FDLE-See No Evil, Hear No Evil, Hide all Evil?

Ms. Butler,

Your request for public records was forwarded to my office for response in accordance with department policy.

As far as we can discern from your request, we do not have any of the records that you have described.

Sincerely,

James D. Martin
Assistant General Counsel
Florida Department of Law Enforcement
P.O. Box 1489
Tallahassee, Florida 32302-1489
(850) 410-7679
jamesmartin
www.fdle.state.fl.us

The Supreme Court Clerk, Tom Hall, prevents 7 Judges from Hearing the Case

It happened as we expected it to; ’someone’ knew if the case was heard by the Judges the violations so great would be stopped in their tracks, or would have to be stopped in their tracks.

There was only one solution-prevent the Judges from gaining the Appeal. Mr. Tom Hall out did himself on such by throwing the case before it reached the Judges in Florida. I have uploaded the paperwork sent to me just days ago. Both came at the same time and both when the Stay had been Fed Ex’d overnight. Note until the stay appeared and was valid, did Mr. Hall Respond at all in any form.

The Ruling he quotes here, is related to criminal cases, not to a Motion. A motion is a request for action based on a Pleading. A Pleading is the actual case. Mr. Hall imposed an invalid ruling and gave no right to a rehearing. Under Supreme Court Ruling Mr. Hall is now a witness, not an employee of the State Supreme Court. The Supreme Court also ruled that clerks must answer to requests, per due process and the right to address a wrong. There were multiple letters sent to Mr. Hall requesting he explain his rather obvious mis representation of the Law. As an answer Mr. Hall chose to send another copy of the above.

America, Florida, we have a serious problem of Corruption.

It has also been exposed that the Legislative Bodies have used and are using the Dedicated File System of Florida for what appears political purposes. A FOIA was sent to Director Baily requesting a copy of the number of Legislatures who have requested “investigations” of citizens without their knowledge in Florida. That response has not been answered, but Senator Bill Nelson’s office confirmed they have used the system, as has others. How to not get investigated for mishandling of funds? The list is endless of what placing people in Florida on Dedicated Files has its advantage towards the Legislatures. It would explain why so many were determined to have it passed against the wishes of the American People.

Appeal Florida Supreme Court: Stay

sp_Lower_Tribunal_Case_4606_4319_2009_Appeal_Stay2.pdf

Supreme Court Filing PDF

Florida Ranks #44 in Health Care overall in the Nation!
Help us fight for our Right to Life and remove
Politics OUT of Health Care in Florida!

Supreme.pdf

Florida Supreme Court

The Brief was filed today. Will they hear it? It will depend on how far the political fingers have invaded our courts.

If they reject it, what then? We go higher.

The contents were bold just by their honest statements.

Women are not walking advertisements for self interest groups.

Our bodies are not up for grabs to the highest bidders.

Americans deserve better than Law Enforcement for the People becoming law monitors for the Politicians.

With ‘nothing to loose’ what others would not say, we did.

It is not that a single person challenged them, it is that none knew to challenge them.

Director of Health Says it all in PB County

“F” for FloridaBy: Paul Gionfriddo
Date: October 16, 2009
The Commonwealth Fund released a new state health care scorecard last week, updating its 2007 report. Florida finished near the bottom, 44th overall.

We were 42nd in access, 36th in prevention and treatment, 35th in avoidable hospital use and costs, 38th in gaps between more privileged and less privileged residents, and 26th in healthy lives.

Our strongest areas? We weren’t in the top ten in any of the 35 indicators, but were 11th in percent of residents with home health care needing a hospitalization, 11th in early childhood immunization rates, 13th best in deaths from colorectal and breast cancer, respectively. In three of those four areas, though, our ranking slipped in the last two years. Our biggest gain was in childhood immunization, where we jumped from 31st to 11th place – just in time for the State Legislature to start debating making immunizations optional.

We’re near the bottom in a number of areas, but at the bottom in several areas – we were 50th in percent of uninsured children, 48th in percent of uninsured adults, 47th in percent of children who received needed mental health care, and 47th in Medicare reimbursement per enrollee.

We did improve in 15 of the 35 areas measured, and worsened in only 6, so we are making progress.

