Cholesterol screening and Medicare Advantage share
Counting counties equally, Cholesterol screening and Medicare Advantage share have a link of +0.14 across 2,919 counties, on a scale from −1 to +1. Giving bigger places more weight asks about the average resident rather than the average place, and it flips the link to -0.19. Neither figure is likely to be chance. So this is a real disagreement about who is being described.
Flips when bigger places count more
Every place, plotted
One dot for each place reporting both measures. Hover over or tap a dot to see its name and values. The thin line is the straight line that best fits the dots. The bold line, shown for counties, is the link after adjusting for density, income and education. A dot far from the lines is a place that does not follow the pattern.
Loading every place…
What each measure is
Cholesterol screening
The estimated percentage of adults who have been screened for cholesterol. It is adjusted so places with older or younger populations can be compared fairly. It is an estimate from a statistical model, not a direct count from a local survey.
CDC PLACES · PLACES CHOLSCREEN, age-adjusted
Medicare Advantage share
The percentage of people with full Medicare coverage who chose a Medicare Advantage plan. These are private insurance plans that take the place of traditional Medicare. About half of all people on Medicare now have one. Before 2014 it counts anyone in a plan at any time in the year; from 2014, anyone in a plan all year.
CMS Medicare Geographic Variation Public Use File · CMS Medicare Geographic Variation PUF, national/state/county, all ages, MA_PRTCPTN_RATE (EVER_MA_PRTCPTN_RATE in the 2007-2013 file)
Highest and lowest
Where each measure is highest and lowest among the places reporting both (2023), with the other measure beside it. This is shown for every size of place where both are published. Metro-area values are added up from their counties. A measure that cannot be added up across counties, such as a middle value (median), has no metro figure. Counts are shown per 1,000 residents, since raw totals would only list the largest places. Cities and towns and ZIP codes are shown where the Census survey or the CDC publishes them; most other sources stop at the county. They are shown for places of 5,000 residents or more, and only where the survey’s margin of error is small enough for the figure to be usable. The CDC publishes its health estimates for cities in a version adjusted for age, so places with older or younger people can be compared fairly, but not for ZIP codes.
Counties
By cholesterol screening
| Cholesterol screening | Medicare Advantage share | |
|---|---|---|
| Highest | ||
| Howard County, MD | 90.4% | 21.1 |
| District of Columbia, DC | 90.2% | 36.5 |
| Middlesex County, MA | 90% | 37 |
| Nantucket County, MA | 90% | 5.81 |
| Norfolk County, MA | 90% | 33.9 |
| Lowest | ||
| Kusilvak Census Area, AK | 70.4% | 0 |
| Oglala Lakota County, SD | 74.6% | 4.76 |
| Sioux County, ND | 74.8% | 25.9 |
| Todd County, SD | 75.2% | 7.83 |
| Butte County, ID | 75.3% | 3.9 |
By Medicare Advantage share
| Cholesterol screening | Medicare Advantage share | |
|---|---|---|
| Highest | ||
| Monroe County, NY | 87.9% | 81.3 |
| Miami-Dade County, FL | 84.4% | 79.7 |
| Starr County, TX | 78.7% | 79.5 |
| St. John the Baptist Parish, LA | 86.2% | 79.3 |
| Ottawa County, MI | 86.6% | 78.6 |
| Lowest | ||
| Yakutat City and Borough, AK | 76.4% | 0 |
| Lake and Peninsula Borough, AK | 75.7% | 0 |
| Kusilvak Census Area, AK | 70.4% | 0 |
| Juneau City and Borough, AK | 80.4% | 1.07 |
| Sitka City and Borough, AK | 79.9% | 1.09 |
States — Cholesterol screening is not published for states
By Medicare Advantage share
| Cholesterol screening | Medicare Advantage share | |
|---|---|---|
| Highest | ||
| Puerto Rico | — | 95.7 |
| Rhode Island | — | 63.9 |
| Michigan | — | 62.6 |
| Minnesota | — | 62.1 |
| Alabama | — | 61.7 |
| Lowest | ||
| Alaska | — | 2.62 |
| Wyoming | — | 13.7 |
| Maryland | — | 24.5 |
| Montana | — | 29.3 |
| Delaware | — | 31.7 |
Metro areas
By cholesterol screening
| Cholesterol screening | Medicare Advantage share | |
|---|---|---|
| Highest | ||
| Nantucket, MA | 90% | 5.81 |
| Barnstable Town, MA | 89.2% | 24.5 |
| Boston-Cambridge-Newton, MA-NH | 89% | 36.2 |
| Amherst Town-Northampton, MA | 88.8% | 32.1 |
| Vineyard Haven, MA | 88.7% | 7.1 |
| Lowest | ||
| Gallup, NM | 75.8% | 42.9 |
| Vernal, UT | 77.3% | 38.8 |
| Othello, WA | 77.5% | 30.1 |
| Hilo-Kailua, HI | 77.6% | 53.1 |
| Deming, NM | 77.6% | 61.6 |
By Medicare Advantage share
| Cholesterol screening | Medicare Advantage share | |
|---|---|---|
| Highest | ||
| Rio Grande City-Roma, TX | 78.7% | 79.5 |
| Rochester, NY | 87.7% | 79.4 |
| McAllen-Edinburg-Mission, TX | 81% | 77.9 |
| El Paso, TX | 83.8% | 76.9 |
| Raymondville, TX | 78.9% | 76.3 |
| Lowest | ||
| Juneau, AK | 80.4% | 1.07 |
| Ketchikan, AK | 79% | 1.66 |
| Fairbanks-College, AK | 79.9% | 1.95 |
| Anchorage, AK | 80.1% | 2.9 |
| Crescent City, CA | 82.3% | 4.48 |
Cities and towns — Medicare Advantage share is not published for cities and towns
By cholesterol screening
| Cholesterol screening | Medicare Advantage share | |
|---|---|---|
| Highest | ||
| Fulton CDP, MD | 91.9% | — |
| Lexington CDP, MA | 91.8% | — |
| Brock Hall CDP, MD | 91.6% | — |
| Fairwood CDP, MD | 91.6% | — |
| Lake Arbor CDP, MD | 91.6% | — |
| Lowest | ||
| Binghamton University CDP, NY | 68% | — |
| Clemson University CDP, SC | 74.8% | — |
| Anthony city, NM | 75.2% | — |
| Jerome city, ID | 75.2% | — |
| Makaha CDP, HI | 75.2% | — |
Counties furthest from the pattern
Compared with the straight line that best fits all 2,939 counties: the five with far more Medicare Advantage share than their cholesterol screening would suggest, and the five with far less.
