Skip to main content
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

an indicator guage with the arrow in the green the value is in the best half of communities.

an indicator guage with the arrow in the yellow the value is in the 2nd worst quarter of communities.

an indicator guage with the arrow in the red the value is in the worst quarter of communities.

Compared to Target

green circle with white tick inside it meets target; red circle with white cross inside it does not meet target.

Compared to a Single Value

green diamond with downward arrow inside it lower than the comparison value; red diamond with downward arrow inside it higher than the comparison value; blue diamond with downward arrow inside it not statistically different from comparison value.

Trend

green square outline with upward trending arrow inside it green square outline with downward trending arrow inside it non-significant change over time; green square with upward trending arrow inside it green square with downward trending arrow inside it significant change over time; blue square with equals sign no change over time.

Compared to Prior Value

green triangle with upward trending arrow inside it higher than the previous measurement period; green triangle with downward trending arrow inside it lower than the previous measurement period; blue equals sign no statistically different change  from previous measurement period.

More information about the gauges and icons

County: Kings

Health / Alcohol & Drug Use

Value
Compared to:

County: Kings

Health / Alcohol & Drug Use

Value
Compared to:

County: Kings Adults who Binge Drink

Current Value:

County: Kings Adults who Binge Drink

19.7%
(2022)
Compared to:
Compared to CA Counties, Kings has a value of 19.7% which is in the worst 25% of counties. Counties in the best 50% have a value lower than 18.1% while counties in the worst 25% have a value higher than 19.1%.
CA Counties
The distribution is based on data from 58 California counties.
Compared to U.S. Counties, Kings has a value of 19.7% which is in the worst 25% of counties. Counties in the best 50% have a value lower than 16.6% while counties in the worst 25% have a value higher than 18.3%.
U.S. Counties
The distribution is based on data from 3,133 U.S. counties and county equivalents.
Compared to the US Value (16.6%), Kings has a value of 19.7% which is higher and worse.
US Value
(16.6%)
The regional value is compared to the national value.

County: Kings Adults who Drink Excessively

Current Value:
18.2%
(2021)
Compared to:
Compared to CA Counties, Kings has a value of 18.2% which is in the worst 25% of counties. Counties in the best 50% have a value lower than 17.2% while counties in the worst 25% have a value higher than 17.9%.
CA Counties
The distribution is based on data from 58 California counties.
Compared to U.S. Counties, Kings has a value of 18.2% which is in the 2nd worst quartile of counties. Counties in the best 50% have a value lower than 16.9% while counties in the worst 25% have a value higher than 18.5%.
U.S. Counties
The distribution is based on data from 3,141 U.S. counties and county equivalents.
Compared to the CA Value (17.2%), Kings has a value of 18.2% which is higher and worse.
CA Value
(17.2%)
The regional value is compared to the California state value.
Compared to the US Value (18.1%), Kings has a value of 18.2% which is higher and worse.
US Value
(18.1%)
The regional value is compared to the national value.
Compared to the prior value, Kings (18.2%) is not statistically different from the previously measured value (19.6%).
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.
Over time, the Kings value is decreasing, not significantly.
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: Kings Age-Adjusted Annual Opioid Prescription Rate

Current Value:
407.8
Prescriptions per 1,000 residents
(2022)
Compared to:
Compared to CA Counties, Kings has a value of 407.8 which is in the 2nd worst quartile of counties. Counties in the best 50% have a value lower than 371.0 while counties in the worst 25% have a value higher than 437.5.
CA Counties
The distribution is based on data from 58 California counties.
Compared to the CA Value (291.0), Kings has a value of 407.8 which is higher and worse.
CA Value
(291.0)
The regional value is compared to the California state value.
Compared to the prior value, Kings (407.8) is less and better than the previously measured value (425.4).
Prior Value
(425.4)
Prior Value compares a measured value with the previously measured value. Confidence intervals were taken into account in determining the direction of the comparison.
Over time, the Kings value is decreasing, significantly.
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: Kings Age-Adjusted Buprenorphine Prescription Rate

Current Value:
23.0
Prescriptions per 1,000 residents
(2022)
Compared to:
Compared to the CA Value (19.8), Kings has a value of 23.0.
CA Value
(19.8)
The regional value is compared to the California state value.
Compared to the prior value, Kings (23.0) is greater  than the previously measured value (17.7).
Prior Value
(17.7)
Prior Value compares a measured value with the previously measured value. Confidence intervals were taken into account in determining the direction of the comparison.
Over time, the Kings value is increasing significantly.
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: Kings Age-Adjusted Death Rate due to All Opioid Overdose

11.3
Rate per 100,000 residents
(2022)
Compared to:
Compared to CA Counties, Kings has a value of 11.3 which is in the best 50% of counties. Counties in the best 50% have a value lower than 17.7 while counties in the worst 25% have a value higher than 25.4.
CA Counties
The distribution is based on data from 58 California counties.
Compared to the CA Value (18.7), Kings has a value of 11.3 which is lower and better.
CA Value
(18.7)
The regional value is compared to the California state value.
Compared to the prior value, Kings (11.3) is greater and worse than the previously measured value (10.0).
Prior Value
(10.0)
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.
Over time, the Kings value is increasing, not significantly.
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: Kings Age-Adjusted Death Rate due to Fentanyl Overdose

9.3
(2022)
Compared to:
Compared to CA Counties, Kings has a value of 9.3 which is in the best 50% of counties. Counties in the best 50% have a value lower than 14.8 while counties in the worst 25% have a value higher than 22.3.
CA Counties
The distribution is based on data from 58 California counties.
Compared to the CA Value (16.6), Kings has a value of 9.3 which is lower and better.
CA Value
(16.6)
The regional value is compared to the California state value.
Compared to the prior value, Kings (9.3) is greater and worse than the previously measured value (6.0).
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.
Over time, the Kings value is increasing significantly.
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: Kings Age-Adjusted Death Rate due to Heroin Overdose

Current Value:
0.0*
Deaths per 100,000 population
(2022)
Compared to:
Compared to CA Counties, Kings has a value of 0.0 which is in the best 50% of counties. Counties in the best 50% have a value lower than 1.1 while counties in the worst 25% have a value higher than 2.6.
CA Counties
(2018)
The distribution is based on data from 58 California counties.
Compared to the CA Value (1.2), Kings has a value of 0.0 which is lower and better.
CA Value
(1.2)
The regional value is compared to the California state value.
Compared to the prior value, Kings (0.0) is not statistically different from the previously measured value (0.0).
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.
Over time, the Kings value is decreasing, not significantly.
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.
Compared to the HP 2030 Target (4.2), the target has  been met.
HP 2030 Target
(4.2)

County: Kings Age-Adjusted Death Rate due to Prescription Opioid Overdose

11.3
Rate per 100,000 residents
(2022)
Compared to:
Compared to CA Counties, Kings has a value of 11.3 which is in the best 50% of counties. Counties in the best 50% have a value lower than 16.6 while counties in the worst 25% have a value higher than 24.9.
CA Counties
The distribution is based on data from 58 California counties.
Compared to the CA Value (18.1), Kings has a value of 11.3 which is lower and better.
CA Value
(18.1)
The regional value is compared to the California state value.
Compared to the prior value, Kings (11.3) is greater and worse than the previously measured value (9.4).
Prior Value
(9.4)
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.
Over time, the Kings value is increasing, not significantly.
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: Kings Age-Adjusted Death Rate due to Synthetic Opioid Overdose (excluding Methadone)

9.8
Rate per 100,000 residents
(2022)
Compared to:
Compared to CA Counties, Kings has a value of 9.8 which is in the best 50% of counties. Counties in the best 50% have a value lower than 14.8 while counties in the worst 25% have a value higher than 22.3.
CA Counties
The distribution is based on data from 58 California counties.
Compared to the CA Value (16.7), Kings has a value of 9.8 which is lower and better.
CA Value
(16.7)
The regional value is compared to the California state value.
Compared to the prior value, Kings (9.8) is greater and worse than the previously measured value (6.6).
Prior Value
(6.6)
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.
Over time, the Kings value is increasing significantly.
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.
Compared to the HP 2030 Target (8.9), the target has not been met.
HP 2030 Target
(8.9)
<div>IVP-22: Reduce overdose deaths involving synthetic opioids other than methadone</div>

County: Kings Age-Adjusted Drug and Opioid-Involved Overdose Death Rate

15.3
Deaths per 100,000 population
(2018-2020)
Compared to:
Compared to CA Counties, Kings has a value of 15.3 which is in the best 50% of counties. Counties in the best 50% have a value lower than 17.8 while counties in the worst 25% have a value higher than 22.0.
CA Counties
The distribution is based on data from 48 California counties.
Compared to U.S. Counties, Kings has a value of 15.3 which is in the best 50% of counties. Counties in the best 50% have a value lower than 25.3 while counties in the worst 25% have a value higher than 35.8.
U.S. Counties
The distribution is based on data from 1,303 U.S. counties and county equivalents.
Compared to the CA Value (16.5), Kings has a value of 15.3 which is lower and better.
CA Value
(16.5)
The regional value is compared to the California state value.
Compared to the US Value (23.5), Kings has a value of 15.3 which is lower and better.
US Value
(23.5)
The regional value is compared to the national value.
Compared to the prior value, Kings (15.3) is not statistically different from the previously measured value (15.2).
Prior Value
(15.2)
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: Kings Age-Adjusted ED Visit Rate due to All Drug Overdose

157.5
Rate per 100,000 residents
(2022)
Compared to:
Compared to CA Counties, Kings has a value of 157.5 which is in the 2nd worst quartile of counties. Counties in the best 50% have a value lower than 141.5 while counties in the worst 25% have a value higher than 183.3.
CA Counties
The distribution is based on data from 58 California counties.
Compared to the CA Value (143.7), Kings has a value of 157.5 which is higher and worse.
CA Value
(143.7)
The regional value is compared to the California state value.
Compared to the prior value, Kings (157.5) is greater and worse than the previously measured value (152.6).
Prior Value
(152.6)
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.
Over time, the Kings value is staying the same.
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: Kings Age-Adjusted ED Visit Rate due to Heroin Overdose

13.9
Rate per 100,000 residents
(2022)
Compared to:
Compared to CA Counties, Kings has a value of 13.9 which is in the worst 25% of counties. Counties in the best 50% have a value lower than 3.1 while counties in the worst 25% have a value higher than 5.9.
CA Counties
The distribution is based on data from 58 California counties.
Compared to the CA Value (3.6), Kings has a value of 13.9 which is higher and worse.
CA Value
(3.6)
The regional value is compared to the California state value.
Compared to the prior value, Kings (13.9) is greater and worse than the previously measured value (6.8).
Prior Value
(6.8)
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.
Over time, the Kings value is increasing, not significantly.
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: Kings Age-Adjusted ED Visit Rate due to Opioid Overdose (excluding Heroin)

51.5
Rate per 100,000 residents
(2022)
Compared to:
Compared to CA Counties, Kings has a value of 51.5 which is in the 2nd worst quartile of counties. Counties in the best 50% have a value lower than 48.2 while counties in the worst 25% have a value higher than 70.0.
CA Counties
The distribution is based on data from 58 California counties.
Compared to the CA Value (54.9), Kings has a value of 51.5 which is lower and better.
CA Value
(54.9)
The regional value is compared to the California state value.
Compared to the prior value, Kings (51.5) is greater and worse than the previously measured value (9.0).
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.
Over time, the Kings value is increasing, not significantly.
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: Kings Age-Adjusted Hospitalization Rate due to All Drug Overdose

44.0
Rate per 100,000 residents
(2022)
Compared to:
Compared to CA Counties, Kings has a value of 44.0 which is in the 2nd worst quartile of counties. Counties in the best 50% have a value lower than 37.5 while counties in the worst 25% have a value higher than 45.9.
CA Counties
The distribution is based on data from 58 California counties.
Compared to the CA Value (48.3), Kings has a value of 44.0 which is lower and better.
CA Value
(48.3)
The regional value is compared to the California state value.
Compared to the prior value, Kings (44.0) is less and better than the previously measured value (53.4).
Prior Value
(53.4)
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.
Over time, the Kings value is decreasing, significantly.
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: Kings Age-Adjusted Hospitalization Rate due to Heroin Overdose

0.5
Rate per 100,000 residents
(2022)
Compared to:
Compared to CA Counties, Kings has a value of 0.5 which is in the 2nd worst quartile of counties. Counties in the best 50% have a value lower than 0.3 while counties in the worst 25% have a value higher than 0.8.
CA Counties
The distribution is based on data from 58 California counties.
Compared to the CA Value (0.7), Kings has a value of 0.5 which is lower and better.
CA Value
(0.7)
The regional value is compared to the California state value.
Compared to the prior value, Kings (0.5) is less and better than the previously measured value (1.2).
Prior Value
(1.2)
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.
Over time, the Kings value is decreasing, significantly.
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: Kings Age-Adjusted Hospitalization Rate due to Opioid Overdose (excluding Heroin)

