Skip to main content
Search for Indicators

Health

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

Health / Adolescent Health

Health / Adolescent Health

Health / Adolescent Health

Teens who have Used Alcohol

Value
Compared to:

Health / Adolescent Health

Teens who have Used Alcohol

Value
Compared to:

Teens who have Used Alcohol County: Kings

Current Value:

Teens who have Used Alcohol County: Kings

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.

Health / Adolescent Health

Teens who Smoke: 11th Graders

Value
Compared to:

Health / Adolescent Health

Teens who Smoke: 11th Graders

Value
Compared to:

Teens who Smoke: 11th Graders County: Kings

Current Value:

Teens who Smoke: 11th Graders County: Kings

3.0%
(2017-2019)
Compared to:
Compared to the CA Value (2.0%), Kings has a value of 3.0% which is higher and worse.
CA Value
(2.0%)
The regional value is compared to the California state value.
Compared to the prior value, Kings (3.0%) is less and better than the previously measured value (8.0%).
Prior Value
(8.0%)
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.

Health / Adolescent Health

Teens who Smoke: 7th Graders

Value
Compared to:

Health / Adolescent Health

Teens who Smoke: 7th Graders

Value
Compared to:

Teens who Smoke: 7th Graders County: Kings

Current Value:

Teens who Smoke: 7th Graders County: Kings

0.0%
(2017-2019)
Compared to:
Compared to the CA Value (1.0%), Kings has a value of 0.0% which is lower and better.
CA Value
(1.0%)
The regional value is compared to the California state value.
Compared to the prior value, Kings (0.0%) is less and better than the previously measured value (1.0%).
Prior Value
(1.0%)
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.

Health / Adolescent Health

Teens who Smoke: 9th Graders

Value
Compared to:

Health / Adolescent Health

Teens who Smoke: 9th Graders

Value
Compared to:

Teens who Smoke: 9th Graders County: Kings

Current Value:

Teens who Smoke: 9th Graders County: Kings

2.0%
(2017-2019)
Compared to:
Compared to the CA Value (2.0%), Kings has a value of 2.0%.
CA Value
(2.0%)
The regional value is compared to the California state value.
Compared to the prior value, Kings (2.0%) is less and better than the previously measured value (4.0%).
Prior Value
(4.0%)
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.

Health / Cancer

Health / Cancer

Health / Cancer

Adults with Cancer

Value
Compared to:

Health / Cancer

Adults with Cancer

Value
Compared to:

Adults with Cancer County: Kings

Current Value:

Adults with Cancer County: Kings

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.

Health / Cancer

Adults with Cancer (Non-Skin) or Melanoma

Value
Compared to:

Health / Cancer

Adults with Cancer (Non-Skin) or Melanoma

Value
Compared to:

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

Current Value:

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

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.

Health / Cancer

Age-Adjusted Death Rate due to Breast Cancer

Value
Compared to:

Health / Cancer

Age-Adjusted Death Rate due to Breast Cancer

Value
Compared to:

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

Current Value:

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

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)

Health / Cancer

Age-Adjusted Death Rate due to Cancer

Value
Compared to:

Health / Cancer

Age-Adjusted Death Rate due to Cancer

Value
Compared to:

Age-Adjusted Death Rate due to Cancer County: Kings

Current Value:

Age-Adjusted Death Rate due to Cancer County: Kings

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)

Health / Cancer

Age-Adjusted Death Rate due to Colorectal Cancer

Value
Compared to:

Health / Cancer

Age-Adjusted Death Rate due to Colorectal Cancer

Value
Compared to:

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

Current Value:

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

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)

Health / Cancer

Age-Adjusted Death Rate due to Lung Cancer

Value
Compared to:

Health / Cancer

Age-Adjusted Death Rate due to Lung Cancer

Value
Compared to:

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

Current Value:

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

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)

Health / Cancer

Age-Adjusted Death Rate due to Prostate Cancer

Value
Compared to:

Health / Cancer

Age-Adjusted Death Rate due to Prostate Cancer

Value
Compared to:

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

Current Value:

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

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)

Health / Cancer

Breast Cancer Incidence Rate

Value
Compared to:

Health / Cancer

Breast Cancer Incidence Rate

Value
Compared to:

Breast Cancer Incidence Rate County: Kings

Current Value:

Breast Cancer Incidence Rate County: Kings

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.

Health / Cancer

Cancer: Medicare Population

Value
Compared to:

Health / Cancer

Cancer: Medicare Population

Value
Compared to:

Cancer: Medicare Population County: Kings

Current Value:

Cancer: Medicare Population County: Kings

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.

Health / Cancer

Cervical Cancer Incidence Rate

Value
Compared to:

Health / Cancer

Cervical Cancer Incidence Rate

Value
Compared to:

Cervical Cancer Incidence Rate County: Kings

Current Value:

Cervical Cancer Incidence Rate County: Kings

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.

Health / Cancer

Cervical Cancer Screening: 21-65

Value
Compared to:

Health / Cancer

Cervical Cancer Screening: 21-65

Value
Compared to:

Cervical Cancer Screening: 21-65 County: Kings

Current Value:

Cervical Cancer Screening: 21-65 County: Kings

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.

Health / Cancer

Colon Cancer Screening: USPSTF Recommendation

Value
Compared to:

Health / Cancer

Colon Cancer Screening: USPSTF Recommendation

Value
Compared to:

Colon Cancer Screening: USPSTF Recommendation County: Kings

Current Value:

Colon Cancer Screening: USPSTF Recommendation County: Kings

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.

Health / Cancer

Colorectal Cancer Incidence Rate

Value
Compared to:

Health / Cancer

Colorectal Cancer Incidence Rate

Value
Compared to:

Colorectal Cancer Incidence Rate County: Kings

Current Value:

Colorectal Cancer Incidence Rate County: Kings

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.

Health / Cancer

Households that Received Cancer Medical Services

Value
Compared to:

Health / Cancer

Households that Received Cancer Medical Services

Value
Compared to:

Households that Received Cancer Medical Services County: Kings

Current Value:

Households that Received Cancer Medical Services County: Kings

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.

Health / Cancer

Lung and Bronchus Cancer Incidence Rate

Value
Compared to:

Health / Cancer

Lung and Bronchus Cancer Incidence Rate

Value
Compared to:

Lung and Bronchus Cancer Incidence Rate County: Kings

Current Value:

Lung and Bronchus Cancer Incidence Rate County: Kings

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.

Health / Cancer

Mammogram in Past 2 Years: 50-74

Value
Compared to:

Health / Cancer

Mammogram in Past 2 Years: 50-74

Value
Compared to:

Mammogram in Past 2 Years: 50-74 County: Kings

Current Value:

Mammogram in Past 2 Years: 50-74 County: Kings

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%)

Health / Cancer

Mammography Screening: Medicare Population

Value
Compared to:

Health / Cancer

Mammography Screening: Medicare Population

Value
Compared to:

Mammography Screening: Medicare Population County: Kings

Current Value:

Mammography Screening: Medicare Population County: Kings

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.

Health / Cancer

Oral Cavity and Pharynx Cancer Incidence Rate

Value
Compared to:

Health / Cancer

Oral Cavity and Pharynx Cancer Incidence Rate

Value
Compared to:

Oral Cavity and Pharynx Cancer Incidence Rate County: Kings

Current Value:

Oral Cavity and Pharynx Cancer Incidence Rate County: Kings

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.

