worst 25% have a value higher than 36.2.
CA Counties
The distribution is based on data from 56 California counties.
Compared to U.S. Counties, Placer has a value of 33.2 which is in the best 50% of counties. Counties in the best 50% have a value lower than 40.1 while counties in the worst 25% have a value higher than 46.1.
U.S. Counties
The distribution is based on data from 2,401 U.S. counties and county equivalents.
Compared to the CA Value (33.5), Placer has a value of 33.2 which is lower and better.
CA Value
(33.5)
The regional value is compared to the California state value.
Compared to the US Value (36.5), Placer has a value of 33.2 which is lower and better.
US Value
(36.5)
The regional value is compared to the national value.
Compared to the prior value, Placer (33.2) is not statistically different from the previously measured value (34.2).
Prior Value
(34.2)
Prior Value compares a measured value with the previously measured value. Confidence intervals were taken into account in determining the direction of the comparison.
Over time, the Placer value is decreasing, significantly.
Trend
This comparison measures the indicator’s values over multiple time periods.<br>The Mann-Kendall Test for Statistical Significance is used to evaluate the trend<br>over 4 to 10 periods of measure, subject to data availability and comparability.

County: Placer Lung and Bronchus Cancer Incidence Rate

Current Value:
38.8
Cases per 100,000 population
(2016-2020)
Compared to:
Compared to CA Counties, Placer has a value of 38.8 which is in the best 50% of counties. Counties in the best 50% have a value lower than 39.5 while counties in the worst 25% have a value higher than 47.4.
CA Counties
The distribution is based on data from 55 California counties.
Compared to U.S. Counties, Placer has a value of 38.8 which is in the best 50% of counties. Counties in the best 50% have a value lower than 63.2 while counties in the worst 25% have a value higher than 74.4.
U.S. Counties
The distribution is based on data from 2,471 U.S. counties and county equivalents.
Compared to the CA Value (37.6), Placer has a value of 38.8 which is higher and worse.
CA Value
(37.6)
The regional value is compared to the California state value.
Compared to the US Value (54.0), Placer has a value of 38.8 which is lower and better.
US Value
(54.0)
The regional value is compared to the national value.
Compared to the prior value, Placer (38.8) is not statistically different from the previously measured value (40.0).
Prior Value
(40.0)
Prior Value compares a measured value with the previously measured value. Confidence intervals were taken into account in determining the direction of the comparison.
Over time, the Placer value is decreasing, significantly.
Trend
This comparison measures the indicator’s values over multiple time periods.<br>The Mann-Kendall Test for Statistical Significance is used to evaluate the trend<br>over 4 to 10 periods of measure, subject to data availability and comparability.

County: Placer Mammogram in Past 2 Years: 50-74

Current Value:
70.4%
(2020)
Compared to:
Compared to CA Counties, Placer has a value of 70.4% which is in the best 50% of counties. Counties in the best 50%  have a value higher than 67.7% while counties in the worst 25% have a value lower than 66.4%.
CA Counties
The distribution is based on data from 58 California counties.
Compared to U.S. Counties, Placer has a value of 70.4% which is in the 2nd worst quartile of counties. Counties in the best 50%  have a value higher than 70.7% while counties in the worst 25% have a value lower than 67.9%.
U.S. Counties
The distribution is based on data from 3,141 U.S. counties and county equivalents.
Compared to the US Value (78.2%), Placer has a value of 70.4% which is lower and worse.
US Value
(78.2%)
The regional value is compared to the national value.
Compared to the HP 2030 Target (80.3%), the target has not been met.
HP 2030 Target
(80.3%)

County: Placer Mammography Screening: Medicare Population

Current Value:
48.0%
(2022)
Compared to:
Compared to CA Counties, Placer has a value of 48.0% which is in the best 50% of counties. Counties in the best 50%  have a value higher than 41.0% while counties in the worst 25% have a value lower than 38.0%.
CA Counties
The distribution is based on data from 58 California counties.
Compared to U.S. Counties, Placer has a value of 48.0% which is in the best 50% of counties. Counties in the best 50%  have a value higher than 45.0% while counties in the worst 25% have a value lower than 40.0%.
U.S. Counties
The distribution is based on data from 3,123 U.S. counties and county equivalents.
Compared to the CA Value (41.0%), Placer has a value of 48.0% which is higher and better.
CA Value
(41.0%)
The regional value is compared to the California state value.
Compared to the US Value (47.0%), Placer has a value of 48.0% which is higher and better.
US Value
(47.0%)
The regional value is compared to the national value.
Compared to the prior value, Placer (48.0%) is less and worse than the previously measured value (49.0%).
Prior Value
(49.0%)
Prior Value compares a measured value with the previously measured value. Confidence intervals were not taken into account in determining the direction of the comparison.
Over time, the Placer value is decreasing, not significantly.
Trend
This comparison measures the indicator’s values over multiple time periods.<br>The Mann-Kendall Test for Statistical Significance is used to evaluate the trend<br>over 4 to 10 periods of measure, subject to data availability and comparability.

County: Placer Oral Cavity and Pharynx Cancer Incidence Rate

Current Value:
12.6
Cases per 100,000 population
(2016-2020)
Compared to:
Compared to CA Counties, Placer has a value of 12.6 which is in the 2nd worst quartile of counties. Counties in the best 50% have a value lower than 11.4 while counties in the worst 25% have a value higher than 13.0.
CA Counties
The distribution is based on data from 54 California counties.
Compared to U.S. Counties, Placer has a value of 12.6 which is in the best 50% of counties. Counties in the best 50% have a value lower than 13.1 while counties in the worst 25% have a value higher than 15.1.
U.S. Counties
The distribution is based on data from 1,706 U.S. counties and county equivalents.
Compared to the CA Value (10.1), Placer has a value of 12.6 which is higher and worse.
CA Value
(10.1)
The regional value is compared to the California state value.
Compared to the US Value (11.9), Placer has a value of 12.6 which is higher and worse.
US Value
(11.9)
The regional value is compared to the national value.
Compared to the prior value, Placer (12.6) is not statistically different from the previously measured value (13.8).
Prior Value
(13.8)
Prior Value compares a measured value with the previously measured value. Confidence intervals were taken into account in determining the direction of the comparison.
Over time, the Placer value is increasing significantly.
Trend
This comparison measures the indicator’s values over multiple time periods.<br>The Mann-Kendall Test for Statistical Significance is used to evaluate the trend<br>over 4 to 10 periods of measure, subject to data availability and comparability.

County: Placer Prostate Cancer Incidence Rate

Current Value:
111.2
Cases per 100,000 males
(2016-2020)
Compared to:
Compared to CA Counties, Placer has a value of 111.2 which is in the worst 25% of counties. Counties in the best 50% have a value lower than 93.3 while counties in the worst 25% have a value higher than 102.0.
CA Counties
The distribution is based on data from 57 California counties.
Compared to U.S. Counties, Placer has a value of 111.2 which is in the 2nd worst quartile of counties. Counties in the best 50% have a value lower than 107.9 while counties in the worst 25% have a value higher than 125.6.
U.S. Counties
The distribution is based on data from 2,500 U.S. counties and county equivalents.
Compared to the CA Value (95.4), Placer has a value of 111.2 which is higher and worse.
CA Value
(95.4)
The regional value is compared to the California state value.
Compared to the US Value (110.5), Placer has a value of 111.2 which is higher and worse.
US Value
(110.5)
The regional value is compared to the national value.
Compared to the prior value, Placer (111.2) is not statistically different from the previously measured value (111.4).
Prior Value
(111.4)
Prior Value compares a measured value with the previously measured value. Confidence intervals were taken into account in determining the direction of the comparison.
Over time, the Placer value is decreasing, significantly.
Trend
This comparison measures the indicator’s values over multiple time periods.<br>The Mann-Kendall Test for Statistical Significance is used to evaluate the trend<br>over 4 to 10 periods of measure, subject to data availability and comparability.

County: Placer

Health / Diabetes

Value
Compared to:

County: Placer

Health / Diabetes

Value
Compared to:

County: Placer Adults with Diabetes

Current Value:

County: Placer Adults with Diabetes

6.5%
(2021-2022)
Compared to:
Compared to CA Counties, Placer has a value of 6.5% which is in the best 50% of counties. Counties in the best 50% have a value lower than 8.9% while counties in the worst 25% have a value higher than 11.9%.
CA Counties
The distribution is based on data from 58 California counties.
Compared to the CA Value (10.7%), Placer has a value of 6.5% which is lower and better.
CA Value
(10.7%)
The regional value is compared to the California state value.
Compared to the US Value (11.5%), Placer has a value of 6.5% which is lower and better.
US Value
(11.5% in 2022)
The regional value is compared to the national value. The source for the national value is Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System
Compared to the prior value, Placer (6.5%) is not statistically different from the previously measured value (6.1%).
Prior Value
(6.1%)
Prior Value compares a measured value with the previously measured value. Confidence intervals were taken into account in determining the direction of the comparison.
Over time, the Placer value is staying the same.
Trend
This comparison measures the indicator’s values over multiple time periods.<br>The Mann-Kendall Test for Statistical Significance is used to evaluate the trend<br>over 4 to 10 periods of measure, subject to data availability and comparability.

County: Placer Age-Adjusted Death Rate due to Diabetes

Current Value:
17.5
Deaths per 100,000 population
(2019-2021)
Compared to:
Compared to CA Counties, Placer has a value of 17.5 which is in the best 50% of counties. Counties in the best 50% have a value lower than 21.1 while counties in the worst 25% have a value higher than 27.8.
CA Counties
The distribution is based on data from 57 California counties.
Compared to the CA Value (23.1), Placer has a value of 17.5 which is lower and better.
CA Value
(23.1)
The regional value is compared to the California state value.
Compared to the US Value (24.8), Placer has a value of 17.5 which is lower and better.
US Value
(24.8 in 2020)
The regional value is compared to the national value. The source for the national value is Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
Compared to the prior value, Placer (17.5) is not statistically different from the previously measured value (16.5).
Prior Value
(16.5)
Prior Value compares a measured value with the previously measured value. Confidence intervals were taken into account in determining the direction of the comparison.
Over time, the Placer value is increasing significantly.
Trend
This comparison measures the indicator’s values over multiple time periods.<br>The Mann-Kendall Test for Statistical Significance is used to evaluate the trend<br>over 4 to 10 periods of measure, subject to data availability and comparability.

County: Placer Diabetes: Medicare Population

Current Value:
20.0%
(2022)
Compared to:
Compared to CA Counties, Placer has a value of 20.0% which is in the best 50% of counties. Counties in the best 50% have a value lower than 20.0% while counties in the worst 25% have a value higher than 25.3%.
CA Counties
The distribution is based on data from 58 California counties.
Compared to U.S. Counties, Placer has a value of 20.0% which is in the best 50% of counties. Counties in the best 50% have a value lower than 25.0% while counties in the worst 25% have a value higher than 28.0%.
U.S. Counties
The distribution is based on data from 3,129 U.S. counties and county equivalents.
Compared to the CA Value (21.0%), Placer has a value of 20.0% which is lower and better.
CA Value
(21.0%)
The regional value is compared to the California state value.
Compared to the US Value (24.0%), Placer has a value of 20.0% which is lower and better.
US Value
(24.0%)
The regional value is compared to the national value.
Compared to the prior value, Placer (20.0%) is greater and worse than the previously measured value (19.0%).
Prior Value
(19.0%)
Prior Value compares a measured value with the previously measured value. Confidence intervals were not taken into account in determining the direction of the comparison.
Over time, the Placer value is decreasing, not significantly.
Trend
This comparison measures the indicator’s values over multiple time periods.<br>The Mann-Kendall Test for Statistical Significance is used to evaluate the trend<br>over 4 to 10 periods of measure, subject to data availability and comparability.

County: Placer

Health / Disabilities

Value
Compared to:

County: Placer

Health / Disabilities

Value
Compared to:

County: Placer Adults with Disability

Current Value:

County: Placer Adults with Disability

29.4%
(2016)
Compared to:
Compared to the CA Value (29.7%), Placer has a value of 29.4%.
CA Value
(29.7%)
The regional value is compared to the California state value.
Compared to the US Value (20.6%), Placer has a value of 29.4%.
US Value
(20.6% in 2015)
The regional value is compared to the national value. The source for the national value is Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System
Compared to the prior value, Placer (29.4%) is not statistically different from the previously measured value (31.0%).
Prior Value
(31.0%)
Prior Value compares a measured value with the previously measured value. Confidence intervals were taken into account in determining the direction of the comparison.
Over time, the Placer value is decreasing, not significantly.
Trend
This comparison measures the indicator’s values over multiple time periods.<br>The Mann-Kendall Test for Statistical Significance is used to evaluate the trend<br>over 4 to 10 periods of measure, subject to data availability and comparability.

County: Placer Adults with Disability Living in Poverty

Current Value:
15.6%
(2018-2022)
Compared to:
Compared to CA Counties, Placer has a value of 15.6% which is in the best 50% of counties. Counties in the best 50% have a value lower than 22.6% while counties in the worst 25% have a value higher than 28.1%.
CA Counties
The distribution is based on data from 58 California counties.
Compared to U.S. Counties, Placer has a value of 15.6% which is in the best 50% of counties. Counties in the best 50% have a value lower than 26.0% while counties in the worst 25% have a value higher than 32.0%.
U.S. Counties
The distribution is based on data from 3,132 U.S. counties and county equivalents.
Compared to the CA Value (22.7%), Placer has a value of 15.6% which is lower and better.
CA Value
(22.7%)
The regional value is compared to the California state value.
Compared to the US Value (24.9%), Placer has a value of 15.6% which is lower and better.
US Value
(24.9%)
The regional value is compared to the national value.
Over time, the Placer value is decreasing, not significantly.
Trend
This comparison measures the indicator’s values over multiple time periods.<br>The Mann-Kendall Test for Statistical Significance is used to evaluate the trend<br>over 4 to 10 periods of measure, subject to data availability and comparability.

County: Placer Children with a Disability

Current Value:
2.9%
(2018-2022)
Compared to:
Compared to the CA Value (3.7%), Placer has a value of 2.9%.
CA Value
(3.7%)
The regional value is compared to the California state value.
Compared to the US Value (4.5%), Placer has a value of 2.9%.
US Value
(4.5%)
The regional value is compared to the national value.
Over time, the Placer value is decreasing, significantly.
Trend
This comparison measures the indicator’s values over multiple time periods.<br>The Mann-Kendall Test for Statistical Significance is used to evaluate the trend<br>over 4 to 10 periods of measure, subject to data availability and comparability.

County: Placer Persons with a Cognitive Difficulty

Current Value:
4.3%
(2018-2022)
Compared to:
Compared to the CA Value (4.6%), Placer has a value of 4.3%.
CA Value
(4.6%)
The regional value is compared to the California state value.
Compared to the US Value (5.3%), Placer has a value of 4.3%.
US Value
(5.3%)
The regional value is compared to the national value.
Over time, the Placer value is increasing, not significantly.
Trend
This comparison measures the indicator’s values over multiple time periods.<br>The Mann-Kendall Test for Statistical Significance is used to evaluate the trend<br>over 4 to 10 periods of measure, subject to data availability and comparability.

County: Placer Persons with a Disability

Current Value:

County: Placer Persons with a Disability

11.2%
(2018-2022)
Compared to:
Compared to the CA Value (11.0%), Placer has a value of 11.2%.
CA Value
(11.0%)
The regional value is compared to the California state value.
Compared to the US Value (12.9%), Placer has a value of 11.2%.
US Value
(12.9%)
The regional value is compared to the national value.
Over time, the Placer value is staying the same.
Trend
This comparison measures the indicator’s values over multiple time periods.<br>The Mann-Kendall Test for Statistical Significance is used to evaluate the trend<br>over 4 to 10 periods of measure, subject to data availability and comparability.

County: Placer Persons with a Hearing Difficulty

Current Value:
3.7%
(2018-2022)
Compared to:
Compared to the CA Value (2.9%), Placer has a value of 3.7%.
CA Value
(2.9%)
The regional value is compared to the California state value.
Compared to the US Value (3.6%), Placer has a value of 3.7%.
US Value
(3.6%)
The regional value is compared to the national value.
Over time, the Placer value is decreasing, significantly.
Trend
This comparison measures the indicator’s values over multiple time periods.<br>The Mann-Kendall Test for Statistical Significance is used to evaluate the trend<br>over 4 to 10 periods of measure, subject to data availability and comparability.