8.7
Rate per 100,000 residents
(2022)
Compared to:
Compared to CA Counties, Kings has a value of 8.7 which is in the 2nd worst quartile of counties. Counties in the best 50% have a value lower than 8.0 while counties in the worst 25% have a value higher than 11.8.
CA Counties
The distribution is based on data from 58 California counties.
Compared to the CA Value (12.1), Kings has a value of 8.7 which is lower and better.
CA Value
(12.1)
The regional value is compared to the California state value.
Compared to the prior value, Kings (8.7) is less and better than the previously measured value (9.0).
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.
Over time, the Kings value is decreasing, significantly.
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: Kings Age-Adjusted Long Acting or Extended Release Opioid Prescription Rate to Opioid Naive Residents

1.7
Per 100,000 population
(2022)
Compared to:
Compared to CA Counties, Kings has a value of 1.7 which is in the best 50% of counties. Counties in the best 50% have a value lower than 1.7 while counties in the worst 25% have a value higher than 2.4.
CA Counties
The distribution is based on data from 58 California counties.
Compared to the CA Value (1.2), Kings has a value of 1.7 which is higher and worse.
CA Value
(1.2)
The regional value is compared to the California state value.
Compared to the prior value, Kings (1.7) is not statistically different from the previously measured value (1.8).
Prior Value
(1.8)
Prior Value compares a measured value with the previously measured value. Confidence intervals were taken into account in determining the direction of the comparison.
Over time, the Kings value is decreasing, not significantly.
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: Kings Households that Received Substance Abuse Medical Services

1.7%
(2023)
Compared to:
Compared to the CA Value (1.3%), Kings has a value of 1.7%.
CA Value
(1.3%)
The regional value is compared to the California state value.
Compared to the US Value (1.3%), Kings has a value of 1.7%.
US Value
(1.3%)
The regional value is compared to the national value.
Compared to the prior value, Kings (1.7%) is greater  than the previously measured value (1.5%).
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.
Over time, the Kings value is decreasing, not significantly.
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: Kings Number of Champions clients who completed Amanda's House services

3
People
(2021)
Compared to:
Compared to the prior value, Kings (3) is less and worse than the previously measured value (10).
Prior Value
(10)
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.

County: Kings Number of Champions clients who completed Frasiuer's Home services

6
People
(2021)
Compared to:
Compared to the prior value, Kings (6) is not statistically different from the previously measured value (6).
Prior Value
(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.

County: Kings Number of Champions clients who completed Grace Home services

13
People
(2021)
Compared to:
Compared to the prior value, Kings (13) is less and worse than the previously measured value (16).
Prior Value
(16)
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.

County: Kings Number of Champions clients who completed Hannah's House services

10
People
(2021)
Compared to:
Compared to the prior value, Kings (10) is less and worse than the previously measured value (20).
Prior Value
(20)
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.

County: Kings Number of Champions clients who completed Samuel's House services

44
People
(2021)
Compared to:
Compared to the prior value, Kings (44) is greater and better than the previously measured value (33).
Prior Value
(33)
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.

County: Kings Number of Champions clients who use Amanda's House services

7
People
(2021)
Compared to:
Compared to the prior value, Kings (7) is less and worse than the previously measured value (14).
Prior Value
(14)
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.

County: Kings Number of Champions clients who use Frasieur's Home services

14
People
(2021)
Compared to:
Compared to the prior value, Kings (14) is greater and better than the previously measured value (9).
Prior Value
(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.

County: Kings Number of Champions clients who use Grace Home services

15
People
(2021)
Compared to:
Compared to the prior value, Kings (15) is less and worse than the previously measured value (19).
Prior Value
(19)
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.

County: Kings Number of Champions clients who use Hannah's House services

41
People enrolled
(2021)
Compared to:
Compared to the prior value, Kings (41) is not statistically different from the previously measured value (41).
Prior Value
(41)
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.

County: Kings Number of Champions clients who use Intensive Outpatient Treatment (IOT) services

0
People
(2021-2022)
Compared to:
Compared to the prior value, Kings (0) is not statistically different from the previously measured value (0).
Prior Value
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.

County: Kings Number of Champions clients who use Outpatient Drug Free (ODF) services

156
People
(2021-2022)
Compared to:
Compared to the prior value, Kings (156) is greater and better than the previously measured value (147).
Prior Value
(147)
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.

County: Kings Number of Champions clients who use PE services

219
People
(2021-2022)
Compared to:
Compared to the prior value, Kings (219) is greater and better than the previously measured value (210).
Prior Value
(210)
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.

County: Kings Number of Champions clients who use Samuel's House services

153
People
(2021)
Compared to:
Compared to the prior value, Kings (153) is greater and better than the previously measured value (94).
Prior Value
(94)
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.

County: Kings Opioid Prescription Patients

Current Value:
2.6%
(Q3 2022)
Compared to:
Compared to CA Counties, Kings has a value of 2.6% which is in the best 50% of counties. Counties in the best 50% have a value lower than 2.7% while counties in the worst 25% have a value higher than 3.6%.
CA Counties
The distribution is based on data from 58 California counties.
Compared to the prior value, Kings (2.6%) is not statistically different from the previously measured value (2.6%).
Prior Value
(2.6%)
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.
Over time, the Kings value is decreasing, significantly.
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: Kings Quarterly Opioid Prescription Rate

Current Value:
300.8
Prescriptions per 10,000 population
(Q3 2022)
Compared to:
Compared to CA Counties, Kings has a value of 300.8 which is in the best 50% of counties. Counties in the best 50% have a value lower than 333.4 while counties in the worst 25% have a value higher than 444.0.
CA Counties
The distribution is based on data from 58 California counties.
Compared to the prior value, Kings (300.8) is greater and worse than the previously measured value (293.0).
Prior Value
(293.0)
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.
Over time, the Kings value is decreasing, significantly.
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: Kings Residents on More than 90 Morphine Milligram Equivalents (MME) of Opioids Daily

6.6
Residents on >90 MMEs of Opioids per 1,000 residents
(2022)
Compared to:
Compared to CA Counties, Kings has a value of 6.6 which is in the best 50% of counties. Counties in the best 50% have a value lower than 7.6 while counties in the worst 25% have a value higher than 9.9.
CA Counties
The distribution is based on data from 58 California counties.
Compared to the CA Value (6.3), Kings has a value of 6.6 which is higher and worse.
CA Value
(6.3)
The regional value is compared to the California state value.
Compared to the prior value, Kings (6.6) is not statistically different from the previously measured value (7.1).
Prior Value
(7.1)
Prior Value compares a measured value with the previously measured value. Confidence intervals were taken into account in determining the direction of the comparison.
Over time, the Kings value is decreasing, significantly.
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: Kings Respondents who Have Used Drug and Alcohol Services in the Community

12.3%
(2023)
Compared to:
Compared to the prior value, Kings (12.3%) is greater  than the previously measured value (3.4%).
Prior Value
(3.4%)
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.
Over time, the Kings value is decreasing, not significantly.
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: Kings Teens who have Used Alcohol

Current Value:
40.5%
(2021-2022)
Compared to:
Compared to CA Counties, Kings has a value of 40.5% which is in the worst 25% of counties. Counties in the best 50% have a value lower than 30.8% while counties in the worst 25% have a value higher than 39.1%.
CA Counties
(2011-2012)
The distribution is based on data from 44 California counties and county groups.
Compared to the CA Value (23.1%), Kings has a value of 40.5% which is higher and worse.
CA Value
(23.1% in 2019-2021)
The regional value is compared to the California state value.
Compared to the prior value, Kings (40.5%) is not statistically different from the previously measured value (30.8%).
Prior Value
(30.8%)
Prior Value compares a measured value with the previously measured value. Confidence intervals were taken into account in determining the direction of the comparison.
Over time, the Kings value is increasing significantly.
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: Kings

Health / Cancer

Value
Compared to:

County: Kings

Health / Cancer

Value
Compared to:

County: Kings Adults with Cancer

Current Value:

County: Kings Adults with Cancer

4.9%
(2021)
Compared to:
Compared to CA Counties, Kings has a value of 4.9% which is in the best 50% of counties. Counties in the best 50% have a value lower than 6.6% while counties in the worst 25% have a value higher than 8.5%.
CA Counties
The distribution is based on data from 58 California counties.
Compared to U.S. Counties, Kings has a value of 4.9% which is in the best 50% of counties. Counties in the best 50% have a value lower than 7.9% while counties in the worst 25% have a value higher than 8.6%.
U.S. Counties
The distribution is based on data from 3,074 U.S. counties and county equivalents.
Compared to the US Value (7.0%), Kings has a value of 4.9% which is lower and better.
US Value
(7.0%)
The regional value is compared to the national value.

County: Kings Adults with Cancer (Non-Skin) or Melanoma

Current Value:
5.4%
(2022)
Compared to:
Compared to CA Counties, Kings has a value of 5.4% which is in the best 50% of counties. Counties in the best 50% have a value lower than 8.0% while counties in the worst 25% have a value higher than 10.4%.
CA Counties
The distribution is based on data from 58 California counties.
Compared to U.S. Counties, Kings has a value of 5.4% which is in the best 50% of counties. Counties in the best 50% have a value lower than 9.2% while counties in the worst 25% have a value higher than 10.1%.
U.S. Counties
The distribution is based on data from 3,133 U.S. counties and county equivalents.
Compared to the US Value (8.2%), Kings has a value of 5.4% which is lower and better.
US Value
(8.2%)
The regional value is compared to the national value.

County: Kings Age-Adjusted Death Rate due to Breast Cancer

Current Value:
15.2
Deaths per 100,000 females
(2018-2022)
Compared to:
Compared to CA Counties, Kings has a value of 15.2 which is in the best 50% of counties. Counties in the best 50% have a value lower than 19.0 while counties in the worst 25% have a value higher than 20.4.
CA Counties
The distribution is based on data from 48 California counties.
Compared to U.S. Counties, Kings has a value of 15.2 which is in the best 50% of counties. Counties in the best 50% have a value lower than 20.3 while counties in the worst 25% have a value higher than 23.3.
U.S. Counties
The distribution is based on data from 1,778 U.S. counties and county equivalents.
Compared to the CA Value (18.8), Kings has a value of 15.2 which is lower and better.
CA Value
(18.8)
The regional value is compared to the California state value.
Compared to the US Value (19.3), Kings has a value of 15.2 which is lower and better.
US Value
(19.3)
The regional value is compared to the national value.
Compared to the prior value, Kings (15.2) is not statistically different from the previously measured value (14.5).
Prior Value
(14.5)
Prior Value compares a measured value with the previously measured value. Confidence intervals were taken into account in determining the direction of the comparison.
Over time, the Kings value is decreasing, significantly.
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.
Compared to the HP 2030 Target (15.3), the target has  been met.
HP 2030 Target
(15.3)

County: Kings Age-Adjusted Death Rate due to Cancer

Current Value:
137.9
Deaths per 100,000 population
(2020-2022)
Compared to:
Compared to CA Counties, Kings has a value of 137.9 which is in the 2nd worst quartile of counties. Counties in the best 50% have a value lower than 129.2 while counties in the worst 25% have a value higher than 143.2.
CA Counties
The distribution is based on data from 58 California counties.
Compared to the CA Value (122.0), Kings has a value of 137.9 which is higher and worse.
CA Value
(122.0)
The regional value is compared to the California state value.
Compared to the US Value (146.0), Kings has a value of 137.9 which is lower and better.
US Value
(146.0 in 2018-2022)
The regional value is compared to the national value. The source for the national value is National Cancer Institute
Compared to the prior value, Kings (137.9) is not statistically different from the previously measured value (136.6).
Prior Value
(136.6)
Prior Value compares a measured value with the previously measured value. Confidence intervals were taken into account in determining the direction of the comparison.
Over time, the Kings value is decreasing, not significantly.
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.
Compared to the HP 2030 Target (122.7), the target has not been met.
HP 2030 Target
(122.7)

County: Kings Age-Adjusted Death Rate due to Colorectal Cancer

12.9
Deaths per 100,000 population
(2018-2022)
Compared to:
Compared to CA Counties, Kings has a value of 12.9 which is in the 2nd worst quartile of counties. Counties in the best 50% have a value lower than 11.8 while counties in the worst 25% have a value higher than 13.5.
CA Counties
The distribution is based on data from 53 California counties.
Compared to U.S. Counties, Kings has a value of 12.9 which is in the best 50% of counties. Counties in the best 50% have a value lower than 14.5 while counties in the worst 25% have a value higher than 17.5.
U.S. Counties
The distribution is based on data from 2,180 U.S. counties and county equivalents.
Compared to the CA Value (12.0), Kings has a value of 12.9 which is higher and worse.
CA Value
(12.0)
The regional value is compared to the California state value.
Compared to the US Value (12.9), Kings has a value of 12.9.
US Value
(12.9)
The regional value is compared to the national value.
Compared to the prior value, Kings (12.9) is not statistically different from the previously measured value (11.9).
Prior Value
(11.9)
Prior Value compares a measured value with the previously measured value. Confidence intervals were taken into account in determining the direction of the comparison.
Over time, the Kings value is increasing, not significantly.
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.
Compared to the HP 2030 Target (8.9), the target has not been met.
HP 2030 Target
(8.9)

