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
the value is in the best half of communities.
the value is in the 2nd worst quarter of communities.
the value is in the worst quarter of communities.
Compared to Target
meets target; does not meet target.
Compared to a Single Value
lower than the comparison value; higher than the comparison value; not statistically different from comparison value.
Trend
non-significant change over time; significant change over time; no change over time.
Compared to Prior Value
higher than the previous measurement period; lower than the previous measurement period; no statistically different change from previous measurement period.
County: Placer
Health / Alcohol & Drug Use
Value
Compared to:
County: Placer Adults who Binge Drink: Last 30 Days
County: Placer Adults who Binge Drink: Last 30 Days
16.0%
(2021)
Compared to:
CA Counties
The distribution is based on data from 58 California counties.
U.S. Counties
The distribution is based on data from 3,074 U.S. counties and county equivalents.
US Value
(15.5%)
The regional value is compared to the national value.
County: Placer Age-Adjusted Annual Opioid Prescription Rate
County: Placer Age-Adjusted Annual Opioid Prescription Rate
387.3
Prescriptions per 1,000 residents
(2022)
Compared to:
CA Counties
The distribution is based on data from 58 California counties.
CA Value
(291.0)
The regional value is compared to the California state value.
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.
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
County: Placer Age-Adjusted Buprenorphine Prescription Rate
40.7
Prescriptions per 1,000 residents
(2022)
Compared to:
CA Value
(19.8)
The regional value is compared to the California state value.
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.
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
County: Placer Age-Adjusted Death Rate due to Drug Use
17.1
Deaths per 100,000 population
(2019-2021)
Compared to:
CA Counties
The distribution is based on data from 57 California counties.
CA Value
(21.4)
The regional value is compared to the California state value.
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.
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
County: Placer Age-Adjusted Death Rate due to Fentanyl Overdose
11.2
(2022)
Compared to:
CA Counties
The distribution is based on data from 58 California counties.
CA Value
(16.6)
The regional value is compared to the California state value.
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.
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
County: Placer Age-Adjusted Drug and Opioid-Involved Overdose Death Rate
14.4
Deaths per 100,000 population
(2018-2020)
Compared to:
CA Counties
The distribution is based on data from 48 California counties.
U.S. Counties
The distribution is based on data from 1,303 U.S. counties and county equivalents.
CA Value
(16.5)
The regional value is compared to the California state value.
US Value
(23.5)
The regional value is compared to the national value.
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
County: Placer Buprenorphine prescriptions per 1,000 residents
18
Prescriptions per 1,000 residents
(2013)
Compared to:
CA Counties
The distribution is based on data from 58 California counties.
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.
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
County: Placer Death Rate due to Drug Poisoning
17.1
Deaths per 100,000 population
(2019-2021)
Compared to:
CA Counties
The distribution is based on data from 54 California counties.
U.S. Counties
The distribution is based on data from 1,899 U.S. counties and county equivalents.
CA Value
(22.0)
The regional value is compared to the California state value.
US Value
(27.2)
The regional value is compared to the national value.
HP 2030 Target
(20.7)
<div>SU-03: Reduce drug overdose deaths <strong>(LEADING HEALTH INDICATOR)</strong></div>
1,002
Milligram equivalents per resident per year
(2013)
Compared to:
CA Counties
The distribution is based on data from 58 California counties.
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.
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
County: Placer Non-fatal emergency department visits for opioids
40.1
Rate per 100,000
(2014)
Compared to:
CA Counties
The distribution is based on data from 57 California counties.
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.
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
County: Placer Number of waivered buprenorphine physicians
24.0
Physicians
(2013)
Compared to:
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.
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
County: Placer Opioid Prescription Patients
3.2%
(Q3 2022)
Compared to:
CA Counties
The distribution is based on data from 58 California counties.
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.
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.
852
Prescriptions per 1,000 residents
(2013)
Compared to:
CA Counties
The distribution is based on data from 58 California counties.
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.
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
County: Placer Quarterly Opioid Prescription Rate
417.3
Prescriptions per 10,000 population
(Q3 2022)
Compared to:
CA Counties
The distribution is based on data from 58 California counties.
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.
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.
9.4
Residents on >90 MMEs of Opioids per 1,000 residents
(2022)
Compared to:
CA Counties
The distribution is based on data from 58 California counties.
CA Value
(6.3)
The regional value is compared to the California state value.
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.
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
County: Placer Waivered buprenorphine physicians who actively prescribe
62.5%
(2013)
Compared to:
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.
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 Adults with Cancer
County: Placer Adults with Cancer
7.9%
(2021)
Compared to:
CA Counties
The distribution is based on data from 58 California counties.
U.S. Counties
The distribution is based on data from 3,074 U.S. counties and county equivalents.
US Value
(7.0%)
The regional value is compared to the national value.
County: Placer Age-Adjusted Death Rate due to Breast Cancer
County: Placer Age-Adjusted Death Rate due to Breast Cancer
18.0
Deaths per 100,000 females
(2019-2021)
Compared to:
CA Counties
The distribution is based on data from 56 California counties.
CA Value
(17.8)
The regional value is compared to the California state value.
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
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.
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.
HP 2030 Target
(15.3)
County: Placer Age-Adjusted Death Rate due to Cancer
County: Placer Age-Adjusted Death Rate due to Cancer
121.6
Deaths per 100,000 population
(2019-2021)
Compared to:
CA Counties
The distribution is based on data from 58 California counties.
CA Value
(124.9)
The regional value is compared to the California state value.
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
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.
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.
HP 2030 Target
(122.7)
County: Placer Age-Adjusted Death Rate due to Colorectal Cancer
County: Placer Age-Adjusted Death Rate due to Colorectal Cancer
11.6
Deaths per 100,000 population
(2019-2021)
Compared to:
CA Counties
The distribution is based on data from 58 California counties.