Health / Cancer

Prostate Cancer Incidence Rate

Value
Compared to:

Health / Cancer

Prostate Cancer Incidence Rate

Value
Compared to:

Prostate Cancer Incidence Rate County: Kings

Current Value:

Prostate Cancer Incidence Rate County: Kings

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.

Health / Children's Health

Health / Children's Health

Health / Children's Health

Child Abuse Allegation Rate

Value
Compared to:

Health / Children's Health

Child Abuse Allegation Rate

Value
Compared to:

Child Abuse Allegation Rate County: Kings

Current Value:

Child Abuse Allegation Rate County: Kings

58.2
Cases per 1,000 children
(2023)
Compared to:
Compared to the CA Value (49.0), Kings has a value of 58.2 which is higher and worse.
CA Value
(49.0)
The regional value is compared to the California state value.
Compared to the prior value, Kings (58.2) is greater and worse than the previously measured value (54.4).
Prior Value
(54.4)
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 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.

Health / Children's Health

Child Abuse Investigation Rate

Value
Compared to:

Health / Children's Health

Child Abuse Investigation Rate

Value
Compared to:

Child Abuse Investigation Rate County: Kings

Current Value:

Child Abuse Investigation Rate County: Kings

39.3
Cases per 1,000 children
(2023)
Compared to:
Compared to the CA Value (32.7), Kings has a value of 39.3 which is higher and worse.
CA Value
(32.7)
The regional value is compared to the California state value.
Compared to the prior value, Kings (39.3) is greater and worse than the previously measured value (37.9).
Prior Value
(37.9)
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.
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.

Health / Children's Health

Child and Teen Fruit Consumption

Value
Compared to:

Health / Children's Health

Child and Teen Fruit Consumption

Value
Compared to:

Child and Teen Fruit Consumption County: Kings

Current Value:

Child and Teen Fruit Consumption County: Kings

57.3%
(2019-2020)
Compared to:
Compared to CA Counties, Kings has a value of 57.3% which is in the worst 25% of counties. Counties in the best 50%  have a value higher than 69.5% while counties in the worst 25% have a value lower than 63.7%.
CA Counties
The distribution is based on data from 58 California counties.
Compared to the CA Value (69.8%), Kings has a value of 57.3% which is lower and worse.
CA Value
(69.8%)
The regional value is compared to the California state value.
Compared to the prior value, Kings (57.3%) is not statistically different from the previously measured value (60.9%).
Prior Value
(60.9%)
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.

Health / Children's Health

Child Care Centers

Value
Compared to:

Health / Children's Health

Child Care Centers

Value
Compared to:

Child Care Centers County: Kings

Current Value:

Child Care Centers County: Kings

3.6
Per 1,000 population under age 5
(2022)
Compared to:
Compared to CA Counties, Kings has a value of 3.6 which is in the worst 25% of counties. Counties in the best 50%  have a value higher than 8.1 while counties in the worst 25% have a value lower than 5.4.
CA Counties
The distribution is based on data from 58 California counties.
Compared to the CA Value (8.1), Kings has a value of 3.6 which is lower and worse.
CA Value
(8.1)
The regional value is compared to the California state value.
Compared to the US Value (7.0), Kings has a value of 3.6 which is lower and worse.
US Value
(7.0)
The regional value is compared to the national value.
Compared to the prior value, Kings (3.6) is not statistically different from the previously measured value (3.6).
Prior Value
(3.6)
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.

Health / Children's Health

Child Food Insecurity Rate

Value
Compared to:

Health / Children's Health

Child Food Insecurity Rate

Value
Compared to:

Child Food Insecurity Rate County: Kings

Current Value:

Child Food Insecurity Rate County: Kings

21.9%
(2022)
Compared to:
Compared to CA Counties, Kings has a value of 21.9% which is in the worst 25% of counties. Counties in the best 50% have a value lower than 18.5% while counties in the worst 25% have a value higher than 21.9%.
CA Counties
The distribution is based on data from 58 California counties.
Compared to U.S. Counties, Kings has a value of 21.9% which is in the 2nd worst quartile of counties. Counties in the best 50% have a value lower than 19.1% while counties in the worst 25% have a value higher than 23.1%.
U.S. Counties
The distribution is based on data from 3,133 U.S. counties and county equivalents.
Compared to the CA Value (16.9%), Kings has a value of 21.9% which is higher and worse.
CA Value
(16.9%)
The regional value is compared to the California state value.
Compared to the US Value (18.5%), Kings has a value of 21.9% which is higher and worse.
US Value
(18.5%)
The regional value is compared to the national value.
Compared to the prior value, Kings (21.9%) is greater and worse than the previously measured value (17.8%).
Prior Value
(17.8%)
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 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.

Health / Children's Health

Child Mortality Rate: Under 20

Value
Compared to:

Health / Children's Health

Child Mortality Rate: Under 20

Value
Compared to:

Child Mortality Rate: Under 20 County: Kings

Current Value:

Child Mortality Rate: Under 20 County: Kings

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 58.7 while counties in the worst 25% have a value higher than 74.8.
U.S. Counties
The distribution is based on data from 2,038 U.S. counties and county equivalents.
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.

Health / Children's Health

Food Insecure Children Likely Ineligible for Assistance

Value
Compared to:

Health / Children's Health

Food Insecure Children Likely Ineligible for Assistance

Value
Compared to:

Food Insecure Children Likely Ineligible for Assistance County: Kings

Current Value:

Food Insecure Children Likely Ineligible for Assistance County: Kings

24%
(2022)
Compared to:
Compared to CA Counties, Kings has a value of 24% which is in the best 50% of counties. Counties in the best 50% have a value lower than 33% while counties in the worst 25% have a value higher than 40%.
CA Counties
The distribution is based on data from 58 California counties.
Compared to U.S. Counties, Kings has a value of 24% which is in the best 50% of counties. Counties in the best 50% have a value lower than 27% while counties in the worst 25% have a value higher than 36%.
U.S. Counties
The distribution is based on data from 3,131 U.S. counties and county equivalents.
Compared to the CA Value (35%), Kings has a value of 24% which is lower and better.
CA Value
(35%)
The regional value is compared to the California state value.
Compared to the US Value (25%), Kings has a value of 24% which is lower and better.
US Value
(25% in 2021)
The regional value is compared to the national value.
Compared to the prior value, Kings (24%) is greater and worse than the previously measured value (23%).
Prior Value
(23%)
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.

Health / Children's Health

Number of Summer Meals Served

Value
Compared to:

Health / Children's Health

Number of Summer Meals Served

Value
Compared to:

Number of Summer Meals Served County: Kings

Current Value:

Number of Summer Meals Served County: Kings

62,339
Meals
(2019)
Compared to:
Compared to the prior value, Kings (62,339) is greater and better than the previously measured value (59,851).
Prior Value
(59,851)
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.

Health / Children's Health

Number of Summer Meals Sites

Value
Compared to:

Health / Children's Health

Number of Summer Meals Sites

Value
Compared to:

Number of Summer Meals Sites County: Kings

Current Value:

Number of Summer Meals Sites County: Kings

28
Sites
(2019)
Compared to:
Compared to the prior value, Kings (28) is greater and better than the previously measured value (27).
Prior Value
(27)
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.

