PODCAST: Healthy People Initiative, Part Three

April 23, 2021




HOST:  David Huang is the chief of the health promotion statistics branch at NCHS, and serves as the center’s primary statistical advisor on the Healthy People initiative. Healthy People for decades now has been identifying science-based objectives with targets to monitor progress and motivate and focus action aimed at improving the health of the nation.  David joined us to discuss the history of the program, what is going on presently, and what the future directions are.

HOST:  Why don’t we turn to the new tables that you’ve released.  Can you tell us a little bit about what’s going on, what’s new with Healthy People?

DAVID HUANG:  Sure.  So although we’ve launched Healthy People 2030 – and it’s been about a year now – we aren’t done with Healthy People 2020 yet.  “Healthy People 2020 Final Review” is a quantitative assessment of the progress  made towards the 2020 goals and objectives by the end of the decade.  Unlike previous Healthy People data publications like the “Healthy People 2020 Midcourse review” that were released as complete publications, the “Healthy People 2020 Final Review” actually consists of a suite of products that will be released by NCHS on a rolling basis over the course of the next year.  Many of these final review components will be released in a web-based format.  The first release in this suite of products is the web-based “Healthy People 2020 Progress Table” which was released on March 31st.  This table provides the final progress status for 1100 measurable objectives, which are those with at least baseline data. And note that this set of 1100 is actually broader than the 985 trackable objectives mentioned earlier, and those are objectives with the baseline and at least one followed data point.  Final progress was generally measured using the latest available data as of January 2020.  The web format will allow users to dynamically filter the table by any of the following categories in any combination: Healthy People 2020 topic area, key term, and final progress status.  This format will also allow users to download customized tables for future use.  We’re really hopeful that this new format is beneficial for users.  One notable feature about these new tables is the ability to look at objectives by topics and themes – also referred to as ‘key terms’ – that cut across Healthy People 2020 topic areas.  And this is actually a feature that also exists on the Healthy People 2030 website.  This ability to look at objectives not just by topic area but also across these broad topics and themes.

HOST:  Earlier you said that about a third of the 2020 objectives have been met or exceeded, I guess.  Could you give us some highlights from the tables that have been released?

DAVID HUANG:  Sure.  Certainly there are a lot of objectives.  For example, in chronic diseases like cancer, the overall cancer death rate, as well as many of the individual cancer death rate targets have been met.  There are also objectives across other topic areas not related to chronic disease that have been met. For example, persons who are unable to obtain or delay needing medical care is another example in the access to health services topic area.  But all in all, a third of objective targets have been met, and these objectives do stand many of the topic areas across Healthy People 2020.

HOST:  I was just scrolling down some of these and there’s some measures dealing with school and education.  It kind of looks like kids are doing better in school – was that sort of what the data show?

DAVID HUANG:  I think it definitely depends on the objective, but yes there is a very large topic area in “Healthy People 2020” on education and community-based programs.  And there are many objectives in that topic area that have met their targets.  Not all of them are necessarily related to how kids are doing in school.  For example, there’s an objective on the nurse to student ratio.  That’s an example of an objective in that topic area that’s been met.

HOST:  It was interesting because there was one measure that showed that kids were doing better than they were at the baseline, but at the same time fewer thought that school was meaningful or important. I thought that was kind of interesting, almost a contradiction if you will.

DAVID HUANG:  Right and you know there’s also consideration that should be given to the data source. I think there there’s obviously a broad range of not just topics but data sources in “Healthy People.” I think that the progress tables do provide a nice, high-level summary of how we’re doing on broad health indicators and hopefully will be useful for stakeholders.

HOST:  It looks like there’s progress made in some of the health care measures –  more people with medical and dental insurance, more with the source of ongoing care, ER wait times above normal were down – most of that looked pretty positive I guess.  But there were some measures that looked like they weren’t necessarily going in the right direction, such as people unable to get prescription medication when they needed.  It looked like that was lower, is that correct?

DAVID HUANG:  Yes that’s correct and that particular objective is actually part of a series of objectives that look at persons unable to obtain or delaying receipt of medical care, dental care, and then prescription medications as you mentioned is the one that is moving in the wrong direction.

HOST:  And just for people who don’t have the level of statistical sophistication, how the tables are laid out is you have a baseline percentage that you started with, and then at the cut point you have what the percentage did – if it changed either up or down – but then also you have another column that determines whether any change was statistically significant, is that correct?