County: Kings Age-Adjusted Death Rate due to Lung Cancer

Current Value:
29.9
Deaths per 100,000 population
(2020-2022)
Compared to:
Compared to CA Counties, Kings has a value of 29.9 which is in the worst 25% of counties. Counties in the best 50% have a value lower than 23.1 while counties in the worst 25% have a value higher than 28.5.
CA Counties
The distribution is based on data from 58 California counties.
Compared to the CA Value (20.6), Kings has a value of 29.9 which is higher and worse.
CA Value
(20.6)
The regional value is compared to the California state value.
Compared to the US Value (32.4), Kings has a value of 29.9 which is lower and better.
US Value
(32.4 in 2018-2022)
The regional value is compared to the national value. The source for the national value is National Cancer Institute
Compared to the prior value, Kings (29.9) is not statistically different from the previously measured value (26.6).
Prior Value
(26.6)
Prior Value compares a measured value with the previously measured value. Confidence intervals were taken into account in determining the direction of the comparison.
Over time, the Kings value is decreasing, not significantly.
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.
Compared to the HP 2030 Target (25.1), the target has not been met.
HP 2030 Target
(25.1)

County: Kings Age-Adjusted Death Rate due to Prostate Cancer

Current Value:
18.8
Deaths per 100,000 males
(2018-2022)
Compared to:
Compared to U.S. Counties, Kings has a value of 18.8 which is in the best 50% of counties. Counties in the best 50% have a value lower than 19.9 while counties in the worst 25% have a value higher than 23.5.
U.S. Counties
The distribution is based on data from 1,612 U.S. counties and county equivalents.
Compared to the CA Value (20.2), Kings has a value of 18.8 which is lower and better.
CA Value
(20.2)
The regional value is compared to the California state value.
Compared to the US Value (19.0), Kings has a value of 18.8 which is lower and better.
US Value
(19.0)
The regional value is compared to the national value.
Compared to the prior value, Kings (18.8) is not statistically different from the previously measured value (15.0).
Prior Value
(15.0)
Prior Value compares a measured value with the previously measured value. Confidence intervals were taken into account in determining the direction of the comparison.
Over time, the Kings value is decreasing, not significantly.
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.
Compared to the HP 2030 Target (16.9), the target has not been met.
HP 2030 Target
(16.9)

County: Kings Breast Cancer Incidence Rate

Current Value:
102.0
Cases per 100,000 females
(2017-2021)
Compared to:
Compared to CA Counties, Kings has a value of 102.0 which is in the best 50% of counties. Counties in the best 50% have a value lower than 122.1 while counties in the worst 25% have a value higher than 132.2.
CA Counties
The distribution is based on data from 56 California counties.
Compared to U.S. Counties, Kings has a value of 102.0 which is in the best 50% of counties. Counties in the best 50% have a value lower than 125.6 while counties in the worst 25% have a value higher than 137.1.
U.S. Counties
The distribution is based on data from 2,712 U.S. counties and county equivalents.
Compared to the CA Value (124.0), Kings has a value of 102.0 which is lower and better.
CA Value
(124.0)
The regional value is compared to the California state value.
Compared to the US Value (129.8), Kings has a value of 102.0 which is lower and better.
US Value
(129.8)
The regional value is compared to the national value.
Compared to the prior value, Kings (102.0) is not statistically different from the previously measured value (95.4).
Prior Value
(95.4)
Prior Value compares a measured value with the previously measured value. Confidence intervals were taken into account in determining the direction of the comparison.
Over time, the Kings value is decreasing, significantly.
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: Kings Cancer: Medicare Population

Current Value:
9.0%
(2022)
Compared to:
Compared to CA Counties, Kings has a value of 9.0% which is in the best 50% of counties. Counties in the best 50% have a value lower than 10.0% while counties in the worst 25% have a value higher than 11.0%.
CA Counties
The distribution is based on data from 58 California counties.
Compared to U.S. Counties, Kings has a value of 9.0% which is in the best 50% of counties. Counties in the best 50% have a value lower than 11.0% while counties in the worst 25% have a value higher than 12.0%.
U.S. Counties
The distribution is based on data from 3,129 U.S. counties and county equivalents.
Compared to the CA Value (11.0%), Kings has a value of 9.0% which is lower and better.
CA Value
(11.0%)
The regional value is compared to the California state value.
Compared to the US Value (12.0%), Kings has a value of 9.0% which is lower and better.
US Value
(12.0%)
The regional value is compared to the national value.
Compared to the prior value, Kings (9.0%) is not statistically different from the previously measured value (9.0%).
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.
Over time, the Kings value is increasing significantly.
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: Kings Cervical Cancer Incidence Rate

Current Value:
9.4
Cases per 100,000 females
(2017-2021)
Compared to:
Compared to CA Counties, Kings has a value of 9.4 which is in the worst 25% of counties. Counties in the best 50% have a value lower than 7.5 while counties in the worst 25% have a value higher than 9.2.
CA Counties
The distribution is based on data from 38 California counties.
Compared to U.S. Counties, Kings has a value of 9.4 which is in the 2nd worst quartile of counties. Counties in the best 50% have a value lower than 8.0 while counties in the worst 25% have a value higher than 10.0.
U.S. Counties
The distribution is based on data from 727 U.S. counties and county equivalents.
Compared to the CA Value (7.3), Kings has a value of 9.4 which is higher and worse.
CA Value
(7.3)
The regional value is compared to the California state value.
Compared to the US Value (7.5), Kings has a value of 9.4 which is higher and worse.
US Value
(7.5)
The regional value is compared to the national value.
Compared to the prior value, Kings (9.4) is not statistically different from the previously measured value (8.7).
Prior Value
(8.7)
Prior Value compares a measured value with the previously measured value. Confidence intervals were taken into account in determining the direction of the comparison.
Over time, the Kings value is decreasing, significantly.
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: Kings Cervical Cancer Screening: 21-65

Current Value:
79.9%
(2020)
Compared to:
Compared to CA Counties, Kings has a value of 79.9% which is in the worst 25% of counties. Counties in the best 50%  have a value higher than 81.4% while counties in the worst 25% have a value lower than 80.0%.
CA Counties
The distribution is based on data from 58 California counties.
Compared to U.S. Counties, Kings has a value of 79.9% which is in the 2nd worst quartile of counties. Counties in the best 50%  have a value higher than 81.0% while counties in the worst 25% have a value lower than 79.3%.
U.S. Counties
The distribution is based on data from 3,141 U.S. counties and county equivalents.
Compared to the US Value (82.8%), Kings has a value of 79.9% which is lower and worse.
US Value
(82.8%)
The regional value is compared to the national value.

County: Kings Colon Cancer Screening: USPSTF Recommendation

Current Value:
54.2%
(2022)
Compared to:
Compared to CA Counties, Kings has a value of 54.2% which is in the worst 25% of counties. Counties in the best 50%  have a value higher than 61.7% while counties in the worst 25% have a value lower than 57.6%.
CA Counties
The distribution is based on data from 58 California counties.
Compared to U.S. Counties, Kings has a value of 54.2% which is in the worst 25% of counties. Counties in the best 50%  have a value higher than 64.2% while counties in the worst 25% have a value lower than 61.0%.
U.S. Counties
The distribution is based on data from 3,133 U.S. counties and county equivalents.
Compared to the US Value (66.3%), Kings has a value of 54.2% which is lower and worse.
US Value
(66.3%)
The regional value is compared to the national value.

County: Kings Colorectal Cancer Incidence Rate

Current Value:
25.8
Cases per 100,000 population
(2017-2021)
Compared to:
Compared to CA Counties, Kings has a value of 25.8 which is in the best 50% of counties. Counties in the best 50% have a value lower than 34.1 while counties in the worst 25% have a value higher than 36.1.
CA Counties
The distribution is based on data from 56 California counties.
Compared to U.S. Counties, Kings has a value of 25.8 which is in the best 50% of counties. Counties in the best 50% have a value lower than 39.9 while counties in the worst 25% have a value higher than 46.2.
U.S. Counties
The distribution is based on data from 2,613 U.S. counties and county equivalents.
Compared to the CA Value (33.5), Kings has a value of 25.8 which is lower and better.
CA Value
(33.5)
The regional value is compared to the California state value.
Compared to the US Value (36.4), Kings has a value of 25.8 which is lower and better.
US Value
(36.4)
The regional value is compared to the national value.
Compared to the prior value, Kings (25.8) is not statistically different from the previously measured value (26.8).
Prior Value
(26.8)
Prior Value compares a measured value with the previously measured value. Confidence intervals were taken into account in determining the direction of the comparison.
Over time, the Kings value is decreasing, significantly.
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: Kings Households that Received Cancer Medical Services

7.4%
(2023)
Compared to:
Compared to the CA Value (7.9%), Kings has a value of 7.4%.
CA Value
(7.9%)
The regional value is compared to the California state value.
Compared to the US Value (8.3%), Kings has a value of 7.4%.
US Value
(8.3%)
The regional value is compared to the national value.
Compared to the prior value, Kings (7.4%) is less  than the previously measured value (7.6%).
Prior Value
(7.6%)
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.
Over time, the Kings value is increasing, not significantly.
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: Kings Lung and Bronchus Cancer Incidence Rate

Current Value:
36.6
Cases per 100,000 population
(2017-2021)
Compared to:
Compared to CA Counties, Kings has a value of 36.6 which is in the best 50% of counties. Counties in the best 50% have a value lower than 39.1 while counties in the worst 25% have a value higher than 44.8.
CA Counties
The distribution is based on data from 55 California counties.
Compared to U.S. Counties, Kings has a value of 36.6 which is in the best 50% of counties. Counties in the best 50% have a value lower than 62.0 while counties in the worst 25% have a value higher than 73.1.
U.S. Counties
The distribution is based on data from 2,711 U.S. counties and county equivalents.
Compared to the CA Value (36.7), Kings has a value of 36.6 which is lower and better.
CA Value
(36.7)
The regional value is compared to the California state value.
Compared to the US Value (53.1), Kings has a value of 36.6 which is lower and better.
US Value
(53.1)
The regional value is compared to the national value.
Compared to the prior value, Kings (36.6) is not statistically different from the previously measured value (37.1).
Prior Value
(37.1)
Prior Value compares a measured value with the previously measured value. Confidence intervals were taken into account in determining the direction of the comparison.
Over time, the Kings value is decreasing, significantly.
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: Kings Mammogram in Past 2 Years: 50-74

Current Value:
73.0%
(2022)
Compared to:
Compared to CA Counties, Kings has a value of 73.0% which is in the worst 25% of counties. Counties in the best 50%  have a value higher than 74.5% while counties in the worst 25% have a value lower than 73.0%.
CA Counties
The distribution is based on data from 58 California counties.
Compared to U.S. Counties, Kings has a value of 73.0% which is in the 2nd worst quartile of counties. Counties in the best 50%  have a value higher than 74.3% while counties in the worst 25% have a value lower than 71.3%.
U.S. Counties
The distribution is based on data from 3,133 U.S. counties and county equivalents.
Compared to the US Value (76.5%), Kings has a value of 73.0% which is lower and worse.
US Value
(76.5%)
The regional value is compared to the national value.
Compared to the HP 2030 Target (80.3%), the target has not been met.
HP 2030 Target
(80.3%)

County: Kings Mammography Screening: Medicare Population

Current Value:
36.0%
(2022)
Compared to:
Compared to CA Counties, Kings has a value of 36.0% which is in the worst 25% of counties. Counties in the best 50%  have a value higher than 41.0% while counties in the worst 25% have a value lower than 38.0%.
CA Counties
The distribution is based on data from 58 California counties.
Compared to U.S. Counties, Kings has a value of 36.0% which is in the worst 25% of counties. Counties in the best 50%  have a value higher than 45.0% while counties in the worst 25% have a value lower than 40.0%.
U.S. Counties
The distribution is based on data from 3,123 U.S. counties and county equivalents.
Compared to the CA Value (41.0%), Kings has a value of 36.0% which is lower and worse.
CA Value
(41.0%)
The regional value is compared to the California state value.
Compared to the US Value (47.0%), Kings has a value of 36.0% which is lower and worse.
US Value
(47.0%)
The regional value is compared to the national value.
Compared to the prior value, Kings (36.0%) is not statistically different from the previously measured value (36.0%).
Prior Value
(36.0%)
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.
Over time, the Kings value is increasing, not significantly.
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: Kings Oral Cavity and Pharynx Cancer Incidence Rate