Health / Children's Health

Projected Child Food Insecurity Rate

Value
Compared to:

Health / Children's Health

Projected Child Food Insecurity Rate

Value
Compared to:

Projected Child Food Insecurity Rate County: Kings

Current Value:

Projected Child Food Insecurity Rate County: Kings

21.4%
(2021)
Compared to:
Compared to CA Counties, Kings has a value of 21.4% which is in the 2nd worst quartile of counties. Counties in the best 50% have a value lower than 19.6% while counties in the worst 25% have a value higher than 21.7%.
CA Counties
The distribution is based on data from 58 California counties.
Compared to U.S. Counties, Kings has a value of 21.4% which is in the 2nd worst quartile of counties. Counties in the best 50% have a value lower than 18.9% while counties in the worst 25% have a value higher than 23.4%.
U.S. Counties
The distribution is based on data from 3,142 U.S. counties and county equivalents.
Compared to the CA Value (16.8%), Kings has a value of 21.4% which is higher and worse.
CA Value
(16.8%)
The regional value is compared to the California state value.
Compared to the prior value, Kings (21.4%) is less and better than the previously measured value (31.6%).
Prior Value
(31.6%)
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.

Health / Children's Health

Substantiated Child Abuse Rate

Value
Compared to:

Health / Children's Health

Substantiated Child Abuse Rate

Value
Compared to:

Substantiated Child Abuse Rate County: Kings

Current Value:

Substantiated Child Abuse Rate County: Kings

6.1
Cases per 1,000 children
(2022)
Compared to:
Compared to the CA Value (6.1), Kings has a value of 6.1.
CA Value
(6.1)
The regional value is compared to the California state value.
Compared to the US Value (7.7), Kings has a value of 6.1 which is lower and better.
US Value
(7.7)
The regional value is compared to the national value. The source for the national value is Children's Bureau
Compared to the prior value, Kings (6.1) is greater and worse than the previously measured value (4.7).
Prior Value
(4.7)
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, 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 (8.7), the target has  been met.
HP 2030 Target
(8.7)

Health / Diabetes

Health / Diabetes

Health / Diabetes

Adults Who Bought Medications for Diabetes

Value
Compared to:

Health / Diabetes

Adults Who Bought Medications for Diabetes

Value
Compared to:

Adults Who Bought Medications for Diabetes County: Kings

Current Value:

Adults Who Bought Medications for Diabetes County: Kings

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.

Health / Diabetes

Adults with Diabetes

Value
Compared to:

Health / Diabetes

Adults with Diabetes

Value
Compared to:

Adults with Diabetes County: Kings

Current Value:

Adults with Diabetes County: Kings

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.

Health / Diabetes

Age-Adjusted Death Rate due to Diabetes

Value
Compared to:

Health / Diabetes

Age-Adjusted Death Rate due to Diabetes

Value
Compared to:

Age-Adjusted Death Rate due to Diabetes County: Kings

Current Value:

Age-Adjusted Death Rate due to Diabetes County: Kings

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.

Health / Diabetes

Diabetes: Medicare Population

Value
Compared to:

Health / Diabetes

Diabetes: Medicare Population

Value
Compared to:

Diabetes: Medicare Population County: Kings

Current Value:

Diabetes: Medicare Population County: Kings

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.

Health / Disabilities

Health / Disabilities

Health / Disabilities

Adults with Disability Living in Poverty

Value
Compared to:

Health / Disabilities

Adults with Disability Living in Poverty

Value
Compared to:

Adults with Disability Living in Poverty County: Kings

Current Value:

Adults with Disability Living in Poverty County: Kings

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.

Health / Disabilities

Children with a Disability

Value
Compared to:

Health / Disabilities

Children with a Disability

Value
Compared to:

Children with a Disability County: Kings

Current Value:

Children with a Disability County: Kings

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.

Health / Disabilities

Persons with a Cognitive Difficulty

Value
Compared to:

Health / Disabilities

Persons with a Cognitive Difficulty

Value
Compared to:

Persons with a Cognitive Difficulty County: Kings

Current Value:

Persons with a Cognitive Difficulty County: Kings

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.

Health / Disabilities

Persons with a Disability

Value
Compared to:

Health / Disabilities

Persons with a Disability

Value
Compared to:

Persons with a Disability County: Kings

Current Value:

Persons with a Disability County: Kings

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.

Health / Disabilities

Persons with a Hearing Difficulty

Value
Compared to:

Health / Disabilities

Persons with a Hearing Difficulty

Value
Compared to:

Persons with a Hearing Difficulty County: Kings

Current Value:

Persons with a Hearing Difficulty County: Kings

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.

Health / Disabilities

Persons with a Self-Care Difficulty

Value
Compared to:

Health / Disabilities

Persons with a Self-Care Difficulty

Value
Compared to:

Persons with a Self-Care Difficulty County: Kings

Current Value:

Persons with a Self-Care Difficulty County: Kings

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.

Health / Disabilities

Persons with a Vision Difficulty

Value
Compared to:

Health / Disabilities

Persons with a Vision Difficulty

Value
Compared to:

Persons with a Vision Difficulty County: Kings

Current Value:

Persons with a Vision Difficulty County: Kings

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.

Health / Disabilities

Persons with an Ambulatory Difficulty

Value
Compared to:

Health / Disabilities

Persons with an Ambulatory Difficulty

Value
Compared to:

Persons with an Ambulatory Difficulty County: Kings

Current Value:

Persons with an Ambulatory Difficulty County: Kings

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.

Health / Disabilities

Veterans with a Disability

Value
Compared to:

Health / Disabilities

Veterans with a Disability

Value
Compared to:

Veterans with a Disability County: Kings

Current Value:

Veterans with a Disability County: Kings

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.

Health / Health Care Access & Quality

Health / Health Care Access & Quality

Health / Health Care Access & Quality

Adults Delayed or had Difficulty Obtaining Care

Value
Compared to:

Health / Health Care Access & Quality

Adults Delayed or had Difficulty Obtaining Care

Value
Compared to:

Adults Delayed or had Difficulty Obtaining Care County: Kings

Current Value:

Adults Delayed or had Difficulty Obtaining Care County: Kings

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.

Health / Health Care Access & Quality

Adults Needing and Receiving Behavioral Health Care Services

Value
Compared to:

Health / Health Care Access & Quality

Adults Needing and Receiving Behavioral Health Care Services

Value
Compared to:

Adults Needing and Receiving Behavioral Health Care Services County: Kings

Current Value:

Adults Needing and Receiving Behavioral Health Care Services County: Kings

51.0%
(2021-2022)
Compared to:
Compared to CA Counties, Kings has a value of 51.0% which is in the worst 25% of counties. Counties in the best 50%  have a value higher than 60.5% while counties in the worst 25% have a value lower than 55.8%.
CA Counties
The distribution is based on data from 58 California counties.
Compared to the CA Value (55.9%), Kings has a value of 51.0% which is lower and worse.
CA Value
(55.9%)
The regional value is compared to the California state value.
Compared to the prior value, Kings (51.0%) is not statistically different from the previously measured value (55.2%).
Prior Value
(55.2%)
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.

Health / Health Care Access & Quality

Adults who have had a Routine Checkup

Value
Compared to:

Health / Health Care Access & Quality

Adults who have had a Routine Checkup

Value
Compared to:

Adults who have had a Routine Checkup County: Kings

Current Value:

Adults who have had a Routine Checkup County: Kings

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.

