Correspondence among

Importance: High Hello —I’m going to send a series of emails with materials you have asked for, as a way to organize them. The first document attached to this email is our CLPPP updated analysis of the blood lead testing data we have for children aged 0-16 in Flint. This is an update from what we sent to the Director’s office earlier in the year, in that we added an additional year (2010-2011), and added data for May-August 2015 (per Geralyn’s request in an email late last week). Regarding this data: e Weare using the timeframe of May —April for this chart, because the water source change in Flint happened in April 2014. So, we started by looking at the 12 month time period from May 2014 — April 2015. Then we went back and compared that same time frame to the 4 previous years, to see if the pattern was similar, significantly different, etc. e = We included all children with a Flint address, which may not exactly conform to the city boundaries. e We only included first time blood lead levels of > 5 mcg/dL, not all subsequent tests a child may have received. e We included all types of blood samples — venous blood draws, capillary samples, or unknown (e.g. not labeled as venous or capillary). Typically we would point to venous samples as the best, most reliable, but we had many non-venous samples, so to be inclusive added those in. Looking at the charts, you can definitely see the seasonal impact associated with lead poisoning. We do NOT see a different pattern of results for the 2014-2015 year, right after the change in water source. That year looks more like the data from 10-11, and 11-12. For the full 5 years worth of data, testing rates were pretty consistent, so we don’t think that is driving the data. However, note that testing levels for May-August 2015 appear to be lower than in the previous 5 years. The second document | have attached is a presentation sent to us this morning by Dr. Mona Hanna-Attisha, from Hurley Medical Center. She shared this related to her data request that she sent to our program. In scanning it, we noted that 1 xxxEND_PAGE:dhhs03_b0791_2864_2865_1 002865 shre is using different datta than We did by age, by zip code, tirme frames, with years she inclutted, EtG, so conmparing our data ehatt to her results is like conpparing apples atid oranges. We have net rum amy analyses using her parameters. \Wfe dit] nee sense slides in her decuneatt that We might disagree with, fer example her statenvent that waiter is the primary source ef leat (im Méthigan, it renrinss lead paint that is eur primary source of leat] exposure). Please let us krtiw if you have questions you Page abot the data ebarts We produnced. Next email will Be some ef our progam materials, that may be of use in the upconiiag outtreath effort. Also, Rastmhi imiewted Wh | should inchade en this email, anid | trust you will share with otters as appropriate. Naney xxxEND_PAGE:dhhs03_b0791_2864_2865_2