Current Value:
11.0
Cases per 100,000 population
(2017-2021)
Compared to:
Compared to CA Counties, Kings has a value of 11.0 which is in the best 50% of counties. Counties in the best 50% have a value lower than 11.0 while counties in the worst 25% have a value higher than 13.1.
CA Counties
The distribution is based on data from 53 California counties.
Compared to U.S. Counties, Kings has a value of 11.0 which is in the best 50% of counties. Counties in the best 50% have a value lower than 13.4 while counties in the worst 25% have a value higher than 15.3.
U.S. Counties
The distribution is based on data from 1,869 U.S. counties and county equivalents.
Compared to the CA Value (10.1), Kings has a value of 11.0 which is higher and worse.
CA Value
(10.1)
The regional value is compared to the California state value.
Compared to the US Value (12.0), Kings has a value of 11.0 which is lower and better.
US Value
(12.0)
The regional value is compared to the national value.
Compared to the prior value, Kings (11.0) is not statistically different from the previously measured value (10.9).
Prior Value
(10.9)
Prior Value compares a measured value with the previously measured value. Confidence intervals were taken into account in determining the direction of the comparison.
Over time, the Kings value is decreasing, not significantly.
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: Kings Prostate Cancer Incidence Rate

Current Value:
85.9
Cases per 100,000 males
(2017-2021)
Compared to:
Compared to CA Counties, Kings has a value of 85.9 which is in the best 50% of counties. Counties in the best 50% have a value lower than 97.9 while counties in the worst 25% have a value higher than 105.2.
CA Counties
The distribution is based on data from 56 California counties.
Compared to U.S. Counties, Kings has a value of 85.9 which is in the best 50% of counties. Counties in the best 50% have a value lower than 110.0 while counties in the worst 25% have a value higher than 127.6.
U.S. Counties
The distribution is based on data from 2,728 U.S. counties and county equivalents.
Compared to the CA Value (98.6), Kings has a value of 85.9 which is lower and better.
CA Value
(98.6)
The regional value is compared to the California state value.
Compared to the US Value (113.2), Kings has a value of 85.9 which is lower and better.
US Value
(113.2)
The regional value is compared to the national value.
Compared to the prior value, Kings (85.9) is not statistically different from the previously measured value (86.5).
Prior Value
(86.5)
Prior Value compares a measured value with the previously measured value. Confidence intervals were taken into account in determining the direction of the comparison.
Over time, the Kings value is decreasing, significantly.
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: Kings

Health / Children's Health

Value
Compared to:

County: Kings

Health / Children's Health

Value
Compared to:

County: Kings Child Mortality Rate: Under 20

Current Value:
45.4
Deaths per 100,000 population under 20
(2018-2021)
Compared to:
Compared to CA Counties, Kings has a value of 45.4 which is in the 2nd worst quartile of counties. Counties in the best 50% have a value lower than 42.6 while counties in the worst 25% have a value higher than 50.7.
CA Counties
The distribution is based on data from 51 California counties.
Compared to U.S. Counties, Kings has a value of 45.4 which is in the best 50% of counties. Counties in the best 50% have a value lower than 59.3 while counties in the worst 25% have a value higher than 76.0.
U.S. Counties
The distribution is based on data from 2,859 U.S. counties and county equivalents. Counties in Idaho, Kentucky, and Oklahoma are excluded due to incomparable data between each other and the rest of the country.
Compared to the CA Value (37.7), Kings has a value of 45.4 which is higher and worse.
CA Value
(37.7)
The regional value is compared to the California state value.
Compared to the US Value (50.6), Kings has a value of 45.4 which is lower and better.
US Value
(50.6)
The regional value is compared to the national value.

County: Kings

Health / Diabetes

Value
Compared to:

County: Kings

Health / Diabetes

Value
Compared to:

County: Kings Adults Who Bought Medications for Diabetes

Current Value:
11.2%
(2023)
Compared to:
Compared to the CA Value (9.5%), Kings has a value of 11.2%.
CA Value
(9.5%)
The regional value is compared to the California state value.
Compared to the US Value (10.7%), Kings has a value of 11.2%.
US Value
(10.7%)
The regional value is compared to the national value.
Compared to the prior value, Kings (11.2%) is greater  than the previously measured value (11.0%).
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.
Over time, the Kings value is increasing significantly.
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: Kings Adults with Diabetes

Current Value:

County: Kings Adults with Diabetes

7.8%
(2021-2022)
Compared to:
Compared to CA Counties, Kings has a value of 7.8% which is in the best 50% of counties. Counties in the best 50% have a value lower than 8.9% while counties in the worst 25% have a value higher than 11.9%.
CA Counties
The distribution is based on data from 58 California counties.
Compared to the CA Value (10.7%), Kings has a value of 7.8% which is lower and better.
CA Value
(10.7%)
The regional value is compared to the California state value.
Compared to the US Value (11.5%), Kings has a value of 7.8% which is lower and better.
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
Compared to the prior value, Kings (7.8%) is not statistically different from the previously measured value (8.2%).
Prior Value
(8.2%)
Prior Value compares a measured value with the previously measured value. Confidence intervals were taken into account in determining the direction of the comparison.
Over time, the Kings value is decreasing, not significantly.
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: Kings Age-Adjusted Death Rate due to Diabetes

Current Value:
25.6
Deaths per 100,000 population
(2020-2022)
Compared to:
Compared to CA Counties, Kings has a value of 25.6 which is in the 2nd worst quartile of counties. Counties in the best 50% have a value lower than 21.6 while counties in the worst 25% have a value higher than 28.5.
CA Counties
The distribution is based on data from 56 California counties.
Compared to the CA Value (23.6), Kings has a value of 25.6 which is higher and worse.
CA Value
(23.6)
The regional value is compared to the California state value.
Compared to the US Value (24.8), Kings has a value of 25.6 which is higher and worse.
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
Compared to the prior value, Kings (25.6) is not statistically different from the previously measured value (23.5).
Prior Value
(23.5)
Prior Value compares a measured value with the previously measured value. Confidence intervals were taken into account in determining the direction of the comparison.
Over time, the Kings value is decreasing, significantly.
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: Kings Diabetes: Medicare Population

Current Value:
29.0%
(2022)
Compared to:
Compared to CA Counties, Kings has a value of 29.0% which is in the worst 25% of counties. Counties in the best 50% have a value lower than 20.0% while counties in the worst 25% have a value higher than 25.3%.
CA Counties
The distribution is based on data from 58 California counties.
Compared to U.S. Counties, Kings has a value of 29.0% which is in the worst 25% of counties. Counties in the best 50% have a value lower than 25.0% while counties in the worst 25% have a value higher than 28.0%.
U.S. Counties
The distribution is based on data from 3,129 U.S. counties and county equivalents.
Compared to the CA Value (21.0%), Kings has a value of 29.0% which is higher and worse.
CA Value
(21.0%)
The regional value is compared to the California state value.
Compared to the US Value (24.0%), Kings has a value of 29.0% which is higher and worse.
US Value
(24.0%)
The regional value is compared to the national value.
Compared to the prior value, Kings (29.0%) is not statistically different from the previously measured value (29.0%).
Prior Value
(29.0%)
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.
Over time, the Kings value is decreasing, not significantly.
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: Kings

Health / Disabilities

Value
Compared to:

County: Kings

Health / Disabilities

Value
Compared to:

County: Kings Adults with Disability Living in Poverty

Current Value:
19.7%
(2018-2022)
Compared to:
Compared to CA Counties, Kings has a value of 19.7% which is in the best 50% of counties. Counties in the best 50% have a value lower than 22.6% while counties in the worst 25% have a value higher than 28.1%.
CA Counties
The distribution is based on data from 58 California counties.
Compared to U.S. Counties, Kings has a value of 19.7% which is in the best 50% of counties. Counties in the best 50% have a value lower than 26.0% while counties in the worst 25% have a value higher than 32.0%.
U.S. Counties
The distribution is based on data from 3,132 U.S. counties and county equivalents.
Compared to the CA Value (22.7%), Kings has a value of 19.7% which is lower and better.
CA Value
(22.7%)
The regional value is compared to the California state value.
Compared to the US Value (24.9%), Kings has a value of 19.7% which is lower and better.
US Value
(24.9%)
The regional value is compared to the national value.
Over time, the Kings value is decreasing, significantly.
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: Kings Children with a Disability

Current Value:
3.6%
(2018-2022)
Compared to:
Compared to the CA Value (3.7%), Kings has a value of 3.6%.
CA Value
(3.7%)
The regional value is compared to the California state value.
Compared to the US Value (4.5%), Kings has a value of 3.6%.
US Value
(4.5%)
The regional value is compared to the national value.
Over time, the Kings value is decreasing, significantly.
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: Kings Persons with a Cognitive Difficulty

Current Value:
5.4%
(2018-2022)
Compared to:
Compared to the CA Value (4.6%), Kings has a value of 5.4%.
CA Value
(4.6%)
The regional value is compared to the California state value.
Compared to the US Value (5.3%), Kings has a value of 5.4%.
US Value
(5.3%)
The regional value is compared to the national value.
Over time, the Kings value is increasing, not significantly.
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: Kings Persons with a Disability

Current Value:
12.4%
(2018-2022)
Compared to:
Compared to the CA Value (11.0%), Kings has a value of 12.4%.
CA Value
(11.0%)
The regional value is compared to the California state value.
Compared to the US Value (12.9%), Kings has a value of 12.4%.
US Value
(12.9%)
The regional value is compared to the national value.
Over time, the Kings value is increasing significantly.
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: Kings Persons with a Hearing Difficulty

Current Value:
3.5%
(2018-2022)
Compared to:
Compared to the CA Value (2.9%), Kings has a value of 3.5%.
CA Value
(2.9%)
The regional value is compared to the California state value.
Compared to the US Value (3.6%), Kings has a value of 3.5%.
US Value
(3.6%)
The regional value is compared to the national value.
Over time, the Kings value is decreasing, not significantly.
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: Kings Persons with a Self-Care Difficulty

Current Value:
2.8%
(2018-2022)
Compared to:
Compared to the CA Value (2.7%), Kings has a value of 2.8%.
CA Value
(2.7%)
The regional value is compared to the California state value.
Compared to the US Value (2.6%), Kings has a value of 2.8%.
US Value
(2.6%)
The regional value is compared to the national value.
Over time, the Kings value is increasing, not significantly.
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: Kings Persons with a Vision Difficulty

Current Value:
2.3%
(2018-2022)
Compared to:
Compared to the CA Value (2.1%), Kings has a value of 2.3%.
CA Value
(2.1%)
The regional value is compared to the California state value.
Compared to the US Value (2.4%), Kings has a value of 2.3%.
US Value
(2.4%)
The regional value is compared to the national value.
Over time, the Kings value is decreasing, significantly.
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: Kings Persons with an Ambulatory Difficulty

Current Value:
6.7%
(2018-2022)
Compared to:
Compared to the CA Value (5.8%), Kings has a value of 6.7%.
CA Value
(5.8%)
The regional value is compared to the California state value.
Compared to the US Value (6.7%), Kings has a value of 6.7%.
US Value
(6.7%)
The regional value is compared to the national value.
Over time, the Kings value is staying the same.
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: Kings Veterans with a Disability

Current Value:
27.4%
(2018-2022)
Compared to:
Compared to the CA Value (29.7%), Kings has a value of 27.4%.
CA Value
(29.7%)
The regional value is compared to the California state value.
Compared to the US Value (29.8%), Kings has a value of 27.4%.
US Value
(29.8%)
The regional value is compared to the national value.
Over time, the Kings value is increasing, not significantly.
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: Kings

Health / Family Planning

Value
Compared to:

County: Kings

Health / Family Planning

Value
Compared to:

County: Kings Respondents who are Aware of Free to Low-Cost Family Planning Services in the Community

58.2%
(2023)
Compared to:
Compared to the prior value, Kings (58.2%) is greater and better than the previously measured value (44.2%).
Prior Value
(44.2%)
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.
Compared to the Kings County 2023 Target (55.2%), the target has  been met.
Kings County 2023 Target
(55.2%)

County: Kings Teen Birth Rate: 15-19

Current Value:

County: Kings Teen Birth Rate: 15-19

17.3
Live births per 1,000 females aged 15-19
(2020-2022)
Compared to:
Compared to CA Counties, Kings has a value of 17.3 which is in the 2nd worst quartile of counties. Counties in the best 50% have a value lower than 10.8 while counties in the worst 25% have a value higher than 17.5.
CA Counties
The distribution is based on data from 55 California counties.
Compared to the CA Value (9.5), Kings has a value of 17.3 which is higher and worse.
CA Value
(9.5)
The regional value is compared to the California state value.
Compared to the US Value (14.2), Kings has a value of 17.3 which is higher and worse.
US Value
(14.2)
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
Compared to the prior value, Kings (17.3) is not statistically different from the previously measured value (18.8).
Prior Value
(18.8)
Prior Value compares a measured value with the previously measured value. Confidence intervals were taken into account in determining the direction of the comparison.
Over time, the Kings value is decreasing, significantly.
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: Kings

Health / Health Care Access & Quality

Value
Compared to:

County: Kings

Health / Health Care Access & Quality

Value
Compared to:

County: Kings Adults Delayed or had Difficulty Obtaining Care

23.2%
(2021-2022)
Compared to:
Compared to the CA Value (24.9%), Kings has a value of 23.2% which is lower and better.
CA Value
(24.9%)
The regional value is compared to the California state value.
Compared to the prior value, Kings (23.2%) is greater and worse than the previously measured value (22.2%).
Prior Value
(22.2%)
Prior Value compares a measured value with the previously measured value. Confidence intervals were taken into account in determining the direction of the comparison.
Over time, the Kings value is decreasing, not significantly.
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: Kings Adults who have had a Routine Checkup

Current Value:
66.6%
(2022)
Compared to:
Compared to CA Counties, Kings has a value of 66.6% which is in the worst 25% of counties. Counties in the best 50%  have a value higher than 70.6% while counties in the worst 25% have a value lower than 69.1%.
CA Counties
The distribution is based on data from 58 California counties.
Compared to U.S. Counties, Kings has a value of 66.6% which is in the worst 25% of counties. Counties in the best 50%  have a value higher than 77.2% while counties in the worst 25% have a value lower than 74.7%.
U.S. Counties
The distribution is based on data from 3,133 U.S. counties and county equivalents.
Compared to the US Value (76.1%), Kings has a value of 66.6% which is lower and worse.
US Value
(76.1%)
The regional value is compared to the national value.