Health / Health Care Access & Quality

Adults Who Visited an OB/GYN

Value
Compared to:

Health / Health Care Access & Quality

Adults Who Visited an OB/GYN

Value
Compared to:

Adults Who Visited an OB/GYN County: Kings

Current Value:

Adults Who Visited an OB/GYN County: Kings

15.3%
(2023)
Compared to:
Compared to the CA Value (16.6%), Kings has a value of 15.3%.
CA Value
(16.6%)
The regional value is compared to the California state value.
Compared to the US Value (15.7%), Kings has a value of 15.3%.
US Value
(15.7%)
The regional value is compared to the national value.
Compared to the prior value, Kings (15.3%) is less  than the previously measured value (16.1%).
Prior Value
(16.1%)
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.
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.

Health / Health Care Access & Quality

Adults with Health Insurance: 18-64

Value
Compared to:

Health / Health Care Access & Quality

Adults with Health Insurance: 18-64

Value
Compared to:

Adults with Health Insurance: 18-64 County: Kings

Current Value:

Adults with Health Insurance: 18-64 County: Kings

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.

Health / Health Care Access & Quality

Adults with HMO Health Insurance

Value
Compared to:

Health / Health Care Access & Quality

Adults with HMO Health Insurance

Value
Compared to:

Adults with HMO Health Insurance County: Kings

Current Value:

Adults with HMO Health Insurance County: Kings

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.

Health / Health Care Access & Quality

Adults with Medicaid Health Insurance

Value
Compared to:

Health / Health Care Access & Quality

Adults with Medicaid Health Insurance

Value
Compared to:

Adults with Medicaid Health Insurance County: Kings

Current Value:

Adults with Medicaid Health Insurance County: Kings

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.

Health / Health Care Access & Quality

Adults with Medicare Health Insurance

Value
Compared to:

Health / Health Care Access & Quality

Adults with Medicare Health Insurance

Value
Compared to:

Adults with Medicare Health Insurance County: Kings

Current Value:

Adults with Medicare Health Insurance County: Kings

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.

Health / Health Care Access & Quality

Adults with Military Health Insurance

Value
Compared to:

Health / Health Care Access & Quality

Adults with Military Health Insurance

Value
Compared to:

Adults with Military Health Insurance County: Kings

Current Value:

Adults with Military Health Insurance County: Kings

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.

Health / Health Care Access & Quality

Adults with Other Health Insurance

Value
Compared to:

Health / Health Care Access & Quality

Adults with Other Health Insurance

Value
Compared to:

Adults with Other Health Insurance County: Kings

Current Value:

Adults with Other Health Insurance County: Kings

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.

Health / Health Care Access & Quality

Adults with POS Health Insurance

Value
Compared to:

Health / Health Care Access & Quality

Adults with POS Health Insurance

Value
Compared to:

Adults with POS Health Insurance County: Kings

Current Value:

Adults with POS Health Insurance County: Kings

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.

Health / Health Care Access & Quality

Adults with PPO Health Insurance

Value
Compared to:

Health / Health Care Access & Quality

Adults with PPO Health Insurance

Value
Compared to:

Adults with PPO Health Insurance County: Kings

Current Value:

Adults with PPO Health Insurance County: Kings

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.

Health / Health Care Access & Quality

Adults without Health Insurance

Value
Compared to:

Health / Health Care Access & Quality

Adults without Health Insurance

Value
Compared to:

Adults without Health Insurance County: Kings

Current Value:

Adults without Health Insurance County: Kings

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.

Health / Health Care Access & Quality

Children with Health Insurance

Value
Compared to:

Health / Health Care Access & Quality

Children with Health Insurance

Value
Compared to:

Children with Health Insurance County: Kings

Current Value:

Children with Health Insurance County: Kings

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.

Health / Health Care Access & Quality

Households that Received Cardiology Medical Services

Value
Compared to:

Health / Health Care Access & Quality

Households that Received Cardiology Medical Services

Value
Compared to:

Households that Received Cardiology Medical Services County: Kings

Current Value:

Households that Received Cardiology Medical Services County: Kings

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.

Health / Health Care Access & Quality

Households that Received Medical Services in an Emergency Room

Value
Compared to:

Health / Health Care Access & Quality

Households that Received Medical Services in an Emergency Room

Value
Compared to:

Households that Received Medical Services in an Emergency Room County: Kings

Current Value:

Households that Received Medical Services in an Emergency Room County: Kings

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.

Health / Health Care Access & Quality

Households that Received Medical Services in an Urgent Care Facility

Value
Compared to:

Health / Health Care Access & Quality

Households that Received Medical Services in an Urgent Care Facility

Value
Compared to:

Households that Received Medical Services in an Urgent Care Facility County: Kings

Current Value:

Households that Received Medical Services in an Urgent Care Facility County: Kings

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.

Health / Health Care Access & Quality

Households that Received Mental Healthcare Services

Value
Compared to:

Health / Health Care Access & Quality

Households that Received Mental Healthcare Services

Value
Compared to:

Households that Received Mental Healthcare Services County: Kings

Current Value:

Households that Received Mental Healthcare Services County: Kings

9.7%
(2023)
Compared to:
Compared to the CA Value (9.5%), Kings has a value of 9.7%.
CA Value
(9.5%)
The regional value is compared to the California state value.
Compared to the US Value (8.8%), Kings has a value of 9.7%.
US Value
(8.8%)
The regional value is compared to the national value.
Compared to the prior value, Kings (9.7%) is greater  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.

Health / Health Care Access & Quality

Households that Received Pediatric Medical Services

Value
Compared to:

Health / Health Care Access & Quality

Households that Received Pediatric Medical Services

Value
Compared to:

Households that Received Pediatric Medical Services County: Kings

Current Value:

Households that Received Pediatric Medical Services County: Kings

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.

Health / Health Care Access & Quality

Households that Received Substance Abuse Medical Services

Value
Compared to:

Health / Health Care Access & Quality

Households that Received Substance Abuse Medical Services

Value
Compared to:

Households that Received Substance Abuse Medical Services County: Kings

Current Value:

Households that Received Substance Abuse Medical Services County: Kings

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.

Health / Health Care Access & Quality

Mental Health Provider Rate

Value
Compared to:

Health / Health Care Access & Quality

Mental Health Provider Rate

Value
Compared to:

Mental Health Provider Rate County: Kings

Current Value:

Mental Health Provider Rate County: Kings

236
Providers per 100,000 population
(2023)
Compared to:
Compared to CA Counties, Kings has a value of 236 which is in the worst 25% of counties. Counties in the best 50%  have a value higher than 401 while counties in the worst 25% have a value lower than 259.
CA Counties
The distribution is based on data from 58 California counties.
Compared to U.S. Counties, Kings has a value of 236 which is in the best 50% of counties. Counties in the best 50%  have a value higher than 137 while counties in the worst 25% have a value lower than 62.
U.S. Counties
The distribution is based on data from 2,956 U.S. counties and county equivalents.
Compared to the CA Value (450), Kings has a value of 236 which is lower and worse.
CA Value
(450)
The regional value is compared to the California state value.
Compared to the prior value, Kings (236) is greater and better than the previously measured value (224).
Prior Value
(224)
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.

Health / Health Care Access & Quality

Non-Physician Primary Care Provider Rate

Value
Compared to:

Health / Health Care Access & Quality

Non-Physician Primary Care Provider Rate

Value
Compared to:

Non-Physician Primary Care Provider Rate County: Kings

Current Value:

Non-Physician Primary Care Provider Rate County: Kings

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.