CA Value
(11.7)
The regional value is compared to the California state value.
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
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.
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.
HP 2030 Target
(8.9)
County: Placer Age-Adjusted Death Rate due to Lung Cancer
County: Placer Age-Adjusted Death Rate due to Lung Cancer
21.9
Deaths per 100,000 population
(2019-2021)
Compared to:
CA Counties
The distribution is based on data from 58 California counties.
CA Value
(21.6)
The regional value is compared to the California state value.
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
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.
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.
HP 2030 Target
(25.1)
County: Placer Age-Adjusted Death Rate due to Prostate Cancer
County: Placer Age-Adjusted Death Rate due to Prostate Cancer
16.1
Deaths per 100,000 males
(2019-2021)
Compared to:
CA Counties
The distribution is based on data from 57 California counties.
CA Value
(18.4)
The regional value is compared to the California state value.
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
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.
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.
HP 2030 Target
(16.9)
County: Placer Breast Cancer Incidence Rate
County: Placer Breast Cancer Incidence Rate
136.8
Cases per 100,000 females
(2016-2020)
Compared to:
CA Counties
The distribution is based on data from 56 California counties.
U.S. Counties
The distribution is based on data from 2,478 U.S. counties and county equivalents.
CA Value
(121.0)
The regional value is compared to the California state value.
US Value
(127.0)
The regional value is compared to the national value.
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.
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
County: Placer Cancer: Medicare Population
13.0%
(2022)
Compared to:
CA Counties
The distribution is based on data from 58 California counties.
U.S. Counties
The distribution is based on data from 3,129 U.S. counties and county equivalents.
CA Value
(11.0%)
The regional value is compared to the California state value.
US Value
(12.0%)
The regional value is compared to the national value.
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.
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
County: Placer Cervical Cancer Incidence Rate
6.4
Cases per 100,000 females
(2016-2020)
Compared to:
CA Counties
The distribution is based on data from 40 California counties.
U.S. Counties
The distribution is based on data from 696 U.S. counties and county equivalents.
CA Value
(7.3)
The regional value is compared to the California state value.
US Value
(7.5)
The regional value is compared to the national value.
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.
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
County: Placer Cervical Cancer Screening: 21-65
84.6%
(2020)
Compared to:
CA Counties
The distribution is based on data from 58 California counties.
U.S. Counties
The distribution is based on data from 3,141 U.S. counties and county equivalents.
US Value
(82.8%)
The regional value is compared to the national value.
72.6%
(2018)
Compared to:
CA Counties
The distribution is based on data from 58 California counties.
U.S. Counties
The distribution is based on data from 3,142 U.S. counties and county equivalents.
US Value
(66.4%)
The regional value is compared to the national value.
County: Placer Colon Cancer Screening: USPSTF Recommendation
County: Placer Colon Cancer Screening: USPSTF Recommendation
66.9%
(2020)
Compared to:
CA Counties
The distribution is based on data from 58 California counties.
U.S. Counties
The distribution is based on data from 3,141 U.S. counties and county equivalents.
US Value
(72.4%)
The regional value is compared to the national value.
County: Placer Colorectal Cancer Incidence Rate
County: Placer Colorectal Cancer Incidence Rate
33.2
Cases per 100,000 population
(2016-2020)
Compared to:
CA Counties
The distribution is based on data from 56 California counties.
U.S. Counties
The distribution is based on data from 2,401 U.S. counties and county equivalents.
CA Value
(33.5)
The regional value is compared to the California state value.
US Value
(36.5)
The regional value is compared to the national value.
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.
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
County: Placer Lung and Bronchus Cancer Incidence Rate
38.8
Cases per 100,000 population
(2016-2020)
Compared to:
CA Counties
The distribution is based on data from 55 California counties.
U.S. Counties
The distribution is based on data from 2,471 U.S. counties and county equivalents.
CA Value
(37.6)
The regional value is compared to the California state value.
US Value
(54.0)
The regional value is compared to the national value.
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.
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
County: Placer Mammogram in Past 2 Years: 50-74
70.4%
(2020)
Compared to:
CA Counties
The distribution is based on data from 58 California counties.
U.S. Counties
The distribution is based on data from 3,141 U.S. counties and county equivalents.
US Value
(78.2%)
The regional value is compared to the national value.
HP 2030 Target
(80.3%)
County: Placer Mammography Screening: Medicare Population
County: Placer Mammography Screening: Medicare Population
48.0%
(2022)
Compared to:
CA Counties
The distribution is based on data from 58 California counties.
U.S. Counties
The distribution is based on data from 3,123 U.S. counties and county equivalents.
CA Value
(41.0%)
The regional value is compared to the California state value.
US Value
(47.0%)
The regional value is compared to the national value.
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.
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
County: Placer Oral Cavity and Pharynx Cancer Incidence Rate
12.6
Cases per 100,000 population
(2016-2020)
Compared to:
CA Counties
The distribution is based on data from 54 California counties.
U.S. Counties
The distribution is based on data from 1,706 U.S. counties and county equivalents.
CA Value
(10.1)
The regional value is compared to the California state value.
US Value
(11.9)
The regional value is compared to the national value.
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.
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
County: Placer Prostate Cancer Incidence Rate
111.2
Cases per 100,000 males
(2016-2020)
Compared to:
CA Counties
The distribution is based on data from 57 California counties.
U.S. Counties
The distribution is based on data from 2,500 U.S. counties and county equivalents.
CA Value
(95.4)
The regional value is compared to the California state value.
US Value
(110.5)
The regional value is compared to the national value.
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.
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 Adults with Diabetes
County: Placer Adults with Diabetes
6.5%
(2021-2022)
Compared to:
CA Counties
The distribution is based on data from 58 California counties.
CA Value
(10.7%)
The regional value is compared to the California state value.
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
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.