County: Placer Persons with a Self-Care Difficulty

Current Value:
2.4%
(2018-2022)
Compared to:
Compared to the CA Value (2.7%), Placer has a value of 2.4%.
CA Value
(2.7%)
The regional value is compared to the California state value.
Compared to the US Value (2.6%), Placer has a value of 2.4%.
US Value
(2.6%)
The regional value is compared to the national value.
Over time, the Placer value is increasing, not significantly.
Trend
This comparison measures the indicator’s values over multiple time periods.<br>The Mann-Kendall Test for Statistical Significance is used to evaluate the trend<br>over 4 to 10 periods of measure, subject to data availability and comparability.

County: Placer Persons with a Vision Difficulty

Current Value:
1.5%
(2018-2022)
Compared to:
Compared to the CA Value (2.1%), Placer has a value of 1.5%.
CA Value
(2.1%)
The regional value is compared to the California state value.
Compared to the US Value (2.4%), Placer has a value of 1.5%.
US Value
(2.4%)
The regional value is compared to the national value.
Over time, the Placer value is decreasing, significantly.
Trend
This comparison measures the indicator’s values over multiple time periods.<br>The Mann-Kendall Test for Statistical Significance is used to evaluate the trend<br>over 4 to 10 periods of measure, subject to data availability and comparability.

County: Placer Persons with an Ambulatory Difficulty

Current Value:
5.4%
(2018-2022)
Compared to:
Compared to the CA Value (5.8%), Placer has a value of 5.4%.
CA Value
(5.8%)
The regional value is compared to the California state value.
Compared to the US Value (6.7%), Placer has a value of 5.4%.
US Value
(6.7%)
The regional value is compared to the national value.
Over time, the Placer value is decreasing, not significantly.
Trend
This comparison measures the indicator’s values over multiple time periods.<br>The Mann-Kendall Test for Statistical Significance is used to evaluate the trend<br>over 4 to 10 periods of measure, subject to data availability and comparability.

County: Placer

Health / Family Planning

Value
Compared to:

County: Placer

Health / Family Planning

Value
Compared to:

County: Placer Teen Birth Rate: 15-19

Current Value:

County: Placer Teen Birth Rate: 15-19

4.7
Live births per 1,000 females aged 15-19
(2019-2021)
Compared to:
Compared to CA Counties, Placer has a value of 4.7 which is in the best 50% of counties. Counties in the best 50% have a value lower than 11.5 while counties in the worst 25% have a value higher than 17.6.
CA Counties
The distribution is based on data from 55 California counties.
Compared to the CA Value (10.3), Placer has a value of 4.7 which is lower and better.
CA Value
(10.3)
The regional value is compared to the California state value.
Compared to the US Value (15.2), Placer has a value of 4.7 which is lower and better.
US Value
(15.2)
The regional value is compared to the national value. The source for the national value is Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National Center for Health Statistics
Compared to the prior value, Placer (4.7) is not statistically different from the previously measured value (5.0).
Prior Value
(5.0)
Prior Value compares a measured value with the previously measured value. Confidence intervals were taken into account in determining the direction of the comparison.
Over time, the Placer value is decreasing, significantly.
Trend
This comparison measures the indicator’s values over multiple time periods.<br>The Mann-Kendall Test for Statistical Significance is used to evaluate the trend<br>over 4 to 10 periods of measure, subject to data availability and comparability.

County: Placer

Health / Health Care Access & Quality

Value
Compared to:

County: Placer

Health / Health Care Access & Quality

Value
Compared to:

County: Placer Adults Delayed or had Difficulty Obtaining Care

Current Value:
18.9%
(2019-2020)
Compared to:
Compared to the CA Value (22.0%), Placer has a value of 18.9% which is lower and better.
CA Value
(22.0%)
The regional value is compared to the California state value.
Compared to the prior value, Placer (18.9%) is not statistically different from the previously measured value (19.6%).
Prior Value
(19.6%)
Prior Value compares a measured value with the previously measured value. Confidence intervals were taken into account in determining the direction of the comparison.
Over time, the Placer value is decreasing, not significantly.
Trend
This comparison measures the indicator’s values over multiple time periods.<br>The Mann-Kendall Test for Statistical Significance is used to evaluate the trend<br>over 4 to 10 periods of measure, subject to data availability and comparability.

County: Placer Adults who have had a Routine Checkup

Current Value:
63.5%
(2021)
Compared to:
Compared to CA Counties, Placer has a value of 63.5% which is in the best 50% of counties. Counties in the best 50%  have a value higher than 63.3% while counties in the worst 25% have a value lower than 61.8%.
CA Counties
The distribution is based on data from 58 California counties.
Compared to U.S. Counties, Placer has a value of 63.5% which is in the worst 25% of counties. Counties in the best 50%  have a value higher than 75.8% while counties in the worst 25% have a value lower than 72.9%.
U.S. Counties
The distribution is based on data from 3,074 U.S. counties and county equivalents.
Compared to the US Value (73.6%), Placer has a value of 63.5% which is lower and worse.
US Value
(73.6%)
The regional value is compared to the national value.

County: Placer Adults with Health Insurance: 18-64

Current Value:
96.1%
(2019-2020)
Compared to:
Compared to the CA Value (90.0%), Placer has a value of 96.1% which is higher and better.
CA Value
(90.0%)
The regional value is compared to the California state value.
Compared to the prior value, Placer (96.1%) is greater and better than the previously measured value (93.2%).
Prior Value
(93.2%)
Prior Value compares a measured value with the previously measured value. Confidence intervals were taken into account in determining the direction of the comparison.

County: Placer Adults without Health Insurance

Current Value:
5.8%
(2021)
Compared to:
Compared to CA Counties, Placer has a value of 5.8% which is in the best 50% of counties. Counties in the best 50% have a value lower than 9.2% while counties in the worst 25% have a value higher than 13.0%.
CA Counties
The distribution is based on data from 58 California counties.
Compared to U.S. Counties, Placer has a value of 5.8% which is in the best 50% of counties. Counties in the best 50% have a value lower than 10.1% while counties in the worst 25% have a value higher than 13.8%.
U.S. Counties
The distribution is based on data from 3,074 U.S. counties and county equivalents.
Compared to the US Value (10.8%), Placer has a value of 5.8% which is lower and better.
US Value
(10.8%)
The regional value is compared to the national value.

County: Placer Children with Health Insurance

Current Value:
97.4%
(2022)
Compared to:
Compared to CA Counties, Placer has a value of 97.4% which is in the best 50% of counties. Counties in the best 50%  have a value higher than 97.1% while counties in the worst 25% have a value lower than 96.2%.
CA Counties
The distribution is based on data from 42 California counties.
Compared to U.S. Counties, Placer has a value of 97.4% which is in the best 50% of counties. Counties in the best 50%  have a value higher than 96.3% while counties in the worst 25% have a value lower than 93.6%.
U.S. Counties
The distribution is based on data from 828 U.S. counties and county equivalents.
Compared to the CA Value (96.8%), Placer has a value of 97.4% which is higher and better.
CA Value
(96.8%)
The regional value is compared to the California state value.
Compared to the US Value (94.9%), Placer has a value of 97.4% which is higher and better.
US Value
(94.9%)
The regional value is compared to the national value.
Compared to the prior value, Placer (97.4%) is not statistically different from the previously measured value (98.1%).
Prior Value
(98.1%)
Prior Value compares a measured value with the previously measured value. Confidence intervals were taken into account in determining the direction of the comparison.
Over time, the Placer value is decreasing, not significantly.
Trend
This comparison measures the indicator’s values over multiple time periods.<br>The Mann-Kendall Test for Statistical Significance is used to evaluate the trend<br>over 4 to 10 periods of measure, subject to data availability and comparability.

County: Placer Medicare Healthcare Costs

Current Value:

County: Placer Medicare Healthcare Costs

$7,581
Dollars per enrollee
(2015)
Compared to:
Compared to the CA Value ($9,100), Placer has a value of $7,581.
CA Value
($9,100)
The regional value is compared to the California state value.
Compared to the US Value ($9,729), Placer has a value of $7,581.
US Value
($9,729)
The regional value is compared to the national value.
Compared to the prior value, Placer ($7,581) is greater  than the previously measured value ($7,572).
Prior Value
($7,572)
Prior Value compares a measured value with the previously measured value. Confidence intervals were not taken into account in determining the direction of the comparison.
Over time, the Placer value is decreasing, not significantly.
Trend
This comparison measures the indicator’s values over multiple time periods.<br>The Mann-Kendall Test for Statistical Significance is used to evaluate the trend<br>over 4 to 10 periods of measure, subject to data availability and comparability.

County: Placer Non-Physician Primary Care Provider Rate

Current Value:
76
Providers per 100,000 population
(2023)
Compared to:
Compared to CA Counties, Placer has a value of 76 which is in the 2nd worst quartile of counties. Counties in the best 50%  have a value higher than 86 while counties in the worst 25% have a value lower than 67.
CA Counties
The distribution is based on data from 58 California counties.
Compared to U.S. Counties, Placer has a value of 76 which is in the 2nd worst quartile of counties. Counties in the best 50%  have a value higher than 94 while counties in the worst 25% have a value lower than 65.
U.S. Counties
The distribution is based on data from 3,129 U.S. counties and county equivalents.
Compared to the CA Value (87), Placer has a value of 76 which is lower and worse.
CA Value
(87)
The regional value is compared to the California state value.
Compared to the prior value, Placer (76) is greater and better than the previously measured value (73).
Prior Value
(73)
Prior Value compares a measured value with the previously measured value. Confidence intervals were not taken into account in determining the direction of the comparison.
Over time, the Placer value is increasing significantly.
Trend
This comparison measures the indicator’s values over multiple time periods.<br>The Mann-Kendall Test for Statistical Significance is used to evaluate the trend<br>over 4 to 10 periods of measure, subject to data availability and comparability.

County: Placer People Delayed or had Difficulty Obtaining Care

Current Value:
16.5%
(2021-2022)
Compared to:
Compared to CA Counties, Placer has a value of 16.5% which is in the best 50% of counties. Counties in the best 50% have a value lower than 17.5% while counties in the worst 25% have a value higher than 19.2%.
CA Counties
The distribution is based on data from 58 California counties.
Compared to the CA Value (16.5%), Placer has a value of 16.5%.
CA Value
(16.5%)
The regional value is compared to the California state value.
Compared to the prior value, Placer (16.5%) is not statistically different from the previously measured value (17.1%).
Prior Value
(17.1%)
Prior Value compares a measured value with the previously measured value. Confidence intervals were taken into account in determining the direction of the comparison.
Over time, the Placer value is increasing, not significantly.
Trend
This comparison measures the indicator’s values over multiple time periods.<br>The Mann-Kendall Test for Statistical Significance is used to evaluate the trend<br>over 4 to 10 periods of measure, subject to data availability and comparability.
Compared to the HP 2030 Target (5.9%), the target has not been met.
HP 2030 Target
(5.9%)

County: Placer People with a Usual Source of Health Care

Current Value:
86.4%
(2022)
Compared to:
Compared to CA Counties, Placer has a value of 86.4% which is in the best 50% of counties. Counties in the best 50%  have a value higher than 84.4% while counties in the worst 25% have a value lower than 81.3%.
CA Counties
The distribution is based on data from 58 California counties.
Compared to the CA Value (82.5%), Placer has a value of 86.4% which is higher and better.
CA Value
(82.5%)
The regional value is compared to the California state value.
Compared to the prior value, Placer (86.4%) is not statistically different from the previously measured value (90.7%).
Prior Value
(90.7%)
Prior Value compares a measured value with the previously measured value. Confidence intervals were taken into account in determining the direction of the comparison.
Over time, the Placer value is increasing, not significantly.
Trend
This comparison measures the indicator’s values over multiple time periods.<br>The Mann-Kendall Test for Statistical Significance is used to evaluate the trend<br>over 4 to 10 periods of measure, subject to data availability and comparability.

County: Placer Persons with Health Insurance

Current Value:
96.1%
(2021)
Compared to:
Compared to CA Counties, Placer has a value of 96.1% which is in the best 50% of counties. Counties in the best 50%  have a value higher than 92.4% while counties in the worst 25% have a value lower than 91.0%.
CA Counties
The distribution is based on data from 58 California counties.
Compared to U.S. Counties, Placer has a value of 96.1% which is in the best 50% of counties. Counties in the best 50%  have a value higher than 89.6% while counties in the worst 25% have a value lower than 85.4%.
U.S. Counties
The distribution is based on data from 3,140 U.S. counties and county equivalents.
Compared to the CA Value (91.9%), Placer has a value of 96.1% which is higher and better.
CA Value
(91.9%)
The regional value is compared to the California state value.
Compared to the prior value, Placer (96.1%) is not statistically different from the previously measured value (95.5%).
Prior Value
(95.5%)
Prior Value compares a measured value with the previously measured value. Confidence intervals were taken into account in determining the direction of the comparison.
Over time, the Placer value is increasing, not significantly.
Trend
This comparison measures the indicator’s values over multiple time periods.<br>The Mann-Kendall Test for Statistical Significance is used to evaluate the trend<br>over 4 to 10 periods of measure, subject to data availability and comparability.
Compared to the HP 2030 Target (92.4%), the target has  been met.
HP 2030 Target
(92.4%)
<div>AHS-01: Increase the proportion of people with health insurance <strong>(LEADING HEALTH INDICATOR)</strong></div>

County: Placer Persons with Private Health Insurance Only

Current Value:
62.7%
(2022)
Compared to:
Compared to the CA Value (53.5%), Placer has a value of 62.7%.
CA Value
(53.5%)
The regional value is compared to the California state value.
Compared to the US Value (54.8%), Placer has a value of 62.7%.
US Value
(54.8%)
The regional value is compared to the national value.
Compared to the prior value, Placer (62.7%) is greater  than the previously measured value (62.4%).
Prior Value
(62.4%)
Prior Value compares a measured value with the previously measured value. Confidence intervals were not taken into account in determining the direction of the comparison.
Over time, the Placer value is decreasing, significantly.
Trend
This comparison measures the indicator’s values over multiple time periods.<br>The Mann-Kendall Test for Statistical Significance is used to evaluate the trend<br>over 4 to 10 periods of measure, subject to data availability and comparability.

County: Placer Persons with Public Health Insurance Only

Current Value:
17.4%
(2022)
Compared to:
Compared to the CA Value (29.8%), Placer has a value of 17.4%.
CA Value
(29.8%)
The regional value is compared to the California state value.
Compared to the US Value (24.8%), Placer has a value of 17.4%.
US Value
(24.8%)
The regional value is compared to the national value.
Compared to the prior value, Placer (17.4%) is less  than the previously measured value (17.9%).
Prior Value
(17.9%)
Prior Value compares a measured value with the previously measured value. Confidence intervals were not taken into account in determining the direction of the comparison.
Over time, the Placer value is increasing, not significantly.
Trend
This comparison measures the indicator’s values over multiple time periods.<br>The Mann-Kendall Test for Statistical Significance is used to evaluate the trend<br>over 4 to 10 periods of measure, subject to data availability and comparability.

County: Placer Preventable Hospital Stays: Medicare Population

Current Value:
1,705.0
Discharges per 100,000 Medicare enrollees
(2022)
Compared to:
Compared to CA Counties, Placer has a value of 1,705.0 which is in the best 50% of counties. Counties in the best 50% have a value lower than 2,111.5 while counties in the worst 25% have a value higher than 2,576.5.
CA Counties
The distribution is based on data from 58 California counties.
Compared to U.S. Counties, Placer has a value of 1,705.0 which is in the best 50% of counties. Counties in the best 50% have a value lower than 2,729.0 while counties in the worst 25% have a value higher than 3,374.5.
U.S. Counties
The distribution is based on data from 3,129 U.S. counties and county equivalents.
Compared to the CA Value (2,275.0), Placer has a value of 1,705.0 which is lower and better.
CA Value
(2,275.0)
The regional value is compared to the California state value.
Compared to the US Value (2,677.0), Placer has a value of 1,705.0 which is lower and better.
US Value
(2,677.0)
The regional value is compared to the national value.
Compared to the prior value, Placer (1,705.0) is greater and worse than the previously measured value (1,532.0).
Prior Value
(1,532.0)
Prior Value compares a measured value with the previously measured value. Confidence intervals were not taken into account in determining the direction of the comparison.
Over time, the Placer value is decreasing, not significantly.
Trend
This comparison measures the indicator’s values over multiple time periods.<br>The Mann-Kendall Test for Statistical Significance is used to evaluate the trend<br>over 4 to 10 periods of measure, subject to data availability and comparability.

