This is simply a redrawing of yesterday’s graphic, based on California population data. This site has an excellent overview of the impact to California. It understates prevalence because it speaks of patients who have had hypertension diagnosed and does not include undiagnosed Californians.
I found a more recent article and updated proportions accordingly ( see, I did find something wrong with the previous diagram )
I added a new source, #3 below, since yesterday. This paper has newer control data with a more optimistic point of view:
The prevalence of hypertension has not increased significantly since 1999. At the same time, there has been increasing control rate of hypertension, especially in Mexican American men, elderly, and obese people – Ong, et. al (see below)
(formatted for Zotero):
1. Fang J, Alderman MH, Keenan NL, Ayala C, Croft JB. Hypertension Control at Physicians’ Offices in the United States. Am J Hypertens. 2008;21(2):136-142. Available at: http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/ajh.2007.35 [Accessed May 8, 2008].
2. Rosamond W, Flegal K, Furie K, et al. Heart Disease and Stroke Statistics–2008 Update: A Report From the American Heart Association Statistics Committee and Stroke Statistics Subcommittee. Circulation. 2008;117(4):e25-146. Available at: http://circ.ahajournals.org [Accessed May 7, 2008].
3. Ong KL, Cheung BM, Man YB, Lau CP, Lam KS. Prevalence, Awareness, Treatment, and Control of Hypertension Among United States Adults 1999-2004. Hypertension. 2007;49(1):69-75. Available at: http://hyper.ahajournals.org/cgi/content/abstract/49/1/69 [Accessed May 15, 2008].
Tomorrow, a look at costs, direct and indirect, for the nation and California.