The top quartile states are Hawaii and states clustered in two areas – the six New England states and six upper Midwestern states (North Dakota, South Dakota, Nebraska, Minnesota, Iowa, and Wisconsin). What these 13 states historically have in common is strong public health and health care policy leadership that works across political aisles.

Paul Gionfriddo, President’s Blog, 10/16/09

*note, what he does not say, is Florida also dropped into the bottom ten of states that take action against dangerous and public threat to safety Physicians. In short, they do not protect the Citizens. So we have the Southern States often gaining the greatest amount of Federal Tax dollars, taken by the scrupulous, pocketed by special interest groups, unchecked by the State and if we took them into court, we could by estimates save the State hundreds of millions of dollars by enforcing quality health care. Welcome to Florida!

Notice of Appeal Supreme Court

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL IN THE STATE OF FLORIDA, FOURTH DISTRICT COURT

CASE NO. 4D006-4319

CATHY E. BUTLER,
Plaintiff,
v.
FLORIDA DEPARTMENT )
OF CHILDREN AND
FAMILIES )
DISTRICT 9 )
PALM BEACH ) CASE NO. 1246780429
DISTRICT 09 )
UNIT 88624 )
DEFENDANT,
Defendant.
__________________________/

NOTICE OF APPEAL

CATHY BUTLER, Pro Se, Plaintiff in the above-captioned action, files this,
her notice of appeal, in order to appeal to the Florida Supreme Court the October
07, 2009, order that denied Cathy Butlers’ motion to a Rehearing and
Change of Venue and that denied Cathy Butlers’ motion for life saving services of medical treatment(s) being and having been Denied Cathy Butler in the State of Florida, in and of Palm Beach County, over the course of two years and additional months, by and for the Agent of the Florida Department of Children and Families under the Program(s) of the State of Florida Department of Health, overseeing the Palm Beach County Department of Health and all associated with, contracted by, financially dependant on the State of Florida AHCA, Medicaid, paid under the Institute of the Federal Medicaid tax supported agents of the United States of America, and their Overseers (CDC) utilizing Federal Tax dollars designated for the treatments of Breast Cancer, and medical emergencies under all State Recognized programs in
the possession of the State. Cathy Butler also appeals to the Florida Supreme
Court all adverse rulings made by the circuit court during the pendency of Cathy Butlers’ motion to for Change of Venue and adverse rulings made by the circuit court during the
pendency of Cathy Butlers’ motion for Rehearing under Rules of Court, Fraudulent Actions, as a result of the intentional infliction of Death of Cathy Butler by the State of Florida, its Representatives, its Political Alliances and its Courts.
.
I HEREBY CERTIFY that a true copy of the foregoing Notice of Appeal
has been furnished by mail, facsimile to the Governor of Florida, Florida Department of Children’s and Families, West Palm Beach, Florida. (faxed, email and regular) District 9, Administration, DCF, 1317 Winewood Blvd. Building 1, Room 202 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700

Sami077@Aol.com,

Motion to Stay

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL IN THE STATE OF FLORIDA, FOURTH DISTRICT COURT

CASE NO. 4D006-4319

 

CATHY E. BUTLER,
Plaintiff,
v.
FLORIDA DEPARTMENT )

OF CHILDREN AND

FAMILIES )

DISTRICT 9 )

PALM BEACH ) CASE NO. 1246780429

DISTRICT 09 )

UNIT 88624 )

DEFENDANT,
Defendant.
__________________________/

 

MOTION TO STAY PENDING APPEAL OF THE FOURTH DISTRICT COURT

CATHY BUTLER, Pro Se, Plaintiff in the above-captioned action, files this, Motion

To STAY, The Palm Beach County Health Department, whose Board is overseen by the

Florida Department of Health, The Palm Beach County Commissioners, Acting Agents of Palm Beach County, Whose funds are supported by State and Federal Tax Dollars, whose actions are directed by [Evidence uncovered] of the State of Florida, Department of Health, AHCA and Representatives, District 9, Florida Department of Children and Families, Who are in alliance with State of Florida, Government Supported and Supporting Alliances, both For Profit and Non Profit, Registered under the State of Florida Division of Corporations, Who are subject to Department of Quality Control, Agency for Health Care Administration, Whose Political Alliances with the Florida Medical Association and Political Lobbyists, to cease and desist from interference, threats, intimidations, false diagnosis, intentional misdiagnosis, refusal to treat, attempt of incarceration that prevents exposure, blacklisting, hidden compilation of fabricated files, utilizing in Violation of the US Constitution, Law Enforcement and State Agencies to block Cathy Butler from proper medical treatment(s).