County: Placer Primary Care Provider Rate

Current Value:
122
Providers per 100,000 population
(2021)
Compared to:
Compared to CA Counties, Placer has a value of 122 which is in the best 50% of counties. Counties in the best 50%  have a value higher than 68 while counties in the worst 25% have a value lower than 46.
CA Counties
The distribution is based on data from 57 California counties.
Compared to U.S. Counties, Placer has a value of 122 which is in the best 50% of counties. Counties in the best 50%  have a value higher than 47 while counties in the worst 25% have a value lower than 29.
U.S. Counties
The distribution is based on data from 2,984 U.S. counties and county equivalents.
Compared to the CA Value (81), Placer has a value of 122 which is higher and better.
CA Value
(81)
The regional value is compared to the California state value.
Compared to the prior value, Placer (122) is less and worse than the previously measured value (124).
Prior Value
(124)
Prior Value compares a measured value with the previously measured value. Confidence intervals were not taken into account in determining the direction of the comparison.
Over time, the Placer value is increasing significantly.
Trend
This comparison measures the indicator’s values over multiple time periods.<br>The Mann-Kendall Test for Statistical Significance is used to evaluate the trend<br>over 4 to 10 periods of measure, subject to data availability and comparability.

County: Placer

Health / Health Information Technology

Value
Compared to:

County: Placer

Health / Health Information Technology

Value
Compared to:

County: Placer Households with an Internet Subscription

Current Value:
92.9%
(2018-2022)
Compared to:
Compared to CA Counties, Placer has a value of 92.9% which is in the best 50% of counties. Counties in the best 50%  have a value higher than 89.8% while counties in the worst 25% have a value lower than 86.0%.
CA Counties
The distribution is based on data from 58 California counties.
Compared to U.S. Counties, Placer has a value of 92.9% which is in the best 50% of counties. Counties in the best 50%  have a value higher than 83.9% while counties in the worst 25% have a value lower than 79.0%.
U.S. Counties
The distribution is based on data from 3,133 U.S. counties and county equivalents.
Compared to the CA Value (91.6%), Placer has a value of 92.9% which is higher and better.
CA Value
(91.6%)
The regional value is compared to the California state value.
Compared to the US Value (88.5%), Placer has a value of 92.9% which is higher and better.
US Value
(88.5%)
The regional value is compared to the national value.
Over time, the Placer value is increasing significantly.
Trend
This comparison measures the indicator’s values over multiple time periods.<br>The Mann-Kendall Test for Statistical Significance is used to evaluate the trend<br>over 4 to 10 periods of measure, subject to data availability and comparability.

County: Placer Households with One or More Types of Computing Devices

97.1%
(2018-2022)
Compared to:
Compared to CA Counties, Placer has a value of 97.1% which is in the best 50% of counties. Counties in the best 50%  have a value higher than 94.7% while counties in the worst 25% have a value lower than 93.0%.
CA Counties
The distribution is based on data from 58 California counties.
Compared to U.S. Counties, Placer has a value of 97.1% which is in the best 50% of counties. Counties in the best 50%  have a value higher than 91.1% while counties in the worst 25% have a value lower than 88.0%.
U.S. Counties
The distribution is based on data from 3,133 U.S. counties and county equivalents.
Compared to the CA Value (95.9%), Placer has a value of 97.1% which is higher and better.
CA Value
(95.9%)
The regional value is compared to the California state value.
Compared to the US Value (94.0%), Placer has a value of 97.1% which is higher and better.
US Value
(94.0%)
The regional value is compared to the national value.
Over time, the Placer value is increasing significantly.
Trend
This comparison measures the indicator’s values over multiple time periods.<br>The Mann-Kendall Test for Statistical Significance is used to evaluate the trend<br>over 4 to 10 periods of measure, subject to data availability and comparability.

County: Placer Persons with an Internet Subscription

Current Value:
94.6%
(2018-2022)
Compared to:
Compared to CA Counties, Placer has a value of 94.6% which is in the best 50% of counties. Counties in the best 50%  have a value higher than 92.4% while counties in the worst 25% have a value lower than 88.9%.
CA Counties
The distribution is based on data from 58 California counties.
Compared to U.S. Counties, Placer has a value of 94.6% which is in the best 50% of counties. Counties in the best 50%  have a value higher than 87.7% while counties in the worst 25% have a value lower than 83.3%.
U.S. Counties
The distribution is based on data from 3,133 U.S. counties and county equivalents.
Compared to the CA Value (93.4%), Placer has a value of 94.6% which is higher and better.
CA Value
(93.4%)
The regional value is compared to the California state value.
Compared to the US Value (91.0%), Placer has a value of 94.6% which is higher and better.
US Value
(91.0%)
The regional value is compared to the national value.
Over time, the Placer value is increasing significantly.
Trend
This comparison measures the indicator’s values over multiple time periods.<br>The Mann-Kendall Test for Statistical Significance is used to evaluate the trend<br>over 4 to 10 periods of measure, subject to data availability and comparability.

County: Placer

Health / Heart Disease & Stroke

Value
Compared to:

County: Placer

Health / Heart Disease & Stroke

Value
Compared to:

County: Placer Adults who Experienced a Stroke

Current Value:
2.9%
(2021)
Compared to:
Compared to CA Counties, Placer has a value of 2.9% which is in the best 50% of counties. Counties in the best 50% have a value lower than 3.2% while counties in the worst 25% have a value higher than 3.7%.
CA Counties
The distribution is based on data from 58 California counties.
Compared to U.S. Counties, Placer has a value of 2.9% which is in the best 50% of counties. Counties in the best 50% have a value lower than 3.7% while counties in the worst 25% have a value higher than 4.2%.
U.S. Counties
The distribution is based on data from 3,074 U.S. counties and county equivalents.
Compared to the US Value (3.3%), Placer has a value of 2.9% which is lower and better.
US Value
(3.3%)
The regional value is compared to the national value.

County: Placer Adults who Experienced Coronary Heart Disease

Current Value:
5.7%
(2021)
Compared to:
Compared to CA Counties, Placer has a value of 5.7% which is in the best 50% of counties. Counties in the best 50% have a value lower than 6.0% while counties in the worst 25% have a value higher than 7.3%.
CA Counties
The distribution is based on data from 58 California counties.
Compared to U.S. Counties, Placer has a value of 5.7% which is in the best 50% of counties. Counties in the best 50% have a value lower than 7.6% while counties in the worst 25% have a value higher than 8.6%.
U.S. Counties
The distribution is based on data from 3,074 U.S. counties and county equivalents.
Compared to the US Value (6.1%), Placer has a value of 5.7% which is lower and better.
US Value
(6.1%)
The regional value is compared to the national value.

County: Placer Adults who Have Taken Medications for High Blood Pressure

75.6%
(2021)
Compared to:
Compared to CA Counties, Placer has a value of 75.6% which is in the best 50% of counties. Counties in the best 50%  have a value higher than 74.1% while counties in the worst 25% have a value lower than 72.2%.
CA Counties
The distribution is based on data from 58 California counties.
Compared to U.S. Counties, Placer has a value of 75.6% which is in the worst 25% of counties. Counties in the best 50%  have a value higher than 80.2% while counties in the worst 25% have a value lower than 78.0%.
U.S. Counties
The distribution is based on data from 3,074 U.S. counties and county equivalents.
Compared to the US Value (78.2%), Placer has a value of 75.6% which is lower and worse.
US Value
(78.2%)
The regional value is compared to the national value.

County: Placer Adults with Heart Disease

Current Value:

County: Placer Adults with Heart Disease

8.5%
(2019-2020)
Compared to:
Compared to the CA Value (6.9%), Placer has a value of 8.5% which is higher and worse.
CA Value
(6.9%)
The regional value is compared to the California state value.
Compared to the prior value, Placer (8.5%) is greater and worse than the previously measured value (7.4%).
Prior Value
(7.4%)
Prior Value compares a measured value with the previously measured value. Confidence intervals were taken into account in determining the direction of the comparison.
Over time, the Placer value is decreasing, not significantly.
Trend
This comparison measures the indicator’s values over multiple time periods.<br>The Mann-Kendall Test for Statistical Significance is used to evaluate the trend<br>over 4 to 10 periods of measure, subject to data availability and comparability.

County: Placer Age-Adjusted Death Rate due to Cerebrovascular Disease (Stroke)

42.7
Deaths per 100,000 population
(2019-2021)
Compared to:
Compared to CA Counties, Placer has a value of 42.7 which is in the worst 25% of counties. Counties in the best 50% have a value lower than 37.7 while counties in the worst 25% have a value higher than 42.5.
CA Counties
The distribution is based on data from 58 California counties.
Compared to the CA Value (37.2), Placer has a value of 42.7 which is higher and worse.
CA Value
(37.2)
The regional value is compared to the California state value.
Compared to the US Value (38.8), Placer has a value of 42.7 which is higher and worse.
US Value
(38.8 in 2020)
The regional value is compared to the national value. The source for the national value is Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
Compared to the prior value, Placer (42.7) is not statistically different from the previously measured value (39.3).
Prior Value
(39.3)
Prior Value compares a measured value with the previously measured value. Confidence intervals were taken into account in determining the direction of the comparison.
Over time, the Placer value is increasing significantly.
Trend
This comparison measures the indicator’s values over multiple time periods.<br>The Mann-Kendall Test for Statistical Significance is used to evaluate the trend<br>over 4 to 10 periods of measure, subject to data availability and comparability.
Compared to the HP 2030 Target (33.4), the target has not been met.
HP 2030 Target
(33.4)

County: Placer Age-Adjusted Death Rate due to Coronary Heart Disease

63.1
Deaths per 100,000 population
(2019-2021)
Compared to:
Compared to CA Counties, Placer has a value of 63.1 which is in the best 50% of counties. Counties in the best 50% have a value lower than 80.0 while counties in the worst 25% have a value higher than 98.6.
CA Counties
The distribution is based on data from 58 California counties.
Compared to the CA Value (79.0), Placer has a value of 63.1 which is lower and better.
CA Value
(79.0)
The regional value is compared to the California state value.
Compared to the US Value (91.8), Placer has a value of 63.1 which is lower and better.
US Value
(91.8 in 2020)
The regional value is compared to the national value. The source for the national value is Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
Compared to the prior value, Placer (63.1) is not statistically different from the previously measured value (64.4).
Prior Value
(64.4)
Prior Value compares a measured value with the previously measured value. Confidence intervals were taken into account in determining the direction of the comparison.
Over time, the Placer value is decreasing, significantly.
Trend
This comparison measures the indicator’s values over multiple time periods.<br>The Mann-Kendall Test for Statistical Significance is used to evaluate the trend<br>over 4 to 10 periods of measure, subject to data availability and comparability.
Compared to the HP 2030 Target (71.1), the target has  been met.
HP 2030 Target
(71.1)

County: Placer Age-Adjusted Death Rate due to Heart Attack

Current Value:
44.5
Deaths per 100,000 population 35+ years
(2020)
Compared to:
Compared to CA Counties, Placer has a value of 44.5 which is in the best 50% of counties. Counties in the best 50% have a value lower than 44.5 while counties in the worst 25% have a value higher than 51.5.
CA Counties
The distribution is based on data from 49 California counties.
Compared to the CA Value (44.4), Placer has a value of 44.5 which is higher and worse.
CA Value
(44.4)
The regional value is compared to the California state value.
Compared to the prior value, Placer (44.5) is greater and worse than the previously measured value (44.1).
Prior Value
(44.1)
Prior Value compares a measured value with the previously measured value. Confidence intervals were not taken into account in determining the direction of the comparison.
Over time, the Placer value is decreasing, significantly.
Trend
This comparison measures the indicator’s values over multiple time periods.<br>The Mann-Kendall Test for Statistical Significance is used to evaluate the trend<br>over 4 to 10 periods of measure, subject to data availability and comparability.

County: Placer Age-Adjusted Hospitalization Rate due to Heart Attack

28.9
Hospitalizations per 10,000 population 35+ years
(2018)
Compared to:
Compared to CA Counties, Placer has a value of 28.9 which is in the worst 25% of counties. Counties in the best 50% have a value lower than 26.2 while counties in the worst 25% have a value higher than 28.8.
CA Counties
The distribution is based on data from 56 California counties.
Compared to the CA Value (25.5), Placer has a value of 28.9 which is higher and worse.
CA Value
(25.5)
The regional value is compared to the California state value.
Compared to the prior value, Placer (28.9) is less and better than the previously measured value (30.4).
Prior Value
(30.4)
Prior Value compares a measured value with the previously measured value. Confidence intervals were not taken into account in determining the direction of the comparison.
Over time, the Placer value is increasing, not significantly.
Trend
This comparison measures the indicator’s values over multiple time periods.<br>The Mann-Kendall Test for Statistical Significance is used to evaluate the trend<br>over 4 to 10 periods of measure, subject to data availability and comparability.

County: Placer Atrial Fibrillation: Medicare Population

Current Value:
15.0%
(2022)
Compared to:
Compared to CA Counties, Placer has a value of 15.0% which is in the worst 25% of counties. Counties in the best 50% have a value lower than 13.0% while counties in the worst 25% have a value higher than 14.0%.
CA Counties
The distribution is based on data from 58 California counties.
Compared to U.S. Counties, Placer has a value of 15.0% which is in the worst 25% of counties. Counties in the best 50% have a value lower than 14.0% while counties in the worst 25% have a value higher than 15.0%.
U.S. Counties
The distribution is based on data from 3,129 U.S. counties and county equivalents.
Compared to the CA Value (13.0%), Placer has a value of 15.0% which is higher and worse.
CA Value
(13.0%)
The regional value is compared to the California state value.
Compared to the US Value (14.0%), Placer has a value of 15.0% which is higher and worse.
US Value
(14.0%)
The regional value is compared to the national value.
Compared to the prior value, Placer (15.0%) is greater and worse than the previously measured value (14.0%).
Prior Value
(14.0%)
Prior Value compares a measured value with the previously measured value. Confidence intervals were not taken into account in determining the direction of the comparison.
Over time, the Placer value is increasing significantly.
Trend
This comparison measures the indicator’s values over multiple time periods.<br>The Mann-Kendall Test for Statistical Significance is used to evaluate the trend<br>over 4 to 10 periods of measure, subject to data availability and comparability.

County: Placer Cholesterol Test History

Current Value:

County: Placer Cholesterol Test History

87.9%
(2021)
Compared to:
Compared to CA Counties, Placer has a value of 87.9% which is in the best 50% of counties. Counties in the best 50%  have a value higher than 85.5% while counties in the worst 25% have a value lower than 82.9%.
CA Counties
The distribution is based on data from 58 California counties.
Compared to U.S. Counties, Placer has a value of 87.9% which is in the best 50% of counties. Counties in the best 50%  have a value higher than 84.0% while counties in the worst 25% have a value lower than 82.2%.
U.S. Counties
The distribution is based on data from 3,074 U.S. counties and county equivalents.
Compared to the US Value (86.4%), Placer has a value of 87.9% which is higher and better.
US Value
(86.4%)
The regional value is compared to the national value.

County: Placer Heart Failure: Medicare Population

Current Value:
9.0%
(2022)
Compared to:
Compared to CA Counties, Placer has a value of 9.0% which is in the best 50% of counties. Counties in the best 50% have a value lower than 9.0% while counties in the worst 25% have a value higher than 10.0%.
CA Counties
The distribution is based on data from 58 California counties.
Compared to U.S. Counties, Placer has a value of 9.0% which is in the best 50% of counties. Counties in the best 50% have a value lower than 11.0% while counties in the worst 25% have a value higher than 13.0%.
U.S. Counties
The distribution is based on data from 3,129 U.S. counties and county equivalents.
Compared to the CA Value (10.0%), Placer has a value of 9.0% which is lower and better.
CA Value
(10.0%)
The regional value is compared to the California state value.
Compared to the US Value (11.0%), Placer has a value of 9.0% which is lower and better.
US Value
(11.0%)
The regional value is compared to the national value.
Compared to the prior value, Placer (9.0%) is not statistically different from the previously measured value (9.0%).
Prior Value
(9.0%)
Prior Value compares a measured value with the previously measured value. Confidence intervals were not taken into account in determining the direction of the comparison.
Over time, the Placer value is decreasing, significantly.
Trend
This comparison measures the indicator’s values over multiple time periods.<br>The Mann-Kendall Test for Statistical Significance is used to evaluate the trend<br>over 4 to 10 periods of measure, subject to data availability and comparability.

