The Great Divide -- well, 50 of them

I'll be the first to admit that I'm a tiny bit partial to health-related nonprofit news because, well, I work at a health nonprofit, am (almost) a certified personal trainer and am not-so-patiently waiting for admission decisions from five more grad schools' public health programs. There, bias disclosed. That being said, 2008 presidential campaigning or not, health is a pretty big deal for everyone.

We think of health care and access as an across-the-board problem, which it is. But in that, I think we tend to lose sight of the fact that the problem's severity and specifics differ greatly depending on where you live, what you can afford and which box you check in the race/ethnicity section of official forms.

A report by the Commonwealth Fund breaks down health care in every state according to 32 indicators of quality, efficiency and equity -- and surprise, surprise: everyone is in need of improvement. But the discrepancy between the best-performing states (Hawaii and Iowa) and the worst (Oklahoma and Mississippi) is unbelievable and unacceptable.

Let's put it this way: According to the report, if every state could buck up and tie those at the top of the list, we could save 90,000 lives, insure 22 million people (half of the uninsured in the US) and save the government a hefty $22 billion in health care costs.

Think you've got it bad (or good)? Check out your state scorecard to see where you really rank in terms of health care. And psst -- extra credit if you can solve some problems while you're at it.