In this 2018 survey, eight percent of respondents stated they think the biggest problem for the United States today is Donald Trump. In fact, most of the important problems mentioned are somehow related to the current POTUS – the most mentioned one being immigration and racism.

A country divided

Since Trump’s inauguration in January 2017, political camps in the United States are deeply divided and global politics is in turmoil; Trump’s job approval ratings are notoriously low, and in fact, they are lower than Reagan’s or Nixon’s averages ever were. Trump’s leadership is controversial at best and his executive orders often cause protests, especially among Democrats and liberals – like the travel ban for Muslims.

On the other side

One of Trump’s main campaign promises was a wall on the border with Mexico in order to keep potential illegal immigrants out and enhance security for American citizens. When he did not get the majority for this plan, he declared a national emergency to force the budget to be allocated, even though the majority of Americans did not support this idea, and it is unclear if the situation at the Mexican border actually warrants it. In fact, the total number of unauthorized immigrants has decreased over the last few years and today, many Americans believe that their country benefits from immigrants and their work .

According to the data from 2025, some 16 percent of respondents said that rising health care costs were the most important health issue facing the United States. Cancer ranked second on the list with 15 percent. Issues with healthcare costsCurrently, the most urgent problem facing American healthcare is the high costs of care. The high expense of healthcare may deter people from getting the appropriate treatment when they need medical care or cause them to completely forego preventative care visits. Many Americans reported that they may skip prescription doses or refrain from taking medication as prescribed due to financial concerns. Such health-related behavior can result in major health problems, which may raise the long-term cost of care. Inflation, medical debt, and unforeseen medical expenses have all added to the burden that health costs are placing on household income. Gun violence issueThe gun violence epidemic has plagued the United States over the past few years, yet very little has been done to address the issue. In recent years, gun violence has become the leading cause of death among American children and teens. Even though more than half of Americans are in favor of tougher gun control regulations, there is little political will to strongly reform the current gun law. Gun violence has a deep traumatic impact on survivors and society, it is developing into a major public health crisis in the United States.

A survey conducted in July 2025 found that the most important issue for ***percent of Americans was inflation and prices. A further ***percent of respondents were most concerned about jobs and the economy.

In 2025, polluted water was the most concerning environmental issue among adults in the United States. ** percent of respondents worried a great deal about pollution in drinking water quality, while ** percent had similar worries about pollution in waterways. Meanwhile, ** percent of American adults worried a great deal about both global warming or climate change and air pollution. The share of Americans who worried about air pollution has fallen since 1990.

