Tulsa World: Dead last

MAKE US YOUR HOMEPAGE | Tuesday, February 09, 2010 | WIRELESS

Home > Opinion > Article

Newspaper View Print this story

Comment

RSS

Bookmark

Dead last
Is Tulsa really that bad for women's health?

Runners begin the Komen Race for the Cure in Tulsa. MICHAEL WYKE / Tulsa World file

By JANET PEARSON Associate Editor
Published: 11/29/2009 2:23 AM
Last Modified: 11/29/2009 9:10 AM

Sometimes it's hard to be a woman. Especially if you live in Tulsa.

Lots of us probably didn't know that, but the editors at SELF magazine have news for us. They analyzed 100 U.S. metropolitan areas and determined that Tulsa ranks dead last — 100th place out of 100 — in terms of the healthiest places for women to live.

Adding insult to injury was the magazine's 98th-place ranking for Oklahoma City.

After initially being upset and even a little offended, I decided to look into the magazine's findings to determine if there could be anything to them. After all, how authoritative could a publication that calls itself SELF be?

Well, it's not the New England Journal of Medicine, as one women's advocate observed, but then again, the magazine's research appears to be pretty solid.

As the authors noted in the introduction to the piece in the November edition, "The healthiest places for women," the staff analyzed "7,700 bits of data in nearly 50 categories, including death and disease rates, environmental indicators, community resources and lifestyle habits."

Sperling's BestPlaces in Portland, Ore., assisted in gathering the information and analyzing it, and "an expert panel decided how much weight to give each criterion." When possible, the researchers used women-specific data weighted for age and population size.

So how specifically did Tulsa fare? Not as well as last year, when we came in at No. 94.

The good news, if you can call it that, was that Tulsa women have below-average drinking rates and shorter-than-average driving commutes of about 48 minutes a day. (That's short?!) The area also scored well for good air and water quality.

Now for the bad news for Tulsa women:

"Very poor scores for eating habits, including low fruit and vegetable consumption and many fast food restaurants per capita;

"Safety concerns: Compared to the average, women are more likely to be a victim of rape, other violent crime and fatal car accidents, and

"Above-average risk for death from cancer, and women are among the least likely to get regular Pap smears, mammograms, breast exams, colonoscopies, physicals and dental checkups."

And which communities were deemed the healthiest for women? Burlington, Vt.; Bethesda, Md.; Portland, Maine; Cambridge, Mass.; San Francisco; Honolulu; Stamford, Conn.; Madison, Wisc.; Santa Barbara, Calif., and Fargo, N.D.

Fargo? We couldn't do better than Fargo?

The cities that scored well had some differences among them, but in general, high exercise rates; good nutrition practices; low rates of tobacco use; low violent crime rates; low accident rates, and ample access to medical providers made these spots more salutary. (And fellows, before you get too smug, your health habits are just as bad, but just in different ways.)

Some of the top-scoring cities could boast of extraordinary feats. In Madison, more than 85 percent of the women participated in regular exercise outside of work, which has resulted in cancer and heart disease mortality rates 15 percent lower than average. High consumption of seafood makes Honolulu healthier. Women in San Francisco, believe it or not, report they sleep well all but six days a month. Cambridge and Burlington for some reason have much higher numbers of ob/gyns than most cities.

So how come Tulsa fares so poorly compared with cities that, at least superficially, don't seem all that different? In fact, there are some huge differences.

It's not that there aren't excellent facilities and providers in Tulsa. In addition to the major, acute-care hospitals, there are dozens of large and small clinics across the region. The University of Oklahoma School of Community Medicine operates about 20 clinics in the area, and other public and private entities operate many more.

But until recently, the clinics were not always in the areas of the greatest need. Local health leaders have recognized this problem and now efforts are under way to bring more services to the north, west and east sections of the community, where poverty, poor access to health care and chronic diseases are more prevalent than in other parts of town.

Another problem plaguing the Tulsa area, which will come as no surprise, is the level of the uninsured population. As many as 150,000 in the Tulsa region do not have health care coverage, a number that continues to expand. An estimated 60,000 Tulsa-area women who don't have insurance are at risk for not receiving needed mammograms.

What's more, Oklahoma has some of the most expensive health insurance premiums in the country.

Oklahoma also missed out on several types of federal health-care funding in past decades. State and federal leaders are attempting to address that inequity, but the state has a long, long way to go to catch up.

Some Oklahoma health leaders have suggested, and there's ample evidence to support their observation, that Oklahomans just don't embrace a culture of prevention and wellness. How else to explain higher-than-average rates of tobacco use, obesity, sedentariness, and poor eating habits?

In many ways, we haven't come very far at all.

Janet Pearson 581-8328
janet.pearson@tulsaworld.com By JANET PEARSON Associate Editor

Newspaper View Print this story

Comment

RSS

Bookmark

Reader Comments

Show: Most Recent Comment First

Add your comment

13 comments have been made on this story so far. Tell us what you think below!

