For Better Public Health, Replace "Pro-Morbidity" Politicians
New blood in county government could lead to a health department.
On Friday, Margie Peterson reported that Northampton County's already-terrible morbidity ranking actually got worse in the past year as a result of the Republican majority's refusal to act.
Last year, the county ranked 59th out of Pennsylvania's 67 counties on morbidity; this year it ranked 60th. It ranked 27th out of the 67 counties in overall health.
Despite living longer lives, Northampton County residents spent more days feeling mentally and physically ill, and had a higher number of low birth weight babies than the rest of the state and the nation.
This reinforces what we learned from the State of the Lehigh Valley report: the LV's health infrastructure does a good job at making sick people healthy, but it fails at keeping healthy people healthy.
One of the main reasons the Valley does such a bad job at keeping healthy people healthy is that two-thirds of the region's residents do not have access to public health services.
And the reason they do not have access to public health services is politics.
The Republican majority on Northampton County Council - with an assist from nominal Democrat Lamont McClure - have decided that they do not want to know anything about the benefits of public health services.
Earlier this year the pro-morbidity faction on Council voted to kneecap the Lehigh Valley Board of Health by barring it from spending private foundation money it already has to continue studying a Bi-County Health Department.
The reasons they have offered for this are utterly unserious, as demonstrated by the fact that several of the most popular excuses are mutually exclusive.
Ron Angle in particular talks out both sides of his mouth, out the one side serving up ideological twaddle about "another level of government," out the other complaining that it will take too long to bring the services on-line in his district.
It's like the Woody Allen joke about the restaurant with terrible food, and such small portions.
It is clear that the Republican majority on Council (plus Lamont McClure) are not unconvinced, but unwilling to be convinced. Their objection is political, not substantial, and they do not have a plan to deal with this problem.
The solution to the County's morbidity problem is simple:
Reducing morbidity requires increasing access to preventive health care.
Increasing access to preventive health care requires public health infrastructure.
Creating public health infrastructure requires County politicians to vote for a Bi-County Health Department.
Creating a Bi-County Health Department requires voters to replace pro-morbidity politicians with anti-morbidity politicians on Northampton County Council.
So far we know that Ron Angle and Lamont McClure are both implacably opposed to the Health Department. Replacing Ron Angle with Scott Parsons will secure an additional vote for the Health Department, thus reducing morbidity.
Replacing nominal Democrat Lamont McClure with Republican Matt Connolly is unlikely to reduce morbidity, so voters who want better public health will have better luck lobbying Mr. McClure to reverse his strong pro-morbidity views. A primary would have been more persuasive to Mr. McClure, but unfortunately it is too late for that.
Incumbent Republican Michael Dowd has been an ally on the Bi-County Health Department, but he has a pro-morbidity Republican challenger in Bill Whitman. If Mr. Dowd should prevail in the primary, his Democratic challenger Robert Werner is also anti-morbidity, so this contest is unlikely to determine the Department's fate.
On the Lehigh County side, all Republican candidates are pro-morbidity. Voters can do their part by pressing the candidates for their views on the morbidity problem, and asking what exactly they think should be done if they oppose the Health Department.
Wayne Schissler
9:33 pm on Monday, April 4, 2011
You may want to address cost effectiveness and compare Lehigh and Northampton counties to counties that already have a health board. I know Erie county has a board that employs over 70 full time workers (Jan 14th, 2011 Erie Times-News) - go and use the compare feature on the countyhealthrankings.org site. Erie loses in most categories despite the fact that they have fewer air pollution days. I know there's a lot of other variables to consider but I think it's irresponsible to infer, as Peterson's article and the LV Renew director seem to do, that the ranking in one category is an "ironclad case" for a health board.
another point of view
10:00 am on Tuesday, April 5, 2011
Agreed. One has to examine the health rankings to understand factors and how they relate to outcomes such as morbidity. Low rankings for Primary Care Providers and Uninsured Adults contribute to a low ranking for Preventable Hospital Stays in Northampton. These low factors for Clinical Care combined with low factors for Air Pollution negatively impact outcomes such as Northampton's Morbidity. Clinical Care in Northampton County is not equal to Lehigh County. Look at hospitals. There are no not-for-profit hospitals in Northampton County. They are all in Lehigh County. And, we know physicians and other health professionals locate near hospital facilities. Add to that factor all the cement dust that blows from Lehigh County to Northampton and you can understand why we call off work more days every year. Factors such as Health Behaviors - Sexually Transmitted Infections- are lower in number in Northampton and Northampton ranks higher than Lehigh. This factor is important because Health Bureaus target STDs and the numbers are higher for Lehigh County which has a Health Bureau. Northampton County's morbidity outcomes will improve when St. Lukes expands its campus to Bethlehem Township and the Slate Belt gets better medical care. Also, when the EPA enforces its regs on the cement industry we will all breathe a lot better. Sorry, the Health Bureau argument presented is a coincidental correlation, a logical fallacy that almost qualifies as a non sequitur.
Jon Geeting
1:35 pm on Tuesday, April 5, 2011
The Erie example doesn't tell us anything unless you use its pre-Health Department conditions as a baseline for comparison.
I'm certainly willing to endorse the view that polluters in Northampton County are contributing harm to public health, but I have a feeling that many of you who oppose a Health Department would also be screaming bloody murder if the EPA or PA DEP cracked down on them. I also suspect you will continue voting for politicians who are completely uninterested in forcing these firms to internalize the external costs of air pollution.
Wayne Schissler
6:02 pm on Tuesday, April 5, 2011
Jon,
All I have to do is look out my window to see cement mill stacks, so no...I'm not the sort that loves to inhale cement dust nor am the pro-pollution guy you'd like to make me out to be.
It's terribly ironic that you would follow a post that mentions logical fallacies with a few of your own. Utilizing ad hominem as a red herring - an attack on character (pro-morbidity polluters) diverting attention from the original point brought up.
I pretty much already acknowledged your first point point when I said, "I know there's a lot of other variables to consider..." Yes, a baseline would be helpful and I'm sure there's a lot more to consider also. Remember, the other commenter and I were speaking to the point that picking out one category in a study and stating that it was an "ironclad case" for a health board (in Peterson's article) is fallacious. Which is what your whole "pro-morbidity" article is based on.
Jon Geeting
6:25 pm on Tuesday, April 5, 2011
I just think it's silly to suggest that public health institutions are generally unsuccessful based on one cherry-picked example. I think it's clear that a lack of preventive health care is one of the key contributors to Northampton County's poor rank, and that is what the Health Department would provide. All of the region's foremost health experts in the for-profit and non-profit sectors believe this. A majority of Lehigh County elected officials believe this. A (slim) majority of Northampton County elected officials believe this, but are unwilling to vote for the department based on provincial and ideological objections. It is what it is, but if you want to reduce the mortality rate, you can't send the same people back to Northampton County Council.
Jon Geeting
6:26 pm on Tuesday, April 5, 2011
* morbidity, not mortality.