This map uses an archive of Version 1.0 of the CEJST data as a fully functional GIS layer. See an archive of the latest version of the CEJST tool using Version 2.0 of the data released in December 2024 here.This map shows Census tracts throughout the US based on if they are considered disadvantaged or partially disadvantaged according to Justice40 Initiative criteria. This is overlaid with the most recent American Community Survey (ACS) figures from the U.S. Census Bureau to communicate the predominant race that lives within these disadvantaged or partially disadvantaged tracts. Predominance helps us understand the group of population which has the largest count within an area. Colors are more transparent if the predominant race has a similar count to another race/ethnicity group. The colors on the map help us better understand the predominant race or ethnicity:Hispanic or LatinoWhite Alone, not HispanicBlack or African American Alone, not HispanicAsian Alone, not HispanicAmerican Indian and Alaska Native Alone, not HispanicTwo or more races, not HispanicNative Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander, not HispanicSome other race, not HispanicSearch for any region, city, or neighborhood throughout the US, DC, and Puerto Rico to learn more about the population in the disadvantaged tracts. Click on any tract to learn more. Zoom to your area, filter to your county or state, and save this web map focused on your area to share the pattern with others. You can also use this web map within an ArcGIS app such as a dashboard, instant app, or story. This map uses these hosted feature layers containing the most recent American Community Survey data. These layers are part of the ArcGIS Living Atlas, and are updated every year when the American Community Survey releases new estimates, so values in the map always reflect the newest data available.Note: Justice40 tracts use 2010-based boundaries, while the most recent ACS figures are offered on 2020-based boundaries. When you click on an area, there will be multiple pop-ups returned due to the differences in these boundaries. From Justice40 data source:"Census tract geographical boundaries are determined by the U.S. Census Bureau once every ten years. This tool utilizes the census tract boundaries from 2010 because they match the datasets used in the tool. The U.S. Census Bureau will update these tract boundaries in 2020.Under the current formula, a census tract will be identified as disadvantaged in one or more categories of criteria:IF the tract is above the threshold for one or more environmental or climate indicators AND the tract is above the threshold for the socioeconomic indicatorsCommunities are identified as disadvantaged by the current version of the tool for the purposes of the Justice40 Initiative if they are located in census tracts that are at or above the combined thresholds in one or more of eight categories of criteria.The goal of the Justice40 Initiative is to provide 40 percent of the overall benefits of certain Federal investments in [eight] key areas to disadvantaged communities. These [eight] key areas are: climate change, clean energy and energy efficiency, clean transit, affordable and sustainable housing, training and workforce development, the remediation and reduction of legacy pollution, [health burdens] and the development of critical clean water infrastructure." Source: Climate and Economic Justice Screening toolPurpose"Sec. 219. Policy. To secure an equitable economic future, the United States must ensure that environmental and economic justice are key considerations in how we govern. That means investing and building a clean energy economy that creates well‑paying union jobs, turning disadvantaged communities — historically marginalized and overburdened — into healthy, thriving communities, and undertaking robust actions to mitigate climate change while preparing for the impacts of climate change across rural, urban, and Tribal areas. Agencies shall make achieving environmental justice part of their missions by developing programs, policies, and activities to address the disproportionately high and adverse human health, environmental, climate-related and other cumulative impacts on disadvantaged communities, as well as the accompanying economic challenges of such impacts. It is therefore the policy of my Administration to secure environmental justice and spur economic opportunity for disadvantaged communities that have been historically marginalized and overburdened by pollution and underinvestment in housing, transportation, water and wastewater infrastructure, and health care." Source: Executive Order on Tackling the Climate Crisis at Home and AbroadUse of this Data"The pilot identifies 21 priority programs to immediately begin enhancing benefits for disadvantaged communities. These priority programs will provide a blueprint for other agencies to help inform their work to implement the Justice40 Initiative across government." Source: The Path to Achieving Justice 40

The New York Times is releasing a series of data files with cumulative counts of coronavirus cases in the United States, at the state and county level, over time. We are compiling this time series data from state and local governments and health departments in an attempt to provide a complete record of the ongoing outbreak.

Since the first reported coronavirus case in Washington State on Jan. 21, 2020, The Times has tracked cases of coronavirus in real time as they were identified after testing. Because of the widespread shortage of testing, however, the data is necessarily limited in the picture it presents of the outbreak.

We have used this data to power our maps and reporting tracking the outbreak, and it is now being made available to the public in response to requests from researchers, scientists and government officials who would like access to the data to better understand the outbreak.

The data begins with the first reported coronavirus case in Washington State on Jan. 21, 2020. We will publish regular updates to the data in this repository.

Unemployment Rate in the United States increased to 4.30 percent in August from 4.20 percent in July of 2025. This dataset provides the latest reported value for - United States Unemployment Rate - plus previous releases, historical high and low, short-term forecast and long-term prediction, economic calendar, survey consensus and news.

A 2024 survey found that over half of U.S. individuals indicated the cost of accessing treatment was the biggest problem facing the national healthcare system. This is much higher than the global average of 32 percent and is in line with the high cost of health care in the U.S. compared to other high-income countries. Bureaucracy along with a lack of staff were also considered to be pressing issues. This statistic reveals the share of individuals who said select problems were the biggest facing the health care system in the United States in 2024.