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
County: Placer Age-Adjusted Death Rate due to Diabetes
17.5
Deaths per 100,000 population
(2019-2021)
Compared to:
CA Counties
The distribution is based on data from 57 California counties.
CA Value
(23.1)
The regional value is compared to the California state value.
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
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.
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
County: Placer Diabetes: Medicare Population
20.0%
(2022)
Compared to:
CA Counties
The distribution is based on data from 58 California counties.
U.S. Counties
The distribution is based on data from 3,129 U.S. counties and county equivalents.
CA Value
(21.0%)
The regional value is compared to the California state value.
US Value
(24.0%)
The regional value is compared to the national value.
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.
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 Adults with Disability
County: Placer Adults with Disability
29.4%
(2016)
Compared to:
CA Value
(29.7%)
The regional value is compared to the California state value.
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
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.
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
County: Placer Adults with Disability Living in Poverty
15.6%
(2018-2022)
Compared to:
CA Counties
The distribution is based on data from 58 California counties.
U.S. Counties
The distribution is based on data from 3,132 U.S. counties and county equivalents.
CA Value
(22.7%)
The regional value is compared to the California state value.
US Value
(24.9%)
The regional value is compared to the national value.
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
County: Placer Children with a Disability
2.9%
(2018-2022)
Compared to:
CA Value
(3.7%)
The regional value is compared to the California state value.
US Value
(4.5%)
The regional value is compared to the national value.
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
County: Placer Persons with a Cognitive Difficulty
4.3%
(2018-2022)
Compared to:
CA Value
(4.6%)
The regional value is compared to the California state value.
US Value
(5.3%)
The regional value is compared to the national value.
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
County: Placer Persons with a Disability
11.2%
(2018-2022)
Compared to:
CA Value
(11.0%)
The regional value is compared to the California state value.
US Value
(12.9%)
The regional value is compared to the national value.
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
County: Placer Persons with a Hearing Difficulty
3.7%
(2018-2022)
Compared to:
CA Value
(2.9%)
The regional value is compared to the California state value.
US Value
(3.6%)
The regional value is compared to the national value.
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
County: Placer Persons with a Self-Care Difficulty
2.4%
(2018-2022)
Compared to:
CA Value
(2.7%)
The regional value is compared to the California state value.
US Value
(2.6%)
The regional value is compared to the national value.
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
County: Placer Persons with a Vision Difficulty
1.5%
(2018-2022)
Compared to:
CA Value
(2.1%)
The regional value is compared to the California state value.
US Value
(2.4%)
The regional value is compared to the national value.
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
County: Placer Persons with an Ambulatory Difficulty
5.4%
(2018-2022)
Compared to:
CA Value
(5.8%)
The regional value is compared to the California state value.
US Value
(6.7%)
The regional value is compared to the national value.
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 Teen Birth Rate: 15-19
County: Placer Teen Birth Rate: 15-19
4.7
Live births per 1,000 females aged 15-19
(2019-2021)
Compared to:
CA Counties
The distribution is based on data from 55 California counties.
CA Value
(10.3)
The regional value is compared to the California state value.
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
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.
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 Adults Delayed or had Difficulty Obtaining Care
County: Placer Adults Delayed or had Difficulty Obtaining Care
18.9%
(2019-2020)
Compared to:
CA Value
(22.0%)
The regional value is compared to the California state value.
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.
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
County: Placer Adults who have had a Routine Checkup
63.5%
(2021)
Compared to:
CA Counties
The distribution is based on data from 58 California counties.
U.S. Counties
The distribution is based on data from 3,074 U.S. counties and county equivalents.
US Value
(73.6%)
The regional value is compared to the national value.
County: Placer Adults with Health Insurance: 18-64
County: Placer Adults with Health Insurance: 18-64
96.1%
(2019-2020)
Compared to:
CA Value
(90.0%)
The regional value is compared to the California state value.
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
County: Placer Adults without Health Insurance
5.8%
(2021)
Compared to:
CA Counties
The distribution is based on data from 58 California counties.
U.S. Counties
The distribution is based on data from 3,074 U.S. counties and county equivalents.
US Value
(10.8%)
The regional value is compared to the national value.
County: Placer Children with Health Insurance
County: Placer Children with Health Insurance
97.4%
(2022)
Compared to:
CA Counties
The distribution is based on data from 42 California counties.
U.S. Counties
The distribution is based on data from 828 U.S. counties and county equivalents.
CA Value
(96.8%)
The regional value is compared to the California state value.
US Value
(94.9%)
The regional value is compared to the national value.
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.
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
County: Placer Medicare Healthcare Costs
$7,581
Dollars per enrollee
(2015)
Compared to:
CA Value
($9,100)
The regional value is compared to the California state value.
US Value
($9,729)
The regional value is compared to the national value.
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.
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
County: Placer Non-Physician Primary Care Provider Rate
76
Providers per 100,000 population
(2023)
Compared to:
CA Counties
The distribution is based on data from 58 California counties.
U.S. Counties
The distribution is based on data from 3,129 U.S. counties and county equivalents.
CA Value
(87)
The regional value is compared to the California state value.
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.
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
County: Placer People Delayed or had Difficulty Obtaining Care
16.5%
(2021-2022)
Compared to:
CA Counties
The distribution is based on data from 58 California counties.
CA Value
(16.5%)
The regional value is compared to the California state value.
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.
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.
HP 2030 Target
(5.9%)
County: Placer People with a Usual Source of Health Care
County: Placer People with a Usual Source of Health Care
86.4%
(2022)
Compared to:
CA Counties
The distribution is based on data from 58 California counties.
CA Value
(82.5%)
The regional value is compared to the California state value.
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.
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
County: Placer Persons with Health Insurance
96.1%
(2021)
Compared to:
CA Counties
The distribution is based on data from 58 California counties.
U.S. Counties
The distribution is based on data from 3,140 U.S. counties and county equivalents.
CA Value
(91.9%)
The regional value is compared to the California state value.