County: Placer High Blood Pressure Prevalence

Current Value:
34.5%
(2022)
Compared to:
Compared to CA Counties, Placer has a value of 34.5% which is in the best 50% of counties. Counties in the best 50% have a value lower than 37.3% while counties in the worst 25% have a value higher than 42.0%.
CA Counties
The distribution is based on data from 58 California counties.
Compared to the CA Value (34.8%), Placer has a value of 34.5% which is lower and better.
CA Value
(34.8%)
The regional value is compared to the California state value.
Compared to the US Value (32.4%), Placer has a value of 34.5% which is higher and worse.
US Value
(32.4% in 2021)
The regional value is compared to the national value. The source for the national value is Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System
Compared to the prior value, Placer (34.5%) is not statistically different from the previously measured value (30.3%).
Prior Value
(30.3%)
Prior Value compares a measured value with the previously measured value. Confidence intervals were taken into account in determining the direction of the comparison.
Over time, the Placer value is increasing significantly.
Trend
This comparison measures the indicator’s values over multiple time periods.<br>The Mann-Kendall Test for Statistical Significance is used to evaluate the trend<br>over 4 to 10 periods of measure, subject to data availability and comparability.
Compared to the HP 2030 Target (41.9%), the target has  been met.
HP 2030 Target
(41.9%)

County: Placer High Cholesterol Prevalence: Past 5 Years

Current Value:
35.6%
(2021)
Compared to:
Compared to CA Counties, Placer has a value of 35.6% which is in the best 50% of counties. Counties in the best 50% have a value lower than 35.9% while counties in the worst 25% have a value higher than 38.5%.
CA Counties
The distribution is based on data from 58 California counties.
Compared to U.S. Counties, Placer has a value of 35.6% which is in the best 50% of counties. Counties in the best 50% have a value lower than 38.1% while counties in the worst 25% have a value higher than 40.2%.
U.S. Counties
The distribution is based on data from 3,074 U.S. counties and county equivalents.
Compared to the US Value (36.4%), Placer has a value of 35.6% which is lower and better.
US Value
(36.4%)
The regional value is compared to the national value.

County: Placer Hyperlipidemia: Medicare Population

Current Value:
64.0%
(2022)
Compared to:
Compared to CA Counties, Placer has a value of 64.0% which is in the worst 25% of counties. Counties in the best 50% have a value lower than 61.0% while counties in the worst 25% have a value higher than 64.0%.
CA Counties
The distribution is based on data from 58 California counties.
Compared to U.S. Counties, Placer has a value of 64.0% which is in the 2nd worst quartile of counties. Counties in the best 50% have a value lower than 63.0% while counties in the worst 25% have a value higher than 67.0%.
U.S. Counties
The distribution is based on data from 3,129 U.S. counties and county equivalents.
Compared to the CA Value (61.0%), Placer has a value of 64.0% which is higher and worse.
CA Value
(61.0%)
The regional value is compared to the California state value.
Compared to the US Value (65.0%), Placer has a value of 64.0% which is lower and better.
US Value
(65.0%)
The regional value is compared to the national value.
Compared to the prior value, Placer (64.0%) is greater and worse than the previously measured value (62.0%).
Prior Value
(62.0%)
Prior Value compares a measured value with the previously measured value. Confidence intervals were not taken into account in determining the direction of the comparison.
Over time, the Placer value is increasing significantly.
Trend
This comparison measures the indicator’s values over multiple time periods.<br>The Mann-Kendall Test for Statistical Significance is used to evaluate the trend<br>over 4 to 10 periods of measure, subject to data availability and comparability.

County: Placer Hypertension: Medicare Population

Current Value:
60.0%
(2022)
Compared to:
Compared to CA Counties, Placer has a value of 60.0% which is in the 2nd worst quartile of counties. Counties in the best 50% have a value lower than 59.0% while counties in the worst 25% have a value higher than 62.0%.
CA Counties
The distribution is based on data from 58 California counties.
Compared to U.S. Counties, Placer has a value of 60.0% which is in the best 50% of counties. Counties in the best 50% have a value lower than 67.0% while counties in the worst 25% have a value higher than 71.0%.
U.S. Counties
The distribution is based on data from 3,129 U.S. counties and county equivalents.
Compared to the CA Value (58.0%), Placer has a value of 60.0% which is higher and worse.
CA Value
(58.0%)
The regional value is compared to the California state value.
Compared to the US Value (65.0%), Placer has a value of 60.0% which is lower and better.
US Value
(65.0%)
The regional value is compared to the national value.
Compared to the prior value, Placer (60.0%) is greater and worse than the previously measured value (59.0%).
Prior Value
(59.0%)
Prior Value compares a measured value with the previously measured value. Confidence intervals were not taken into account in determining the direction of the comparison.
Over time, the Placer value is increasing significantly.
Trend
This comparison measures the indicator’s values over multiple time periods.<br>The Mann-Kendall Test for Statistical Significance is used to evaluate the trend<br>over 4 to 10 periods of measure, subject to data availability and comparability.

County: Placer Ischemic Heart Disease: Medicare Population

Current Value:
17.0%
(2022)
Compared to:
Compared to CA Counties, Placer has a value of 17.0% which is in the 2nd worst quartile of counties. Counties in the best 50% have a value lower than 16.0% while counties in the worst 25% have a value higher than 19.0%.
CA Counties
The distribution is based on data from 58 California counties.
Compared to U.S. Counties, Placer has a value of 17.0% which is in the best 50% of counties. Counties in the best 50% have a value lower than 21.0% while counties in the worst 25% have a value higher than 24.0%.
U.S. Counties
The distribution is based on data from 3,129 U.S. counties and county equivalents.
Compared to the CA Value (18.0%), Placer has a value of 17.0% which is lower and better.
CA Value
(18.0%)
The regional value is compared to the California state value.
Compared to the US Value (21.0%), Placer has a value of 17.0% which is lower and better.
US Value
(21.0%)
The regional value is compared to the national value.
Compared to the prior value, Placer (17.0%) is not statistically different from the previously measured value (17.0%).
Prior Value
(17.0%)
Prior Value compares a measured value with the previously measured value. Confidence intervals were not taken into account in determining the direction of the comparison.
Over time, the Placer value is decreasing, not significantly.
Trend
This comparison measures the indicator’s values over multiple time periods.<br>The Mann-Kendall Test for Statistical Significance is used to evaluate the trend<br>over 4 to 10 periods of measure, subject to data availability and comparability.

County: Placer Stroke: Medicare Population

Current Value:
5.0%
(2022)
Compared to:
Compared to CA Counties, Placer has a value of 5.0% which is in the best 50% of counties. Counties in the best 50% have a value lower than 5.0% while counties in the worst 25% have a value higher than 5.0%.
CA Counties
The distribution is based on data from 58 California counties.
Compared to U.S. Counties, Placer has a value of 5.0% which is in the best 50% of counties. Counties in the best 50% have a value lower than 5.0% while counties in the worst 25% have a value higher than 6.0%.
U.S. Counties
The distribution is based on data from 3,129 U.S. counties and county equivalents.
Compared to the CA Value (5.0%), Placer has a value of 5.0%.
CA Value
(5.0%)
The regional value is compared to the California state value.
Compared to the US Value (6.0%), Placer has a value of 5.0% which is lower and better.
US Value
(6.0%)
The regional value is compared to the national value.
Compared to the prior value, Placer (5.0%) is not statistically different from the previously measured value (5.0%).
Prior Value
(5.0%)
Prior Value compares a measured value with the previously measured value. Confidence intervals were not taken into account in determining the direction of the comparison.
Over time, the Placer value is decreasing, not significantly.
Trend
This comparison measures the indicator’s values over multiple time periods.<br>The Mann-Kendall Test for Statistical Significance is used to evaluate the trend<br>over 4 to 10 periods of measure, subject to data availability and comparability.

County: Placer

Health / Immunizations & Infectious Diseases

Value
Compared to:

County: Placer

Health / Immunizations & Infectious Diseases

Value
Compared to:

County: Placer Age-Adjusted Death Rate due to Influenza and Pneumonia

6.1
Deaths per 100,000 population
(2019-2021)
Compared to:
Compared to CA Counties, Placer has a value of 6.1 which is in the best 50% of counties. Counties in the best 50% have a value lower than 10.7 while counties in the worst 25% have a value higher than 14.3.
CA Counties
The distribution is based on data from 57 California counties.
Compared to the CA Value (11.5), Placer has a value of 6.1 which is lower and better.
CA Value
(11.5)
The regional value is compared to the California state value.
Compared to the US Value (13.0), Placer has a value of 6.1 which is lower and better.
US Value
(13.0 in 2020)
The regional value is compared to the national value. The source for the national value is Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
Compared to the prior value, Placer (6.1) is less and better than the previously measured value (9.0).
Prior Value
(9.0)
Prior Value compares a measured value with the previously measured value. Confidence intervals were taken into account in determining the direction of the comparison.
Over time, the Placer value is decreasing, significantly.
Trend
This comparison measures the indicator’s values over multiple time periods.<br>The Mann-Kendall Test for Statistical Significance is used to evaluate the trend<br>over 4 to 10 periods of measure, subject to data availability and comparability.

County: Placer Children in Childcare/Preschool with Required Immunizations

76.8%
(2015)
Compared to:
Compared to CA Counties, Placer has a value of 76.8% which is in the worst 25% of counties. Counties in the best 50%  have a value higher than 90.0% while counties in the worst 25% have a value lower than 83.6%.
CA Counties
The distribution is based on data from 57 California counties.
Compared to the CA Value (90.6%), Placer has a value of 76.8% which is lower and worse.
CA Value
(90.6%)
The regional value is compared to the CA State Value.
Compared to the prior value, Placer (76.8%) is less and worse than the previously measured value (79.8%).
Prior Value
(79.8%)
Prior Value compares a measured value with the previously measured value. Confidence intervals were not taken into account in determining the direction of the comparison.
Over time, the Placer value is decreasing, not significantly.
Trend
This comparison measures the indicator’s values over multiple time periods.<br>The Mann-Kendall Test for Statistical Significance is used to evaluate the trend<br>over 4 to 10 periods of measure, subject to data availability and comparability.

County: Placer COVID-19 Daily Average Case-Fatality Rate

Current Value:
0.0
Deaths per 100 cases
(Mar 3, 2023)
Compared to:
Compared to CA Counties, Placer has a value of 0.0 which is in the best 50% of counties. Counties in the best 50% have a value lower than 0.2 while counties in the worst 25% have a value higher than 1.3.
CA Counties
(Feb 3, 2023)
The distribution is based on data from 56 California counties.
Compared to U.S. Counties, Placer has a value of 0.0 which is in the best 50% of counties. Counties in the best 50% have a value lower than 0.5 while counties in the worst 25% have a value higher than 8.3.
U.S. Counties
(Mar 25, 2022)
The distribution is based on data from 2,811 U.S. counties and county equivalents.
Compared to the CA Value (1.0), Placer has a value of 0.0 which is lower and better.
CA Value
(1.0)
The regional value is compared to the California state value.
Compared to the US Value (1.7), Placer has a value of 0.0 which is lower and better.
US Value
(1.7)
The regional value is compared to the national value.
Compared to the prior value, Placer (0.0) is not statistically different from the previously measured value (0.0).
Prior Value
(0.0)
Prior Value compares a measured value with the previously measured value. Confidence intervals were not taken into account in determining the direction of the comparison.
Over time, the Placer value is decreasing, not significantly.
Trend
This comparison measures the indicator’s values over multiple time periods.<br>The Mann-Kendall Test for Statistical Significance is used to evaluate the trend<br>over 4 to 10 periods of measure, subject to data availability and comparability.

County: Placer COVID-19 Daily Average Incidence Rate

Current Value:
6.16
Cases per 100,000 population
(Mar 3, 2023)
Compared to:
Compared to CA Counties, Placer has a value of 6.16 which is in the 2nd worst quartile of counties. Counties in the best 50% have a value lower than 5.99 while counties in the worst 25% have a value higher than 8.75.
CA Counties
The distribution is based on data from 58 California counties.
Compared to U.S. Counties, Placer has a value of 6.16 which is in the best 50% of counties. Counties in the best 50% have a value lower than 8.84 while counties in the worst 25% have a value higher than 13.01.
U.S. Counties
The distribution is based on data from 3,142 U.S. counties and county equivalents.
Compared to the CA Value (6.23), Placer has a value of 6.16 which is lower and better.
CA Value
(6.23)
The regional value is compared to the California state value.
Compared to the US Value (10.97), Placer has a value of 6.16 which is lower and better.
US Value
(10.97)
The regional value is compared to the national value.
Compared to the prior value, Placer (6.16) is less and better than the previously measured value (7.01).
Prior Value
(7.01)
Prior Value compares a measured value with the previously measured value. Confidence intervals were not taken into account in determining the direction of the comparison.
Over time, the Placer value is decreasing, significantly.
Trend
This comparison measures the indicator’s values over multiple time periods.<br>The Mann-Kendall Test for Statistical Significance is used to evaluate the trend<br>over 4 to 10 periods of measure, subject to data availability and comparability.

County: Placer Flu Vaccinations: Medicare Population

Current Value:
51.0%
(2022)
Compared to:
Compared to CA Counties, Placer has a value of 51.0% which is in the best 50% of counties. Counties in the best 50%  have a value higher than 44.5% while counties in the worst 25% have a value lower than 36.0%.
CA Counties
The distribution is based on data from 58 California counties.
Compared to U.S. Counties, Placer has a value of 51.0% which is in the best 50% of counties. Counties in the best 50%  have a value higher than 43.0% while counties in the worst 25% have a value lower than 36.0%.
U.S. Counties
The distribution is based on data from 3,129 U.S. counties and county equivalents.
Compared to the CA Value (48.0%), Placer has a value of 51.0% which is higher and better.
CA Value
(48.0%)
The regional value is compared to the California state value.
Compared to the US Value (50.0%), Placer has a value of 51.0% which is higher and better.
US Value
(50.0%)
The regional value is compared to the national value.
Compared to the prior value, Placer (51.0%) is greater and better than the previously measured value (49.0%).
Prior Value
(49.0%)
Prior Value compares a measured value with the previously measured value. Confidence intervals were not taken into account in determining the direction of the comparison.
Over time, the Placer value is increasing, not significantly.
Trend
This comparison measures the indicator’s values over multiple time periods.<br>The Mann-Kendall Test for Statistical Significance is used to evaluate the trend<br>over 4 to 10 periods of measure, subject to data availability and comparability.

County: Placer Kindergartners with Required Immunizations

Current Value:
92.9%
(2021-2022)
Compared to:
Compared to CA Counties, Placer has a value of 92.9% which is in the 2nd worst quartile of counties. Counties in the best 50%  have a value higher than 94.1% while counties in the worst 25% have a value lower than 90.5%.
CA Counties
The distribution is based on data from 56 California counties.
Compared to the CA Value (92.8%), Placer has a value of 92.9% which is higher and better.
CA Value
(92.8%)
The regional value is compared to the California state value.
Compared to the prior value, Placer (92.9%) is greater and better than the previously measured value (92.7%).
Prior Value
(92.7%)
Prior Value compares a measured value with the previously measured value. Confidence intervals were not taken into account in determining the direction of the comparison.
Over time, the Placer value is increasing significantly.
Trend
This comparison measures the indicator’s values over multiple time periods.<br>The Mann-Kendall Test for Statistical Significance is used to evaluate the trend<br>over 4 to 10 periods of measure, subject to data availability and comparability.