DAVID HUANG:  Yeah and it is actually a little bit more nuanced than that.  The way that we measure movement when objectives are moving towards their targets is really the percentage of the targeted change that’s achieved.  That number will be equal to 100% if an objective exactly meets its target.  And it’s basically a sliding scale for other objectives that are moving in the right direction.  On the other hand, for objectives that are not moving in the right direction, you simply use the magnitude of the percent change from the baseline to assess movement away.  And then there is that column that you mentioned which does let the user know whether this movement – whether it’s in a positive or negative direction relative to the target is statistically significant or not.

HOST:  Anything else you’d like to talk about with regard to the new tables that have been posted?

DAVID HUANG:  Well, as I mentioned this is part of a larger set of components – the full ”Healthy People 2020 Final Review” will be released in components over the next several months.  So we are definitely looking forward to other components being released.  We will actually be working next on a series of pie charts that will actually use the information in this table and summarize it in pie charts so that users can see at a glance, for example, for their set of objectives that they filter down to, what proportion have met, or exceeded, improved, or got worse, for example.

HOST: Our thanks to David Huang for joining us on this edition of “Statcast.”


QuickStats: Age-Adjusted Death Rates for Alzheimer Disease Among Adults Aged ≥65 Years, by Sex — National Vital Statistics System, United States, 1999–2019

April 23, 2021


The age-adjusted death rate for Alzheimer disease increased from 128.8 per 100,000 in 1999 to 233.8 in 2019.

The trend for the total population and for men and women alternated between periods of general increase and periods of stability. Rates were stable from 2016 to 2019, and in 2019 were 263.0 for women and 186.3 for men.

Throughout the 1999–2019 period, the rate was higher for women than for men.

Source: National Center for Health Statistics, National Vital Statistics System, Mortality Data, 1999–2019. https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/nvss/deaths.htm

New COVID-19 Hospital Data

April 21, 2021


NCHS has released new National Hospital Care Survey (NHCS) data from 50 hospitals submitting inpatient and 47 hospitals submitting ED Uniform Bill (UB)-04 administrative claims from March 18, 2020–December 29, 2020.  Even though the data are not nationally representative, they can provide insight on the impact of COVID-19 on various types of hospitals throughout the country. This information is not available in other hospital reporting systems.

The NHCS data from these hospitals can show results by a combination of indicators related to COVID-19, such as length of inpatient stay, in-hospital mortality, comorbidities, and intubation or ventilator use. NHCS data allow for reporting on patient conditions and treatments within the hospital over time.


QuickStats: Age-Adjusted Percentage of Adults Aged 25–64 Years Who Are Very Worried About Their Ability to Pay Medical Bills if They Get Sick or Have an Accident, by Sex and Veteran Status

April 16, 2021


In 2019, among adults aged 25–64 years, veterans (11.5%) were less likely than nonveterans (20.1%) to be very worried about their ability to pay their medical bills if they get sick or have an accident.

This pattern was found for both men and women, with veterans less likely than nonveterans to be very worried about medical bills: 11.4% versus 17.5% for men and 12.5% versus 22.4% for women, respectively.

Source: National Center for Health Statistics, National Health Interview Survey, 2019 data. https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/nhis.htm


PODCAST: Healthy People Initiative, Part Two

April 16, 2021



podcast-iconHOST:  David Huang is the chief of the health promotion statistics branch at NCHS, and serves as the center’s primary statistical advisor on the Healthy People initiative. Healthy People for decades now has been identifying science-based objectives with targets to monitor progress and motivate and focus action aimed at improving the health of the nation.

HOST:  So there are obviously – since the beginning of the program – there’ve been hundreds and hundreds of objectives set.  Do you have any sort of gauge of how many objectives or what percent of the objectives of we’ve met over the years or exceeded?

DAVID HUANG:  Sure – so we look at these really decade by decade.  And for Healthy People 2020, which we’re closing out now, there were 985 trackable objectives, which were those with at least a baseline and one or more follow up data points.  And of these 985, 334 of these – which is about a third – had met or exceeded their targets at the end of the decade.  This compares with Healthy People 2010, where 172 of 733 – or about 1/4 of trackable objectives – met or exceeded their targets.  Note that over the decades, the balance and composition of objectives as well as target setting methods themselves do vary, so any of these sorts of comparisons across decades should be taken with a grain of salt.