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.
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.
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
County: Placer Persons with Private Health Insurance Only
62.7%
(2022)
Compared to:
CA Value
(53.5%)
The regional value is compared to the California state value.
US Value
(54.8%)
The regional value is compared to the national value.
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.
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
County: Placer Persons with Public Health Insurance Only
17.4%
(2022)
Compared to:
CA Value
(29.8%)
The regional value is compared to the California state value.
US Value
(24.8%)
The regional value is compared to the national value.
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.
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
County: Placer Preventable Hospital Stays: Medicare Population
1,705.0
Discharges per 100,000 Medicare enrollees
(2022)
Compared to:
CA Counties
The distribution is based on data from 58 California counties.
U.S. Counties
The distribution is based on data from 3,129 U.S. counties and county equivalents.
CA Value
(2,275.0)
The regional value is compared to the California state value.
US Value
(2,677.0)
The regional value is compared to the national value.
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.
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
County: Placer Primary Care Provider Rate
122
Providers per 100,000 population
(2021)
Compared to:
CA Counties
The distribution is based on data from 57 California counties.
U.S. Counties
The distribution is based on data from 2,984 U.S. counties and county equivalents.
CA Value
(81)
The regional value is compared to the California state value.
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.
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 Households with an Internet Subscription
County: Placer Households with an Internet Subscription
92.9%
(2018-2022)
Compared to:
CA Counties
The distribution is based on data from 58 California counties.
U.S. Counties
The distribution is based on data from 3,133 U.S. counties and county equivalents.
CA Value
(91.6%)
The regional value is compared to the California state value.
US Value
(88.5%)
The regional value is compared to the national value.
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
County: Placer Households with One or More Types of Computing Devices
97.1%
(2018-2022)
Compared to:
CA Counties
The distribution is based on data from 58 California counties.
U.S. Counties
The distribution is based on data from 3,133 U.S. counties and county equivalents.
CA Value
(95.9%)
The regional value is compared to the California state value.
US Value
(94.0%)
The regional value is compared to the national value.
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
County: Placer Persons with an Internet Subscription
94.6%
(2018-2022)
Compared to:
CA Counties
The distribution is based on data from 58 California counties.
U.S. Counties
The distribution is based on data from 3,133 U.S. counties and county equivalents.
CA Value
(93.4%)
The regional value is compared to the California state value.
US Value
(91.0%)
The regional value is compared to the national value.
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 Adults who Experienced a Stroke
County: Placer Adults who Experienced a Stroke
2.9%
(2021)
Compared to:
CA Counties
The distribution is based on data from 58 California counties.
U.S. Counties
The distribution is based on data from 3,074 U.S. counties and county equivalents.
US Value
(3.3%)
The regional value is compared to the national value.
County: Placer Adults who Experienced Coronary Heart Disease
County: Placer Adults who Experienced Coronary Heart Disease
5.7%
(2021)
Compared to:
CA Counties
The distribution is based on data from 58 California counties.
U.S. Counties
The distribution is based on data from 3,074 U.S. counties and county equivalents.
US Value
(6.1%)
The regional value is compared to the national value.
County: Placer Adults who Have Taken Medications for High Blood Pressure
County: Placer Adults who Have Taken Medications for High Blood Pressure
75.6%
(2021)
Compared to:
CA Counties
The distribution is based on data from 58 California counties.
U.S. Counties
The distribution is based on data from 3,074 U.S. counties and county equivalents.
US Value
(78.2%)
The regional value is compared to the national value.
County: Placer Adults with Heart Disease
County: Placer Adults with Heart Disease
8.5%
(2019-2020)
Compared to:
CA Value
(6.9%)
The regional value is compared to the California state value.
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.
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.
42.7
Deaths per 100,000 population
(2019-2021)
Compared to:
CA Counties
The distribution is based on data from 58 California counties.
CA Value
(37.2)
The regional value is compared to the California state value.
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
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.
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.
HP 2030 Target
(33.4)
County: Placer Age-Adjusted Death Rate due to Coronary Heart Disease
County: Placer Age-Adjusted Death Rate due to Coronary Heart Disease
63.1
Deaths per 100,000 population
(2019-2021)
Compared to:
CA Counties
The distribution is based on data from 58 California counties.
CA Value
(79.0)
The regional value is compared to the California state value.
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
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.
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.
HP 2030 Target
(71.1)
County: Placer Age-Adjusted Death Rate due to Heart Attack
County: Placer Age-Adjusted Death Rate due to Heart Attack
44.5
Deaths per 100,000 population 35+ years
(2020)
Compared to:
CA Counties
The distribution is based on data from 49 California counties.
CA Value
(44.4)
The regional value is compared to the California state value.
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.
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
County: Placer Age-Adjusted Hospitalization Rate due to Heart Attack
28.9
Hospitalizations per 10,000 population 35+ years
(2018)
Compared to:
CA Counties
The distribution is based on data from 56 California counties.
CA Value
(25.5)
The regional value is compared to the California state value.
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.
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
County: Placer Atrial Fibrillation: Medicare Population
15.0%
(2022)
Compared to:
CA Counties
The distribution is based on data from 58 California counties.
U.S. Counties
The distribution is based on data from 3,129 U.S. counties and county equivalents.
CA Value
(13.0%)
The regional value is compared to the California state value.
US Value
(14.0%)
The regional value is compared to the national value.
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.
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
County: Placer Cholesterol Test History
87.9%
(2021)
Compared to:
CA Counties
The distribution is based on data from 58 California counties.
U.S. Counties
The distribution is based on data from 3,074 U.S. counties and county equivalents.
US Value
(86.4%)
The regional value is compared to the national value.
County: Placer Heart Failure: Medicare Population
County: Placer Heart Failure: Medicare Population
9.0%
(2022)
Compared to:
CA Counties
The distribution is based on data from 58 California counties.