County: Kings Adults with Health Insurance: 18-64

Current Value:
90.7%
(2022)
Compared to:
Compared to CA Counties, Kings has a value of 90.7% which is in the 2nd worst quartile of counties. Counties in the best 50%  have a value higher than 91.4% while counties in the worst 25% have a value lower than 89.7%.
CA Counties
The distribution is based on data from 58 California counties.
Compared to U.S. Counties, Kings has a value of 90.7% which is in the best 50% of counties. Counties in the best 50%  have a value higher than 88.9% while counties in the worst 25% have a value lower than 84.2%.
U.S. Counties
The distribution is based on data from 3,132 U.S. counties and county equivalents.
Compared to the CA Value (90.9%), Kings has a value of 90.7% which is lower and worse.
CA Value
(90.9%)
The regional value is compared to the California state value.
Compared to the prior value, Kings (90.7%) is not statistically different from the previously measured value (90.3%).
Prior Value
(90.3%)
Prior Value compares a measured value with the previously measured value. Confidence intervals were taken into account in determining the direction of the comparison.
Over time, the Kings value is increasing significantly.
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: Kings Adults with HMO Health Insurance

Current Value:
12.9%
(2023)
Compared to:
Compared to the CA Value (17.3%), Kings has a value of 12.9%.
CA Value
(17.3%)
The regional value is compared to the California state value.
Compared to the US Value (14.2%), Kings has a value of 12.9%.
US Value
(14.2%)
The regional value is compared to the national value.
Compared to the prior value, Kings (12.9%) is less  than the previously measured value (13.4%).
Prior Value
(13.4%)
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.

County: Kings Adults with Medicaid Health Insurance

Current Value:
14.6%
(2023)
Compared to:
Compared to the CA Value (11.0%), Kings has a value of 14.6%.
CA Value
(11.0%)
The regional value is compared to the California state value.
Compared to the US Value (11.9%), Kings has a value of 14.6%.
US Value
(11.9%)
The regional value is compared to the national value.
Compared to the prior value, Kings (14.6%) is greater  than the previously measured value (13.3%).
Prior Value
(13.3%)
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.
Over time, the Kings value is increasing, not significantly.
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: Kings Adults with Medicare Health Insurance

Current Value:
14.7%
(2023)
Compared to:
Compared to the CA Value (16.7%), Kings has a value of 14.7%.
CA Value
(16.7%)
The regional value is compared to the California state value.
Compared to the US Value (18.6%), Kings has a value of 14.7%.
US Value
(18.6%)
The regional value is compared to the national value.
Compared to the prior value, Kings (14.7%) is less  than the previously measured value (17.3%).
Prior Value
(17.3%)
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.
Over time, the Kings value is decreasing, not significantly.
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: Kings Adults with Military Health Insurance

Current Value:
4.5%
(2023)
Compared to:
Compared to the CA Value (3.6%), Kings has a value of 4.5%.
CA Value
(3.6%)
The regional value is compared to the California state value.
Compared to the US Value (4.6%), Kings has a value of 4.5%.
US Value
(4.6%)
The regional value is compared to the national value.
Compared to the prior value, Kings (4.5%) is less  than the previously measured value (5.4%).
Prior Value
(5.4%)
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.
Over time, the Kings value is staying the same.
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: Kings Adults with Other Health Insurance

Current Value:
6.6%
(2023)
Compared to:
Compared to the CA Value (6.2%), Kings has a value of 6.6%.
CA Value
(6.2%)
The regional value is compared to the California state value.
Compared to the US Value (6.2%), Kings has a value of 6.6%.
US Value
(6.2%)
The regional value is compared to the national value.
Compared to the prior value, Kings (6.6%) is not statistically different from the previously measured value (6.6%).
Prior Value
(6.6%)
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.
Over time, the Kings value is decreasing, not significantly.
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: Kings Adults with POS Health Insurance

Current Value:
1.7%
(2023)
Compared to:
Compared to the CA Value (2.0%), Kings has a value of 1.7%.
CA Value
(2.0%)
The regional value is compared to the California state value.
Compared to the US Value (1.9%), Kings has a value of 1.7%.
US Value
(1.9%)
The regional value is compared to the national value.
Compared to the prior value, Kings (1.7%) is less  than the previously measured value (1.8%).
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.
Over time, the Kings value is decreasing, not significantly.
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: Kings Adults with PPO Health Insurance

Current Value:
32.0%
(2023)
Compared to:
Compared to the CA Value (34.9%), Kings has a value of 32.0%.
CA Value
(34.9%)
The regional value is compared to the California state value.
Compared to the US Value (33.9%), Kings has a value of 32.0%.
US Value
(33.9%)
The regional value is compared to the national value.
Compared to the prior value, Kings (32.0%) is less  than the previously measured value (33.7%).
Prior Value
(33.7%)
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.
Over time, the Kings value is decreasing, not significantly.
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: Kings Adults without Health Insurance

Current Value:
15.9%
(2022)
Compared to:
Compared to CA Counties, Kings has a value of 15.9% which is in the worst 25% of counties. Counties in the best 50% have a value lower than 6.8% while counties in the worst 25% have a value higher than 9.9%.
CA Counties
The distribution is based on data from 58 California counties.
Compared to U.S. Counties, Kings has a value of 15.9% which is in the worst 25% of counties. Counties in the best 50% have a value lower than 7.6% while counties in the worst 25% have a value higher than 10.3%.
U.S. Counties
The distribution is based on data from 3,133 U.S. counties and county equivalents.
Compared to the US Value (10.8%), Kings has a value of 15.9% which is higher and worse.
US Value
(10.8%)
The regional value is compared to the national value.

County: Kings Children with Health Insurance

Current Value:
95.9%
(2022)
Compared to:
Compared to CA Counties, Kings has a value of 95.9% which is in the worst 25% of counties. Counties in the best 50%  have a value higher than 97.1% while counties in the worst 25% have a value lower than 96.2%.
CA Counties
The distribution is based on data from 42 California counties.
Compared to U.S. Counties, Kings has a value of 95.9% which is in the 2nd worst quartile of counties. Counties in the best 50%  have a value higher than 96.3% while counties in the worst 25% have a value lower than 93.6%.
U.S. Counties
The distribution is based on data from 828 U.S. counties and county equivalents.
Compared to the CA Value (96.8%), Kings has a value of 95.9% which is lower and worse.
CA Value
(96.8%)
The regional value is compared to the California state value.
Compared to the US Value (94.9%), Kings has a value of 95.9% which is higher and better.
US Value
(94.9%)
The regional value is compared to the national value.
Compared to the prior value, Kings (95.9%) is not statistically different from the previously measured value (96.2%).
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.
Over time, the Kings value is decreasing, not significantly.
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: Kings Households that Received Cardiology Medical Services

10.5%
(2023)
Compared to:
Compared to the CA Value (10.7%), Kings has a value of 10.5%.
CA Value
(10.7%)
The regional value is compared to the California state value.
Compared to the US Value (11.8%), Kings has a value of 10.5%.
US Value
(11.8%)
The regional value is compared to the national value.
Compared to the prior value, Kings (10.5%) is less  than the previously measured value (10.6%).
Prior Value
(10.6%)
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.
Over time, the Kings value is increasing, not significantly.
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: Kings Households that Received Medical Services in an Emergency Room

28.5%
(2023)
Compared to:
Compared to the CA Value (26.5%), Kings has a value of 28.5%.
CA Value
(26.5%)
The regional value is compared to the California state value.
Compared to the US Value (28.0%), Kings has a value of 28.5%.
US Value
(28.0%)
The regional value is compared to the national value.
Compared to the prior value, Kings (28.5%) is less  than the previously measured value (29.0%).
Prior Value
(29.0%)
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.
Over time, the Kings value is decreasing, significantly.
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: Kings Households that Received Medical Services in an Urgent Care Facility

25.3%
(2023)
Compared to:
Compared to the CA Value (26.9%), Kings has a value of 25.3%.
CA Value
(26.9%)
The regional value is compared to the California state value.
Compared to the US Value (25.9%), Kings has a value of 25.3%.
US Value
(25.9%)
The regional value is compared to the national value.
Compared to the prior value, Kings (25.3%) is less  than the previously measured value (25.4%).
Prior Value
(25.4%)
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.
Over time, the Kings value is decreasing, significantly.
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: Kings Households that Received Pediatric Medical Services

12.0%
(2023)
Compared to:
Compared to the CA Value (11.8%), Kings has a value of 12.0%.
CA Value
(11.8%)
The regional value is compared to the California state value.
Compared to the US Value (10.8%), Kings has a value of 12.0%.
US Value
(10.8%)
The regional value is compared to the national value.
Compared to the prior value, Kings (12.0%) is greater  than the previously measured value (11.4%).
Prior Value
(11.4%)
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.
Over time, the Kings value is decreasing, not significantly.
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: Kings Non-Physician Primary Care Provider Rate

Current Value:
92
Providers per 100,000 population
(2023)
Compared to:
Compared to CA Counties, Kings has a value of 92 which is in the best 50% of counties. Counties in the best 50%  have a value higher than 86 while counties in the worst 25% have a value lower than 67.
CA Counties
The distribution is based on data from 58 California counties.
Compared to U.S. Counties, Kings has a value of 92 which is in the 2nd worst quartile of counties. Counties in the best 50%  have a value higher than 94 while counties in the worst 25% have a value lower than 65.
U.S. Counties
The distribution is based on data from 3,129 U.S. counties and county equivalents.
Compared to the CA Value (87), Kings has a value of 92 which is higher and better.
CA Value
(87)
The regional value is compared to the California state value.
Compared to the prior value, Kings (92) is greater and better than the previously measured value (86).
Prior Value
(86)
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.
Over time, the Kings value is increasing significantly.
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: Kings People Delayed or had Difficulty Obtaining Care

12.5%
(2021-2022)
Compared to:
Compared to CA Counties, Kings has a value of 12.5% which is in the best 50% of counties. Counties in the best 50% have a value lower than 17.5% while counties in the worst 25% have a value higher than 19.2%.
CA Counties
The distribution is based on data from 58 California counties.
Compared to the CA Value (16.5%), Kings has a value of 12.5% which is lower and better.
CA Value
(16.5%)
The regional value is compared to the California state value.
Compared to the prior value, Kings (12.5%) is not statistically different from the previously measured value (14.8%).
Prior Value
(14.8%)
Prior Value compares a measured value with the previously measured value. Confidence intervals were taken into account in determining the direction of the comparison.
Over time, the Kings value is increasing, not significantly.
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.
Compared to the HP 2030 Target (5.9%), the target has not been met.
HP 2030 Target
(5.9%)

County: Kings People with a Usual Source of Health Care

Current Value:
85.1%
(2022)
Compared to:
Compared to CA Counties, Kings has a value of 85.1% which is in the best 50% of counties. Counties in the best 50%  have a value higher than 84.4% while counties in the worst 25% have a value lower than 81.3%.
CA Counties
The distribution is based on data from 58 California counties.
Compared to the CA Value (82.5%), Kings has a value of 85.1% which is higher and better.
CA Value
(82.5%)
The regional value is compared to the California state value.
Compared to the prior value, Kings (85.1%) is not statistically different from the previously measured value (85.7%).
Prior Value
(85.7%)
Prior Value compares a measured value with the previously measured value. Confidence intervals were taken into account in determining the direction of the comparison.
Over time, the Kings value is increasing, not significantly.
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: Kings Persons with Health Insurance