HOST:  Right, so it’s not a direct apples to apples comparison but your goal is always to increase the proportion that are met?

DAVID HUANG:  Yes and no.  I mean I think certainly we do want to say that we’ve met more and more of our targets, but on the flip side you know some of that is directly related to how the targets are set as well as I mentioned kind of the balance and composition of the objectives themselves, so again not an apples to apples comparison.  It’s certainly something that the Department and Healthy People stakeholders are paying attention to.

HOST:  Now you alluded to COVID-19 – what happens when new health challenges appear on the scene, such as COVID-19?

DAVID HUANG:  One of the hallmarks of the Healthy People initiative is its ability to incorporate new science and innovation as well as emerging health priorities.  For example, Healthy People 2030 includes science-based objectives related to opioids and social determinants of health, which are top priorities for HHS and for the nation.  The initiative itself does allow the flexibility for new objectives to be added or even dropped as the decade progresses.  The new Healthy People 2030 website actually features a resource for building customizable lists of objectives that can be used to curate objectives that are relevant to specific goals.  So even though there isn’t anything necessarily specific on COVID-19 in Healthy People 2030, HHS has used this tool to develop a custom list of 2030 objectives that are directly related to COVID-19 and that list is actually available to the public on the Healthy People website.

HOST:  Before we get into some specifics as far as progress made in these objectives, in looking at the new tables I noticed that in some cases there’s more recent data then what you’re referring to as far as the end point. I’ll use some of the cancer death measures – I think 2017 was used and even though there was great progress made on that there’s obviously more recent data than 2017.  So we’re just curious why you don’t use the latest year of data?

DAVID HUANG:  So what you’re referring to is the set of progress tables that we developed for the Healthy People 2020 final review, which is our end of decade assessment of progress.  And because we were dealing with so many objectives and data sources we had to choose a data cutoff and for the Healthy People 2020 final review, that cutoff was January of 2020.  So yes, we certainly acknowledge we don’t necessarily have the latest available data for this report, but the intention is really to be looking across all objectives which is a broad range of objectives.  And certainly we would encourage folks to look to other sources, such as Healthy People 2030 as well as other indicator projects and programs to find the actual latest available data for each individual indicator.

HOST: Our thanks to David Huang for joining us on this edition of “Statcast.”


HOST:  This week the country reached a grim milestone in the fight against drug abuse. NCHS released the latest monthly provisional numbers showing more than 90,000 Americans lost their lives due to drug overdoses in the one-year period ending in September 2020.  This figure was nearly 29% higher than the total observed the year before.  Over 2/3 of those deaths – or nearly 67,000 – involved an opioid of some kind.  As has been the case for the last several years, fentanyl and other synthetic opioids are the drugs driving this increase.  Among the 50 U.S. states and DC, only South Dakota saw a decline in overdose deaths from the previous year.

NCHS also released a new report this week on flu vaccination among U.S. children.  Using data from the 2019 National Health Interview Survey, NCHS determined that just over half of children six months of age up to age 17 received a flu vaccine in the past year, and that older children were less likely to receive a flu vaccine than younger children.

Influenza Vaccination in the Past 12 Months Among Children Aged 6 Months–17 Years: United States, 2019

April 15, 2021

21-323150-visual-abstract-db407-child-flu-vacQuestions for Lindsey Black, Health Statistician and Lead Author of “Influenza Vaccination in the Past 12 Months Among Children Aged 6 Months–17 Years: United States, 2019.”

Q: Is this the most recent data you have on this topic?  If so, when will you release 2020 vaccination data?

LB: Yes, this is the most recent data. 2020 data will be released in the fall of 2021.

Q: Do you have influenza vaccination data for adults?

LB: Yes, some information on adults is available in the interactive summary health statistics for adults, located at : https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/nhis/shs.htm

Q: Do you have trend data that goes further back than 2019?

LB: Influenza vaccination has been collected as part of the sample child on NHIS since about 2005. However, in 2019, there were significant changes to the survey and we have not yet evaluated how that may result in a break in the trend, or the appropriateness of assessing trends across survey period (2019 vs earlier than 2019).

Q: Was there a specific finding in the data that surprised you from this report?