Health / Health Care Access & Quality

People Delayed or had Difficulty Obtaining Care

Value
Compared to:

Health / Health Care Access & Quality

People Delayed or had Difficulty Obtaining Care

Value
Compared to:

People Delayed or had Difficulty Obtaining Care County: Kings

Current Value:

People Delayed or had Difficulty Obtaining Care County: Kings

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%)

Health / Health Care Access & Quality

People with a Usual Source of Health Care

Value
Compared to:

Health / Health Care Access & Quality

People with a Usual Source of Health Care

Value
Compared to:

People with a Usual Source of Health Care County: Kings

Current Value:

People with a Usual Source of Health Care County: Kings

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.

Health / Health Care Access & Quality

Persons with Health Insurance

Value
Compared to:

Health / Health Care Access & Quality

Persons with Health Insurance

Value
Compared to:

Persons with Health Insurance County: Kings

Current Value:

Persons with Health Insurance County: Kings

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>

Health / Health Care Access & Quality

Persons with Private Health Insurance Only

Value
Compared to:

Health / Health Care Access & Quality

Persons with Private Health Insurance Only

Value
Compared to:

Persons with Private Health Insurance Only County: Kings

Current Value:

Persons with Private Health Insurance Only County: Kings

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.

Health / Health Care Access & Quality

Persons with Public Health Insurance Only

Value
Compared to:

Health / Health Care Access & Quality

Persons with Public Health Insurance Only

Value
Compared to:

Persons with Public Health Insurance Only County: Kings

Current Value:

Persons with Public Health Insurance Only County: Kings

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.

Health / Health Care Access & Quality

Preventable Hospital Stays: Medicare Population

Value
Compared to:

Health / Health Care Access & Quality

Preventable Hospital Stays: Medicare Population

Value
Compared to:

Preventable Hospital Stays: Medicare Population County: Kings

Current Value:

Preventable Hospital Stays: Medicare Population County: Kings

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.

Health / Health Care Access & Quality

Primary Care Provider Rate

Value
Compared to:

Health / Health Care Access & Quality

Primary Care Provider Rate

Value
Compared to:

Primary Care Provider Rate County: Kings

Current Value:

Primary Care Provider Rate County: Kings

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.

Health / Health Care Access & Quality

Respondents Who Are Able to Access Medical Services

Value
Compared to:

Health / Health Care Access & Quality

Respondents Who Are Able to Access Medical Services

Value
Compared to:

Respondents Who Are Able to Access Medical Services County: Kings

Current Value:

Respondents Who Are Able to Access Medical Services County: Kings

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%)

Health / Health Care Access & Quality

Respondents who are Able to Access Mental Health Services

Value
Compared to:

Health / Health Care Access & Quality

Respondents who are Able to Access Mental Health Services

Value
Compared to:

Respondents who are Able to Access Mental Health Services County: Kings

Current Value:

Respondents who are Able to Access Mental Health Services County: Kings

70.9%
(2023)
Compared to:
Compared to the prior value, Kings (70.9%) is greater  than the previously measured value (55.2%).
Prior Value
(55.2%)
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.

Health / Health Care Access & Quality

Respondents who are Able to Access Telehealth Services

Value
Compared to:

Health / Health Care Access & Quality

Respondents who are Able to Access Telehealth Services

Value
Compared to:

Respondents who are Able to Access Telehealth Services County: Kings

Current Value:

Respondents who are Able to Access Telehealth Services County: Kings

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.

Health / Health Care Access & Quality

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

Value
Compared to:

Health / Health Care Access & Quality

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

Value
Compared to:

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

Current Value:

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

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%)

Health / Health Care Access & Quality

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

Value
Compared to:

Health / Health Care Access & Quality

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

Value
Compared to:

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

Current Value:

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

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.

Health / Health Care Access & Quality

Respondents who are unable to access medical services due to a lack of local specialists

Value
Compared to:

Health / Health Care Access & Quality

Respondents who are unable to access medical services due to a lack of local specialists

Value
Compared to:

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

Current Value:

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

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.

Health / Health Care Access & Quality

Respondents who are unable to access medical services due to finances

Value
Compared to:

Health / Health Care Access & Quality

Respondents who are unable to access medical services due to finances

Value
Compared to:

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

Current Value:

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

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.

Health / Health Care Access & Quality

Respondents who are unable to access medical services due to having no insurance

Value
Compared to:

Health / Health Care Access & Quality

Respondents who are unable to access medical services due to having no insurance

Value
Compared to:

Respondents who are unable to access medical services due to having no insurance County: Kings

Current Value:

Respondents who are unable to access medical services due to having no insurance County: Kings

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.

Health / Health Care Access & Quality

Respondents who are unable to access medical services due to healthcare hours

Value
Compared to:

Health / Health Care Access & Quality

Respondents who are unable to access medical services due to healthcare hours

Value
Compared to:

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

Current Value:

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

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.

Health / Health Care Access & Quality

Respondents who are unable to access medical services due to lack of transportation

Value
Compared to:

Health / Health Care Access & Quality

Respondents who are unable to access medical services due to lack of transportation

Value
Compared to:

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

Current Value:

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

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.

Health / Health Care Access & Quality

Respondents who are unable to access medical services due to scheduling conflicts

Value
Compared to:

Health / Health Care Access & Quality

Respondents who are unable to access medical services due to scheduling conflicts

Value
Compared to:

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

Current Value:

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

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.

Health / Health Care Access & Quality

Respondents who are unable to access mental health services due to a lack of childcare

Value
Compared to:

Health / Health Care Access & Quality

Respondents who are unable to access mental health services due to a lack of childcare

Value
Compared to:

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

Current Value:

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

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.

Respondents who are unable to access mental health services due to an inability to find a provider County: Kings

Current Value:

Respondents who are unable to access mental health services due to an inability to find a provider County: Kings

37.9%
(2023)
Compared to:
Compared to the prior value, Kings (37.9%) is less and better than the previously measured value (45.8%).
Prior Value
(45.8%)
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.

Health / Health Care Access & Quality

Respondents who are unable to access mental health services due to finances

Value
Compared to:

Health / Health Care Access & Quality

Respondents who are unable to access mental health services due to finances

Value
Compared to:

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

Current Value:

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

34.5%
(2023)
Compared to:
Compared to the prior value, Kings (34.5%) is greater and worse than the previously measured value (13.6%).
Prior Value
(13.6%)
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.

Health / Health Care Access & Quality

Respondents who are unable to access mental health services due to having no insurance

Value
Compared to:

Health / Health Care Access & Quality

Respondents who are unable to access mental health services due to having no insurance

Value
Compared to:

Respondents who are unable to access mental health services due to having no insurance County: Kings

Current Value:

Respondents who are unable to access mental health services due to having no insurance County: Kings

21.8%
(2023)
Compared to:
Compared to the prior value, Kings (21.8%) is less and better 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.

Respondents who are unable to access mental health services due to lack of transportation County: Kings

Current Value:

Respondents who are unable to access mental health services due to lack of transportation County: Kings

26.2%
(2023)
Compared to:
Compared to the prior value, Kings (26.2%) is greater and worse 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.

Respondents who are unable to access mental health services due to not being covered by insurance County: Kings

Current Value:

Respondents who are unable to access mental health services due to not being covered by insurance County: Kings

10.7%
(2023)
Compared to:
Compared to the prior value, Kings (10.7%) is less and better 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.