Reporting Comments

If you see a comment that violates our terms and conditions, please help us by clicking the "Report this Comment" link next to a comment. That will alert the web staff to review the comment. Thank you. -- Web Editor Jason Collington

	Report Comment Four Sixteen Rigby, Tulsa (11/29/2009 7:12:39 AM) Eating too much, eating the wrong foods, smoking too much (most of the people I see huddled outside office buildings on smoke breaks are women), not exercising, not wearing seat belts, etc. Sounds mostly self-inflicted to me.
	Report Comment OUJeepster, (11/29/2009 7:35:19 AM) Rigby -- Exactly what I was thinking. SELF magazine probably observed the heifers at Golden Corral, CiCi's Pizza, et al, to come to their conclusions.
	Report Comment WhoseLeft, Tulsa (11/29/2009 8:46:26 AM) :::What's more, Oklahoma has some of the most expensive health insurance premiums in the country. Oklahoma also missed out on several types of federal health-care funding in past decades. State and federal leaders are attempting to address that inequity, but the state has a long, long way to go to catch up. :::::: I am not surprised that OK missed out on federal health care funding. With our Members of Congress all caught up in the CStreet Cabal, the Christian Mafia, Dr. No and Sen Jim have made sure we don't get the help we need, the help that other states are getting.
	Report Comment Four Sixteen Rigby, Tulsa (11/29/2009 9:42:18 AM) WhoseLeft: The "help other states are getting"? Say what? How about this for some help: Attention Oklahoma women. Lay off the all you can eat buffets, stop smoking, eat a salad or some baked fish once in a while, and take a long walk in the evenings instead of watching Dancing with the Stars. Oh yeah, and fasten you seat belt when you are driving. Good advice for Oklahoma men, too.
	Report Comment WhoseLeft, Tulsa (11/29/2009 11:56:00 AM) 4 16 Rigby, If you read the article, you would see that I quoted from it. That statement is not from out of the blue.
	Report Comment fredsdad, Tulsa, OK (11/29/2009 12:33:09 PM) Let's hold off until spring. Everybody needs a fat girl in the winter to keep warm.
	Report Comment moogle, Tulsa (11/29/2009 1:24:21 PM) It would be interesting to see some numbers comparing the "best" cities to income level. I suspect we would find that the way to look good in surveys like this is to get rid of your low and no income population. The TW seems to be fond of asking why we can't be rich, healthy, and glamorous like other places. Well, the people who have good incomes in Tulsa probably do have healthier, more glamorous lifestyles. If looking good on health and glamour surveys is a big concern, then the TW should stop supporting the trashing of Tulsa with apartment complexes and subsidized housing that attract the low end population. If you insist on bringing in a low end population, then you should expect low end statistics.
	Report Comment Four Sixteen Rigby, Tulsa (11/29/2009 1:57:10 PM) WL: Just because it is in a Tulsa World editorial doesn't make it right.
	Report Comment Four Sixteen Rigby, Tulsa (11/29/2009 1:58:22 PM) moogle: Yeah, all the healthy, rich, and glamorous people in Oklahoma live in, like, Jenks. And Edmond. And Norman.
	Report Comment J C OK, Tulsa County (11/29/2009 2:36:34 PM) WHO CARES? We will take care of ourselves. Thanks any way.
	Report Comment moogle, Tulsa (11/29/2009 3:04:29 PM) According to the article, Portland is among the best. I did a little search and found that Oregon pays in more in tax to the federal gov than it receives. Oklahoma gets more money from the federal gov than it pays. Some people say that like it's a good thing. It isn't. The primary reason for the difference is socio-economic.
	Report Comment RAJOKC, (11/30/2009 4:47:16 PM) "According to the article, Portland is among the best. I did a little search and found that Oregon pays in more in tax to the federal gov than it receives. Oklahoma gets more money from the federal gov than it pays. Some people say that like it's a good thing. It isn't. The primary reason for the difference is socio-economic" New York, New Jersey, Massachusetts and California rank at the top in states who receive less Federal money back than they pay in taxes. Oklahoma, Mississippi, Alabama, South Carolina, Arkansas are among the top states who receive more federal funds than they pay in federal taxes. Ironically,it is the rich 'socialist' blue states that are making welfare payments to 'free market' red states. Without the welfare subsidy states like Oklahoma would be entering third world status.
	Report Comment The Patriot, (12/3/2009 3:09:29 PM) We arent already in third world status? Woohoo!

Add Your Comment
In order to post a comment on this article, you must sign in to Tulsaworld.com. If you do not have a site account, you can create an account for free.

Post Your Comment

Mike Strain OU's Bradford moves up on Kiper's big board	Dave Sittler Football recruiting's endless, but offering a 7th-grader?
John Klein Recruiting Super Quarterbacks	The Picker The Big Score
Jimmie Tramel 'Parish' the thought: An all-happy Super Bowl