Current Value:
92.7%
(2022)
Compared to:
Compared to CA Counties, Kings has a value of 92.7% which is in the 2nd worst quartile of counties. Counties in the best 50%  have a value higher than 92.8% while counties in the worst 25% have a value lower than 91.7%.
CA Counties
The distribution is based on data from 58 California counties.
Compared to U.S. Counties, Kings has a value of 92.7% which is in the best 50% of counties. Counties in the best 50%  have a value higher than 90.6% while counties in the worst 25% have a value lower than 86.8%.
U.S. Counties
The distribution is based on data from 3,132 U.S. counties and county equivalents.
Compared to the CA Value (92.5%), Kings has a value of 92.7% which is higher and better.
CA Value
(92.5%)
The regional value is compared to the California state value.
Compared to the prior value, Kings (92.7%) is not statistically different from the previously measured value (92.4%).
Prior Value
(92.4%)
Prior Value compares a measured value with the previously measured value. Confidence intervals were taken into account in determining the direction of the comparison.
Over time, the Kings value is increasing, not significantly.
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.
Compared to the HP 2030 Target (92.4%), the target has  been met.
HP 2030 Target
(92.4%)
<div>AHS-01: Increase the proportion of people with health insurance <strong>(LEADING HEALTH INDICATOR)</strong></div>

County: Kings Persons with Private Health Insurance Only

Current Value:
46.7%
(2022)
Compared to:
Compared to the CA Value (53.5%), Kings has a value of 46.7%.
CA Value
(53.5%)
The regional value is compared to the California state value.
Compared to the US Value (54.8%), Kings has a value of 46.7%.
US Value
(54.8%)
The regional value is compared to the national value.
Compared to the prior value, Kings (46.7%) is less  than the previously measured value (48.5%).
Prior Value
(48.5%)
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.
Over time, the Kings value is decreasing, not significantly.
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: Kings Persons with Public Health Insurance Only

Current Value:
37.1%
(2022)
Compared to:
Compared to the CA Value (29.8%), Kings has a value of 37.1%.
CA Value
(29.8%)
The regional value is compared to the California state value.
Compared to the US Value (24.8%), Kings has a value of 37.1%.
US Value
(24.8%)
The regional value is compared to the national value.
Compared to the prior value, Kings (37.1%) is greater  than the previously measured value (36.8%).
Prior Value
(36.8%)
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.
Over time, the Kings value is decreasing, not significantly.
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: Kings Preventable Hospital Stays: Medicare Population

2,474
Discharges per 100,000 Medicare enrollees
(2022)
Compared to:
Compared to CA Counties, Kings has a value of 2,474 which is in the 2nd worst quartile of counties. Counties in the best 50% have a value lower than 2,112 while counties in the worst 25% have a value higher than 2,577.
CA Counties
The distribution is based on data from 58 California counties.
Compared to U.S. Counties, Kings has a value of 2,474 which is in the best 50% of counties. Counties in the best 50% have a value lower than 2,729 while counties in the worst 25% have a value higher than 3,375.
U.S. Counties
The distribution is based on data from 3,129 U.S. counties and county equivalents.
Compared to the CA Value (2,275), Kings has a value of 2,474 which is higher and worse.
CA Value
(2,275)
The regional value is compared to the California state value.
Compared to the US Value (2,677), Kings has a value of 2,474 which is lower and better.
US Value
(2,677)
The regional value is compared to the national value.
Compared to the prior value, Kings (2,474) is less and better than the previously measured value (2,628).
Prior Value
(2,628)
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.
Over time, the Kings value is decreasing, significantly.
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: Kings Primary Care Provider Rate

Current Value:
37
Providers per 100,000 population
(2021)
Compared to:
Compared to CA Counties, Kings has a value of 37 which is in the worst 25% of counties. Counties in the best 50%  have a value higher than 68 while counties in the worst 25% have a value lower than 46.
CA Counties
The distribution is based on data from 57 California counties.
Compared to U.S. Counties, Kings has a value of 37 which is in the 2nd worst quartile of counties. Counties in the best 50%  have a value higher than 47 while counties in the worst 25% have a value lower than 29.
U.S. Counties
The distribution is based on data from 2,984 U.S. counties and county equivalents.
Compared to the CA Value (81), Kings has a value of 37 which is lower and worse.
CA Value
(81)
The regional value is compared to the California state value.
Compared to the prior value, Kings (37) is less and worse than the previously measured value (38).
Prior Value
(38)
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.
Over time, the Kings value is decreasing, significantly.
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: Kings Respondents Who Are Able to Access Medical Services

92.2%
(2023)
Compared to:
Compared to the prior value, Kings (92.2%) is less and worse than the previously measured value (94.0%).
Prior Value
(94.0%)
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.
Over time, the Kings value is increasing, not significantly.
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.
Compared to the Kings County 2023 Target (96.0%), the target has not been met.
Kings County 2023 Target
(96.0%)

County: Kings Respondents who are Able to Access Telehealth Services

79.9%
(2023)
Compared to:
Compared to the prior value, Kings (79.9%) is greater and better than the previously measured value (31.7%).
Prior Value
(31.7%)
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.

County: Kings Respondents who are unable to access medical services due to a lack of childcare

4.3%
(2023)
Compared to:
Compared to the prior value, Kings (4.3%) is less and better than the previously measured value (8.5%).
Prior Value
(8.5%)
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.
Over time, the Kings value is decreasing, not significantly.
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: Kings Respondents who are unable to access medical services due to a lack of local specialists

36.7%
(2023)
Compared to:
Compared to the prior value, Kings (36.7%) is greater and worse than the previously measured value (14.9%).
Prior Value
(14.9%)
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.

County: Kings Respondents who are unable to access medical services due to finances

17.6%
(2023)
Compared to:
Compared to the prior value, Kings (17.6%) is greater and worse than the previously measured value (17.0%).
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.
Over time, the Kings value is decreasing, not significantly.
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: Kings Respondents who are unable to access medical services due to having no insurance

22.9%
(2023)
Compared to:
Compared to the prior value, Kings (22.9%) is less and better than the previously measured value (48.9%).
Prior Value
(48.9%)
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.

County: Kings Respondents who are unable to access medical services due to healthcare hours

46.3%
(2023)
Compared to:
Compared to the prior value, Kings (46.3%) is greater and worse than the previously measured value (10.6%).
Prior Value
(10.6%)
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.
Over time, the Kings value is staying the same.
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: Kings Respondents who are unable to access medical services due to lack of transportation

37.2%
(2023)
Compared to:
Compared to the prior value, Kings (37.2%) is greater and worse than the previously measured value (6.4%).
Prior Value
(6.4%)
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.
Over time, the Kings value is staying the same.
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: Kings Respondents who are unable to access medical services due to scheduling conflicts

30.9%
(2023)
Compared to:
Compared to the prior value, Kings (30.9%) is greater and worse than the previously measured value (19.2%).
Prior Value
(19.2%)
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.
Over time, the Kings value is increasing, not significantly.
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: Kings Respondents who are unable to access mental health services due to a lack of childcare

20.4%
(2023)
Compared to:
Compared to the prior value, Kings (20.4%) is greater and worse than the previously measured value (6.8%).
Prior Value
(6.8%)
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.

County: Kings Respondents who are unable to access telehealth services due to finances

17.2%
(2023)
Compared to:
Compared to the prior value, Kings (17.2%) is greater and worse than the previously measured value (8.2%).
Prior Value
(8.2%)
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.

County: Kings Respondents who are unable to access telehealth services due to having no cell phone

28.3%
(2023)
Compared to:
Compared to the prior value, Kings (28.3%) is greater and worse than the previously measured value (8.2%).
Prior Value
(8.2%)
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.

County: Kings Respondents who are unable to access telehealth services due to having no computer

17.8%
(2023)
Compared to:
Compared to the prior value, Kings (17.8%) is less and better than the previously measured value (28.6%).
Prior Value
(28.6%)
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.

County: Kings Respondents who are unable to access telehealth services due to having no internet service

21.1%
(2023)
Compared to:
Compared to the prior value, Kings (21.1%) is greater and worse than the previously measured value (10.2%).
Prior Value
(10.2%)
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.

County: Kings Respondents who are unable to access telehealth services due to lack of privacy

20.6%
(2023)
Compared to:
Compared to the prior value, Kings (20.6%) is greater and worse than the previously measured value (18.4%).
Prior Value
(18.4%)
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.

County: Kings Respondents who are unable to access telehealth services due to not feeling secure

9.4%
(2023)
Compared to:
Compared to the prior value, Kings (9.4%) is less and better than the previously measured value (12.2%).
Prior Value
(12.2%)
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.

County: Kings Respondents who are unable to access telehealth services due to provider hours

42.2%
(2023)
Compared to:
Compared to the prior value, Kings (42.2%) is greater and worse than the previously measured value (10.2%).
Prior Value
(10.2%)
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.

County: Kings Respondents who are unable to access telehealth services due to stigma

13.9%
(2023)
Compared to:
Compared to the prior value, Kings (13.9%) is greater and worse than the previously measured value (4.1%).
Prior Value
(4.1%)
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.

County: Kings Respondents who are unable to access telehealth services due to the service being impersonal

22.8%
(2023)
Compared to:
Compared to the prior value, Kings (22.8%) is greater and worse than the previously measured value (14.3%).
Prior Value
(14.3%)
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.

County: Kings Respondents who need assistance with accessing medical coverage

14.4%
(2023)
Compared to:
Compared to the prior value, Kings (14.4%) is greater and worse than the previously measured value (4.8%).
Prior Value
(4.8%)
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.

County: Kings Respondents Who Stated Their Families Are Covered by Health Insurance

86.9%
(2023)
Compared to:
Compared to the prior value, Kings (86.9%) is less and worse than the previously measured value (91.2%).
Prior Value
(91.2%)
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.
Over time, the Kings value is increasing, not significantly.
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.
Compared to the Kings County 2023 Target (87.0%), the target has not been met.
Kings County 2023 Target
(87.0%)

County: Kings

Health / Health Information Technology

Value
Compared to:

County: Kings

Health / Health Information Technology

Value
Compared to:

County: Kings Adults Who Access Medical Services and Information through the Internet

28.5%
(2023)
Compared to:
Compared to the CA Value (33.1%), Kings has a value of 28.5%.
CA Value
(33.1%)
The regional value is compared to the California state value.
Compared to the US Value (31.8%), Kings has a value of 28.5%.
US Value
(31.8%)
The regional value is compared to the national value.
Compared to the prior value, Kings (28.5%) is less  than the previously measured value (32.6%).
Prior Value
(32.6%)
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.

County: Kings Households with a Smartphone

Current Value:
85.0%
(2023)
Compared to:
Compared to CA Counties, Kings has a value of 85.0% which is in the 2nd worst quartile of counties. Counties in the best 50%  have a value higher than 85.4% while counties in the worst 25% have a value lower than 80.9%.
CA Counties
The distribution is based on data from 58 California counties.
Compared to U.S. Counties, Kings has a value of 85.0% which is in the best 50% of counties. Counties in the best 50%  have a value higher than 79.4% while counties in the worst 25% have a value lower than 76.2%.
U.S. Counties
The distribution is based on data from 3,141 U.S. counties and county equivalents.
Compared to the CA Value (86.7%), Kings has a value of 85.0% which is lower and worse.
CA Value
(86.7%)
The regional value is compared to the California state value.
Compared to the US Value (84.7%), Kings has a value of 85.0% which is higher and better.
US Value
(84.7%)
The regional value is compared to the national value.
Compared to the prior value, Kings (85.0%) is greater and better than the previously measured value (84.4%).
Prior Value
(84.4%)
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.
Over time, the Kings value is staying the same.
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: Kings Households with an Internet Subscription

Current Value:
86.8%
(2018-2022)
Compared to:
Compared to CA Counties, Kings has a value of 86.8% which is in the 2nd worst quartile of counties. Counties in the best 50%  have a value higher than 89.8% while counties in the worst 25% have a value lower than 86.0%.
CA Counties
The distribution is based on data from 58 California counties.
Compared to U.S. Counties, Kings has a value of 86.8% which is in the best 50% of counties. Counties in the best 50%  have a value higher than 83.9% while counties in the worst 25% have a value lower than 79.0%.
U.S. Counties
The distribution is based on data from 3,133 U.S. counties and county equivalents.
Compared to the CA Value (91.6%), Kings has a value of 86.8% which is lower and worse.
CA Value
(91.6%)
The regional value is compared to the California state value.
Compared to the US Value (88.5%), Kings has a value of 86.8% which is lower and worse.
US Value
(88.5%)
The regional value is compared to the national value.
Over time, the Kings value is increasing significantly.
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: Kings Households with One or More Types of Computing Devices

93.8%
(2018-2022)
Compared to:
Compared to CA Counties, Kings has a value of 93.8% which is in the 2nd worst quartile of counties. Counties in the best 50%  have a value higher than 94.7% while counties in the worst 25% have a value lower than 93.0%.
CA Counties
The distribution is based on data from 58 California counties.
Compared to U.S. Counties, Kings has a value of 93.8% which is in the best 50% of counties. Counties in the best 50%  have a value higher than 91.1% while counties in the worst 25% have a value lower than 88.0%.
U.S. Counties
The distribution is based on data from 3,133 U.S. counties and county equivalents.
Compared to the CA Value (95.9%), Kings has a value of 93.8% which is lower and worse.
CA Value
(95.9%)
The regional value is compared to the California state value.
Compared to the US Value (94.0%), Kings has a value of 93.8% which is lower and worse.
US Value
(94.0%)
The regional value is compared to the national value.
Over time, the Kings value is increasing significantly.
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: Kings Persons with an Internet Subscription