Health / Health Care Access & Quality

Respondents who are unable to access mental health services due to provider hours

Value
Compared to:

Health / Health Care Access & Quality

Respondents who are unable to access mental health services due to provider hours

Value
Compared to:

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

Current Value:

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

33.0%
(2023)
Compared to:
Compared to the prior value, Kings (33.0%) is greater  than the previously measured value (13.6%).
Prior Value
(13.6%)
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.

Health / Health Care Access & Quality

Respondents who are unable to access mental health services due to stigma

Value
Compared to:

Health / Health Care Access & Quality

Respondents who are unable to access mental health services due to stigma

Value
Compared to:

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

Current Value:

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

22.8%
(2023)
Compared to:
Compared to the prior value, Kings (22.8%) is greater and worse than the previously measured value (13.6%).
Prior Value
(13.6%)
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.

Health / Health Care Access & Quality

Respondents who are unable to access telehealth services due to finances

Value
Compared to:

Health / Health Care Access & Quality

Respondents who are unable to access telehealth services due to finances

Value
Compared to:

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

Current Value:

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

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.

Health / Health Care Access & Quality

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

Value
Compared to:

Health / Health Care Access & Quality

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

Value
Compared to:

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

Current Value:

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

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.

Health / Health Care Access & Quality

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

Value
Compared to:

Health / Health Care Access & Quality

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

Value
Compared to:

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

Current Value:

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

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.

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

Current Value:

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

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.

Health / Health Care Access & Quality

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

Value
Compared to:

Health / Health Care Access & Quality

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

Value
Compared to:

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

Current Value:

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

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.

Health / Health Care Access & Quality

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

Value
Compared to:

Health / Health Care Access & Quality

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

Value
Compared to:

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

Current Value:

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

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.

Health / Health Care Access & Quality

Respondents who are unable to access telehealth services due to provider hours

Value
Compared to:

Health / Health Care Access & Quality

Respondents who are unable to access telehealth services due to provider hours

Value
Compared to:

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

Current Value:

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

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.

Health / Health Care Access & Quality

Respondents who are unable to access telehealth services due to stigma

Value
Compared to:

Health / Health Care Access & Quality

Respondents who are unable to access telehealth services due to stigma

Value
Compared to:

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

Current Value:

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

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.

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

Current Value:

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

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.

Health / Health Care Access & Quality

Respondents who Have Used Mental Health Services in the Community

Value
Compared to:

Health / Health Care Access & Quality

Respondents who Have Used Mental Health Services in the Community

Value
Compared to:

Respondents who Have Used Mental Health Services in the Community County: Kings

Current Value:

Respondents who Have Used Mental Health Services in the Community County: Kings

30.9%
(2023)
Compared to:
Compared to the prior value, Kings (30.9%) is greater  than the previously measured value (14.1%).
Prior Value
(14.1%)
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.
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.

Health / Health Care Access & Quality

Respondents who need assistance with accessing medical coverage

Value
Compared to:

Health / Health Care Access & Quality

Respondents who need assistance with accessing medical coverage

Value
Compared to:

Respondents who need assistance with accessing medical coverage County: Kings

Current Value:

Respondents who need assistance with accessing medical coverage County: Kings

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.

Health / Health Care Access & Quality

Respondents Who Stated Their Families Are Covered by Health Insurance

Value
Compared to:

Health / Health Care Access & Quality

Respondents Who Stated Their Families Are Covered by Health Insurance

Value
Compared to:

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

Current Value:

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

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%)

Respondents whose Household Experienced Reduced Work Hours of Wages due to the COVID Pandemic County: Kings

Current Value:

Respondents whose Household Experienced Reduced Work Hours of Wages due to the COVID Pandemic County: Kings

24.4%
(2021)
Compared to:
Compared to the No Comparison Data Available (0%), the target has not been met.
No Comparison Data Available
(0%)

Health / Health Information Technology

Health / Health Information Technology

Health / Health Information Technology

Adults Who Access Medical Services and Information through the Internet

Value
Compared to:

Health / Health Information Technology

Adults Who Access Medical Services and Information through the Internet

Value
Compared to:

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

Current Value:

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

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.

Health / Health Information Technology

Households with a Smartphone

Value
Compared to:

Health / Health Information Technology

Households with a Smartphone

Value
Compared to:

Households with a Smartphone County: Kings

Current Value:

Households with a Smartphone County: Kings

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.

Health / Health Information Technology

Households with an Internet Subscription

Value
Compared to:

Health / Health Information Technology

Households with an Internet Subscription

Value
Compared to:

Households with an Internet Subscription County: Kings

Current Value:

Households with an Internet Subscription County: Kings

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.

Health / Health Information Technology

Households with One or More Types of Computing Devices

Value
Compared to:

Health / Health Information Technology

Households with One or More Types of Computing Devices

Value
Compared to:

Households with One or More Types of Computing Devices County: Kings

Current Value:

Households with One or More Types of Computing Devices County: Kings

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.

Health / Health Information Technology

Persons with an Internet Subscription

Value
Compared to:

Health / Health Information Technology

Persons with an Internet Subscription

Value
Compared to:

Persons with an Internet Subscription County: Kings

Current Value:

Persons with an Internet Subscription County: Kings

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.

Health / Health Information Technology

Respondents who Stated they Have Internet Access in their Home

Value
Compared to:

Health / Health Information Technology

Respondents who Stated they Have Internet Access in their Home

Value
Compared to:

Respondents who Stated they Have Internet Access in their Home County: Kings

Current Value:

Respondents who Stated they Have Internet Access in their Home County: Kings

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%)

Health / Heart Disease & Stroke

Health / Heart Disease & Stroke

Health / Heart Disease & Stroke

Adults Who Bought Medications for Cholesterol

Value
Compared to:

Health / Heart Disease & Stroke

Adults Who Bought Medications for Cholesterol

Value
Compared to:

Adults Who Bought Medications for Cholesterol County: Kings

Current Value:

Adults Who Bought Medications for Cholesterol County: Kings

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.

Health / Heart Disease & Stroke

Adults who Experienced a Stroke

Value
Compared to:

Health / Heart Disease & Stroke

Adults who Experienced a Stroke

Value
Compared to:

Adults who Experienced a Stroke County: Kings

Current Value:

Adults who Experienced a Stroke County: Kings

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.

Health / Heart Disease & Stroke

Adults who Experienced Coronary Heart Disease

Value
Compared to:

Health / Heart Disease & Stroke

Adults who Experienced Coronary Heart Disease

Value
Compared to:

Adults who Experienced Coronary Heart Disease County: Kings

Current Value:

Adults who Experienced Coronary Heart Disease County: Kings

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.

Health / Heart Disease & Stroke

Adults who Have Taken Medications for High Blood Pressure

Value
Compared to:

Health / Heart Disease & Stroke

Adults who Have Taken Medications for High Blood Pressure

Value
Compared to:

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

Current Value:

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

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.

Health / Heart Disease & Stroke

Adults Who Visited a Cardiologist

Value
Compared to:

Health / Heart Disease & Stroke

Adults Who Visited a Cardiologist

Value
Compared to:

Adults Who Visited a Cardiologist County: Kings

Current Value:

Adults Who Visited a Cardiologist County: Kings

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.

Health / Heart Disease & Stroke

Adults with Heart Disease

Value
Compared to:

Health / Heart Disease & Stroke

Adults with Heart Disease

Value
Compared to:

Adults with Heart Disease County: Kings

Current Value:

Adults with Heart Disease County: Kings

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.