In particular, Cathy Butler motions for stay in the matter of the distribution of files signed by one Carol A. Adami, Radiologist of Bethesda Hospital, association with said files, whose threats to surgeons and medical professionals in open courts, open records, depositions, and before a Judicial Court of Law with no remorse at those threats, no desire to alter those threats to citizens and Physicians, as it pertains to Cathy Butler, her patient, said files ‘coded’ for the abuse of Cathy Butler for filing the Fourth District Court Case in 2006. That all files, all connections and all requests be immediately expunged from the Medical Records of Cathy Butler for the preservation of her life and the right to File Appeal without interference by Carol A. Adami and her political alliances.

Further Cathy Butler Motions for Stay in the use of Dedicated Files under the Direction of FDLE, and distributed in the United States, such files a collection of Blacklisting of Cathy Butler for Filing Ethics Charges and retaliation in the State of Florida by Charlie Crist, directly, and indirectly, and the use of such Blacklisting has caused and is causing irrevocable and life threatening actions by those Associated with the State of Florida Politics and Government for the sole benefit of Politics and individual advancements at the cost of Cathy Butler’s Life with the sole purpose to interfere with Cathy Butler’s US Constitutional Right to Life.

Further Cathy Butler Motions for a Stay in the Clear and Rampant Attack on the Plaintiff by the State of Florida, its Representatives, its Legal Advisors and its Political Alliances to prevent the Right to Fair Hearing under the Above case of Medical Treatment and Due Process of Law, until such time as the Case is Resolved and Heard in a Higher Court to its final completion.

 

I HEREBY CERTIFY that a true copy of the foregoing Notice of Appeal
has been furnished by mail, facsimile to the Governor of Florida, Florida Department of Children’s and Families, West Palm Beach, Florida. (Faxed, email and regular) District 9, Administration, DCF, 1317 Winewood Blvd. Building 1, Room 202 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700, and All Interested and aligned Parties. Et. El.,

Helping Breast Cancer Action-Help You!!

Eli Lilly is making money by increasing our risk of breast cancer, and then treating us once we develop the disease. It’s unbelievable, unconscionable, and outrageous – and we’re calling them out.

Here’s how: We’re sending them a thank you card.

What? No, we’re not crazy! We need to get their attention and keep it, and the only way to do it is to be as outrageous as they are. So, we’re sending them as many “Thanks for the cancer” cards as we possibly can. Will you send one too? It looks like this:

All you need to do to participate is make a $10 donation to Breast Cancer Action, and we’ll send a card in your name to the pharmaceutical giant thanking them for the cancer they’re causing with rBGH. You’ll be letting Eli Lilly know not only that you’re onto them – but that, by supporting us, you’re fighting them too.

And that $10? Trust me. It goes a long way around here. Unlike most breast cancer organizations, we don’t take money from the pharmaceutical industry, so we can use all the support we can get. Thank you!

Sincerely,

P.S. Learn more about the Milking Cancer campaign!

Breast Cancer Action | 55 New Montgomery St. #323 | San Francisco, CA 94105
Toll-free at 877-2STOPBC (278-6722) | www.bcaction.org | www.thinkbeforeyoupink.org

What We in Florida Already Knew-Florida Ranked #44 in Heath Care in the Nation

(Let Us Continue to Admire such Groups as the Florida Medical Association who have Pushed Politics Instead of Medicine in Florida)