Attitudes to current national and international questions. Topics: most important national problem; most important international problem; countries in conflict with the FRG; major problems and differences between FRG and USA; major problems between FRG and other countries; opinion on France, Great Britain, USA, USSR, Red China; reasons for negative and positive attitude to countries USA, USSR and China; trust in USA and USSR in treatment of world problems; reasons for little trust in USA and USSR; effort of USA and USSR for world peace; relationship of USA to USSR; strongest current nuclear power; strongest nuclear power in 5 years; desired strongest nuclear power; reasons for desire for balanced nuclear potential between USA and USSR; knowledge about the SALT negotiations; countries participating in the SALT negotiations; purpose and chances for success of the SALT negotiations; beneficiary of a treaty between USA and USSR; relying on USA in negotiations; security conference; threat to national security of Germany; support for FRG in the case of conflict; knowledge of international organizations; purpose of NATO; membership in NATO; reasons for desired membership; trust in defense ability of NATO; stationing troops in Western Europe; reduction of US troop strength in Europe; necessity of USA for security of Western Europe; defense budget of FRG; navy forces in the Mediterranean; strongest naval power in the Mediterranean; relationship of Israel and Arab nations; support of FRG for Israel; significance of result of the Middle East Conflict for FRG; peace process in the Middle East; European unification process; powers of a European Government; attitude of the USA to European integration; solving the problem of environmental pollution by international organizations; economic aid for other countries. Demography: age; marital status; education; occupation; income; religious denomination; church attendance; sex; city size; state. Also encoded was: length of interview; number of contact attempts; presence of others during interview; willingness to cooperate; difficulty; end time; date of interview; interviewer number.

Introduction: Multidisciplinary care can improve glycemic outcomes in individuals with type 1 diabetes (T1D). Yet, prior studies suggest limited utilization of team-based care and either no reimbursement or inadequate reimbursement for diabetes and nutritional education, mental health and social support as well as remote services. We sought to evaluate multidisciplinary care services offered by pediatric diabetes centers to understand whether current practices are sustainable. Methods: The Pediatric Endocrine Society Diabetes Special Interest Group collaborated with the T1DX- Quality Improvement Collaborative to survey US pediatric diabetes centers on care delivery practices and resources for new onset and ongoing care, introduction of technology and telehealth focusing on team-based approaches. Results: We analyzed responses from 31 centers, mostly academic, from 16 states and Washington DC representing all geographical regions providing care for 45,759 youth with T1D who had at least one visit in 2022. Most centers (74%) provided initial diabetes education in the inpatient setting using clinic-employed staff. The majority initiated CGMs at or close to diagnosis and offered insulin pump therapy within the first year. All but one center encouraged communication with diabetes teams between visits. Less than half of practices estimated that at least 50% of their youth with T1D received mental health services and assessments for social concerns annually. Telehealth was utilized by all centers. Many centers indicated suboptimal reimbursement, and 87% operated at a budget deficit. Discussion: Despite the commitment of pediatric diabetes centers to provide high quality multidisciplinary care, many youth with T1D may not receive the services as frequently as recommended. These services are often unreimbursed. We advocate for alternative reimbursement models for clinical workflows that support the delivery of individualized, multidisciplinary care aligned with best practices shown to improve clinical outcomes and quality of life for youth with T1D. Examples include expansion of telemedicine and remote monitoring, non-face-to-face acute and routine care, navigation of technology, supplies and services, engagement and coordination of community-based resources among others. Such models would promote equitable, needs-based care while enabling centers to operate efficiently.

Privacy or data security issues were mentioned as the biggest concern about generative artificial intelligence usage in 2024, according to responding adults in the United States. Around 37 percent of current users of this technology mentioned this as a matter of concern, while 45 percent of non-users stated this. Further issues related to this technology, like unauthorized use of one's own original work, lack of transparency on how it works, and potential effects of this technology on the environment, were much higher among current users. On the other hand, non-users were considerably more worried about the potential usage to create and spread harmful content.

Snakebite envenoming is a serious public health problem in Central America, where approximately 5,500 cases occur every year. Panama has the highest incidence and El Salvador the lowest. The majority, and most severe, cases are inflicted by the pit viper Bothrops asper (family Viperidae), locally known as ‘terciopelo’, ‘barba amarilla’ or ‘equis’. About 1% of the bites are caused by coral snakes of the genus Micrurus (family Elapidae). Despite significant and successful efforts in Central America regarding snakebite envenomings in the areas of research, antivenom manufacture and quality control, training of health professionals in the diagnosis and clinical management of bites, and prevention of snakebites, much remains to be done in order to further reduce the impact of this medical condition. This essay presents seven challenges for improving the confrontation of snakebite envenoming in Central America. Overcoming these challenges demands a coordinated partnership of highly diverse stakeholders though inter-sectorial and inter-programmatic interventions.