LB: I found it surprising that the amount of regional differences observed. It is so interesting that starting at the East South Central states, and moving North, we see a gradual improvement to 65.3% of children lving in New England that had a vaccination.

Q: Where can I get COVID vaccination data?  Will this be included in future NHIS data?

NHIS began collecting that and it will be included in the 2021 data release in the fall of 2022. In the meantime, Covid-19 vaccinations in the United States provided by CDC are located at:  https://covid.cdc.gov/covid-data-tracker/#vaccinations

Provisional Monthly Drug Overdose Deaths from September 2019 to September 2020

April 14, 2021


Today, NCHS released the next set of monthly provisional drug overdose death counts.

Provisional data show that the reported number of drug overdose deaths occurring in the United States increased by 26.8% from the 12 months ending in September 2019 to the 12 months ending in September 2020, from 68,757 to 87,203.  After adjustments for delayed reporting, the predicted number of drug overdose deaths showed an increase of 28.8% from the 12 months ending in September 2019 to the 12 months ending in September 2020, from 70,036 to 90,237. 

The reported number of opioid-involved drug overdose deaths in the United States for the 12-month period ending in September 2020 (64,472) increased from 48,140 in the previous year. The predicted number of opioid-involved drug overdose deaths in the United States for the 12-month period ending in September 2020 (66,813) increased from 49,125 in the previous year. Recent trends may still be partially due to incomplete data. 


PODCAST: Healthy People Initiative

April 9, 2021


HOST:  David Huang is the chief of the health promotion statistics branch at NCHS, and serves as the center’s primary statistical advisor on the Healthy People initiative. Healthy People for decades now has been identifying science-based objectives with targets to monitor progress and motivate and focus action aimed at improving the health of the nation.

David joined us to discuss the history of the program, what is going on presently, and what the future directions are.

HOST: David can you start by telling us a little bit about the history of the Healthy People program?

DAVID HUANG:  Sure.  Established in 1979, Healthy People is a science-based 10-year national initiative for improving the health of all Americans based on the latest available scientific evidence.  And at its core Healthy People provides a strategic framework for a national prevention agenda that communicates a vision for improving health and achieving health equity but at the heart of the initiative are the science-based measurable objectives with targets to be achieved by the end of each decade.  With the recent release of Healthy People 2030 last August, we’re actually now in our fifth decade of the initiative and while the Department of Health and Human Services or HHS leads the initiative through the Office of the Assistant Secretary for Health Office of Disease Prevention and Health Promotion or ODPHP, NCHS has served as the statistical advisor to the initiative since the first iteration of Healthy People.

HOST:  This program has been going on for quite a while – now how important is it in public health to have specific goals to work towards?

DAVID HUANG:  Well there are many federal health indicator projects, but the inclusion of a quantifiable target for each objective is a unique feature that distinguishes Healthy People from other broad federal prevention initiatives.  The use of targets was inspired by the “Management by Objectives” movement which emphasize setting of organizational goals and objectives and was outlined by Peter Drucker in his 1954 book called “The Practice of Management.”  Targets have been an integral part of Healthy People since its inception in 1979.  The examination of data relative to targets is considered critical to the usefulness of Healthy People as targets do communicate policy expectations and expert or evidence based recommendations to a wide range of stakeholders.  Moreover, targets offer a marker for assessing progress for each objective and for the initiative as a whole.

HOST:  How do you decide what the target is – is there any way of gauging whether it might be too lofty of a goal or too easy of a goal.  How is that process?

DAVID HUANG:  Targets are actually set by subject matter experts that are on topic area work groups and these are folks from across the Department.  Some from actually outside of HHS who provide subject matter expertise and at the end of the day these are the folks who are responsible for determining targets.  As policy constructs, NCHS does not advise one way or the other but we do provide statistical support as needed because there are certainly many cases where statistical methods are used to calculate targets.

HOST:  So there’s a lot of folks involved in this, is that correct?

DAVID HUANG:  Yes I would say probably hundreds from across the Department and certainly if you look at the stakeholder base of Healthy People, there are folks outside of government at the sub-national level, nonprofits… and really the intention is for Healthy People to reach the individual level.  In an ideal world that’s how I think the Department would like to see it.

HOST:  I wanted to then ask you what generally happens when you achieve one of these goals?  What happens to that health issue or condition as far as Healthy People goes?