A Private Foundation Working Toward a High Performance Health System

Florida Ranks #44 in the US in HealthCare

State Scorecard

Florida
Rankings
Overall : 44
Access: 42
Prevention & Treatment: 36
Avoidable Hospital Use & Costs: 35
Equityb: 38
Healthy Lives: 26
Number of indicators for which this state ranked in the:
Top 5: 0
Top Quartile: 4
2nd Quartile: 8
3rd Quartile: 13
Bottom Quartile: 12
Bottom 5: 4
Change in Rates
Total no. of indicators with trendsc: 35
State Rate Improved =5%: 15 (43%)
State Rate Worsened =5%: 6 (17%)
Little/No change in State Rate: 14 (40%)
Estimated Impact of Improvement*
*if this state improved to the level of the best-performing state
Number of adults who would be insured: 2,048,106
Children with a medical home: 502,788
Dollars that would be saved from reducing Medicare readmissions: $145,566,318
More Estimates »

Access 2009 Scorecard 42 Revised 2007 Scorecarda 39 Change in Rated
Percent of Nonelderly Adults (Ages 18–64) Insured 2007/2008 74.1 82.2 89.5 92.8 48 2004/2005 73.8 82.4 50 0.3 0.4%
Percent of Children (Ages 0–17) Insured 2007/2008 82.0 91.4 95.3 96.8 50 2004/2005 83.8 91.5 49 -1.8 -2.1%
Percent of At-Risk Adults Who Have Visited a Doctor for a Routine Checkup in the Past Two Years 2006/2007 87.5 84.1 91.5 93.0 14 1999/2000 90.0 87.0 11 -2.5 -2.8%
Percent of Adults Without a Time in the Past Year When They Needed to See a Doctor but Could Not Because of Cost 2006/2007 84.9 87.5 92.5 93.1 38 2003/2004 85.3 87.6 38 -0.4 -0.5%
Prevention & Treatment 2009 Scorecard 36 Revised 2007 Scorecarda 43 Change in Rated
Percent of Adults Age 50 and Older Received Recommended Screening and Preventive Care 2006 40.6 42.4 50.8 52.5 33 2004 40.9 39.7 23 -0.2 -0.5%
Percent of Adult Diabetics Received Recommended Preventive Caree 2006/2007 45.5 44.8 57.1 66.9 21 2003/2004 41.4 44.4 27 4.1 9.9%
Percent of Children Ages 19–35 Months Received All Recommended Doses of Five Key Vaccines 2007 82.4 80.1 90.0 93.2 11 2005 79.3 81.6 31 3.1 3.9%
Percent of Children with Both a Medical and Dental Preventive Care Visit in the Past Yearf 2007 64.7 71.0 82.7 85.3 45 2003 54.2 59.2 38 — —
Percent of Children Who Received Needed Mental Health Care in the Past Year 2007 52.0 63.0 77.5 81.5 47 2003 54.7 61.9 43 -2.7 -4.9%
Percent of Hospitalized Patients Who Received Recommended Care for Heart Attack, Heart Failure, and Pneumonia 2007 91.1 91.6 95.2 95.6 29 2004 81.3 84.4 42 9.7 11.9%
Percent of Surgical Patients Who Received Appropriate Care to Prevent Complications 2007 84.4 85.3 91.3 92.7 31 2004 68.7 70.5 31 15.6 22.7%
Percent of Home Health Patients Who Get Better at Walking or Moving Around 2007 41.6 40.5 46.1 48.2 19 2005 37.2 36.2 23 4.4 11.8%
Percent of Adults with a Usual Source of Care 2006/2007 76.6 81.8 88.6 89.0 41 2003/2004 75.4 81.5 41 1.2 1.6%
Percent of Children with a Medical Homef 2007 56.8 60.7 67.5 69.3 37 2003 43.0 47.6 36 — —
Percent of Heart Failure Patients Given Written Instructions at Discharge 2007 75.3 75.1 86.8 91.4 25 2004 48.6 50.6 31 26.7 54.9%
Percent of Medicare Patients Whose Health Care Provider Always Listens, Explains, Shows Respect, and Spends Enough Time with Themg 2007 72.5 74.5 77.7 78.0 39 2003 65.1 68.7 48 7.4 11.4%