Conservation planning in the Great Plains often depends on understanding the degree of fragmentation of the various types of grasslands and savannas that historically occurred in this region. To define ecological subregions of the Great Plains, we used a revised version of Kuchler’s (1964) map of the potential natural vegetation of the United States. The map was digitized from the 1979 physiographic regions map produced by the Bureau of Land Management, which added 10 physiognomic types. All analyses are based on data sources specific to the United States; hence, we only analyze the portion of the Great Plains occurring in the United States.We sought to quantify the current amount of rangeland in the US Great Plains converted due to 1) woody plant encroachment; 2) urban, exurban, and other forms of development (e.g., energy infrastructure); and 3) cultivation of cropland. At the time of this analysis, the most contemporary measure of land cover across the United States was the 2011 NLCD (Homer et al. 2015). One limitation of the NLCD is that some grasslands with high rates of productivity, such as herbaceous wetlands or grasslands along riparian zones, are misclassified as cropland. A second limitation is the inability to capture cropland conversion occurring after 2011 (Lark et al. 2015). Beginning in 2009 (and retroactively for 2008), the US Department of Agriculture - NASS has annually produced a Cropland Data Layer (CDL) for the United States from satellite imagery, which maps individual crop types at a 30-m spatial resolution. We used the annual CDLs from 2011 to 2017 to map the distribution of cropland in the Great Plains. We merged this map with the 2011 NLCD to evaluate the degree of fragmentation of grasslands and savannas in the Great Plains as a result of conversion to urban land, cropland, or woodland. We produced two maps of fragmentation (best case and worst case scenarios) that quantify this fragmentation at a 30 x 30 m pixel resolution across the US Great Plains, and make them available for download here. Resources in this dataset: Resource title: Data Dictionary for Figure 2 derived land cover of the US portion of the North American Great Plains File name: Figure2_Key for landcover classes.csv Resource title: Figure 1. Potential natural vegetation of US portion of the North American Great Plains, adapted from Kuchler (1964). File name: Figure1_Kuchler_GPRangelands.zip Resource description: Extracted grassland, shrubland, savanna, and forest communities in the US Great Plains from the revised Kuchler natural vegetation map Resource title: Figure 2. Derived land cover of the US portion of the North American Great Plains. File name: Figure2_Key for landcover classes.zip Resource description: The fNLCD-CDL product estimates that 43.7% of the Great Plains still consists of grasslands and shrublands, with the remainder consisting of 40.6% cropland, 4.4% forests, 3.0% UGC, 3.0% developed open space, 2.9% improved pasture or hay fields, 1.2% developed land, 1.0% water, and 0.2% barren land, with important regional and subregional variation in the extent of rangeland loss to cropland, forests, and developed land. Resource title: Figure 3. Variation in the degree of fragmentation of Great Plains measured in terms of distance to cropland, forest, or developed lands. File name: Figure3_bestcase_disttofrag.zip Resource description: This map depicts a “best case” scenario in which 1) croplands are mapped based only on the US Department of AgricultureNational Agricultural Statistics Service Cropland Data Layers (2011e2017), 2) all grass-dominated cover types including hay fields and improved pasture are considered rangelands, and 3) developed open space (as defined by the National Land Cover Database) are assumed to not be a fragmenting land cover type. Resource title: Figure 4. Variation in the degree of fragmentation of Great Plains measured in terms of distances to cropland, forest, or developed lands. File name: Figure4_worstcase_disttofrag.zip Resource description: This map depicts a ‘worst case’ scenario in which 1) croplands are mapped based on the US Department of AgricultureNational Agricultural Statistics Service Cropland Data Layers (2011e2017) and the 2011 National Land Cover Database (NLCD), 2) hay fields and improved pasture are not included as rangelands, and 3) developed open space (as defined by NLCD) is included as a fragmenting land cover type.

Context

Health care in the United States is provided by many distinct organizations. Health care facilities are largely owned and operated by private sector businesses. 58% of US community hospitals are non-profit, 21% are government owned, and 21% are for-profit. According to the World Health Organization (WHO), the United States spent more on healthcare per capita ($9,403), and more on health care as percentage of its GDP (17.1%), than any other nation in 2014. Many different datasets are needed to portray different aspects of healthcare in US like disease prevalences, pharmaceuticals and drugs, Nutritional data of different food products available in US. Such data is collected by surveys (or otherwise) conducted by Centre of Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), Foods and Drugs Administration, Center of Medicare and Medicaid Services and Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ). These datasets can be used to properly review demographics and diseases, determining start ratings of healthcare providers, different drugs and their compositions as well as package informations for different diseases and for food quality. We often want such information and finding and scraping such data can be a huge hurdle. So, Here an attempt is made to make available all US healthcare data at one place to download from in csv files.