U.S. Counties
The distribution is based on data from 3,129 U.S. counties and county equivalents.
CA Value
(10.0%)
The regional value is compared to the California state value.
US Value
(11.0%)
The regional value is compared to the national value.
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.
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
County: Placer High Blood Pressure Prevalence
34.5%
(2022)
Compared to:
CA Counties
The distribution is based on data from 58 California counties.
CA Value
(34.8%)
The regional value is compared to the California state value.
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
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.
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.
HP 2030 Target
(41.9%)
County: Placer High Cholesterol Prevalence: Past 5 Years
County: Placer High Cholesterol Prevalence: Past 5 Years
35.6%
(2021)
Compared to:
CA Counties
The distribution is based on data from 58 California counties.
U.S. Counties
The distribution is based on data from 3,074 U.S. counties and county equivalents.
US Value
(36.4%)
The regional value is compared to the national value.
County: Placer Hyperlipidemia: Medicare Population
County: Placer Hyperlipidemia: Medicare Population
64.0%
(2022)
Compared to:
CA Counties
The distribution is based on data from 58 California counties.
U.S. Counties
The distribution is based on data from 3,129 U.S. counties and county equivalents.
CA Value
(61.0%)
The regional value is compared to the California state value.
US Value
(65.0%)
The regional value is compared to the national value.
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.
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
County: Placer Hypertension: Medicare Population
60.0%
(2022)
Compared to:
CA Counties
The distribution is based on data from 58 California counties.
U.S. Counties
The distribution is based on data from 3,129 U.S. counties and county equivalents.
CA Value
(58.0%)
The regional value is compared to the California state value.
US Value
(65.0%)
The regional value is compared to the national value.
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.
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
County: Placer Ischemic Heart Disease: Medicare Population
17.0%
(2022)
Compared to:
CA Counties
The distribution is based on data from 58 California counties.
U.S. Counties
The distribution is based on data from 3,129 U.S. counties and county equivalents.
CA Value
(18.0%)
The regional value is compared to the California state value.
US Value
(21.0%)
The regional value is compared to the national value.
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.
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
County: Placer Stroke: Medicare Population
5.0%
(2022)
Compared to:
CA Counties
The distribution is based on data from 58 California counties.
U.S. Counties
The distribution is based on data from 3,129 U.S. counties and county equivalents.
CA Value
(5.0%)
The regional value is compared to the California state value.
US Value
(6.0%)
The regional value is compared to the national value.
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.
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 Age-Adjusted Death Rate due to Influenza and Pneumonia
County: Placer Age-Adjusted Death Rate due to Influenza and Pneumonia
6.1
Deaths per 100,000 population
(2019-2021)
Compared to:
CA Counties
The distribution is based on data from 57 California counties.
CA Value
(11.5)
The regional value is compared to the California state value.
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
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.
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
County: Placer Children in Childcare/Preschool with Required Immunizations
76.8%
(2015)
Compared to:
CA Counties
The distribution is based on data from 57 California counties.
CA Value
(90.6%)
The regional value is compared to the CA State Value.
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.
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
County: Placer COVID-19 Daily Average Case-Fatality Rate
0.0
Deaths per 100 cases
(Mar 3, 2023)
Compared to:
CA Counties
(Feb 3, 2023)
The distribution is based on data from 56 California counties.
U.S. Counties
(Mar 25, 2022)
The distribution is based on data from 2,811 U.S. counties and county equivalents.
CA Value
(1.0)
The regional value is compared to the California state value.
US Value
(1.7)
The regional value is compared to the national value.
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.
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
County: Placer COVID-19 Daily Average Incidence Rate
6.16
Cases per 100,000 population
(Mar 3, 2023)
Compared to:
CA Counties
The distribution is based on data from 58 California counties.
U.S. Counties
The distribution is based on data from 3,142 U.S. counties and county equivalents.
CA Value
(6.23)
The regional value is compared to the California state value.
US Value
(10.97)
The regional value is compared to the national value.
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.
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
County: Placer Flu Vaccinations: Medicare Population
51.0%
(2022)
Compared to:
CA Counties
The distribution is based on data from 58 California counties.
U.S. Counties
The distribution is based on data from 3,129 U.S. counties and county equivalents.
CA Value
(48.0%)
The regional value is compared to the California state value.
US Value
(50.0%)
The regional value is compared to the national value.
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.
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
County: Placer Kindergartners with Required Immunizations
92.9%
(2021-2022)
Compared to:
CA Counties
The distribution is based on data from 56 California counties.
CA Value
(92.8%)
The regional value is compared to the California state value.
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.
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
County: Placer Persons Fully Vaccinated Against COVID-19
69.9%
(May 10, 2023)
Compared to:
CA Counties
The distribution is based on data from 50 California counties.
U.S. Counties
The distribution is based on data from 3,125 U.S. counties and county equivalents.
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.
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
County: Placer Pneumonia Vaccinations: Medicare Population
8.0%
(2022)
Compared to:
CA Counties
The distribution is based on data from 58 California counties.
U.S. Counties
The distribution is based on data from 3,129 U.S. counties and county equivalents.
CA Value
(8.0%)
The regional value is compared to the California state value.
US Value
(8.0%)
The regional value is compared to the national value.
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.
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
County: Placer Tuberculosis Incidence Rate
2.2
Cases per 100,000 population
(2022)
Compared to:
CA Counties
(2019)
The distribution is based on data from 31 California counties.
CA Value
(4.7)
The regional value is compared to the California state value.
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
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.
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.
HP 2030 Target
(1.4)
County: Placer
Health / Maternal, Fetal & Infant Health
Value
Compared to:
County: Placer Any In-Hospital Breastfeeding
County: Placer Any In-Hospital Breastfeeding
96.4%
(2022)
Compared to:
CA Counties
The distribution is based on data from 58 California counties.
CA Value
(93.8%)
The regional value is compared to the California state value.