Current Value:
89.1%
(2018-2022)
Compared to:
Compared to CA Counties, Kings has a value of 89.1% which is in the 2nd worst quartile of counties. Counties in the best 50%  have a value higher than 92.4% while counties in the worst 25% have a value lower than 88.9%.
CA Counties
The distribution is based on data from 58 California counties.
Compared to U.S. Counties, Kings has a value of 89.1% which is in the best 50% of counties. Counties in the best 50%  have a value higher than 87.7% while counties in the worst 25% have a value lower than 83.3%.
U.S. Counties
The distribution is based on data from 3,133 U.S. counties and county equivalents.
Compared to the CA Value (93.4%), Kings has a value of 89.1% which is lower and worse.
CA Value
(93.4%)
The regional value is compared to the California state value.
Compared to the US Value (91.0%), Kings has a value of 89.1% which is lower and worse.
US Value
(91.0%)
The regional value is compared to the national value.
Over time, the Kings value is increasing significantly.
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: Kings Respondents who Stated they Have Internet Access in their Home

89.0%
(2023)
Compared to:
Compared to the prior value, Kings (89.0%) is less and worse than the previously measured value (94.2%).
Prior Value
(94.2%)
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.
Over time, the Kings value is increasing, not significantly.
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.
Compared to the Kings County 2023 Target (70.7%), the target has  been met.
Kings County 2023 Target
(70.7%)

County: Kings

Health / Heart Disease & Stroke

Value
Compared to:

County: Kings

Health / Heart Disease & Stroke

Value
Compared to:

County: Kings Adults Who Bought Medications for Cholesterol

Current Value:
15.3%
(2023)
Compared to:
Compared to the CA Value (15.8%), Kings has a value of 15.3%.
CA Value
(15.8%)
The regional value is compared to the California state value.
Compared to the US Value (17.1%), Kings has a value of 15.3%.
US Value
(17.1%)
The regional value is compared to the national value.
Compared to the prior value, Kings (15.3%) is not statistically different from the previously measured value (15.3%).
Prior Value
(15.3%)
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.
Over time, the Kings value is increasing, not significantly.
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: Kings Adults who Experienced a Stroke

Current Value:
3.4%
(2022)
Compared to:
Compared to CA Counties, Kings has a value of 3.4% which is in the best 50% of counties. Counties in the best 50% have a value lower than 3.6% while counties in the worst 25% have a value higher than 4.0%.
CA Counties
The distribution is based on data from 58 California counties.
Compared to U.S. Counties, Kings has a value of 3.4% which is in the best 50% of counties. Counties in the best 50% have a value lower than 4.2% while counties in the worst 25% have a value higher than 4.8%.
U.S. Counties
The distribution is based on data from 3,133 U.S. counties and county equivalents.
Compared to the US Value (3.6%), Kings has a value of 3.4% which is lower and better.
US Value
(3.6%)
The regional value is compared to the national value.

County: Kings Adults who Experienced Coronary Heart Disease

Current Value:
6.0%
(2022)
Compared to:
Compared to CA Counties, Kings has a value of 6.0% which is in the best 50% of counties. Counties in the best 50% have a value lower than 6.5% while counties in the worst 25% have a value higher than 7.9%.
CA Counties
The distribution is based on data from 58 California counties.
Compared to U.S. Counties, Kings has a value of 6.0% which is in the best 50% of counties. Counties in the best 50% have a value lower than 8.4% while counties in the worst 25% have a value higher than 9.4%.
U.S. Counties
The distribution is based on data from 3,132 U.S. counties and county equivalents.
Compared to the US Value (6.8%), Kings has a value of 6.0% which is lower and better.
US Value
(6.8%)
The regional value is compared to the national value.

County: Kings Adults who Have Taken Medications for High Blood Pressure

69.0%
(2021)
Compared to:
Compared to CA Counties, Kings has a value of 69.0% which is in the worst 25% of counties. Counties in the best 50%  have a value higher than 74.2% while counties in the worst 25% have a value lower than 72.5%.
CA Counties
The distribution is based on data from 58 California counties.
Compared to U.S. Counties, Kings has a value of 69.0% which is in the worst 25% of counties. Counties in the best 50%  have a value higher than 80.2% while counties in the worst 25% have a value lower than 77.9%.
U.S. Counties
The distribution is based on data from 3,066 U.S. counties and county equivalents.
Compared to the US Value (78.2%), Kings has a value of 69.0% which is lower and worse.
US Value
(78.2%)
The regional value is compared to the national value.

County: Kings Adults Who Visited a Cardiologist

Current Value:
10.9%
(2023)
Compared to:
Compared to the CA Value (12.4%), Kings has a value of 10.9%.
CA Value
(12.4%)
The regional value is compared to the California state value.
Compared to the US Value (13.2%), Kings has a value of 10.9%.
US Value
(13.2%)
The regional value is compared to the national value.
Compared to the prior value, Kings (10.9%) is less  than the previously measured value (12.0%).
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.
Over time, the Kings value is increasing, not significantly.
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: Kings Adults with Heart Disease

Current Value:
6.7%
(2021-2022)
Compared to:
Compared to the CA Value (7.3%), Kings has a value of 6.7% which is lower and better.
CA Value
(7.3%)
The regional value is compared to the California state value.
Compared to the prior value, Kings (6.7%) is greater and worse than the previously measured value (6.3%).
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.
Over time, the Kings value is increasing, not significantly.
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: Kings Age-Adjusted Death Rate due to Cerebrovascular Disease (Stroke)

40.5
Deaths per 100,000 population
(2020-2022)
Compared to:
Compared to CA Counties, Kings has a value of 40.5 which is in the 2nd worst quartile of counties. Counties in the best 50% have a value lower than 37.0 while counties in the worst 25% have a value higher than 42.8.
CA Counties
The distribution is based on data from 58 California counties.
Compared to the CA Value (37.0), Kings has a value of 40.5 which is higher and worse.
CA Value
(37.0)
The regional value is compared to the California state value.
Compared to the US Value (38.8), Kings has a value of 40.5 which is higher and worse.
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
Compared to the prior value, Kings (40.5) is not statistically different from the previously measured value (44.3).
Prior Value
(44.3)
Prior Value compares a measured value with the previously measured value. Confidence intervals were taken into account in determining the direction of the comparison.
Over time, the Kings value is increasing significantly.
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.
Compared to the HP 2030 Target (33.4), the target has not been met.
HP 2030 Target
(33.4)

County: Kings Age-Adjusted Death Rate due to Coronary Heart Disease

99.7
Deaths per 100,000 population
(2020-2022)
Compared to:
Compared to CA Counties, Kings has a value of 99.7 which is in the worst 25% of counties. Counties in the best 50% have a value lower than 78.3 while counties in the worst 25% have a value higher than 99.1.
CA Counties
The distribution is based on data from 58 California counties.
Compared to the CA Value (77.2), Kings has a value of 99.7 which is higher and worse.
CA Value
(77.2)
The regional value is compared to the California state value.
Compared to the US Value (91.8), Kings has a value of 99.7 which is higher and worse.
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
Compared to the prior value, Kings (99.7) is not statistically different from the previously measured value (104.7).
Prior Value
(104.7)
Prior Value compares a measured value with the previously measured value. Confidence intervals were taken into account in determining the direction of the comparison.
Over time, the Kings value is decreasing, not significantly.
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.
Compared to the HP 2030 Target (71.1), the target has not been met.
HP 2030 Target
(71.1)

County: Kings Age-Adjusted Death Rate due to Heart Attack

Current Value:
49.7
Deaths per 100,000 population 35+ years
(2021)
Compared to:
Compared to CA Counties, Kings has a value of 49.7 which is in the 2nd worst quartile of counties. Counties in the best 50% have a value lower than 44.6 while counties in the worst 25% have a value higher than 50.0.
CA Counties
The distribution is based on data from 58 California counties.
Compared to U.S. Counties, Kings has a value of 49.7 which is in the best 50% of counties. Counties in the best 50% have a value lower than 61.3 while counties in the worst 25% have a value higher than 87.3.
U.S. Counties
The distribution is based on data from 3,101 U.S. counties and county equivalents.
Compared to the CA Value (44.3), Kings has a value of 49.7 which is higher and worse.
CA Value
(44.3)
The regional value is compared to the California state value.
Compared to the prior value, Kings (49.7) is less and better than the previously measured value (57.5).
Prior Value
(57.5)
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.
Over time, the Kings value is decreasing, significantly.
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: Kings Atrial Fibrillation: Medicare Population

Current Value:
10.0%
(2022)
Compared to:
Compared to CA Counties, Kings has a value of 10.0% which is in the best 50% of counties. Counties in the best 50% have a value lower than 13.0% while counties in the worst 25% have a value higher than 14.0%.
CA Counties
The distribution is based on data from 58 California counties.
Compared to U.S. Counties, Kings has a value of 10.0% which is in the best 50% of counties. Counties in the best 50% have a value lower than 14.0% while counties in the worst 25% have a value higher than 15.0%.
U.S. Counties
The distribution is based on data from 3,129 U.S. counties and county equivalents.
Compared to the CA Value (13.0%), Kings has a value of 10.0% which is lower and better.
CA Value
(13.0%)
The regional value is compared to the California state value.
Compared to the US Value (14.0%), Kings has a value of 10.0% which is lower and better.
US Value
(14.0%)
The regional value is compared to the national value.
Compared to the prior value, Kings (10.0%) is not statistically different from the previously measured value (10.0%).
Prior Value
(10.0%)
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.
Over time, the Kings value is increasing significantly.
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: Kings Cholesterol Test History

Current Value:

County: Kings Cholesterol Test History

79.1%
(2021)
Compared to:
Compared to CA Counties, Kings has a value of 79.1% which is in the worst 25% of counties. Counties in the best 50%  have a value higher than 85.9% while counties in the worst 25% have a value lower than 82.7%.
CA Counties
The distribution is based on data from 58 California counties.
Compared to U.S. Counties, Kings has a value of 79.1% which is in the worst 25% of counties. Counties in the best 50%  have a value higher than 84.0% while counties in the worst 25% have a value lower than 82.0%.
U.S. Counties
The distribution is based on data from 3,066 U.S. counties and county equivalents.
Compared to the US Value (86.4%), Kings has a value of 79.1% which is lower and worse.
US Value
(86.4%)
The regional value is compared to the national value.

County: Kings Heart Failure: Medicare Population

Current Value:
16.0%
(2022)
Compared to:
Compared to CA Counties, Kings has a value of 16.0% which is in the worst 25% of counties. Counties in the best 50% have a value lower than 9.0% while counties in the worst 25% have a value higher than 10.0%.
CA Counties
The distribution is based on data from 58 California counties.
Compared to U.S. Counties, Kings has a value of 16.0% which is in the worst 25% of counties. Counties in the best 50% have a value lower than 11.0% while counties in the worst 25% have a value higher than 13.0%.
U.S. Counties
The distribution is based on data from 3,129 U.S. counties and county equivalents.
Compared to the CA Value (10.0%), Kings has a value of 16.0% which is higher and worse.
CA Value
(10.0%)
The regional value is compared to the California state value.
Compared to the US Value (11.0%), Kings has a value of 16.0% which is higher and worse.
US Value
(11.0%)
The regional value is compared to the national value.
Compared to the prior value, Kings (16.0%) is not statistically different from the previously measured value (16.0%).
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.
Over time, the Kings value is decreasing, not significantly.
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: Kings High Blood Pressure Prevalence

Current Value:
34.8%
(2022)
Compared to:
Compared to CA Counties, Kings has a value of 34.8% which is in the best 50% of counties. Counties in the best 50% have a value lower than 37.3% while counties in the worst 25% have a value higher than 42.0%.
CA Counties
The distribution is based on data from 58 California counties.
Compared to the CA Value (34.8%), Kings has a value of 34.8%.
CA Value
(34.8%)
The regional value is compared to the California state value.
Compared to the US Value (32.4%), Kings has a value of 34.8% which is higher and worse.
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
Compared to the prior value, Kings (34.8%) is not statistically different from the previously measured value (22.5%).
Prior Value
(22.5%)
Prior Value compares a measured value with the previously measured value. Confidence intervals were taken into account in determining the direction of the comparison.
Over time, the Kings value is decreasing, significantly.
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.
Compared to the HP 2030 Target (41.9%), the target has  been met.
HP 2030 Target
(41.9%)

County: Kings High Cholesterol Prevalence

Current Value:
32.2%
(2021)
Compared to:
Compared to CA Counties, Kings has a value of 32.2% which is in the best 50% of counties. Counties in the best 50% have a value lower than 34.6% while counties in the worst 25% have a value higher than 36.9%.
CA Counties
The distribution is based on data from 58 California counties.
Compared to U.S. Counties, Kings has a value of 32.2% which is in the best 50% of counties. Counties in the best 50% have a value lower than 37.0% while counties in the worst 25% have a value higher than 39.1%.
U.S. Counties
The distribution is based on data from 3,066 U.S. counties and county equivalents.
Compared to the US Value (35.5%), Kings has a value of 32.2% which is lower and better.
US Value
(35.5%)
The regional value is compared to the national value.