Content

• Nhanes Survey (National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey) - The National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES) is a program of studies designed to assess the health and nutritional status of adults and children in the United States. The survey is unique in that it combines interviews and physical examinations. NHANES is a major program of the National Center for Health Statistics (NCHS). NCHS is part of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and has the responsibility for producing vital and health statistics for the Nation. The NHANES interview includes demographic, socioeconomic, dietary, and health-related questions. The examination component consists of medical, dental, and physiological measurements, as well as laboratory tests administered by highly trained medical personnel. The diseases, medical conditions, and health indicators to be studied include: Anemia, Cardiovascular disease, Diabetes, Environmental exposures, Eye diseases, Hearing loss, Infectious diseases, Kidney disease, Nutrition, Obesity, Oral health, Osteoporosis, Physical fitness and physical functioning, Reproductive history and sexual behavior, Respiratory disease (asthma, chronic bronchitis, emphysema), Sexually transmitted diseases, Vision. 10000 individuals are surveyed to represent US statistics. Five files in this datasets represent current recent Nhanes data -
  Nhanes_2005_2006.csv
  Nhanes_2007_2008.csv
  Nhanes_2009_2010.csv
  Nhanes_2011_2012.csv
  Nhanes_2013_2014.csv
  
  • Data fields' description -
    • Nhanes_2005_2006.csv - Demographic, Dietary, Examinations, Laboratory
    • Nhanes_2007_2008.csv - Demographic, Dietary, Examinations, Laboratory
    • Nhanes_2009_2010.csv - Demographic, Dietary, Examinations, Laboratory
    • Nhanes_2011_2012.csv - Demographic, Dietary, [Examinations](http://https://wwwn.cdc.gov/nchs/nhanes/search/variab...

Graph and download economic data for All Employees, Manufacturing (MANEMP) from Jan 1939 to Aug 2025 about headline figure, establishment survey, manufacturing, employment, and USA.

US EPA Superfund site soil samples. This dataset is not publicly accessible because: EPA cannot release personally identifiable information regarding living individuals, according to the Privacy Act and the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA). This dataset contains information about human research subjects. Because there is potential to identify individual participants and disclose personal information, either alone or in combination with other datasets, individual level data are not appropriate to post for public access. Restricted access may be granted to authorized persons by contacting the party listed. It can be accessed through the following means: In the publication and supporting information. Format: These data were generated from US EPA Superfund site soil samples. This dataset is associated with the following publication: Bradham, K., C. Nelson, P. Alava, J. Misenheimer, G. Diamond, W. Thayer, and D. Thomas. Estimating relative bioavailability of soil lead in the mouse. JOURNAL OF TOXICOLOGY AND ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH - PART A: CURRENT ISSUES. Taylor & Francis, Inc., Philadelphia, PA, USA, 79(24): 1179-1182, (2016).

The 2022 cartographic boundary KMLs are simplified representations of selected geographic areas from the U.S. Census Bureau's Master Address File / Topologically Integrated Geographic Encoding and Referencing (MAF/TIGER) Database (MTDB). These boundary files are specifically designed for small-scale thematic mapping. When possible, generalization is performed with the intent to maintain the hierarchical relationships among geographies and to maintain the alignment of geographies within a file set for a given year. Geographic areas may not align with the same areas from another year. Some geographies are available as nation-based files while others are available only as state-based files. The American Indian/Alaska Native/Native Hawaiian (AIANNH) Areas file includes the following legal entities: federally recognized American Indian reservations and off-reservation trust land areas, state-recognized American Indian reservations, and Hawaiian home lands (HHLs). The statistical entities included are Alaska Native village statistical areas (ANVSAs), Oklahoma tribal statistical areas (OTSAs), tribal designated statistical areas (TDSAs), and state designated tribal statistical areas (SDTSAs). Joint use areas included in this file refer to areas that are administered jointly and/or claimed by two or more American Indian tribes. The Census Bureau designates both legal and statistical joint use areas as unique geographic entities for the purpose of presenting statistical data. Note that tribal subdivisions and Alaska Native Regional Corporations (ANRCs) are additional types of American Indian/Alaska Native areas stored by the Census Bureau, but are displayed in separate files because of how they fall within the Census Bureau's geographic hierarchy. The State of Hawaii's Office of Hawaiian Home Lands provides the legal boundaries for the HHLs. The boundaries for ANVSAs, OTSAs, and TDSAs were delineated for the 2020 Census through the Participant Statistical Areas Program (PSAP) by participants from the federally recognized tribal governments. The Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) within the U.S. Department of the Interior (DOI) provides the list of federally recognized tribes and only provides legal boundary information when the tribes need supporting records, if a boundary is based on treaty or another document that is historical or open to legal interpretation, or when another tribal, state, or local government challenges the depiction of a reservation or off-reservation trust land. The generalized boundaries for federally recognized American Indian reservations and off-reservation trust lands are based on those as of January 1, 2022, as reported by the federally recognized tribal governments through the Census Bureau's Boundary and Annexation Survey (BAS). The generalized boundaries for state-recognized American Indian reservations and for SDTSAs are based on those delineated by state governor-appointed liaisons for the 2020 Census through the State American Indian Reservation Program and PSAP respectively.