County: Placer Persons Fully Vaccinated Against COVID-19

Current Value:
69.9%
(May 10, 2023)
Compared to:
Compared to CA Counties, Placer has a value of 69.9% which is in the best 50% of counties. Counties in the best 50%  have a value higher than 63.9% while counties in the worst 25% have a value lower than 55.8%.
CA Counties
The distribution is based on data from 50 California counties.
Compared to U.S. Counties, Placer has a value of 69.9% which is in the best 50% of counties. Counties in the best 50%  have a value higher than 52.0% while counties in the worst 25% have a value lower than 44.1%.
U.S. Counties
The distribution is based on data from 3,125 U.S. counties and county equivalents.
Compared to the prior value, Placer (69.9%) is not statistically different from the previously measured value (69.9%).
Prior Value
(69.9%)
Prior Value compares a measured value with the previously measured value. Confidence intervals were not taken into account in determining the direction of the comparison.
Over time, the Placer value is increasing, not significantly.
Trend
This comparison measures the indicator’s values over multiple time periods.<br>The Mann-Kendall Test for Statistical Significance is used to evaluate the trend<br>over 4 to 10 periods of measure, subject to data availability and comparability.

County: Placer Pneumonia Vaccinations: Medicare Population

Current Value:
8.0%
(2022)
Compared to:
Compared to CA Counties, Placer has a value of 8.0% which is in the best 50% of counties. Counties in the best 50%  have a value higher than 7.0% while counties in the worst 25% have a value lower than 6.0%.
CA Counties
The distribution is based on data from 58 California counties.
Compared to U.S. Counties, Placer has a value of 8.0% which is in the best 50% of counties. Counties in the best 50%  have a value higher than 6.0% while counties in the worst 25% have a value lower than 5.0%.
U.S. Counties
The distribution is based on data from 3,129 U.S. counties and county equivalents.
Compared to the CA Value (8.0%), Placer has a value of 8.0%.
CA Value
(8.0%)
The regional value is compared to the California state value.
Compared to the US Value (8.0%), Placer has a value of 8.0%.
US Value
(8.0%)
The regional value is compared to the national value.
Compared to the prior value, Placer (8.0%) is greater and better than the previously measured value (6.0%).
Prior Value
(6.0%)
Prior Value compares a measured value with the previously measured value. Confidence intervals were not taken into account in determining the direction of the comparison.
Over time, the Placer value is decreasing, significantly.
Trend
This comparison measures the indicator’s values over multiple time periods.<br>The Mann-Kendall Test for Statistical Significance is used to evaluate the trend<br>over 4 to 10 periods of measure, subject to data availability and comparability.

County: Placer Tuberculosis Incidence Rate

Current Value:
2.2
Cases per 100,000 population
(2022)
Compared to:
Compared to CA Counties, Placer has a value of 2.2 which is in the best 50% of counties. Counties in the best 50% have a value lower than 3.95 while counties in the worst 25% have a value higher than 7.30.
CA Counties
(2019)
The distribution is based on data from 31 California counties.
Compared to the CA Value (4.7), Placer has a value of 2.2 which is lower and better.
CA Value
(4.7)
The regional value is compared to the California state value.
Compared to the US Value (2.4), Placer has a value of 2.2 which is lower and better.
US Value
(2.4 in 2021)
The regional value is compared to the national value. The source for the national value is Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
Compared to the prior value, Placer (2.2) is greater and worse than the previously measured value (1.5).
Prior Value
(1.5)
Prior Value compares a measured value with the previously measured value. Confidence intervals were not taken into account in determining the direction of the comparison.
Over time, the Placer value is increasing, not significantly.
Trend
This comparison measures the indicator’s values over multiple time periods.<br>The Mann-Kendall Test for Statistical Significance is used to evaluate the trend<br>over 4 to 10 periods of measure, subject to data availability and comparability.
Compared to the HP 2030 Target (1.4), the target has not been met.
HP 2030 Target
(1.4)

County: Placer

Health / Maternal, Fetal & Infant Health

Value
Compared to:

County: Placer

Health / Maternal, Fetal & Infant Health

Value
Compared to:

County: Placer Any In-Hospital Breastfeeding

Current Value:
96.4%
(2022)
Compared to:
Compared to CA Counties, Placer has a value of 96.4% which is in the best 50% of counties. Counties in the best 50%  have a value higher than 94.4% while counties in the worst 25% have a value lower than 89.6%.
CA Counties
The distribution is based on data from 58 California counties.
Compared to the CA Value (93.8%), Placer has a value of 96.4% which is higher and better.
CA Value
(93.8%)
The regional value is compared to the California state value.
Compared to the prior value, Placer (96.4%) is not statistically different from the previously measured value (95.8%).
Prior Value
(95.8%)
Prior Value compares a measured value with the previously measured value. Confidence intervals were taken into account in determining the direction of the comparison.
Over time, the Placer value is decreasing, not significantly.
Trend
This comparison measures the indicator’s values over multiple time periods.<br>The Mann-Kendall Test for Statistical Significance is used to evaluate the trend<br>over 4 to 10 periods of measure, subject to data availability and comparability.

County: Placer Babies with Low Birthweight

Current Value:
5.7%
(2019-2021)
Compared to:
Compared to CA Counties, Placer has a value of 5.7% which is in the best 50% of counties. Counties in the best 50% have a value lower than 6.7% while counties in the worst 25% have a value higher than 7.2%.
CA Counties
The distribution is based on data from 56 California counties.
Compared to the CA Value (7.1%), Placer has a value of 5.7% which is lower and better.
CA Value
(7.1%)
The regional value is compared to the California state value.
Compared to the US Value (8.5%), Placer has a value of 5.7% which is lower and better.
US Value
(8.5% in 2021)
The regional value is compared to the national value. The source for the national value is Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
Compared to the prior value, Placer (5.7%) is not statistically different from the previously measured value (5.8%).
Prior Value
(5.8%)
Prior Value compares a measured value with the previously measured value. Confidence intervals were taken into account in determining the direction of the comparison.
Over time, the Placer value is increasing, not significantly.
Trend
This comparison measures the indicator’s values over multiple time periods.<br>The Mann-Kendall Test for Statistical Significance is used to evaluate the trend<br>over 4 to 10 periods of measure, subject to data availability and comparability.

County: Placer Babies with Very Low Birthweight

Current Value:
0.7%
(2018)
Compared to:
Compared to CA Counties, Placer has a value of 0.7% which is in the best 50% of counties. Counties in the best 50% have a value lower than 0.9% while counties in the worst 25% have a value higher than 1.1%.
CA Counties
The distribution is based on data from 58 California counties.
Compared to the CA Value (1.1%), Placer has a value of 0.7% which is lower and better.
CA Value
(1.1%)
The regional value is compared to the California state value.
Compared to the US Value (1.4%), Placer has a value of 0.7% which is lower and better.
US Value
(1.4%)
The regional value is compared to the national value. The source for the national value is Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
Compared to the prior value, Placer (0.7%) is not statistically different from the previously measured value (0.9%).
Prior Value
(0.9%)
Prior Value compares a measured value with the previously measured value. Confidence intervals were taken into account in determining the direction of the comparison.
Over time, the Placer value is decreasing, not significantly.
Trend
This comparison measures the indicator’s values over multiple time periods.<br>The Mann-Kendall Test for Statistical Significance is used to evaluate the trend<br>over 4 to 10 periods of measure, subject to data availability and comparability.

County: Placer In-Hospital Exclusive Breastfeeding

Current Value:
86.5%
(2022)
Compared to:
Compared to CA Counties, Placer has a value of 86.5% which is in the best 50% of counties. Counties in the best 50%  have a value higher than 72.7% while counties in the worst 25% have a value lower than 58.9%.
CA Counties
The distribution is based on data from 58 California counties.
Compared to the CA Value (68.5%), Placer has a value of 86.5% which is higher and better.
CA Value
(68.5%)
The regional value is compared to the California state value.
Compared to the prior value, Placer (86.5%) is not statistically different from the previously measured value (85.3%).
Prior Value
(85.3%)
Prior Value compares a measured value with the previously measured value. Confidence intervals were taken into account in determining the direction of the comparison.
Over time, the Placer value is increasing, not significantly.
Trend
This comparison measures the indicator’s values over multiple time periods.<br>The Mann-Kendall Test for Statistical Significance is used to evaluate the trend<br>over 4 to 10 periods of measure, subject to data availability and comparability.

County: Placer Infant Mortality Rate

Current Value:

County: Placer Infant Mortality Rate

2.5
Deaths per 1,000 live births
(2017-2019)
Compared to:
Compared to the CA Value (3.9), Placer has a value of 2.5 which is lower and better.
CA Value
(3.9)
The regional value is compared to the California state value.
Compared to the US Value (5.7), Placer has a value of 2.5 which is lower and better.
US Value
(5.7)
The regional value is compared to the national value. The source for the national value is Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
Compared to the prior value, Placer (2.5) is not statistically different from the previously measured value (2.1).
Prior Value
(2.1)
Prior Value compares a measured value with the previously measured value. Confidence intervals were taken into account in determining the direction of the comparison.
Over time, the Placer value is decreasing, not significantly.
Trend
This comparison measures the indicator’s values over multiple time periods.<br>The Mann-Kendall Test for Statistical Significance is used to evaluate the trend<br>over 4 to 10 periods of measure, subject to data availability and comparability.
Compared to the HP 2030 Target (5.0), the target has  been met.
HP 2030 Target
(5.0)
<div>MICH-02: Reduce the rate of infant deaths <strong>(LEADING HEALTH INDICATOR)</strong></div>

County: Placer Mothers who Breastfeed

Current Value:

County: Placer Mothers who Breastfeed

96.4%
(2018-2020)
Compared to:
Compared to CA Counties, Placer has a value of 96.4% which is in the best 50% of counties. Counties in the best 50%  have a value higher than 95.1% while counties in the worst 25% have a value lower than 92.8%.
CA Counties
The distribution is based on data from 58 California counties.
Compared to the CA Value (93.8%), Placer has a value of 96.4% which is higher and better.
CA Value
(93.8%)
The regional value is compared to the California state value.
Compared to the prior value, Placer (96.4%) is not statistically different from the previously measured value (96.2%).
Prior Value
(96.2%)
Prior Value compares a measured value with the previously measured value. Confidence intervals were taken into account in determining the direction of the comparison.
Over time, the Placer value is increasing significantly.
Trend
This comparison measures the indicator’s values over multiple time periods.<br>The Mann-Kendall Test for Statistical Significance is used to evaluate the trend<br>over 4 to 10 periods of measure, subject to data availability and comparability.

County: Placer Mothers who Received Early Prenatal Care

Current Value:
88.0%
(2019-2021)
Compared to:
Compared to CA Counties, Placer has a value of 88.0% which is in the best 50% of counties. Counties in the best 50%  have a value higher than 84.8% while counties in the worst 25% have a value lower than 80.3%.
CA Counties
The distribution is based on data from 58 California counties.
Compared to the CA Value (87.9%), Placer has a value of 88.0% which is higher and better.
CA Value
(87.9%)
The regional value is compared to the California state value.
Compared to the US Value (78.3%), Placer has a value of 88.0% which is higher and better.
US Value
(78.3% in 2021)
The regional value is compared to the national value. The source for the national value is Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
Compared to the prior value, Placer (88.0%) is not statistically different from the previously measured value (87.5%).
Prior Value
(87.5%)
Prior Value compares a measured value with the previously measured value. Confidence intervals were taken into account in determining the direction of the comparison.
Over time, the Placer value is increasing, not significantly.
Trend
This comparison measures the indicator’s values over multiple time periods.<br>The Mann-Kendall Test for Statistical Significance is used to evaluate the trend<br>over 4 to 10 periods of measure, subject to data availability and comparability.

County: Placer Preterm Births

Current Value:

County: Placer Preterm Births

7.7%
(2020-2022)
Compared to:
Compared to CA Counties, Placer has a value of 7.7% which is in the best 50% of counties. Counties in the best 50% have a value lower than 8.8% while counties in the worst 25% have a value higher than 9.4%.
CA Counties
The distribution is based on data from 58 California counties.
Compared to the CA Value (9.0%), Placer has a value of 7.7% which is lower and better.
CA Value
(9.0%)
The regional value is compared to the California state value.
Compared to the prior value, Placer (7.7%) is not statistically different from the previously measured value (7.8%).
Prior Value
(7.8%)
Prior Value compares a measured value with the previously measured value. Confidence intervals were taken into account in determining the direction of the comparison.
Over time, the Placer value is increasing, not significantly.
Trend
This comparison measures the indicator’s values over multiple time periods.<br>The Mann-Kendall Test for Statistical Significance is used to evaluate the trend<br>over 4 to 10 periods of measure, subject to data availability and comparability.
Compared to the HP 2030 Target (9.4%), the target has  been met.
HP 2030 Target
(9.4%)

County: Placer

Health / Mental Health & Mental Disorders

Value
Compared to:

County: Placer

Health / Mental Health & Mental Disorders

Value
Compared to:

County: Placer Adults Ever Diagnosed with Depression

Current Value:
17.8%
(2021)
Compared to:
Compared to CA Counties, Placer has a value of 17.8% which is in the best 50% of counties. Counties in the best 50% have a value lower than 18.8% while counties in the worst 25% have a value higher than 19.6%.
CA Counties
The distribution is based on data from 58 California counties.
Compared to U.S. Counties, Placer has a value of 17.8% which is in the best 50% of counties. Counties in the best 50% have a value lower than 22.0% while counties in the worst 25% have a value higher than 24.2%.
U.S. Counties
The distribution is based on data from 3,074 U.S. counties and county equivalents.
Compared to the US Value (19.5%), Placer has a value of 17.8% which is lower and better.
US Value
(19.5%)
The regional value is compared to the national value.

County: Placer Adults Needing and Receiving Behavioral Health Care Services

61.2%
(2021-2022)
Compared to:
Compared to CA Counties, Placer has a value of 61.2% which is in the best 50% of counties. Counties in the best 50%  have a value higher than 60.5% while counties in the worst 25% have a value lower than 55.8%.
CA Counties
The distribution is based on data from 58 California counties.
Compared to the CA Value (55.9%), Placer has a value of 61.2% which is higher and better.
CA Value
(55.9%)
The regional value is compared to the California state value.
Compared to the prior value, Placer (61.2%) is not statistically different from the previously measured value (56.5%).
Prior Value
(56.5%)
Prior Value compares a measured value with the previously measured value. Confidence intervals were taken into account in determining the direction of the comparison.
Over time, the Placer value is staying the same.
Trend
This comparison measures the indicator’s values over multiple time periods.<br>The Mann-Kendall Test for Statistical Significance is used to evaluate the trend<br>over 4 to 10 periods of measure, subject to data availability and comparability.

County: Placer Adults Who Ever Thought Seriously About Committing Suicide

17.2%
(2021-2022)
Compared to:
Compared to CA Counties, Placer has a value of 17.2% which is in the best 50% of counties. Counties in the best 50% have a value lower than 20.9% while counties in the worst 25% have a value higher than 24.1%.
CA Counties
The distribution is based on data from 58 California counties.
Compared to the CA Value (19.0%), Placer has a value of 17.2% which is lower and better.
CA Value
(19.0%)
The regional value is compared to the California state value.
Compared to the prior value, Placer (17.2%) is not statistically different from the previously measured value (14.2%).
Prior Value
(14.2%)
Prior Value compares a measured value with the previously measured value. Confidence intervals were taken into account in determining the direction of the comparison.
Over time, the Placer value is increasing significantly.
Trend
This comparison measures the indicator’s values over multiple time periods.<br>The Mann-Kendall Test for Statistical Significance is used to evaluate the trend<br>over 4 to 10 periods of measure, subject to data availability and comparability.

County: Placer Adults with Likely Serious Psychological Distress

14.9%
(2021-2022)
Compared to:
Compared to CA Counties, Placer has a value of 14.9% which is in the best 50% of counties. Counties in the best 50% have a value lower than 16.8% while counties in the worst 25% have a value higher than 20.7%.
CA Counties
The distribution is based on data from 58 California counties.
Compared to the CA Value (16.7%), Placer has a value of 14.9% which is lower and better.
CA Value
(16.7%)
The regional value is compared to the California state value.
Compared to the prior value, Placer (14.9%) is not statistically different from the previously measured value (13.3%).
Prior Value
(13.3%)
Prior Value compares a measured value with the previously measured value. Confidence intervals were taken into account in determining the direction of the comparison.
Over time, the Placer value is increasing significantly.
Trend
This comparison measures the indicator’s values over multiple time periods.<br>The Mann-Kendall Test for Statistical Significance is used to evaluate the trend<br>over 4 to 10 periods of measure, subject to data availability and comparability.