DAVID HUANG:  Sure that’s definitely an interesting question and certainly one that has come up historically, particularly when targets are met or exceeded early in the decade.  In the last decade, for example, there was an objective in the Immunization and Infectious Diseases topic area.  They reached out to us in 2014 and actually asked to increase the Healthy People 2020 target for a specific objective IID 14 – that was one that tracked that percentage of adults 60 years and older who are vaccinated against zoster or shingles.  Ultimately, we decided for consistency and simplicity not to officially set new in Healthy People when targets are met, but to continue tracking and reporting data throughout the decade.  The work groups that as I mentioned manage Healthy People objectives have also been given the option to set unofficial secondary targets if desired.  Sometimes targets are adjusted for other reasons.  For example, some targets are set to be aligned with national policies, programs or laws and if there is some sort of change to that underlying policy program or law we do have the flexibility to make the same change to the corresponding Healthy People target.  Another example is if an objective baseline changes due to a change in science or data collection.  In those cases, targets are generally adjusted using the same target-setting method if possible.  And finally I’ll just note that there are certainly opportunities for further progress even after targets have been met.  So for example we continued to track the further reduction in overall cancer death rates, which is objective C1 for Healthy People 2020, even though the target for that objective was met in the year 2014.   Moreover, most population-based objectives continue to have underlying health disparities by various sociodemographic factors such as race, ethnicity or family income whether they have met their targets or not.  One of the overarching goals for Healthy People is actually to eliminate health disparities and achieve health equity.  And of course this is a topic that has been further highlighted by COVID-19.

HOST:  So you’re saying the official policy is not to make any adjustments if you’ve already met an objective.  Is that also true on the flip side – if there’s no progress being made and it might become apparent that maybe the goal is a little too ambitious?  Is it the same sort of approach on that side?

DAVID HUANG:  Yeah it is a similar approach for… consistency and simplicity, not to change targets. I think in those situations where an objective is moving in the wrong direction… these certainly highlight opportunities for further work in disease prevention and health promotion.  In addition, this could be a consideration for the target-setting for the following decade if that objective happens to be carried over from one 10-year iteration to the next.

HOST:  Our thanks to David Huang for joining us on this edition of “Statcast.”

QuickStats: Age-Adjusted Percentage of Adults Aged ≥18 Years Who Had an Influenza Vaccination in the Past 12 Months, by Sex and Race/Ethnicity

April 9, 2021


In 2019, women aged 18 years or older were more likely than were men (48.9% versus 41.7%) to have had an influenza vaccination in the past 12 months.

This pattern was found for non-Hispanic White adults (50.8% versus 42.9%), Hispanic adults (44.6% versus 35.7%), and non-Hispanic Asian adults (57.7% versus 50.7%), but there was no statistically significant difference by sex among non-Hispanic Black adults (41.1% versus 37.9%).

For both men and women, non-Hispanic Black and Hispanic adults were less likely to have had an influenza vaccination in the past 12 months than were non-Hispanic White and non-Hispanic Asian adults.

Source: National Center for Health Statistics, National Health Interview Survey, 2019. https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/nhis.htm


PODCAST: Death Certificate Data & COVID-19, Part 4

April 6, 2021



HOST:  In our final segment with Dr. Robert Anderson, we discussed the importance of listing the correct underlying cause of death on the death certificate, along with examples of when COVID-19 and other causes of death should be cited in this manner.

HOST:  There have been a lot of reported cases where somebody with COVID-19 recovers but still has a lot of symptoms and complications lingering, perhaps weeks or months, and then in a hypothetical situation if a person then eventually died even though they had recovered from COVID-19, would COVID-19 still be listed as the underlying cause of death or should that be the case?

ROBERT ANDERSON:  Generally it should be – it’s not unusual actually for somebody to get COVID-19 and develop these complications, particularly the breathing problems.  And they may linger on a ventilator for weeks.  But in the meantime, the virus has run its course but the damage is done.  And so some of these people die.  And when that happens the certifier is supposed to think to themselves,  “OK, what started the chain of events leading to death?  What started that sequence?”  And in a case like what you described, it would be the COVID-19 that started the sequence because that’s what resulted in the damage to the lungs that caused them to have to be put on a ventilator and ultimately killed them.  So regardless of whether the virus is still active, COVID-19 can be reported as the underlying cause of death.  It’s still the disease that initiated the sequence of events leading to death even if it’s not active. 