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.
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
County: Placer Babies with Low Birthweight
5.7%
(2019-2021)
Compared to:
CA Counties
The distribution is based on data from 56 California counties.
CA Value
(7.1%)
The regional value is compared to the California state value.
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
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.
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
County: Placer Babies with Very Low Birthweight
0.7%
(2018)
Compared to:
CA Counties
The distribution is based on data from 58 California counties.
CA Value
(1.1%)
The regional value is compared to the California state value.
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
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.
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
County: Placer In-Hospital Exclusive Breastfeeding
86.5%
(2022)
Compared to:
CA Counties
The distribution is based on data from 58 California counties.
CA Value
(68.5%)
The regional value is compared to the California state value.
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.
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
County: Placer Infant Mortality Rate
2.5
Deaths per 1,000 live births
(2017-2019)
Compared to:
CA Value
(3.9)
The regional value is compared to the California state value.
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
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.
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.
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
County: Placer Mothers who Breastfeed
96.4%
(2018-2020)
Compared to:
CA Counties
The distribution is based on data from 58 California counties.
CA Value
(93.8%)
The regional value is compared to the California state value.
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.
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
County: Placer Mothers who Received Early Prenatal Care
88.0%
(2019-2021)
Compared to:
CA Counties
The distribution is based on data from 58 California counties.
CA Value
(87.9%)
The regional value is compared to the California state value.
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
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.
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
County: Placer Preterm Births
7.7%
(2020-2022)
Compared to:
CA Counties
The distribution is based on data from 58 California counties.
CA Value
(9.0%)
The regional value is compared to the California state value.
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.
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.
HP 2030 Target
(9.4%)
County: Placer
Health / Mental Health & Mental Disorders
Value
Compared to:
County: Placer Adults Ever Diagnosed with Depression
County: Placer Adults Ever Diagnosed with Depression
17.8%
(2021)
Compared to:
CA Counties
The distribution is based on data from 58 California counties.
U.S. Counties
The distribution is based on data from 3,074 U.S. counties and county equivalents.
US Value
(19.5%)
The regional value is compared to the national value.
County: Placer Adults Needing and Receiving Behavioral Health Care Services
County: Placer Adults Needing and Receiving Behavioral Health Care Services
61.2%
(2021-2022)
Compared to:
CA Counties
The distribution is based on data from 58 California counties.
CA Value
(55.9%)
The regional value is compared to the California state value.
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.
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
County: Placer Adults Who Ever Thought Seriously About Committing Suicide
17.2%
(2021-2022)
Compared to:
CA Counties
The distribution is based on data from 58 California counties.
CA Value
(19.0%)
The regional value is compared to the California state value.
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.
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
County: Placer Adults with Likely Serious Psychological Distress
14.9%
(2021-2022)
Compared to:
CA Counties
The distribution is based on data from 58 California counties.
CA Value
(16.7%)
The regional value is compared to the California state value.
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.
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
County: Placer Age-Adjusted Death Rate due to Suicide
12.0
Deaths per 100,000 population
(2019-2021)
Compared to:
CA Counties
The distribution is based on data from 57 California counties.
CA Value
(10.3)
The regional value is compared to the California state value.
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
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.
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.
HP 2030 Target
(12.8)
<div>MHMD-01: Reduce the suicide rate <strong>(LEADING HEALTH INDICATOR)</strong></div>
County: Placer Depression: Medicare Population
County: Placer Depression: Medicare Population
15.0%
(2022)
Compared to:
CA Counties
The distribution is based on data from 58 California counties.
U.S. Counties
The distribution is based on data from 3,129 U.S. counties and county equivalents.
CA Value
(14.0%)
The regional value is compared to the California state value.
US Value
(16.0%)
The regional value is compared to the national value.
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.
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
County: Placer Frequent Mental Distress
12.1%
(2019)
Compared to:
CA Counties
The distribution is based on data from 58 California counties.
U.S. Counties
The distribution is based on data from 3,121 U.S. counties and county equivalents.
CA Value
(12.0%)
The regional value is compared to the California state value.
US Value
(14.0%)
The regional value is compared to the national value.
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
County: Placer Mental Health Provider Rate
377
Providers per 100,000 population
(2023)
Compared to:
CA Counties
The distribution is based on data from 58 California counties.
U.S. Counties
The distribution is based on data from 2,956 U.S. counties and county equivalents.
CA Value
(450)
The regional value is compared to the California state value.
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.
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
County: Placer Poor Mental Health: 14+ Days
13.7%
(2021)
Compared to:
CA Counties
The distribution is based on data from 58 California counties.
U.S. Counties
The distribution is based on data from 3,074 U.S. counties and county equivalents.
US Value
(14.7%)
The regional value is compared to the national value.
County: Placer
Health / Mortality Data
Value
Compared to:
County: Placer Life Expectancy
County: Placer Life Expectancy
81.8
Years
(2019-2021)
Compared to:
CA Counties
The distribution is based on data from 57 California counties.
U.S. Counties
The distribution is based on data from 3,070 U.S. counties and county equivalents.
CA Value
(79.9)
The regional value is compared to the California state value.
US Value
(77.6)
The regional value is compared to the national value.
County: Placer
Health / Nutrition & Healthy Eating
Value
Compared to:
County: Placer Adult Fast Food Consumption
County: Placer Adult Fast Food Consumption
70.8%
(2016)
Compared to:
CA Counties
The distribution is based on data from 58 California counties.
CA Value
(65.6%)
The regional value is compared to the California state value.
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.
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
County: Placer Adults who Drink Sugar-Sweetened Beverages
7.8%
(2019-2020)
Compared to:
CA Value
(13.7%)
The regional value is compared to the California state value.
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
County: Placer Child and Teen Fruit Consumption
73.2%
(2019-2020)
Compared to:
CA Counties
The distribution is based on data from 58 California counties.