County: Placer Age-Adjusted Death Rate due to Suicide

Current Value:
12.0
Deaths per 100,000 population
(2019-2021)
Compared to:
Compared to CA Counties, Placer has a value of 12.0 which is in the best 50% of counties. Counties in the best 50% have a value lower than 12.0 while counties in the worst 25% have a value higher than 20.6.
CA Counties
The distribution is based on data from 57 California counties.
Compared to the CA Value (10.3), Placer has a value of 12.0 which is higher and worse.
CA Value
(10.3)
The regional value is compared to the California state value.
Compared to the US Value (13.5), Placer has a value of 12.0 which is lower and better.
US Value
(13.5 in 2020)
The regional value is compared to the national value. The source for the national value is Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
Compared to the prior value, Placer (12.0) is not statistically different from the previously measured value (12.4).
Prior Value
(12.4)
Prior Value compares a measured value with the previously measured value. Confidence intervals were taken into account in determining the direction of the comparison.
Over time, the Placer value is decreasing, not significantly.
Trend
This comparison measures the indicator’s values over multiple time periods.<br>The Mann-Kendall Test for Statistical Significance is used to evaluate the trend<br>over 4 to 10 periods of measure, subject to data availability and comparability.
Compared to the HP 2030 Target (12.8), the target has  been met.
HP 2030 Target
(12.8)
<div>MHMD-01: Reduce the suicide rate <strong>(LEADING HEALTH INDICATOR)</strong></div>

County: Placer Depression: Medicare Population

Current Value:
15.0%
(2022)
Compared to:
Compared to CA Counties, Placer has a value of 15.0% which is in the worst 25% of counties. Counties in the best 50% have a value lower than 12.5% while counties in the worst 25% have a value higher than 14.0%.
CA Counties
The distribution is based on data from 58 California counties.
Compared to U.S. Counties, Placer has a value of 15.0% which is in the best 50% of counties. Counties in the best 50% have a value lower than 16.0% while counties in the worst 25% have a value higher than 18.0%.
U.S. Counties
The distribution is based on data from 3,129 U.S. counties and county equivalents.
Compared to the CA Value (14.0%), Placer has a value of 15.0% which is higher and worse.
CA Value
(14.0%)
The regional value is compared to the California state value.
Compared to the US Value (16.0%), Placer has a value of 15.0% which is lower and better.
US Value
(16.0%)
The regional value is compared to the national value.
Compared to the prior value, Placer (15.0%) is not statistically different from the previously measured value (15.0%).
Prior Value
(15.0%)
Prior Value compares a measured value with the previously measured value. Confidence intervals were not taken into account in determining the direction of the comparison.
Over time, the Placer value is increasing, not significantly.
Trend
This comparison measures the indicator’s values over multiple time periods.<br>The Mann-Kendall Test for Statistical Significance is used to evaluate the trend<br>over 4 to 10 periods of measure, subject to data availability and comparability.

County: Placer Frequent Mental Distress

Current Value:

County: Placer Frequent Mental Distress

12.1%
(2019)
Compared to:
Compared to CA Counties, Placer has a value of 12.1% which is in the best 50% of counties. Counties in the best 50% have a value lower than 13.8% while counties in the worst 25% have a value higher than 14.7%.
CA Counties
The distribution is based on data from 58 California counties.
Compared to U.S. Counties, Placer has a value of 12.1% which is in the best 50% of counties. Counties in the best 50% have a value lower than 15.8% while counties in the worst 25% have a value higher than 17.8%.
U.S. Counties
The distribution is based on data from 3,121 U.S. counties and county equivalents.
Compared to the CA Value (12.0%), Placer has a value of 12.1% which is higher and worse.
CA Value
(12.0%)
The regional value is compared to the California state value.
Compared to the US Value (14.0%), Placer has a value of 12.1% which is lower and better.
US Value
(14.0%)
The regional value is compared to the national value.
Compared to the prior value, Placer (12.1%) is not statistically different from the previously measured value (11.8%).
Prior Value
(11.8%)
Prior Value compares a measured value with the previously measured value. Confidence intervals were taken into account in determining the direction of the comparison.

County: Placer Mental Health Provider Rate

Current Value:
377
Providers per 100,000 population
(2023)
Compared to:
Compared to CA Counties, Placer has a value of 377 which is in the 2nd worst quartile of counties. Counties in the best 50%  have a value higher than 401 while counties in the worst 25% have a value lower than 259.
CA Counties
The distribution is based on data from 58 California counties.
Compared to U.S. Counties, Placer has a value of 377 which is in the best 50% of counties. Counties in the best 50%  have a value higher than 137 while counties in the worst 25% have a value lower than 62.
U.S. Counties
The distribution is based on data from 2,956 U.S. counties and county equivalents.
Compared to the CA Value (450), Placer has a value of 377 which is lower and worse.
CA Value
(450)
The regional value is compared to the California state value.
Compared to the prior value, Placer (377) is greater and better than the previously measured value (355).
Prior Value
(355)
Prior Value compares a measured value with the previously measured value. Confidence intervals were not taken into account in determining the direction of the comparison.
Over time, the Placer value is increasing significantly.
Trend
This comparison measures the indicator’s values over multiple time periods.<br>The Mann-Kendall Test for Statistical Significance is used to evaluate the trend<br>over 4 to 10 periods of measure, subject to data availability and comparability.

County: Placer Poor Mental Health: 14+ Days

Current Value:
13.7%
(2021)
Compared to:
Compared to CA Counties, Placer has a value of 13.7% which is in the best 50% of counties. Counties in the best 50% have a value lower than 15.3% while counties in the worst 25% have a value higher than 16.6%.
CA Counties
The distribution is based on data from 58 California counties.
Compared to U.S. Counties, Placer has a value of 13.7% which is in the best 50% of counties. Counties in the best 50% have a value lower than 16.0% while counties in the worst 25% have a value higher than 17.5%.
U.S. Counties
The distribution is based on data from 3,074 U.S. counties and county equivalents.
Compared to the US Value (14.7%), Placer has a value of 13.7% which is lower and better.
US Value
(14.7%)
The regional value is compared to the national value.

County: Placer

Health / Mortality Data

Value
Compared to:

County: Placer

Health / Mortality Data

Value
Compared to:

County: Placer Life Expectancy

Current Value:

County: Placer Life Expectancy

81.8
Years
(2019-2021)
Compared to:
Compared to CA Counties, Placer has a value of 81.8 which is in the best 50% of counties. Counties in the best 50%  have a value higher than 78.5 while counties in the worst 25% have a value lower than 76.5.
CA Counties
The distribution is based on data from 57 California counties.
Compared to U.S. Counties, Placer has a value of 81.8 which is in the best 50% of counties. Counties in the best 50%  have a value higher than 75.8 while counties in the worst 25% have a value lower than 73.6.
U.S. Counties
The distribution is based on data from 3,070 U.S. counties and county equivalents.
Compared to the CA Value (79.9), Placer has a value of 81.8 which is higher and better.
CA Value
(79.9)
The regional value is compared to the California state value.
Compared to the US Value (77.6), Placer has a value of 81.8 which is higher and better.
US Value
(77.6)
The regional value is compared to the national value.

County: Placer

Health / Nutrition & Healthy Eating

Value
Compared to:

County: Placer

Health / Nutrition & Healthy Eating

Value
Compared to:

County: Placer Adult Fast Food Consumption

Current Value:
70.8%
(2016)
Compared to:
Compared to CA Counties, Placer has a value of 70.8% which is in the worst 25% of counties. Counties in the best 50% have a value lower than 59.0% while counties in the worst 25% have a value higher than 69.4%.
CA Counties
The distribution is based on data from 58 California counties.
Compared to the CA Value (65.6%), Placer has a value of 70.8% which is higher and worse.
CA Value
(65.6%)
The regional value is compared to the California state value.
Compared to the prior value, Placer (70.8%) is not statistically different from the previously measured value (51.2%).
Prior Value
(51.2%)
Prior Value compares a measured value with the previously measured value. Confidence intervals were taken into account in determining the direction of the comparison.
Over time, the Placer value is increasing, not significantly.
Trend
This comparison measures the indicator’s values over multiple time periods.<br>The Mann-Kendall Test for Statistical Significance is used to evaluate the trend<br>over 4 to 10 periods of measure, subject to data availability and comparability.

County: Placer Adults who Drink Sugar-Sweetened Beverages

Current Value:
7.8%
(2019-2020)
Compared to:
Compared to the CA Value (13.7%), Placer has a value of 7.8% which is lower and better.
CA Value
(13.7%)
The regional value is compared to the California state value.
Compared to the prior value, Placer (7.8%) is greater and worse than the previously measured value (7.3%).
Prior Value
(7.3%)
Prior Value compares a measured value with the previously measured value. Confidence intervals were taken into account in determining the direction of the comparison.

County: Placer Child and Teen Fruit Consumption

Current Value:
73.2%
(2019-2020)
Compared to:
Compared to CA Counties, Placer has a value of 73.2% which is in the best 50% of counties. Counties in the best 50%  have a value higher than 69.5% while counties in the worst 25% have a value lower than 63.7%.
CA Counties
The distribution is based on data from 58 California counties.
Compared to the CA Value (69.8%), Placer has a value of 73.2% which is higher and better.
CA Value
(69.8%)
The regional value is compared to the California state value.

County: Placer

Health / Older Adults

Value
Compared to:

County: Placer

Health / Older Adults

Value
Compared to:

County: Placer Adults 65+ who Received Recommended Preventive Services: Females

35.2%
(2020)
Compared to:
Compared to CA Counties, Placer has a value of 35.2% which is in the best 50% of counties. Counties in the best 50%  have a value higher than 31.3% while counties in the worst 25% have a value lower than 28.6%.
CA Counties
The distribution is based on data from 58 California counties.
Compared to U.S. Counties, Placer has a value of 35.2% which is in the 2nd worst quartile of counties. Counties in the best 50%  have a value higher than 36.6% while counties in the worst 25% have a value lower than 33.8%.
U.S. Counties
The distribution is based on data from 3,141 U.S. counties and county equivalents.
Compared to the US Value (37.9%), Placer has a value of 35.2% which is lower and worse.
US Value
(37.9%)
The regional value is compared to the national value.

County: Placer Adults 65+ who Received Recommended Preventive Services: Males

43.7%
(2020)
Compared to:
Compared to CA Counties, Placer has a value of 43.7% which is in the best 50% of counties. Counties in the best 50%  have a value higher than 38.0% while counties in the worst 25% have a value lower than 35.4%.
CA Counties
The distribution is based on data from 58 California counties.
Compared to U.S. Counties, Placer has a value of 43.7% which is in the best 50% of counties. Counties in the best 50%  have a value higher than 42.3% while counties in the worst 25% have a value lower than 39.0%.
U.S. Counties
The distribution is based on data from 3,141 U.S. counties and county equivalents.
Compared to the US Value (43.7%), Placer has a value of 43.7%.
US Value
(43.7%)
The regional value is compared to the national value.

County: Placer Adults 65+ with a Disability

Current Value:
30.1%
(2018-2022)
Compared to:
Compared to the CA Value (33.5%), Placer has a value of 30.1%.
CA Value
(33.5%)
The regional value is compared to the California state value.
Compared to the US Value (33.3%), Placer has a value of 30.1%.
US Value
(33.3%)
The regional value is compared to the national value.
Over time, the Placer value is decreasing, significantly.
Trend
This comparison measures the indicator’s values over multiple time periods.<br>The Mann-Kendall Test for Statistical Significance is used to evaluate the trend<br>over 4 to 10 periods of measure, subject to data availability and comparability.

County: Placer Adults 65+ with a Hearing Difficulty

Current Value:
13.1%
(2018-2022)
Compared to:
Compared to the CA Value (12.9%), Placer has a value of 13.1%.
CA Value
(12.9%)
The regional value is compared to the California state value.
Compared to the US Value (13.7%), Placer has a value of 13.1%.
US Value
(13.7%)
The regional value is compared to the national value.
Over time, the Placer value is decreasing, significantly.
Trend
This comparison measures the indicator’s values over multiple time periods.<br>The Mann-Kendall Test for Statistical Significance is used to evaluate the trend<br>over 4 to 10 periods of measure, subject to data availability and comparability.

County: Placer Adults 65+ with a Self-Care Difficulty

Current Value:
6.9%
(2018-2022)
Compared to:
Compared to the CA Value (9.5%), Placer has a value of 6.9%.
CA Value
(9.5%)
The regional value is compared to the California state value.
Compared to the US Value (7.4%), Placer has a value of 6.9%.
US Value
(7.4%)
The regional value is compared to the national value.
Over time, the Placer value is decreasing, not significantly.
Trend
This comparison measures the indicator’s values over multiple time periods.<br>The Mann-Kendall Test for Statistical Significance is used to evaluate the trend<br>over 4 to 10 periods of measure, subject to data availability and comparability.

County: Placer Adults 65+ with a Vision Difficulty

Current Value:
4.5%
(2018-2022)
Compared to:
Compared to the CA Value (6.1%), Placer has a value of 4.5%.
CA Value
(6.1%)
The regional value is compared to the California state value.
Compared to the US Value (6.0%), Placer has a value of 4.5%.
US Value
(6.0%)
The regional value is compared to the national value.
Over time, the Placer value is decreasing, significantly.
Trend
This comparison measures the indicator’s values over multiple time periods.<br>The Mann-Kendall Test for Statistical Significance is used to evaluate the trend<br>over 4 to 10 periods of measure, subject to data availability and comparability.

County: Placer Adults 65+ with an Independent Living Difficulty

Current Value:
12.3%
(2018-2022)
Compared to:
Compared to the CA Value (16.4%), Placer has a value of 12.3%.
CA Value
(16.4%)
The regional value is compared to the California state value.
Compared to the US Value (13.6%), Placer has a value of 12.3%.
US Value
(13.6%)
The regional value is compared to the national value.
Over time, the Placer value is decreasing, significantly.
Trend
This comparison measures the indicator’s values over multiple time periods.<br>The Mann-Kendall Test for Statistical Significance is used to evaluate the trend<br>over 4 to 10 periods of measure, subject to data availability and comparability.

County: Placer Alzheimer's Disease or Dementia: Medicare Population

5.0%
(2022)
Compared to:
Compared to CA Counties, Placer has a value of 5.0% which is in the best 50% of counties. Counties in the best 50% have a value lower than 5.0% while counties in the worst 25% have a value higher than 5.3%.
CA Counties
The distribution is based on data from 58 California counties.
Compared to U.S. Counties, Placer has a value of 5.0% which is in the best 50% of counties. Counties in the best 50% have a value lower than 6.0% while counties in the worst 25% have a value higher than 6.0%.
U.S. Counties
The distribution is based on data from 3,129 U.S. counties and county equivalents.
Compared to the CA Value (5.0%), Placer has a value of 5.0%.
CA Value
(5.0%)
The regional value is compared to the California state value.
Compared to the US Value (6.0%), Placer has a value of 5.0% which is lower and better.
US Value
(6.0%)
The regional value is compared to the national value.
Compared to the prior value, Placer (5.0%) is not statistically different from the previously measured value (5.0%).
Prior Value
(5.0%)
Prior Value compares a measured value with the previously measured value. Confidence intervals were not taken into account in determining the direction of the comparison.
Over time, the Placer value is decreasing, not significantly.
Trend
This comparison measures the indicator’s values over multiple time periods.<br>The Mann-Kendall Test for Statistical Significance is used to evaluate the trend<br>over 4 to 10 periods of measure, subject to data availability and comparability.

County: Placer Elder Index (Elderly Household Below Income Threshold)

21.4%
(2019-2020)
Compared to:
Compared to CA Counties, Placer has a value of 21.4% which is in the best 50% of counties. Counties in the best 50% have a value lower than 24.2% while counties in the worst 25% have a value higher than 34.6%.
CA Counties
The distribution is based on data from 58 California counties.
Compared to the CA Value (27.7%), Placer has a value of 21.4% which is lower and better.
CA Value
(27.7%)
The regional value is compared to the California state value.
Compared to the prior value, Placer (21.4%) is not statistically different from the previously measured value (16.4%).
Prior Value
(16.4%)
Prior Value compares a measured value with the previously measured value. Confidence intervals were taken into account in determining the direction of the comparison.
Over time, the Placer value is increasing, not significantly.
Trend
This comparison measures the indicator’s values over multiple time periods.<br>The Mann-Kendall Test for Statistical Significance is used to evaluate the trend<br>over 4 to 10 periods of measure, subject to data availability and comparability.