Percent of Medicare Patients Giving a Best Rating for Health Care Received in the Past Yearg 2007 60.2 61.1 67.6 69.3 31 2003 67.0 70.2 43 -6.8 -10.1%
Percent of High-Risk Nursing Home Residents with Pressure Sores 2007 12.9 11.5 7.7 7.5 41 2004 14.2 13.2 38 1.3 9.2%
Percent of Long-Stay Nursing Home Residents Who Were Physically Restrained 2007 7.0 4.0 1.7 1.5 43 2004 9.4 6.2 40 2.4 25.5%
Percent of Long-Stay Nursing Home Residents Who Have Moderate to Severe Pain 2007 3.9 4.2 2.1 0.9 19 2004 6.4 6.3 27 2.5 39.1%
Avoidable Hospital Use & Costs 2009 Scorecard 35 Revised 2007 Scorecarda 34 Change in Rated
Hospital Admissions for Pediatric Asthma per 100,000 Childrenh 2005 156.9 125.5 63.5 48.6 30 2003 205.5 152.6 30 48.6 23.6%
Percent of Adult Asthmatics with an Emergency Room or Urgent Care Visit in the Past Yeari 2001-2004 * 16.3 11.8 10.8 * 2001-2004 * 16.3 * — —
Medicare Hospital Admissions for Ambulatory Care Sensitive Conditions per 100,000 Beneficiaries 2006/2007 5,795 6,291 4,136 3,725 17 2003/2004 6,512 6,845 22 717 11.0%
Medicare 30-Day Hospital Readmissions as a Percent of Admissions 2006/2007 17.2 17.5 13.8 12.9 21 2003/2004 17.1 17.1 26 -0.1 -0.6%
Percent of Long-Stay Nursing Home Residents with a Hospital Admissionj 2006 22.7 18.7 9.0 6.9 38 2000 20.7 16.6 38 -2.1 -10.2%
Percent of Nursing Home Residents with Hospital Readmission Within 30 Daysj 2006 21.9 20.8 14.6 13.2 31 2000 19.8 18.2 32 -2.1 -10.6%
Percent of Home Health Patients with a Hospital Admission 2007 24.9 28.7 22.0 21.2 11 2004 21.2 26.9 5 -3.7 -17.4%
Hospital Care Intensity Index, Based on Inpatient Days and Inpatient Physician Visits Among Chronically Ill Medicare Beneficiaries in the Last Two Years of Life 2005 1.177 0.958 0.556 0.509 46 2003 1.167 0.959 43 -0.010 -0.9%
Total Single Premium per Enrolled Employee at Private Sector Establishments that Offer Health Insurance 2008 4,517 4,360 3,904 3,830 36 2004 3,807 3,706 35 -710 -18.6%
Total Medicare (Part A & Part B) Reimbursements per Enrollee 2006 9,379 7,698 6,027 5,311 47 2003 7,631 6,371 44 -1,748 -22.9%
Healthy Lives 2009 Scorecard 26 Revised 2007 Scorecarda 30 Change in Rated
Mortality Amenable to Health Care, Deaths per 100,000 2004/2005 90.7 89.9 68.2 63.9 27 2001/2002 95.6 95.6 26 4.8 5.0%
Infant Mortality, Deaths per 1,000 Live Births 2005 7.2 6.8 5.0 4.5 29 2002 7.5 7.1 32 0.3 4.0%
Breast Cancer Deaths per 100,000 Female Population 2005 22.5 23.7 19.5 17.7 13 2002 23.7 25.3 12 1.2 5.1%
Colorectal Cancer Deaths per 100,000 Population 2005 16.4 17.8 14.3 13.3 13 2002 18.2 20.0 11 1.8 9.9%
Suicide Deaths per 100,000 Population 2005 12.6 11.8 6.2 5.5 31 2003 12.9 11.7 34 0.3 2.3%
Percent of Nonelderly Adults (Ages 18–64) Limited in Any Activities Because of Physical, Mental, or Emotional Problems 2006/2007 16.7 17.0 13.5 12.0 25 2003/2004 17.5 15.7 40 0.8 4.6%
Percent of Adults Who Smoke 2006/2007 20.1 20.1 15.1 10.7 26 2003/2004 22.0 21.4 30 1.9 8.7%
Percent of Children Ages 10–17 Who are Overweight 2007 33.2 30.6 24.7 23.1 36 2003 32.4 29.9 38 -0.8 -2.5%