HOST:  Now would that be the case as well in a non-COVID-19 situation?  Let’s just say somebody was in a car crash and had severe after-effects, health issues and what not, and then eventually at some point down the road they died from those complications.  Would that also still be appropriate for ‘motor vehicle crash’ to be the underlying cause of death in that situation?

ROBERT ANDERSON:  Yeah this is true regardless of the cause. I mean, to give another example that is not uncommon:  Suppose a person is shot by another person but survives with serious complications from the bullet wound.  If those complications result in death, even if it occurs years later, then the underlying cause would be homicide.  And actually these sorts of cases would be investigated as a homicide as well.

HOST:  And that’s assuming that in that hypothetical, the person who shot them, it wasn’t an unintentional shooting of course.

ROBERT ANDERSON:  Well yes this would mean that they were shot on purpose, yes.  So if any disease or injury results in long term complications that eventually cause death, it’s that disease or injury that caused the fatal complications, that started the sequence this should be reported as the underlying cause.

HOST:   OK so a lot of people, in the media in particular, have been anxious to see where COVID-19 ranks as a leading cause of death.  But I’m curious about another potential issue looming down the road as far as the categorization of COVID-19, particularly with pneumonia because for years now pneumonia and influenza have been listed as one category.  And that’s due to the fact that influenza, like COVID-19, causes these complications like pneumonia that can lead to death. So what about all these deaths – I guess there’s nearly half of COVID-19 deaths where pneumonia was involved.  Is it something where we may likely see at some point a category called “COVID-19 and pneumonia” or how do you plan to sort of separate those?

ROBERT ANDERSON:  Well you know the pneumonia and influenza category has been useful to us as an indicator for influenza mortality surveillance for decades.  The emergence of COVID-19 has certainly complicated the situation from a surveillance standpoint. That said, with regard to standard cause of death tabulation and leading causes, those cases where COVID-19 is the cause of pneumonia will be reported as COVID-19 deaths.  Leading causes are based on the underlying cause and so in this case COVID-19 would be the underlying cause.  And the pneumonia and influenza category will only include those deaths where either pneumonia or influenza was the underlying cause. We couldn’t combine pneumonia with both COVID-19 and influenza, otherwise we’re going to be double counting deaths.  So I don’t see this for purposes of the leading causes being a big issue.  It does complicate things from a surveillance standpoint but for leading causes of death, those cases where COVID-19 causes pneumonia will be in the COVID-19 category and the pneumonia and influenza will include those where pneumonia was the underlying cause or influenza was the underlying cause.

HOST:  Now there are other strains of the virus out there now.  Will it be possible via the death certificate to determine which strain of COVID-19 is responsible for the deaths moving forward?

ROBERT ANDERSON:  It’s really unlikely that we’ll be able to distinguish between the strains of the virus in any meaningful way. Variants or strains of specific organisms such as viruses or bacteria are rarely reported on death certificates, so in most cases we would only have COVID-19 reported with no mention of the variant.  And even if we did get the variant in some instances, because so much of it is likely to be more generally reported without mentioning the variant, we wouldn’t really be able to say anything about how many deaths are due to B117 or South African variant or what have you.


HOST:  This week in the March 31st edition of CDC’s Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report, NCHS published two articles which cover many of these topics discussed in our Statcasts with Dr. Robert Anderson.  The articles also documented that COVID-19 was the 3rd leading cause of death in the United States in 2020, according to provisional data.  Out of the estimated 357,000 COVID-19 death certificates with at least one other condition listed, 97% had a co-occurring diagnosis of a plausible chain of event condition, or a significant contributing condition, or both.  These findings support the accuracy of COVID-19 mortality surveillance in the U.S. using official death certificates.

NCHS was busy with other topics this week as well.  A new report on osteoporosis among older Americans age 50 and up showed that this condition has increased by more than a third, from 9.4% in 2007-2008 to 12.6% in 2017-2018.  NCHS also released the latest data on maternal mortality in the U.S., showing that nearly 100 more women died from maternal causes in 2019 than the year before.  The rate of maternal deaths in 2019 was also significantly higher than in 2018.  Finally, NCHS released a new report examining drug overdose deaths involving opioids and cocaine and other psychostimulants.  The report showed over half of all psychostimulant deaths also involved an opioid, and that 3 out of 4 cocaine deaths involved an opioid as well.