County: Placer

Health / Oral Health

Value
Compared to:

County: Placer

Health / Oral Health

Value
Compared to:

County: Placer Adults 65+ with Total Tooth Loss

Current Value:
6.4%
(2020)
Compared to:
Compared to CA Counties, Placer has a value of 6.4% which is in the best 50% of counties. Counties in the best 50% have a value lower than 9.7% while counties in the worst 25% have a value higher than 12.1%.
CA Counties
The distribution is based on data from 58 California counties.
Compared to U.S. Counties, Placer has a value of 6.4% which is in the best 50% of counties. Counties in the best 50% have a value lower than 12.6% while counties in the worst 25% have a value higher than 15.6%.
U.S. Counties
The distribution is based on data from 3,141 U.S. counties and county equivalents.
Compared to the US Value (13.4%), Placer has a value of 6.4% which is lower and better.
US Value
(13.4%)
The regional value is compared to the national value.

County: Placer Adults who Visited a Dentist

Current Value:
72.6%
(2020)
Compared to:
Compared to CA Counties, Placer has a value of 72.6% which is in the best 50% of counties. Counties in the best 50%  have a value higher than 62.9% while counties in the worst 25% have a value lower than 58.4%.
CA Counties
The distribution is based on data from 58 California counties.
Compared to U.S. Counties, Placer has a value of 72.6% which is in the best 50% of counties. Counties in the best 50%  have a value higher than 60.6% while counties in the worst 25% have a value lower than 54.3%.
U.S. Counties
The distribution is based on data from 3,141 U.S. counties and county equivalents.
Compared to the US Value (64.8%), Placer has a value of 72.6% which is higher and better.
US Value
(64.8%)
The regional value is compared to the national value.

County: Placer Children who Visited a Dentist

Current Value:
84.9%
(2019-2020)
Compared to:
Compared to the CA Value (89.5%), Placer has a value of 84.9% which is lower and worse.
CA Value
(89.5%)
The regional value is compared to the California state value.
Compared to the prior value, Placer (84.9%) is not statistically different from the previously measured value (82.5%).
Prior Value
(82.5%)
Prior Value compares a measured value with the previously measured value. Confidence intervals were taken into account in determining the direction of the comparison.

County: Placer Dentist Rate

Current Value:

County: Placer Dentist Rate

105
Dentists per 100,000 population
(2022)
Compared to:
Compared to CA Counties, Placer has a value of 105 which is in the best 50% of counties. Counties in the best 50%  have a value higher than 80 while counties in the worst 25% have a value lower than 58.
CA Counties
The distribution is based on data from 58 California counties.
Compared to U.S. Counties, Placer has a value of 105 which is in the best 50% of counties. Counties in the best 50%  have a value higher than 43 while counties in the worst 25% have a value lower than 27.
U.S. Counties
The distribution is based on data from 3,054 U.S. counties and county equivalents.
Compared to the CA Value (93), Placer has a value of 105 which is higher and better.
CA Value
(93)
The regional value is compared to the California state value.
Compared to the prior value, Placer (105) is less and worse than the previously measured value (106).
Prior Value
(106)
Prior Value compares a measured value with the previously measured value. Confidence intervals were not taken into account in determining the direction of the comparison.
Over time, the Placer value is increasing, not significantly.
Trend
This comparison measures the indicator’s values over multiple time periods.<br>The Mann-Kendall Test for Statistical Significance is used to evaluate the trend<br>over 4 to 10 periods of measure, subject to data availability and comparability.

County: Placer

Health / Other Conditions

Value
Compared to:

County: Placer

Health / Other Conditions

Value
Compared to:

County: Placer Adults with Arthritis

Current Value:

County: Placer Adults with Arthritis

24.9%
(2021)
Compared to:
Compared to CA Counties, Placer has a value of 24.9% which is in the 2nd worst quartile of counties. Counties in the best 50% have a value lower than 23.2% while counties in the worst 25% have a value higher than 27.7%.
CA Counties
The distribution is based on data from 58 California counties.
Compared to U.S. Counties, Placer has a value of 24.9% which is in the best 50% of counties. Counties in the best 50% have a value lower than 30.2% while counties in the worst 25% have a value higher than 32.7%.
U.S. Counties
The distribution is based on data from 3,074 U.S. counties and county equivalents.
Compared to the US Value (25.2%), Placer has a value of 24.9% which is lower and better.
US Value
(25.2%)
The regional value is compared to the national value.

County: Placer Adults with Kidney Disease

Current Value:
3.0%
(2021)
Compared to:
Compared to CA Counties, Placer has a value of 3.0% which is in the best 50% of counties. Counties in the best 50% have a value lower than 3.2% while counties in the worst 25% have a value higher than 3.7%.
CA Counties
The distribution is based on data from 58 California counties.
Compared to U.S. Counties, Placer has a value of 3.0% which is in the best 50% of counties. Counties in the best 50% have a value lower than 3.6% while counties in the worst 25% have a value higher than 3.9%.
U.S. Counties
The distribution is based on data from 3,074 U.S. counties and county equivalents.
Compared to the US Value (3.1%), Placer has a value of 3.0% which is lower and better.
US Value
(3.1%)
The regional value is compared to the national value.

County: Placer Chronic Kidney Disease: Medicare Population

Current Value:
17.0%
(2022)
Compared to:
Compared to CA Counties, Placer has a value of 17.0% which is in the worst 25% of counties. Counties in the best 50% have a value lower than 14.5% while counties in the worst 25% have a value higher than 17.0%.
CA Counties
The distribution is based on data from 58 California counties.
Compared to U.S. Counties, Placer has a value of 17.0% which is in the best 50% of counties. Counties in the best 50% have a value lower than 17.0% while counties in the worst 25% have a value higher than 19.0%.
U.S. Counties
The distribution is based on data from 3,129 U.S. counties and county equivalents.
Compared to the CA Value (16.0%), Placer has a value of 17.0% which is higher and worse.
CA Value
(16.0%)
The regional value is compared to the California state value.
Compared to the US Value (18.0%), Placer has a value of 17.0% which is lower and better.
US Value
(18.0%)
The regional value is compared to the national value.
Compared to the prior value, Placer (17.0%) is greater and worse than the previously measured value (16.0%).
Prior Value
(16.0%)
Prior Value compares a measured value with the previously measured value. Confidence intervals were not taken into account in determining the direction of the comparison.
Over time, the Placer value is increasing, not significantly.
Trend
This comparison measures the indicator’s values over multiple time periods.<br>The Mann-Kendall Test for Statistical Significance is used to evaluate the trend<br>over 4 to 10 periods of measure, subject to data availability and comparability.

County: Placer Osteoporosis: Medicare Population

Current Value:
13.0%
(2022)
Compared to:
Compared to CA Counties, Placer has a value of 13.0% which is in the worst 25% of counties. Counties in the best 50% have a value lower than 11.0% while counties in the worst 25% have a value higher than 13.0%.
CA Counties
The distribution is based on data from 58 California counties.
Compared to U.S. Counties, Placer has a value of 13.0% which is in the worst 25% of counties. Counties in the best 50% have a value lower than 9.0% while counties in the worst 25% have a value higher than 11.0%.
U.S. Counties
The distribution is based on data from 3,129 U.S. counties and county equivalents.
Compared to the CA Value (13.0%), Placer has a value of 13.0%.
CA Value
(13.0%)
The regional value is compared to the California state value.
Compared to the US Value (11.0%), Placer has a value of 13.0% which is higher and worse.
US Value
(11.0%)
The regional value is compared to the national value.
Compared to the prior value, Placer (13.0%) is greater and worse than the previously measured value (11.0%).
Prior Value
(11.0%)
Prior Value compares a measured value with the previously measured value. Confidence intervals were not taken into account in determining the direction of the comparison.
Over time, the Placer value is increasing significantly.
Trend
This comparison measures the indicator’s values over multiple time periods.<br>The Mann-Kendall Test for Statistical Significance is used to evaluate the trend<br>over 4 to 10 periods of measure, subject to data availability and comparability.

County: Placer Rheumatoid Arthritis or Osteoarthritis: Medicare Population

37.0%
(2022)
Compared to:
Compared to CA Counties, Placer has a value of 37.0% which is in the worst 25% of counties. Counties in the best 50% have a value lower than 31.0% while counties in the worst 25% have a value higher than 33.0%.
CA Counties
The distribution is based on data from 58 California counties.
Compared to U.S. Counties, Placer has a value of 37.0% which is in the 2nd worst quartile of counties. Counties in the best 50% have a value lower than 35.0% while counties in the worst 25% have a value higher than 38.0%.
U.S. Counties
The distribution is based on data from 3,129 U.S. counties and county equivalents.
Compared to the CA Value (32.0%), Placer has a value of 37.0% which is higher and worse.
CA Value
(32.0%)
The regional value is compared to the California state value.
Compared to the US Value (35.0%), Placer has a value of 37.0% which is higher and worse.
US Value
(35.0%)
The regional value is compared to the national value.
Compared to the prior value, Placer (37.0%) is greater and worse than the previously measured value (35.0%).
Prior Value
(35.0%)
Prior Value compares a measured value with the previously measured value. Confidence intervals were not taken into account in determining the direction of the comparison.
Over time, the Placer value is increasing significantly.
Trend
This comparison measures the indicator’s values over multiple time periods.<br>The Mann-Kendall Test for Statistical Significance is used to evaluate the trend<br>over 4 to 10 periods of measure, subject to data availability and comparability.

County: Placer

Health / Physical Activity

Value
Compared to:

County: Placer

Health / Physical Activity

Value
Compared to:

County: Placer 7th Grade Students who are Physically Fit

Current Value:
73.6%
(2018-2019)
Compared to:
Compared to CA Counties, Placer has a value of 73.6% which is in the best 50% of counties. Counties in the best 50%  have a value higher than 60.8% while counties in the worst 25% have a value lower than 56.8%.
CA Counties
The distribution is based on data from 58 California counties.
Compared to the CA Value (61.0%), Placer has a value of 73.6% which is higher and better.
CA Value
(61.0%)
The regional value is compared to the California state value.
Compared to the prior value, Placer (73.6%) is less and worse than the previously measured value (76.0%).
Prior Value
(76.0%)
Prior Value compares a measured value with the previously measured value. Confidence intervals were not taken into account in determining the direction of the comparison.
Over time, the Placer value is decreasing, not significantly.
Trend
This comparison measures the indicator’s values over multiple time periods.<br>The Mann-Kendall Test for Statistical Significance is used to evaluate the trend<br>over 4 to 10 periods of measure, subject to data availability and comparability.

County: Placer Adults 20+ who are Sedentary

Current Value:
13.1%
(2021)
Compared to:
Compared to CA Counties, Placer has a value of 13.1% which is in the best 50% of counties. Counties in the best 50% have a value lower than 15.8% while counties in the worst 25% have a value higher than 17.9%.
CA Counties
The distribution is based on data from 58 California counties.
Compared to U.S. Counties, Placer has a value of 13.1% which is in the best 50% of counties. Counties in the best 50% have a value lower than 18.9% while counties in the worst 25% have a value higher than 21.9%.
U.S. Counties
The distribution is based on data from 3,074 U.S. counties and county equivalents.
Compared to the prior value, Placer (13.1%) is not statistically different from the previously measured value (11.5%).
Prior Value
(11.5%)
Prior Value compares a measured value with the previously measured value. Confidence intervals were taken into account in determining the direction of the comparison.
Over time, the Placer value is decreasing, not significantly.
Trend
This comparison measures the indicator’s values over multiple time periods.<br>The Mann-Kendall Test for Statistical Significance is used to evaluate the trend<br>over 4 to 10 periods of measure, subject to data availability and comparability.

County: Placer

Health / Prevention & Safety

Value
Compared to:

County: Placer

Health / Prevention & Safety

Value
Compared to:

County: Placer Age-Adjusted Death Rate due to Firearms

Current Value:
6.0
Deaths per 100,000 population
(2018-2020)
Compared to:
Compared to CA Counties, Placer has a value of 6.0 which is in the best 50% of counties. Counties in the best 50% have a value lower than 8.2 while counties in the worst 25% have a value higher than 11.8.
CA Counties
The distribution is based on data from 45 California counties.
Compared to U.S. Counties, Placer has a value of 6.0 which is in the best 50% of counties. Counties in the best 50% have a value lower than 14.4 while counties in the worst 25% have a value higher than 19.4.
U.S. Counties
The distribution is based on data from 1,083 U.S. counties and county equivalents.
Compared to the CA Value (7.4), Placer has a value of 6.0 which is lower and better.
CA Value
(7.4)
The regional value is compared to the California state value.
Compared to the US Value (12.0), Placer has a value of 6.0 which is lower and better.
US Value
(12.0)
The regional value is compared to the national value.
Compared to the prior value, Placer (6.0) is not statistically different from the previously measured value (5.1).
Prior Value
(5.1)
Prior Value compares a measured value with the previously measured value. Confidence intervals were taken into account in determining the direction of the comparison.
Over time, the Placer value is decreasing, not significantly.
Trend
This comparison measures the indicator’s values over multiple time periods.<br>The Mann-Kendall Test for Statistical Significance is used to evaluate the trend<br>over 4 to 10 periods of measure, subject to data availability and comparability.
Compared to the HP 2030 Target (10.7), the target has  been met.
HP 2030 Target
(10.7)

County: Placer Age-Adjusted Death Rate due to Unintentional Injuries

36.4
Deaths per 100,000 population
(2019-2021)
Compared to:
Compared to CA Counties, Placer has a value of 36.4 which is in the best 50% of counties. Counties in the best 50% have a value lower than 53.8 while counties in the worst 25% have a value higher than 70.9.
CA Counties
The distribution is based on data from 58 California counties.
Compared to the CA Value (43.4), Placer has a value of 36.4 which is lower and better.
CA Value
(43.4)
The regional value is compared to the California state value.
Compared to the US Value (57.6), Placer has a value of 36.4 which is lower and better.
US Value
(57.6 in 2020)
The regional value is compared to the national value. The source for the national value is Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
Compared to the prior value, Placer (36.4) is not statistically different from the previously measured value (32.7).
Prior Value
(32.7)
Prior Value compares a measured value with the previously measured value. Confidence intervals were taken into account in determining the direction of the comparison.
Over time, the Placer value is increasing significantly.
Trend
This comparison measures the indicator’s values over multiple time periods.<br>The Mann-Kendall Test for Statistical Significance is used to evaluate the trend<br>over 4 to 10 periods of measure, subject to data availability and comparability.
Compared to the HP 2030 Target (43.2), the target has  been met.
HP 2030 Target
(43.2)

County: Placer

Health / Respiratory Diseases

Value
Compared to:

County: Placer

Health / Respiratory Diseases

Value
Compared to:

County: Placer Adults with Asthma

Current Value:

County: Placer Adults with Asthma

21.7%
(2022)
Compared to:
Compared to CA Counties, Placer has a value of 21.7% which is in the worst 25% of counties. Counties in the best 50% have a value lower than 17.9% while counties in the worst 25% have a value higher than 20.5%.
CA Counties
The distribution is based on data from 58 California counties.
Compared to the CA Value (17.0%), Placer has a value of 21.7% which is higher and worse.
CA Value
(17.0%)
The regional value is compared to the California state value.
Compared to the US Value (15.7%), Placer has a value of 21.7% which is higher and worse.
US Value
(15.7%)
The regional value is compared to the national value. The source for the national value is Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System
Compared to the prior value, Placer (21.7%) is not statistically different from the previously measured value (16.6%).
Prior Value
(16.6%)
Prior Value compares a measured value with the previously measured value. Confidence intervals were taken into account in determining the direction of the comparison.
Over time, the Placer value is increasing significantly.
Trend
This comparison measures the indicator’s values over multiple time periods.<br>The Mann-Kendall Test for Statistical Significance is used to evaluate the trend<br>over 4 to 10 periods of measure, subject to data availability and comparability.

County: Placer Adults with COPD

Current Value:

County: Placer Adults with COPD

5.5%
Percent of adults
(2021)
Compared to:
Compared to CA Counties, Placer has a value of 5.5% which is in the best 50% of counties. Counties in the best 50% have a value lower than 6.4% while counties in the worst 25% have a value higher than 7.7%.
CA Counties
The distribution is based on data from 58 California counties.
Compared to U.S. Counties, Placer has a value of 5.5% which is in the best 50% of counties. Counties in the best 50% have a value lower than 8.5% while counties in the worst 25% have a value higher than 9.9%.
U.S. Counties
The distribution is based on data from 3,074 U.S. counties and county equivalents.
Compared to the US Value (6.4%), Placer has a value of 5.5% which is lower and better.
US Value
(6.4%)
The regional value is compared to the national value.