a Some state rates from the 2007 edition have been revised to match methodology used in the 2009 edition.
b The equity dimension was ranked based on gaps between the most vulnerable group and the U.S. national average for selected indicators. Refer to state equity profiles for information on changes in the gaps.
c Count does not include indicators for which data could not be updated or do not allow assessment of trends.
d Change in rate is expressed such that a positive value indicates performance has improved and a negative value indicates performance has worsened.
e Data available for 45 states in 2006-07; 47 states in 2003-04.
f Data for 2003 and 2007 are not comparable because of changes in survey design.
g Data available for 50 states in 2007.
h Data available for 35 states in 2005; 33 states in 2003.
i Data available for 36 states in 2001-04. Data presented here are used for both past and current ranking.
j Data available for 48 states.
* Data could not be updated for this state.
Note: Refer to Appendix B in the State Scorecard for indicator descriptions, data sources, and other notes about methodology.

The equity profile displays gaps in performance for vulnerable populations for selected indicators. An equity gap is defined as the difference between the U.S. national average for a particular indicator and the rate for the state’s most vulnerable group by income, insurance coverage, and race/ethnicity. For all equity indicators, lower rates are better; therefore, a positive or negative gap value indicates that the state’s most vulnerable group is better or worse than the U.S. average for a particular indicator.

Dimension and Indicator Year U.S. Average Vulnerable Group Rate Gap Rank Year U.S. Average Vulnerable Group Rate Rate Gap Rank Change in Gap Change in Vulnerable Group Rate
Equity 2009 Scorecard 38 Revised 2007 Scorecardb 40 Change in Gap and Vulnerable Group Ratec
Income
Percent Uninsured, Ages 0–64 by Federal Poverty Leveld 2006/2007 17.5 45.5 -28.0 46 2004/2005 17.1 42.3 -25.2 47 -2.9 -3.3
Percent of At-Risk Adults Who Have Not Visited a Doctor for a Routine Checkup in the Past Two Years by Federal Poverty Level 2006/2007 15.4 17.0 -1.6 16 1999/2000 13.1 13.9 -0.8 18 -0.8 -3.1
Percent of Adults with a Time in the Past Year When They Needed to See a Doctor but Could Not Because of Cost by Federal Poverty Level 2006/2007 13.4 29.8 -16.4 42 2003/2004 13.1 27.7 -14.6 39 -1.8 -2.1
Percent of Adults Age 50 and Older Did Not Receive Recommended Screening and Preventive Care by Federal Poverty Level 2006 57.7 69.8 -12.1 31 2004 60.3 67.9 -7.6 16 -4.5 -1.9
Percent of Adult Diabetics Did Not Receive Recommended Preventive Care by Federal Poverty Levele 2006/2007 55.7 62.1 -6.4 26 2003/2004 59.0 60.1 -1.1 19 -5.4 -2.0
Percent of Children Without Both a Medical and Dental Preventive Care Visit in the Past Year by Federal Poverty Levelf 2007 28.4 48.6 -20.2 48 2003 41.2 61.3 -20.1 49 — —
Percent of Adults Without a Usual Source of Care by Federal Poverty Level 2006/2007 20.3 36.1 -15.8 44 2003/2004 20.7 36.1 -15.4 47 -0.4 0.0
Percent of Children Without a Medical Home by Federal Poverty Levelf 2007 42.5 55.2 -12.7 17 2003 53.9 71.1 -17.2 39 — —
Percent of Adult Asthmatics with an Emergency Room or Urgent Care Visit in the Past Year by Federal Poverty Levelg 2001-2004 17.6 * * * 2001-2004 17.6 * * * — —
Insurance Coverage
Percent of At-Risk Adults Who Have Not Visited a Doctor for a Routine Checkup in the Past Two Years by Whether Insured 2006/2007 15.4 37.4 -22.0 23 1999/2000 13.1 32.8 -19.7 29 -2.3 -4.6
Percent of Adults with a Time in the Past Year When They Needed to See a Doctor but Could Not Because of Cost by Whether Insured 2006/2007 13.4 43.3 -29.9 36 2003/2004 13.1 38.6 -25.5 23 -4.4 -4.7
Percent of Adults Age 50 and Older Did Not Receive Recommended Screening and Preventive Care by Whether Insured 2006 57.7 77.6 -19.9 35 2004 60.3 68.7 -8.4 10 -11.5 -8.9
Percent of Children Ages Without Both a Medical and Dental Preventive Care Visit in the Past Year by Health Insurance Typef 2007 28.4 55.2 -26.8 37 2003 41.2 66.4 -25.2 37 — —
Percent of Adults without a Usual Source of Care by Whether Insured 2006/2007 20.3 63.2 -43.0 47 2003/2004 20.7 64.2 -43.5 48 0.5 0.9
Percent of Children Without a Medical Home by Health Insurance Typef 2007 42.5 67.0 -24.5 38 2003 53.9 75.5 -21.6 34 — —
Race/Ethnicity
Percent Uninsured, Ages 0-64 by Race/Ethnicityd 2006/2007 17.5 39.0 -21.5 30 2004/2005 17.1 37.0 -19.9 30 -1.5 -1.9
Percent of At-Risk Adults Who Have Not Visited a Doctor for a Routine Checkup in the Past Two Years by Race/Ethnicity 2006/2007 15.4 16.6 -1.2 11 1999/2000 13.1 18.7 -5.6 30 4.4 2.1
Percent of Adults with a Time in the Past Year When They Needed to See a Doctor but Could Not Because of Cost by Race/Ethnicity 2006/2007 13.4 24.1 -10.7 30 2003/2004 13.1 22.1 -9.0 29 -1.7 -2.0
Percent of Adults Age 50 and Older Did Not Receive Recommended Screening and Preventive Care by Race/Ethnicityh 2006 57.7 73.3 -15.6 37 2004 60.3 73.2 -12.9 35 -2.7 -0.1
Percent of Children Without Both a Medical and Dental Preventive Care Visit in the Past Year by Race/Ethnicityf 2007 28.4 36.6 -8.2 25 2003 41.2 54.7 -13.5 28 — —
Percent of Adults Without a Usual Source of Care by Race/Ethnicity 2006/2007 20.3 40.5 -20.2 32 2003/2004 20.7 41.8 -21.1 41 0.9 1.3
Percent of Children Without a Medical Home by Race/Ethnicityf 2007 42.5 56.1 -13.6 13 2003 53.9 68.3 -14.4 22 — —
Mortality Amenable to Health Care, Deaths per 100,000 Population by Racei 2004/2005 95.6 166.6 -71.0 17 2001/2002 105.2 175.1 -69.9 17 -1.1 8.5
Infant Mortality, Deaths per 1,000 Live Births by Race/Ethnicity 2002-2004 6.9 13.1 -6.2 21 2000-2002 6.9 13.0 -6.1 20 -0.1 -0.1