| Cholesterol screening | Medicare Advantage share | |
|---|---|---|
| Above the line | ||
| Starr County, TX | 78.7% | 79.5 |
| Willacy County, TX | 78.9% | 76.3 |
| Hidalgo County, TX | 81% | 77.9 |
| Zavala County, TX | 78.5% | 70.7 |
| Bullock County, AL | 80.2% | 73.9 |
| Below the line | ||
| Nantucket County, MA | 90% | 5.81 |
| Dukes County, MA | 88.7% | 7.1 |
| St. Mary's County, MD | 87.8% | 10.5 |
| Calvert County, MD | 88.4% | 12 |
| Talbot County, MD | 87.9% | 13.5 |
Two series, one county
Both measures over time for a county you pick. The two charts are stacked, so they share only the years along the bottom. You can pick from the thirty largest counties reporting both. This panel covers 2010–2024, and a measure published only once shows as a single dot.
Loading…
Every version of the link
Each row measures the same link, from −1 to +1, in a different way. If the rows mostly agree, the link does not depend on one choice of method.
| Before adjusting for anything | +0.287 | 2,919 counties reporting both |
| After adjusting for density, income and education | +0.138 | the part of the link that is not just how urban, rich and educated a place is |
| Also adjusting for population size | +0.171 | size taken out as well as density |
| Also comparing only within each state | +0.041 | each county is compared only with others in its own state, so this is no longer a comparison between states |
| Giving bigger counties more weight | -0.188 | the adjusted link for the average resident rather than the average county. With this weighting, the data counts for about 263 equally weighted counties |
| Middle value inside single states | +0.105 | the link worked out inside each of 37 states with at least 20 counties reporting |
| Using ranks, after adjusting | +0.118 | uses each county’s rank, not its value, so a few extreme counties cannot create the link |
How much to believe it
Could it be chance?
The p-value is the chance of seeing a link this strong if there were really none. A value of 0.05 or less means the link is unlikely to be chance. Very small values are written in short form: 3.1e-16 means 0.00000000000000031, and the bigger the number after “e-”, the smaller the value. Treating every county as a separate case gives p = 6.6e-14. But counties in the same state tend to resemble each other, so the better figure allows for that: p = 0.049. The site tested 29,403 pairs, and testing so many turns up some flukes. The q-value allows for that too. For this pair it is 1.9e-13.
Do nearby places look alike?
Moran’s I measures how much nearby places look alike: 0 means no map pattern, and higher means neighbours are more similar. For the part of each county that the adjustment leaves unexplained, it is +0.63 (p = 0.001). That unexplained part still clusters on the map. So some regional factor shared by both measures is not accounted for.
Did they change together?
The figures above compare counties at one moment. This asks a different question: where cholesterol screening rose most, did Medicare Advantage sharemove too? Each county’s change is compared with the average change in its own state. That takes out ups and downs that hit a whole region at once. Each change is the gap between two estimates that both contain some error. That error pulls these links towards zero, so a weak one is weak partly for that reason. The q column shows whether a link could be a fluke, allowing for the many pairs tested: 0.05 or less means it is unlikely to be chance.
| Period | Counties | Change together | Within states | q |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2014–2019 the main test: each Census survey figure averages five years, and these two do not overlap; before the pandemic | — | — | — | — |
| 2019–2023 a repeat check: its two five-year survey figures both include 2019, and it covers the COVID years | 2,862 | -0.20 | -0.26 | 3.7e-6 |
Not measurable over the main period, so only the second period is shown. How change is measured.
Related pairs
- Cholesterol screening and House price index (2000 = 100) — -0.31
- Cholesterol screening and Suicide rate — -0.30
- Cholesterol screening and Local income tax as a share of income — +0.30
- Cholesterol screening and Firearm suicide rate — -0.15
- Vacancy rate and Medicare Advantage share — +0.13
- Cholesterol screening and Flu vaccination among Medicare enrollees — +0.08
- Cholesterol screening and Returns claiming charitable contributions — +0.05
Association only. Nothing here shows that either measure changes the other. This describes counties, not the people in them. Two measures going together across places does not mean the same people have both. How the US county data works · Explore Cholesterol screening and Medicare Advantage share