Health / Heart Disease & Stroke

Age-Adjusted Death Rate due to Cerebrovascular Disease (Stroke)

Value
Compared to:

Health / Heart Disease & Stroke

Age-Adjusted Death Rate due to Cerebrovascular Disease (Stroke)

Value
Compared to:

Age-Adjusted Death Rate due to Cerebrovascular Disease (Stroke) County: Kings

Current Value:

Age-Adjusted Death Rate due to Cerebrovascular Disease (Stroke) County: Kings

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)

Health / Heart Disease & Stroke

Age-Adjusted Death Rate due to Coronary Heart Disease

Value
Compared to:

Health / Heart Disease & Stroke

Age-Adjusted Death Rate due to Coronary Heart Disease

Value
Compared to:

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

Current Value:

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

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)

Health / Heart Disease & Stroke

Age-Adjusted Death Rate due to Heart Attack

Value
Compared to:

Health / Heart Disease & Stroke

Age-Adjusted Death Rate due to Heart Attack

Value
Compared to:

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

Current Value:

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

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.

Health / Heart Disease & Stroke

Atrial Fibrillation: Medicare Population

Value
Compared to:

Health / Heart Disease & Stroke

Atrial Fibrillation: Medicare Population

Value
Compared to:

Atrial Fibrillation: Medicare Population County: Kings

Current Value:

Atrial Fibrillation: Medicare Population County: Kings

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.

Health / Heart Disease & Stroke

Cholesterol Test History

Value
Compared to:

Health / Heart Disease & Stroke

Cholesterol Test History

Value
Compared to:

Cholesterol Test History County: Kings

Current Value:

Cholesterol Test History County: Kings

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.

Health / Heart Disease & Stroke

Heart Failure: Medicare Population

Value
Compared to:

Health / Heart Disease & Stroke

Heart Failure: Medicare Population

Value
Compared to:

Heart Failure: Medicare Population County: Kings

Current Value:

Heart Failure: Medicare Population County: Kings

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.

Health / Heart Disease & Stroke

High Blood Pressure Prevalence

Value
Compared to:

Health / Heart Disease & Stroke

High Blood Pressure Prevalence

Value
Compared to:

High Blood Pressure Prevalence County: Kings

Current Value:

High Blood Pressure Prevalence County: Kings

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%)

Health / Heart Disease & Stroke

High Cholesterol Prevalence

Value
Compared to:

Health / Heart Disease & Stroke

High Cholesterol Prevalence

Value
Compared to:

High Cholesterol Prevalence County: Kings

Current Value:

High Cholesterol Prevalence County: Kings

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.

Health / Heart Disease & Stroke

High Cholesterol Prevalence: Past 5 Years

Value
Compared to:

Health / Heart Disease & Stroke

High Cholesterol Prevalence: Past 5 Years

Value
Compared to:

High Cholesterol Prevalence: Past 5 Years County: Kings

Current Value:

High Cholesterol Prevalence: Past 5 Years County: Kings

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.

Health / Heart Disease & Stroke

Hyperlipidemia: Medicare Population

Value
Compared to:

Health / Heart Disease & Stroke

Hyperlipidemia: Medicare Population

Value
Compared to:

Hyperlipidemia: Medicare Population County: Kings

Current Value:

Hyperlipidemia: Medicare Population County: Kings

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.

Health / Heart Disease & Stroke

Hypertension: Medicare Population

Value
Compared to:

Health / Heart Disease & Stroke

Hypertension: Medicare Population

Value
Compared to:

Hypertension: Medicare Population County: Kings

Current Value:

Hypertension: Medicare Population County: Kings

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.

Health / Heart Disease & Stroke

Ischemic Heart Disease: Medicare Population

Value
Compared to:

Health / Heart Disease & Stroke

Ischemic Heart Disease: Medicare Population

Value
Compared to:

Ischemic Heart Disease: Medicare Population County: Kings

Current Value:

Ischemic Heart Disease: Medicare Population County: Kings

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.

Health / Heart Disease & Stroke

Stroke: Medicare Population

Value
Compared to:

Health / Heart Disease & Stroke

Stroke: Medicare Population

Value
Compared to:

Stroke: Medicare Population County: Kings

Current Value:

Stroke: Medicare Population County: Kings

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.

Health / Immunizations & Infectious Diseases

Health / Immunizations & Infectious Diseases

Health / Immunizations & Infectious Diseases

Age-Adjusted Death Rate due to Influenza and Pneumonia

Value
Compared to:

Health / Immunizations & Infectious Diseases

Age-Adjusted Death Rate due to Influenza and Pneumonia

Value
Compared to:

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

Current Value:

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

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.

Health / Immunizations & Infectious Diseases

COVID-19 Daily Average Case-Fatality Rate

Value
Compared to:

Health / Immunizations & Infectious Diseases

COVID-19 Daily Average Case-Fatality Rate

Value
Compared to:

COVID-19 Daily Average Case-Fatality Rate County: Kings

Current Value:

COVID-19 Daily Average Case-Fatality Rate County: Kings

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.

Health / Immunizations & Infectious Diseases

COVID-19 Daily Average Incidence Rate

Value
Compared to:

Health / Immunizations & Infectious Diseases

COVID-19 Daily Average Incidence Rate

Value
Compared to:

COVID-19 Daily Average Incidence Rate County: Kings

Current Value:

COVID-19 Daily Average Incidence Rate County: Kings

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.

Health / Immunizations & Infectious Diseases

Flu Vaccinations: Medicare Population

Value
Compared to:

Health / Immunizations & Infectious Diseases

Flu Vaccinations: Medicare Population

Value
Compared to:

Flu Vaccinations: Medicare Population County: Kings

Current Value:

Flu Vaccinations: Medicare Population County: Kings

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.

Health / Immunizations & Infectious Diseases

Kindergartners with Required Immunizations

Value
Compared to:

Health / Immunizations & Infectious Diseases

Kindergartners with Required Immunizations

Value
Compared to:

Kindergartners with Required Immunizations County: Kings

Current Value:

Kindergartners with Required Immunizations County: Kings

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.

Health / Immunizations & Infectious Diseases

Overcrowded Households

Value
Compared to:

Health / Immunizations & Infectious Diseases

Overcrowded Households

Value
Compared to:

Overcrowded Households County: Kings

Current Value:

Overcrowded Households County: Kings

8.3%
(2018-2022)
Compared to:
Compared to CA Counties, Kings has a value of 8.3% which is in the worst 25% of counties. Counties in the best 50% have a value lower than 5.4% while counties in the worst 25% have a value higher than 7.7%.
CA Counties
The distribution is based on data from 58 California counties.
Compared to the CA Value (8.2%), Kings has a value of 8.3% which is higher and worse.
CA Value
(8.2%)
The regional value is compared to the California state value.
Compared to the US Value (3.4%), Kings has a value of 8.3% which is higher and worse.
US Value
(3.4%)
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.

Health / Immunizations & Infectious Diseases

Persons Fully Vaccinated Against COVID-19

Value
Compared to:

Health / Immunizations & Infectious Diseases

Persons Fully Vaccinated Against COVID-19

Value
Compared to:

Persons Fully Vaccinated Against COVID-19 County: Kings

Current Value:

Persons Fully Vaccinated Against COVID-19 County: Kings

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.