CA Value
(69.8%)
The regional value is compared to the California state value.
County: Placer
Health / Older Adults
Value
Compared to:
35.2%
(2020)
Compared to:
CA Counties
The distribution is based on data from 58 California counties.
U.S. Counties
The distribution is based on data from 3,141 U.S. counties and county equivalents.
US Value
(37.9%)
The regional value is compared to the national value.
43.7%
(2020)
Compared to:
CA Counties
The distribution is based on data from 58 California counties.
U.S. Counties
The distribution is based on data from 3,141 U.S. counties and county equivalents.
US Value
(43.7%)
The regional value is compared to the national value.
County: Placer Adults 65+ with a Disability
County: Placer Adults 65+ with a Disability
30.1%
(2018-2022)
Compared to:
CA Value
(33.5%)
The regional value is compared to the California state value.
US Value
(33.3%)
The regional value is compared to the national value.
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
County: Placer Adults 65+ with a Hearing Difficulty
13.1%
(2018-2022)
Compared to:
CA Value
(12.9%)
The regional value is compared to the California state value.
US Value
(13.7%)
The regional value is compared to the national value.
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
County: Placer Adults 65+ with a Self-Care Difficulty
6.9%
(2018-2022)
Compared to:
CA Value
(9.5%)
The regional value is compared to the California state value.
US Value
(7.4%)
The regional value is compared to the national value.
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
County: Placer Adults 65+ with a Vision Difficulty
4.5%
(2018-2022)
Compared to:
CA Value
(6.1%)
The regional value is compared to the California state value.
US Value
(6.0%)
The regional value is compared to the national value.
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
County: Placer Adults 65+ with an Independent Living Difficulty
12.3%
(2018-2022)
Compared to:
CA Value
(16.4%)
The regional value is compared to the California state value.
US Value
(13.6%)
The regional value is compared to the national value.
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
County: Placer Alzheimer's Disease or Dementia: Medicare Population
5.0%
(2022)
Compared to:
CA Counties
The distribution is based on data from 58 California counties.
U.S. Counties
The distribution is based on data from 3,129 U.S. counties and county equivalents.
CA Value
(5.0%)
The regional value is compared to the California state value.
US Value
(6.0%)
The regional value is compared to the national value.
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.
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)
County: Placer Elder Index (Elderly Household Below Income Threshold)
21.4%
(2019-2020)
Compared to:
CA Counties
The distribution is based on data from 58 California counties.
CA Value
(27.7%)
The regional value is compared to the California state value.
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.
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 Adults 65+ with Total Tooth Loss
County: Placer Adults 65+ with Total Tooth Loss
6.4%
(2020)
Compared to:
CA Counties
The distribution is based on data from 58 California counties.
U.S. Counties
The distribution is based on data from 3,141 U.S. counties and county equivalents.
US Value
(13.4%)
The regional value is compared to the national value.
County: Placer Adults who Visited a Dentist
County: Placer Adults who Visited a Dentist
72.6%
(2020)
Compared to:
CA Counties
The distribution is based on data from 58 California counties.
U.S. Counties
The distribution is based on data from 3,141 U.S. counties and county equivalents.
US Value
(64.8%)
The regional value is compared to the national value.
County: Placer Children who Visited a Dentist
County: Placer Children who Visited a Dentist
84.9%
(2019-2020)
Compared to:
CA Value
(89.5%)
The regional value is compared to the California state value.
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
County: Placer Dentist Rate
105
Dentists per 100,000 population
(2022)
Compared to:
CA Counties
The distribution is based on data from 58 California counties.
U.S. Counties
The distribution is based on data from 3,054 U.S. counties and county equivalents.
CA Value
(93)
The regional value is compared to the California state value.
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.
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 Adults with Arthritis
County: Placer Adults with Arthritis
24.9%
(2021)
Compared to:
CA Counties
The distribution is based on data from 58 California counties.
U.S. Counties
The distribution is based on data from 3,074 U.S. counties and county equivalents.
US Value
(25.2%)
The regional value is compared to the national value.
County: Placer Adults with Kidney Disease
County: Placer Adults with Kidney Disease
3.0%
(2021)
Compared to:
CA Counties
The distribution is based on data from 58 California counties.
U.S. Counties
The distribution is based on data from 3,074 U.S. counties and county equivalents.
US Value
(3.1%)
The regional value is compared to the national value.
County: Placer Chronic Kidney Disease: Medicare Population
County: Placer Chronic Kidney Disease: Medicare Population
17.0%
(2022)
Compared to:
CA Counties
The distribution is based on data from 58 California counties.
U.S. Counties
The distribution is based on data from 3,129 U.S. counties and county equivalents.
CA Value
(16.0%)
The regional value is compared to the California state value.
US Value
(18.0%)
The regional value is compared to the national value.
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.
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
County: Placer Osteoporosis: Medicare Population
13.0%
(2022)
Compared to:
CA Counties
The distribution is based on data from 58 California counties.
U.S. Counties
The distribution is based on data from 3,129 U.S. counties and county equivalents.
CA Value
(13.0%)
The regional value is compared to the California state value.
US Value
(11.0%)
The regional value is compared to the national value.
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.
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
County: Placer Rheumatoid Arthritis or Osteoarthritis: Medicare Population
37.0%
(2022)
Compared to:
CA Counties
The distribution is based on data from 58 California counties.
U.S. Counties
The distribution is based on data from 3,129 U.S. counties and county equivalents.
CA Value
(32.0%)
The regional value is compared to the California state value.
US Value
(35.0%)
The regional value is compared to the national value.
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.
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 7th Grade Students who are Physically Fit
County: Placer 7th Grade Students who are Physically Fit
73.6%
(2018-2019)
Compared to:
CA Counties
The distribution is based on data from 58 California counties.
CA Value
(61.0%)
The regional value is compared to the California state value.
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.