County: Kings High Cholesterol Prevalence: Past 5 Years

Current Value:
27.7%
(2019)
Compared to:
Compared to CA Counties, Kings has a value of 27.7% which is in the best 50% of counties. Counties in the best 50% have a value lower than 30.7% while counties in the worst 25% have a value higher than 33.0%.
CA Counties
The distribution is based on data from 58 California counties.
Compared to U.S. Counties, Kings has a value of 27.7% which is in the best 50% of counties. Counties in the best 50% have a value lower than 35.5% while counties in the worst 25% have a value higher than 37.7%.
U.S. Counties
The distribution is based on data from 3,121 U.S. counties and county equivalents.
Compared to the US Value (33.6%), Kings has a value of 27.7% which is lower and better.
US Value
(33.6%)
The regional value is compared to the national value.

County: Kings Hyperlipidemia: Medicare Population

Current Value:
64.0%
(2022)
Compared to:
Compared to CA Counties, Kings has a value of 64.0% which is in the worst 25% of counties. Counties in the best 50% have a value lower than 61.0% while counties in the worst 25% have a value higher than 64.0%.
CA Counties
The distribution is based on data from 58 California counties.
Compared to U.S. Counties, Kings has a value of 64.0% which is in the 2nd worst quartile of counties. Counties in the best 50% have a value lower than 63.0% while counties in the worst 25% have a value higher than 67.0%.
U.S. Counties
The distribution is based on data from 3,129 U.S. counties and county equivalents.
Compared to the CA Value (61.0%), Kings has a value of 64.0% which is higher and worse.
CA Value
(61.0%)
The regional value is compared to the California state value.
Compared to the US Value (65.0%), Kings has a value of 64.0% which is lower and better.
US Value
(65.0%)
The regional value is compared to the national value.
Compared to the prior value, Kings (64.0%) is greater and worse than the previously measured value (62.0%).
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.
Over time, the Kings value is increasing significantly.
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: Kings Hypertension: Medicare Population

Current Value:
68.0%
(2022)
Compared to:
Compared to CA Counties, Kings has a value of 68.0% which is in the worst 25% of counties. Counties in the best 50% have a value lower than 59.0% while counties in the worst 25% have a value higher than 62.0%.
CA Counties
The distribution is based on data from 58 California counties.
Compared to U.S. Counties, Kings has a value of 68.0% which is in the 2nd worst quartile of counties. Counties in the best 50% have a value lower than 67.0% while counties in the worst 25% have a value higher than 71.0%.
U.S. Counties
The distribution is based on data from 3,129 U.S. counties and county equivalents.
Compared to the CA Value (58.0%), Kings has a value of 68.0% which is higher and worse.
CA Value
(58.0%)
The regional value is compared to the California state value.
Compared to the US Value (65.0%), Kings has a value of 68.0% which is higher and worse.
US Value
(65.0%)
The regional value is compared to the national value.
Compared to the prior value, Kings (68.0%) is not statistically different from the previously measured value (68.0%).
Prior Value
(68.0%)
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.
Over time, the Kings value is increasing significantly.
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: Kings Ischemic Heart Disease: Medicare Population

Current Value:
24.0%
(2022)
Compared to:
Compared to CA Counties, Kings has a value of 24.0% which is in the worst 25% of counties. Counties in the best 50% have a value lower than 16.0% while counties in the worst 25% have a value higher than 19.0%.
CA Counties
The distribution is based on data from 58 California counties.
Compared to U.S. Counties, Kings has a value of 24.0% which is in the worst 25% of counties. Counties in the best 50% have a value lower than 21.0% while counties in the worst 25% have a value higher than 24.0%.
U.S. Counties
The distribution is based on data from 3,129 U.S. counties and county equivalents.
Compared to the CA Value (18.0%), Kings has a value of 24.0% which is higher and worse.
CA Value
(18.0%)
The regional value is compared to the California state value.
Compared to the US Value (21.0%), Kings has a value of 24.0% which is higher and worse.
US Value
(21.0%)
The regional value is compared to the national value.
Compared to the prior value, Kings (24.0%) is greater and worse than the previously measured value (23.0%).
Prior Value
(23.0%)
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.
Over time, the Kings value is decreasing, significantly.
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: Kings Stroke: Medicare Population

Current Value:
5.0%
(2022)
Compared to:
Compared to CA Counties, Kings has a value of 5.0% which is in the best 50% of counties. Counties in the best 50% have a value lower than 5.0% while counties in the worst 25% have a value higher than 5.0%.
CA Counties
The distribution is based on data from 58 California counties.
Compared to U.S. Counties, Kings has a value of 5.0% which is in the best 50% of counties. Counties in the best 50% have a value lower than 5.0% while counties in the worst 25% have a value higher than 6.0%.
U.S. Counties
The distribution is based on data from 3,129 U.S. counties and county equivalents.
Compared to the CA Value (5.0%), Kings has a value of 5.0%.
CA Value
(5.0%)
The regional value is compared to the California state value.
Compared to the US Value (6.0%), Kings has a value of 5.0% which is lower and better.
US Value
(6.0%)
The regional value is compared to the national value.
Compared to the prior value, Kings (5.0%) is not statistically different from the previously measured value (5.0%).
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.
Over time, the Kings value is increasing, not significantly.
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: Kings

Health / Immunizations & Infectious Diseases

Value
Compared to:

County: Kings

Health / Immunizations & Infectious Diseases

Value
Compared to:

County: Kings Age-Adjusted Death Rate due to Influenza and Pneumonia

12.5
Deaths per 100,000 population
(2020-2022)
Compared to:
Compared to CA Counties, Kings has a value of 12.5 which is in the 2nd worst quartile of counties. Counties in the best 50% have a value lower than 10.6 while counties in the worst 25% have a value higher than 13.4.
CA Counties
The distribution is based on data from 56 California counties.
Compared to the CA Value (10.9), Kings has a value of 12.5 which is higher and worse.
CA Value
(10.9)
The regional value is compared to the California state value.
Compared to the US Value (13.0), Kings has a value of 12.5 which is lower and better.
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
Compared to the prior value, Kings (12.5) is not statistically different from the previously measured value (12.6).
Prior Value
(12.6)
Prior Value compares a measured value with the previously measured value. Confidence intervals were taken into account in determining the direction of the comparison.
Over time, the Kings value is decreasing, significantly.
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: Kings COVID-19 Daily Average Case-Fatality Rate

Current Value:
5.1
Deaths per 100 cases
(Mar 3, 2023)
Compared to:
Compared to CA Counties, Kings has a value of 5.1 which is in the worst 25% of counties. Counties in the best 50% have a value lower than 0.2 while counties in the worst 25% have a value higher than 1.3.
CA Counties
(Feb 3, 2023)
The distribution is based on data from 56 California counties.
Compared to U.S. Counties, Kings has a value of 5.1 which is in the 2nd worst quartile of counties. Counties in the best 50% have a value lower than 0.5 while counties in the worst 25% have a value higher than 8.3.
U.S. Counties
(Mar 25, 2022)
The distribution is based on data from 2,811 U.S. counties and county equivalents.
Compared to the CA Value (1.0), Kings has a value of 5.1 which is higher and worse.
CA Value
(1.0)
The regional value is compared to the California state value.
Compared to the US Value (1.7), Kings has a value of 5.1 which is higher and worse.
US Value
(1.7)
The regional value is compared to the national value.
Compared to the prior value, Kings (5.1) is less and better than the previously measured value (6.0).
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.
Over time, the Kings value is increasing significantly.
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: Kings COVID-19 Daily Average Incidence Rate

Current Value:
5.50
Cases per 100,000 population
(Mar 3, 2023)
Compared to:
Compared to CA Counties, Kings has a value of 5.50 which is in the best 50% of counties. Counties in the best 50% have a value lower than 5.99 while counties in the worst 25% have a value higher than 8.75.
CA Counties
The distribution is based on data from 58 California counties.
Compared to U.S. Counties, Kings has a value of 5.50 which is in the best 50% of counties. Counties in the best 50% have a value lower than 8.84 while counties in the worst 25% have a value higher than 13.01.
U.S. Counties
The distribution is based on data from 3,142 U.S. counties and county equivalents.
Compared to the CA Value (6.23), Kings has a value of 5.50 which is lower and better.
CA Value
(6.23)
The regional value is compared to the California state value.
Compared to the US Value (10.97), Kings has a value of 5.50 which is lower and better.
US Value
(10.97)
The regional value is compared to the national value.
Compared to the prior value, Kings (5.50) is less and better than the previously measured value (7.84).
Prior Value
(7.84)
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.
Over time, the Kings value is decreasing, significantly.
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: Kings Flu Vaccinations: Medicare Population

Current Value:
37.0%
(2022)
Compared to:
Compared to CA Counties, Kings has a value of 37.0% which is in the 2nd worst quartile of counties. Counties in the best 50%  have a value higher than 44.5% while counties in the worst 25% have a value lower than 36.0%.
CA Counties
The distribution is based on data from 58 California counties.
Compared to U.S. Counties, Kings has a value of 37.0% which is in the 2nd worst quartile of counties. Counties in the best 50%  have a value higher than 43.0% while counties in the worst 25% have a value lower than 36.0%.
U.S. Counties
The distribution is based on data from 3,129 U.S. counties and county equivalents.
Compared to the CA Value (48.0%), Kings has a value of 37.0% which is lower and worse.
CA Value
(48.0%)
The regional value is compared to the California state value.
Compared to the US Value (50.0%), Kings has a value of 37.0% which is lower and worse.
US Value
(50.0%)
The regional value is compared to the national value.
Compared to the prior value, Kings (37.0%) is not statistically different from the previously measured value (37.0%).
Prior Value
(37.0%)
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.
Over time, the Kings value is decreasing, not significantly.
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: Kings Kindergartners with Required Immunizations

Current Value:
96.1%
(2021-2022)
Compared to:
Compared to CA Counties, Kings has a value of 96.1% which is in the best 50% of counties. Counties in the best 50%  have a value higher than 94.1% while counties in the worst 25% have a value lower than 90.5%.
CA Counties
The distribution is based on data from 56 California counties.
Compared to the CA Value (92.8%), Kings has a value of 96.1% which is higher and better.
CA Value
(92.8%)
The regional value is compared to the California state value.
Compared to the prior value, Kings (96.1%) is less and worse than the previously measured value (97.8%).
Prior Value
(97.8%)
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.
Over time, the Kings value is increasing, not significantly.
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: Kings Persons Fully Vaccinated Against COVID-19

Current Value:
52.7%
(May 10, 2023)
Compared to:
Compared to CA Counties, Kings has a value of 52.7% which is in the worst 25% of counties. Counties in the best 50%  have a value higher than 63.9% while counties in the worst 25% have a value lower than 55.8%.
CA Counties
The distribution is based on data from 50 California counties.
Compared to U.S. Counties, Kings has a value of 52.7% which is in the best 50% of counties. Counties in the best 50%  have a value higher than 52.0% while counties in the worst 25% have a value lower than 44.1%.
U.S. Counties
The distribution is based on data from 3,125 U.S. counties and county equivalents.
Compared to the prior value, Kings (52.7%) is greater and better than the previously measured value (52.6%).
Prior Value
(52.6%)
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.
Over time, the Kings value is increasing, not significantly.
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: Kings Pneumonia Vaccinations: Medicare Population

Current Value:
6.0%
(2022)
Compared to:
Compared to CA Counties, Kings has a value of 6.0% which is in the worst 25% of counties. Counties in the best 50%  have a value higher than 7.0% while counties in the worst 25% have a value lower than 6.0%.
CA Counties
The distribution is based on data from 58 California counties.
Compared to U.S. Counties, Kings has a value of 6.0% which is in the best 50% of counties. Counties in the best 50%  have a value higher than 6.0% while counties in the worst 25% have a value lower than 5.0%.
U.S. Counties
The distribution is based on data from 3,129 U.S. counties and county equivalents.
Compared to the CA Value (8.0%), Kings has a value of 6.0% which is lower and worse.
CA Value
(8.0%)
The regional value is compared to the California state value.
Compared to the US Value (8.0%), Kings has a value of 6.0% which is lower and worse.
US Value
(8.0%)
The regional value is compared to the national value.
Compared to the prior value, Kings (6.0%) is greater and better than the previously measured value (5.0%).
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.
Over time, the Kings value is decreasing, significantly.
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: Kings Respondents who stated COVID-19 testing services are not accessible in the community

4.4%
(2023)
Compared to:
Compared to the No Comparison Data Available (0%), the target has not been met.
No Comparison Data Available
(0%)

County: Kings Respondents who stated COVID-19 vaccine services are not accessible in the community

3.5%
(2023)
Compared to:
Compared to the No Comparison Data Available (0%), the target has not been met.
No Comparison Data Available
(0%)