a Count does not include indicators for which data could not be updated or do not allow assessment of trends.
b Some state rates from the 2007 edition have been revised to match methodology used in the 2009 edition.
c Change in the gap or vulnerable group is expressed such that a positive sign indicates performance has improved and a negative sign indicates performance has worsened.
d Data by income available for 50 states. Data by race/ethnicity available for 43 states.
e Data by income available for 45 states in 2006–07; 47 states in 2003–04.
f Data for 2003 and 2007 are not comparable because of changes in survey design.
g Data by income available for 36 states in 2001–04. Data presented here are used for both past and current ranking.
h Data by race/ethnicity available for 48 states in 2006; 47 states in 2004.
i Data by race/ethnicity available for 44 states in 2004–05; 43 states for 2001–02.
j Vulnerable group by insurance is always the uninsured group for all indicators.
* Data could not be updated for this state.
Note: An equity gap is defined as the difference between the U.S. national average for a particular indicator and the rate for the state’s most vulnerable group by income, insurance coverage, and race/ethnicity. For all equity indicators, lower rates are better; therefore, a positive or negative gap value indicates that the state’s most vulnerable group is better or worse than the U.S. average for a particular indicator. State Scorecard Data Tables display current data by all subgroups. Refer to Appendix B in the State Scorecard for indicator descriptions, data sources, and other notes about methodology.
Entire Site Publications Grants Newsletters Authors & Bios Charts Performance Snapshots

The Commonwealth Fund 1 East 75th Street, New York, NY 10021 Phone: 212.606.3800 Fax: 212.606.3500 E-mail: info@cmwf.org