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
County: Placer Adults 20+ who are Sedentary
13.1%
(2021)
Compared to:
CA Counties
The distribution is based on data from 58 California counties.
U.S. Counties
The distribution is based on data from 3,074 U.S. counties and county equivalents.
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.
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 Age-Adjusted Death Rate due to Firearms
County: Placer Age-Adjusted Death Rate due to Firearms
6.0
Deaths per 100,000 population
(2018-2020)
Compared to:
CA Counties
The distribution is based on data from 45 California counties.
U.S. Counties
The distribution is based on data from 1,083 U.S. counties and county equivalents.
CA Value
(7.4)
The regional value is compared to the California state value.
US Value
(12.0)
The regional value is compared to the national value.
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.
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.
HP 2030 Target
(10.7)
County: Placer Age-Adjusted Death Rate due to Unintentional Injuries
County: Placer Age-Adjusted Death Rate due to Unintentional Injuries
36.4
Deaths per 100,000 population
(2019-2021)
Compared to:
CA Counties
The distribution is based on data from 58 California counties.
CA Value
(43.4)
The regional value is compared to the California state value.
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
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.
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.
HP 2030 Target
(43.2)
County: Placer
Health / Respiratory Diseases
Value
Compared to:
County: Placer Adults with Asthma
County: Placer Adults with Asthma
21.7%
(2022)
Compared to:
CA Counties
The distribution is based on data from 58 California counties.
CA Value
(17.0%)
The regional value is compared to the California state value.
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
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.
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
County: Placer Adults with COPD
5.5%
Percent of adults
(2021)
Compared to:
CA Counties
The distribution is based on data from 58 California counties.
U.S. Counties
The distribution is based on data from 3,074 U.S. counties and county equivalents.
US Value
(6.4%)
The regional value is compared to the national value.
County: Placer Adults with Current Asthma
County: Placer Adults with Current Asthma
9.3%
(2021)
Compared to:
CA Counties
The distribution is based on data from 58 California counties.
U.S. Counties
The distribution is based on data from 3,074 U.S. counties and county equivalents.
US Value
(9.7%)
The regional value is compared to the national value.
County: Placer Asthma: Medicare Population
County: Placer Asthma: Medicare Population
7.0%
(2022)
Compared to:
CA Counties
The distribution is based on data from 58 California counties.
U.S. Counties
The distribution is based on data from 3,129 U.S. counties and county equivalents.
CA Value
(7.0%)
The regional value is compared to the California state value.
US Value
(7.0%)
The regional value is compared to the national value.
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.
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
County: Placer Children and Teens with Asthma
8.9%
(2015-2016)
Compared to:
CA Counties
The distribution is based on data from 43 California counties.
CA Value
(14.6%)
The regional value is compared to the California state value.
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.
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
County: Placer COPD: Medicare Population
8.0%
(2022)
Compared to:
CA Counties
The distribution is based on data from 58 California counties.
U.S. Counties
The distribution is based on data from 3,129 U.S. counties and county equivalents.
CA Value
(8.0%)
The regional value is compared to the California state value.
US Value
(11.0%)
The regional value is compared to the national value.
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.
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 Chlamydia Incidence Rate
County: Placer Chlamydia Incidence Rate
209.0
Cases per 100,000 population
(2021)
Compared to:
CA Counties
The distribution is based on data from 58 California counties.
CA Value
(484.7)
The regional value is compared to the California state value.
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
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.
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
County: Placer Congenital Syphilis Incidence Rate
28.7
Cases per 100,000 live births
(2020)
Compared to:
CA Counties
The distribution is based on data from 58 California counties.
CA Value
(114.9)
The regional value is compared to the California state value.
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.
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.
HP 2030 Target
(33.9)
County: Placer Death Rate Among Persons with Diagnosed HIV Infection
County: Placer Death Rate Among Persons with Diagnosed HIV Infection
2.2
Deaths per 100,000 population
(2022)
Compared to:
CA Counties
The distribution is based on data from 58 California counties.
CA Value
(5.4)
The regional value is compared to the California state value.
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.
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
County: Placer Gonorrhea Incidence Rate
71.6
Cases per 100,000 population
(2021)
Compared to:
CA Counties
The distribution is based on data from 58 California counties.
CA Value
(230.9)
The regional value is compared to the California state value.
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
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.
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
County: Placer HIV Diagnosis Rate
2.2
Cases per 100,000 population
(2022)
Compared to:
CA Counties
The distribution is based on data from 58 California counties.
CA Value
(12.2)
The regional value is compared to the California state value.
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.
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+
County: Placer HIV/AIDS Prevalence Rate: 13+
108.2
Cases per 100,000 population
(2018-2020)
Compared to:
CA Value
(414.1)
The regional value is compared to the California state value.
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.
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
County: Placer Persons Living and Diagnosed with HIV who are in Care
77.6%
(2022)
Compared to:
CA Counties
The distribution is based on data from 56 California counties.
CA Value
(73.7%)
The regional value is compared to the California state value.
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.
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
County: Placer Persons Living with HIV Rate
107.1
Cases per 100,000 population
(2022)
Compared to:
CA Value
(355.6)
The regional value is compared to the California state value.
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.
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
County: Placer Syphilis Incidence Rate
8.6
Cases per 100,000 population
(2021)
Compared to:
CA Counties
The distribution is based on data from 58 California counties.
CA Value
(22.3)
The regional value is compared to the California state value.
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
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.
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 Adults who Smoke
County: Placer Adults who Smoke
5.1%
(2021-2022)
Compared to:
CA Counties
The distribution is based on data from 58 California counties.
CA Value
(6.1%)
The regional value is compared to the California state value.
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
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.
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.
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
County: Placer Adults Who Used Electronic Cigarettes: Past 30 Days
3.2%
(2019-2020)
Compared to:
CA Value
(3.3%)
The regional value is compared to the California state value.
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.