“The annual ranking looks at 22 indicators of health, including everything from how many children receive recommended vaccinations, to obesity and smoking rates, to cancer deaths. (The foundation is funded by the insurer UnitedHealth Group.)”
The survey does not “measure” actual HEALTH, it measures some statistics, some of which may only indicate possible and indirect health outcomes, or may not indicate actual health outcomes at all.
For instance, without measuring the number of incidents of an infant or primary school child actually OBTAINING an illness for which childhood vaccinations are given, along with the vaccination statistics, then the vaccination statistics alone do not tell you about “health”.
For example: You can have a state that has a lower than average rate of vaccinations - as some rural state’s may, and a state (like maybe Massachusetts) that has a high rate of vaccinations, and yet still have a lower rate of childhood infections of the diseases for which the vaccinations are given, in the more rural state - like Mississippi maybe; due to demographic circumstances (more likely childhood illnesses are spread where population density is greater).
Measuring only “vaccinations” does not tell you that you actually achieved a higher rate of non-occurrences of the related diseases. A rural state with it’s lower population density probably does just as well in the actual “health” area related to vaccinations, as a state with big urban centers and a higher rate of vaccinations; because greater population density usually translates to a greater rate of infections when an active viral condition does occur. They more aggressively pursue such vaccinations BECAUSE THEY NEED TO.
Other tests could be applied to some of the other statistics, and I imagine ought to be applied, before anyone takes the numbers too seriously.
In other words fewer people lose money casino gambling in states where it is illegal?