County: Placer Adults with Current Asthma

Current Value:
9.3%
(2021)
Compared to:
Compared to CA Counties, Placer has a value of 9.3% which is in the best 50% of counties. Counties in the best 50% have a value lower than 9.8% while counties in the worst 25% have a value higher than 10.2%.
CA Counties
The distribution is based on data from 58 California counties.
Compared to U.S. Counties, Placer has a value of 9.3% which is in the best 50% of counties. Counties in the best 50% have a value lower than 10.2% while counties in the worst 25% have a value higher than 10.8%.
U.S. Counties
The distribution is based on data from 3,074 U.S. counties and county equivalents.
Compared to the US Value (9.7%), Placer has a value of 9.3% which is lower and better.
US Value
(9.7%)
The regional value is compared to the national value.

County: Placer Asthma: Medicare Population

Current Value:
7.0%
(2022)
Compared to:
Compared to CA Counties, Placer has a value of 7.0% which is in the worst 25% of counties. Counties in the best 50% have a value lower than 6.0% while counties in the worst 25% have a value higher than 7.0%.
CA Counties
The distribution is based on data from 58 California counties.
Compared to U.S. Counties, Placer has a value of 7.0% which is in the worst 25% of counties. Counties in the best 50% have a value lower than 6.0% while counties in the worst 25% have a value higher than 7.0%.
U.S. Counties
The distribution is based on data from 3,129 U.S. counties and county equivalents.
Compared to the CA Value (7.0%), Placer has a value of 7.0%.
CA Value
(7.0%)
The regional value is compared to the California state value.
Compared to the US Value (7.0%), Placer has a value of 7.0%.
US Value
(7.0%)
The regional value is compared to the national value.
Compared to the prior value, Placer (7.0%) is not statistically different from the previously measured value (7.0%).
Prior Value
(7.0%)
Prior Value compares a measured value with the previously measured value. Confidence intervals were not taken into account in determining the direction of the comparison.
Over time, the Placer value is increasing, not significantly.
Trend
This comparison measures the indicator’s values over multiple time periods.<br>The Mann-Kendall Test for Statistical Significance is used to evaluate the trend<br>over 4 to 10 periods of measure, subject to data availability and comparability.

County: Placer Children and Teens with Asthma

Current Value:
8.9%
(2015-2016)
Compared to:
Compared to CA Counties, Placer has a value of 8.9% which is in the best 50% of counties. Counties in the best 50% have a value lower than 13.2% while counties in the worst 25% have a value higher than 17.8%.
CA Counties
The distribution is based on data from 43 California counties.
Compared to the CA Value (14.6%), Placer has a value of 8.9% which is lower and better.
CA Value
(14.6%)
The regional value is compared to the California state value.
Compared to the prior value, Placer (8.9%) is not statistically different from the previously measured value (11.8%).
Prior Value
(11.8%)
Prior Value compares a measured value with the previously measured value. Confidence intervals were taken into account in determining the direction of the comparison.
Over time, the Placer value is decreasing, not significantly.
Trend
This comparison measures the indicator’s values over multiple time periods.<br>The Mann-Kendall Test for Statistical Significance is used to evaluate the trend<br>over 4 to 10 periods of measure, subject to data availability and comparability.

County: Placer COPD: Medicare Population

Current Value:

County: Placer COPD: Medicare Population

8.0%
(2022)
Compared to:
Compared to CA Counties, Placer has a value of 8.0% which is in the best 50% of counties. Counties in the best 50% have a value lower than 9.0% while counties in the worst 25% have a value higher than 10.0%.
CA Counties
The distribution is based on data from 58 California counties.
Compared to U.S. Counties, Placer has a value of 8.0% which is in the best 50% of counties. Counties in the best 50% have a value lower than 12.0% while counties in the worst 25% have a value higher than 14.0%.
U.S. Counties
The distribution is based on data from 3,129 U.S. counties and county equivalents.
Compared to the CA Value (8.0%), Placer has a value of 8.0%.
CA Value
(8.0%)
The regional value is compared to the California state value.
Compared to the US Value (11.0%), Placer has a value of 8.0% which is lower and better.
US Value
(11.0%)
The regional value is compared to the national value.
Compared to the prior value, Placer (8.0%) is less and better than the previously measured value (9.0%).
Prior Value
(9.0%)
Prior Value compares a measured value with the previously measured value. Confidence intervals were not taken into account in determining the direction of the comparison.
Over time, the Placer value is decreasing, not significantly.
Trend
This comparison measures the indicator’s values over multiple time periods.<br>The Mann-Kendall Test for Statistical Significance is used to evaluate the trend<br>over 4 to 10 periods of measure, subject to data availability and comparability.

County: Placer

Health / Sexually Transmitted Infections

Value
Compared to:

County: Placer

Health / Sexually Transmitted Infections

Value
Compared to:

County: Placer Chlamydia Incidence Rate

Current Value:

County: Placer Chlamydia Incidence Rate

209.0
Cases per 100,000 population
(2021)
Compared to:
Compared to CA Counties, Placer has a value of 209.0 which is in the best 50% of counties. Counties in the best 50% have a value lower than 344.1 while counties in the worst 25% have a value higher than 485.7.
CA Counties
The distribution is based on data from 58 California counties.
Compared to the CA Value (484.7), Placer has a value of 209.0 which is lower and better.
CA Value
(484.7)
The regional value is compared to the California state value.
Compared to the US Value (495.5), Placer has a value of 209.0 which is lower and better.
US Value
(495.5)
The regional value is compared to the national value. The source for the national value is National Center for HIV/AIDS, Viral Hepatitis, STD, and TB Prevention
Compared to the prior value, Placer (209.0) is less and better than the previously measured value (234.5).
Prior Value
(234.5)
Prior Value compares a measured value with the previously measured value. Confidence intervals were not taken into account in determining the direction of the comparison.
Over time, the Placer value is increasing, not significantly.
Trend
This comparison measures the indicator’s values over multiple time periods.<br>The Mann-Kendall Test for Statistical Significance is used to evaluate the trend<br>over 4 to 10 periods of measure, subject to data availability and comparability.

County: Placer Congenital Syphilis Incidence Rate

Current Value:
28.7
Cases per 100,000 live births
(2020)
Compared to:
Compared to CA Counties, Placer has a value of 28.7 which is in the best 50% of counties. Counties in the best 50% have a value lower than 46.9 while counties in the worst 25% have a value higher than 151.4.
CA Counties
The distribution is based on data from 58 California counties.
Compared to the CA Value (114.9), Placer has a value of 28.7 which is lower and better.
CA Value
(114.9)
The regional value is compared to the California state value.
Compared to the prior value, Placer (28.7) is less and better than the previously measured value (82.0).
Prior Value
(82.0)
Prior Value compares a measured value with the previously measured value. Confidence intervals were not taken into account in determining the direction of the comparison.
Over time, the Placer value is increasing significantly.
Trend
This comparison measures the indicator’s values over multiple time periods.<br>The Mann-Kendall Test for Statistical Significance is used to evaluate the trend<br>over 4 to 10 periods of measure, subject to data availability and comparability.
Compared to the HP 2030 Target (33.9), the target has  been met.
HP 2030 Target
(33.9)

County: Placer Death Rate Among Persons with Diagnosed HIV Infection

2.2
Deaths per 100,000 population
(2022)
Compared to:
Compared to CA Counties, Placer has a value of 2.2 which is in the best 50% of counties. Counties in the best 50% have a value lower than 2.8 while counties in the worst 25% have a value higher than 4.8.
CA Counties
The distribution is based on data from 58 California counties.
Compared to the CA Value (5.4), Placer has a value of 2.2 which is lower and better.
CA Value
(5.4)
The regional value is compared to the California state value.
Compared to the prior value, Placer (2.2) is greater and worse than the previously measured value (1.8).
Prior Value
(1.8)
Prior Value compares a measured value with the previously measured value. Confidence intervals were not taken into account in determining the direction of the comparison.
Over time, the Placer value is increasing, not significantly.
Trend
This comparison measures the indicator’s values over multiple time periods.<br>The Mann-Kendall Test for Statistical Significance is used to evaluate the trend<br>over 4 to 10 periods of measure, subject to data availability and comparability.

County: Placer Gonorrhea Incidence Rate

Current Value:

County: Placer Gonorrhea Incidence Rate

71.6
Cases per 100,000 population
(2021)
Compared to:
Compared to CA Counties, Placer has a value of 71.6 which is in the best 50% of counties. Counties in the best 50% have a value lower than 140.0 while counties in the worst 25% have a value higher than 212.7.
CA Counties
The distribution is based on data from 58 California counties.
Compared to the CA Value (230.9), Placer has a value of 71.6 which is lower and better.
CA Value
(230.9)
The regional value is compared to the California state value.
Compared to the US Value (214.0), Placer has a value of 71.6 which is lower and better.
US Value
(214.0)
The regional value is compared to the national value. The source for the national value is National Center for HIV/AIDS, Viral Hepatitis, STD, and TB Prevention
Compared to the prior value, Placer (71.6) is greater and worse than the previously measured value (64.2).
Prior Value
(64.2)
Prior Value compares a measured value with the previously measured value. Confidence intervals were not taken into account in determining the direction of the comparison.
Over time, the Placer value is increasing significantly.
Trend
This comparison measures the indicator’s values over multiple time periods.<br>The Mann-Kendall Test for Statistical Significance is used to evaluate the trend<br>over 4 to 10 periods of measure, subject to data availability and comparability.

County: Placer HIV Diagnosis Rate

Current Value:

County: Placer HIV Diagnosis Rate

2.2
Cases per 100,000 population
(2022)
Compared to:
Compared to CA Counties, Placer has a value of 2.2 which is in the best 50% of counties. Counties in the best 50% have a value lower than 7.0 while counties in the worst 25% have a value higher than 10.4.
CA Counties
The distribution is based on data from 58 California counties.
Compared to the CA Value (12.2), Placer has a value of 2.2 which is lower and better.
CA Value
(12.2)
The regional value is compared to the California state value.
Compared to the prior value, Placer (2.2) is less and better than the previously measured value (3.5).
Prior Value
(3.5)
Prior Value compares a measured value with the previously measured value. Confidence intervals were not taken into account in determining the direction of the comparison.
Over time, the Placer value is decreasing, not significantly.
Trend
This comparison measures the indicator’s values over multiple time periods.<br>The Mann-Kendall Test for Statistical Significance is used to evaluate the trend<br>over 4 to 10 periods of measure, subject to data availability and comparability.

County: Placer HIV/AIDS Prevalence Rate: 13+

Current Value:
108.2
Cases per 100,000 population
(2018-2020)
Compared to:
Compared to the CA Value (414.1), Placer has a value of 108.2.
CA Value
(414.1)
The regional value is compared to the California state value.
Compared to the prior value, Placer (108.2) is not statistically different from the previously measured value (107.7).
Prior Value
(107.7)
Prior Value compares a measured value with the previously measured value. Confidence intervals were taken into account in determining the direction of the comparison.
Over time, the Placer value is increasing significantly.
Trend
This comparison measures the indicator’s values over multiple time periods.<br>The Mann-Kendall Test for Statistical Significance is used to evaluate the trend<br>over 4 to 10 periods of measure, subject to data availability and comparability.

County: Placer Persons Living and Diagnosed with HIV who are in Care

77.6%
(2022)
Compared to:
Compared to CA Counties, Placer has a value of 77.6% which is in the best 50% of counties. Counties in the best 50%  have a value higher than 76.4% while counties in the worst 25% have a value lower than 71.6%.
CA Counties
The distribution is based on data from 56 California counties.
Compared to the CA Value (73.7%), Placer has a value of 77.6% which is higher and better.
CA Value
(73.7%)
The regional value is compared to the California state value.
Compared to the prior value, Placer (77.6%) is less and worse than the previously measured value (79.1%).
Prior Value
(79.1%)
Prior Value compares a measured value with the previously measured value. Confidence intervals were not taken into account in determining the direction of the comparison.
Over time, the Placer value is decreasing, not significantly.
Trend
This comparison measures the indicator’s values over multiple time periods.<br>The Mann-Kendall Test for Statistical Significance is used to evaluate the trend<br>over 4 to 10 periods of measure, subject to data availability and comparability.

County: Placer Persons Living with HIV Rate

Current Value:
107.1
Cases per 100,000 population
(2022)
Compared to:
Compared to the CA Value (355.6), Placer has a value of 107.1.
CA Value
(355.6)
The regional value is compared to the California state value.
Compared to the prior value, Placer (107.1) is less  than the previously measured value (156.6).
Prior Value
(156.6)
Prior Value compares a measured value with the previously measured value. Confidence intervals were not taken into account in determining the direction of the comparison.
Over time, the Placer value is increasing significantly.
Trend
This comparison measures the indicator’s values over multiple time periods.<br>The Mann-Kendall Test for Statistical Significance is used to evaluate the trend<br>over 4 to 10 periods of measure, subject to data availability and comparability.

County: Placer Syphilis Incidence Rate

Current Value:

County: Placer Syphilis Incidence Rate

8.6
Cases per 100,000 population
(2021)
Compared to:
Compared to CA Counties, Placer has a value of 8.6 which is in the best 50% of counties. Counties in the best 50% have a value lower than 17.1 while counties in the worst 25% have a value higher than 25.6.
CA Counties
The distribution is based on data from 58 California counties.
Compared to the CA Value (22.3), Placer has a value of 8.6 which is lower and better.
CA Value
(22.3)
The regional value is compared to the California state value.
Compared to the US Value (16.2), Placer has a value of 8.6 which is lower and better.
US Value
(16.2)
The regional value is compared to the national value. The source for the national value is National Center for HIV/AIDS, Viral Hepatitis, STD, and TB Prevention
Compared to the prior value, Placer (8.6) is less and better than the previously measured value (11.6).
Prior Value
(11.6)
Prior Value compares a measured value with the previously measured value. Confidence intervals were not taken into account in determining the direction of the comparison.
Over time, the Placer value is increasing significantly.
Trend
This comparison measures the indicator’s values over multiple time periods.<br>The Mann-Kendall Test for Statistical Significance is used to evaluate the trend<br>over 4 to 10 periods of measure, subject to data availability and comparability.

County: Placer

Health / Tobacco Use

Value
Compared to:

County: Placer

Health / Tobacco Use

Value
Compared to:

County: Placer Adults who Smoke

Current Value:

County: Placer Adults who Smoke

5.1%
(2021-2022)
Compared to:
Compared to CA Counties, Placer has a value of 5.1% which is in the best 50% of counties. Counties in the best 50% have a value lower than 7.9% while counties in the worst 25% have a value higher than 9.5%.
CA Counties
The distribution is based on data from 58 California counties.
Compared to the CA Value (6.1%), Placer has a value of 5.1% which is lower and better.
CA Value
(6.1%)
The regional value is compared to the California state value.
Compared to the US Value (14.0%), Placer has a value of 5.1% which is lower and better.
US Value
(14.0% in 2022)
The regional value is compared to the national value. The source for the national value is Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System
Compared to the prior value, Placer (5.1%) is not statistically different from the previously measured value (5.1%).
Prior Value
(5.1%)
Prior Value compares a measured value with the previously measured value. Confidence intervals were taken into account in determining the direction of the comparison.
Over time, the Placer value is decreasing, significantly.
Trend
This comparison measures the indicator’s values over multiple time periods.<br>The Mann-Kendall Test for Statistical Significance is used to evaluate the trend<br>over 4 to 10 periods of measure, subject to data availability and comparability.
Compared to the HP 2030 Target (6.1%), the target has  been met.
HP 2030 Target
(6.1%)
<div>TU-02: Reduce current cigarette smoking in adults <strong>(LEADING HEALTH INDICATOR)</strong></div>

County: Placer Adults Who Used Electronic Cigarettes: Past 30 Days

3.2%
(2019-2020)
Compared to:
Compared to the CA Value (3.3%), Placer has a value of 3.2% which is lower and better.
CA Value
(3.3%)
The regional value is compared to the California state value.
Compared to the prior value, Placer (3.2%) is less and better than the previously measured value (6.3%).
Prior Value
(6.3%)
Prior Value compares a measured value with the previously measured value. Confidence intervals were taken into account in determining the direction of the comparison.