Health / Immunizations & Infectious Diseases

Pneumonia Vaccinations: Medicare Population

Value
Compared to:

Health / Immunizations & Infectious Diseases

Pneumonia Vaccinations: Medicare Population

Value
Compared to:

Pneumonia Vaccinations: Medicare Population County: Kings

Current Value:

Pneumonia Vaccinations: Medicare Population County: Kings

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.

Health / Immunizations & Infectious Diseases

Respondents who stated COVID-19 testing services are not accessible in the community

Value
Compared to:

Health / Immunizations & Infectious Diseases

Respondents who stated COVID-19 testing services are not accessible in the community

Value
Compared to:

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

Current Value:

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

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

Health / Immunizations & Infectious Diseases

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

Value
Compared to:

Health / Immunizations & Infectious Diseases

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

Value
Compared to:

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

Current Value:

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

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

Health / Immunizations & Infectious Diseases

Tuberculosis Incidence Rate

Value
Compared to:

Health / Immunizations & Infectious Diseases

Tuberculosis Incidence Rate

Value
Compared to:

Tuberculosis Incidence Rate County: Kings

Current Value:

Tuberculosis Incidence Rate County: Kings

5.2
Cases per 100,000 population
(2020)
Compared to:
Compared to CA Counties, Kings has a value of 5.2 which is in the 2nd worst quartile of counties. Counties in the best 50% have a value lower than 4.5 while counties in the worst 25% have a value higher than 6.5.
CA Counties
(2023)
The distribution is based on data from 30 California counties.
Compared to the CA Value (4.3), Kings has a value of 5.2 which is higher and worse.
CA Value
(4.3)
The regional value is compared to the California state value.
Compared to the US Value (2.2), Kings has a value of 5.2 which is higher and worse.
US Value
(2.2)
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 (5.2) is greater and worse than the previously measured value (3.3).
Prior Value
(3.3)
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.
Compared to the HP 2030 Target (1.4), the target has not been met.
HP 2030 Target
(1.4)

Health / Maternal, Fetal & Infant Health

Health / Maternal, Fetal & Infant Health

Health / Maternal, Fetal & Infant Health

Any In-Hospital Breastfeeding

Value
Compared to:

Health / Maternal, Fetal & Infant Health

Any In-Hospital Breastfeeding

Value
Compared to:

Any In-Hospital Breastfeeding County: Kings

Current Value:

Any In-Hospital Breastfeeding County: Kings

89.7%
(2022)
Compared to:
Compared to CA Counties, Kings has a value of 89.7% which is in the 2nd worst quartile of counties. Counties in the best 50%  have a value higher than 94.4% while counties in the worst 25% have a value lower than 89.6%.
CA Counties
The distribution is based on data from 58 California counties.
Compared to the CA Value (93.8%), Kings has a value of 89.7% which is lower and worse.
CA Value
(93.8%)
The regional value is compared to the California state value.
Compared to the prior value, Kings (89.7%) is not statistically different from the previously measured value (90.6%).
Prior Value
(90.6%)
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 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.

Health / Maternal, Fetal & Infant Health

Babies with Low Birthweight

Value
Compared to:

Health / Maternal, Fetal & Infant Health

Babies with Low Birthweight

Value
Compared to:

Babies with Low Birthweight County: Kings

Current Value:

Babies with Low Birthweight County: Kings

6.8%
(2020-2022)
Compared to:
Compared to CA Counties, Kings has a value of 6.8% which is in the best 50% 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 7.5%.
CA Counties
The distribution is based on data from 58 California counties.
Compared to the CA Value (7.2%), Kings has a value of 6.8% which is lower and better.
CA Value
(7.2%)
The regional value is compared to the California state value.
Compared to the US Value (8.5%), Kings has a value of 6.8% which is lower and better.
US Value
(8.5% in 2021)
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 (6.8%) 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 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.

Health / Maternal, Fetal & Infant Health

In-Hospital Exclusive Breastfeeding

Value
Compared to:

Health / Maternal, Fetal & Infant Health

In-Hospital Exclusive Breastfeeding

Value
Compared to:

In-Hospital Exclusive Breastfeeding County: Kings

Current Value:

In-Hospital Exclusive Breastfeeding County: Kings

60.7%
(2022)
Compared to:
Compared to CA Counties, Kings has a value of 60.7% which is in the 2nd worst quartile of counties. Counties in the best 50%  have a value higher than 72.7% while counties in the worst 25% have a value lower than 58.9%.
CA Counties
The distribution is based on data from 58 California counties.
Compared to the CA Value (68.5%), Kings has a value of 60.7% which is lower and worse.
CA Value
(68.5%)
The regional value is compared to the California state value.
Compared to the prior value, Kings (60.7%) is not statistically different from the previously measured value (57.0%).
Prior Value
(57.0%)
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.

Health / Maternal, Fetal & Infant Health

Infant Mortality Rate

Value
Compared to:

Health / Maternal, Fetal & Infant Health

Infant Mortality Rate

Value
Compared to:

Infant Mortality Rate County: Kings

Current Value:

Infant Mortality Rate County: Kings

4.7
Deaths per 1,000 live births
(2019-2021)
Compared to:
Compared to the CA Value (3.7), Kings has a value of 4.7 which is higher and worse.
CA Value
(3.7)
The regional value is compared to the California state value.
Compared to the US Value (5.4), Kings has a value of 4.7 which is lower and better.
US Value
(5.4 in 2021)
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 (4.7) is not statistically different from the previously measured value (4.6).
Prior Value
(4.6)
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.
Compared to the HP 2030 Target (5.0), the target has  been met.
HP 2030 Target
(5.0)
<div>MICH-02: Reduce the rate of infant deaths <strong>(LEADING HEALTH INDICATOR)</strong></div>

Health / Maternal, Fetal & Infant Health

Mothers who Received Early Prenatal Care

Value
Compared to:

Health / Maternal, Fetal & Infant Health

Mothers who Received Early Prenatal Care

Value
Compared to:

Mothers who Received Early Prenatal Care County: Kings

Current Value:

Mothers who Received Early Prenatal Care County: Kings

87.5%
(2020-2022)
Compared to:
Compared to CA Counties, Kings has a value of 87.5% which is in the best 50% of counties. Counties in the best 50%  have a value higher than 85.1% 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 (87.6%), Kings has a value of 87.5% which is lower and worse.
CA Value
(87.6%)
The regional value is compared to the California state value.
Compared to the US Value (75.3%), Kings has a value of 87.5% which is higher and better.
US Value
(75.3% in 2022)
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 (87.5%) is not statistically different from the previously measured value (88.3%).
Prior Value
(88.3%)
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.

Health / Maternal, Fetal & Infant Health

Preterm Births

Value
Compared to:

Health / Maternal, Fetal & Infant Health

Preterm Births

Value
Compared to:

Preterm Births County: Kings

Current Value:

Preterm Births County: Kings

9.5%
(2020-2022)
Compared to:
Compared to CA Counties, Kings has a value of 9.5% which is in the worst 25% of counties. Counties in the best 50% have a value lower than 8.8% while counties in the worst 25% have a value higher than 9.4%.
CA Counties
The distribution is based on data from 58 California counties.
Compared to the CA Value (9.0%), Kings has a value of 9.5% which is higher and worse.
CA Value
(9.0%)
The regional value is compared to the California state value.
Compared to the prior value, Kings (9.5%) is not statistically different from the previously measured value (9.3%).
Prior Value
(9.3%)
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.
Compared to the HP 2030 Target (9.4%), the target has not been met.
HP 2030 Target
(9.4%)