The U.S. Fire Administration collects data from a variety of sources to provide information and analyses on the status and scope of the fire problem in the United States. We use these data to highlight current and emerging trends in fires including what causes fires where they occur and who is impacted the most by fire. We also analyze the circumstances surrounding on-duty firefighter casualties to help identify approaches that can reduce the number of deaths and injuries in future years.

This survey focuses on current issues including US action against Iraq, and rating of President Bush's decisions in the Persian Gulf, settlement without war, role of the United Nations, war and threat of heavy casualties, Bush's deadline for Saddam Hussein, and support for President Bush. Additional questions are asked on civil rights, recession, economic downturn, and NCAA violations.

Context

This notebook was my final project for the Ironhack Data Analytics Bootcamp. This project also has a Tableau presentation.

Content

The chronic disease indicators (CDI) are a set of surveillance indicators developed by consensus among CDC, the Council of State and Territorial Epidemiologists (CSTE), and the National Association of Chronic Disease Directors (NACDD). CDI enables public health professionals and policymakers to retrieve uniformly defined state-level data for chronic diseases and risk factors that have a substantial impact on public health. These indicators are essential for surveillance, prioritization, and evaluation of public health interventions. Several of the current chronic disease indicators are available and reported on other websites, either by the data source/custodians or by categorical chronic disease programs. However, CDI is the only integrated source for comprehensive access to a wide range of indicators for the surveillance of chronic diseases, conditions, and risk factors at the state level.

The original CDI consisted of 73 indicators adopted in 1998 and amended in 2002. In 2012-13, CDC, CSTE, and NACDD collaborated on a series of reviews that were informed by subject-matter expert opinion to make recommendations for updating CDI. The goal of this review was to ensure that CDI is responsive to the expanded scope and priorities of chronic disease prevention programs in state health departments.

As a result, CDI increased to 124 indicators in the following 18 topic groups: alcohol; arthritis; asthma; cancer; cardiovascular disease; chronic kidney disease; chronic obstructive pulmonary disease; diabetes; immunization; nutrition, physical activity, and weight status; oral health; tobacco; overarching conditions; and new topic areas that include disability, mental health, older adults, reproductive health, and school health. For the first time, CDI includes 22 indicators of systems and environmental change. A total of 201 individual measures are included for the 124 indicators, many of which overlap multiple chronic disease topic areas or are specific to a certain sex or age group.

CDI is an example of collaboration among CDC and state health departments in building a consensus set of state-based health surveillance indicators. This update will help ensure that CDI remains the most relevant and current collection of chronic disease surveillance data for state epidemiologists, chronic disease program officials, and reproductive health and maternal and child health officials. The standardized indicator definitions will also encourage consistency in chronic disease surveillance at the national, state, and local public health levels.

The data has been downloaded from https://catalog.data.gov/dataset/u-s-chronic-disease-indicators-cdi

Data Columns Reference https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/pdf/rr/rr6401.pdf

Acknowledgements

I wouldn't be here without the help of others. This notebook was made with the information from the work of Daniel Wu, and Pedro Moreno.

Inspiration

What is the most common disease in the USA? What are the factors affecting the top disease? Does a disease respect borders? In other words, is a disease limited by state borders? How does a disease change over time?