Rural and Urban Comparison of all FP graduates as of 2003

  AL AK AZ AR CA CO CT DE DC FL GA HI ID IL IN IA KS KY LA ME MD MA MI MN MI MO MT NE NV NH NJ NM NY NC ND OH OK OR PA RI SC SD TN TX UT VT VA WA WV WI WY Totals
Isolated Rural 36 28 33 44 45 89 25 0 0 30 69 26 38 53 44 86 74 88 29 112 27 36 92 188 92 69 64 92 10 61 4 26 110 193 44 40 30 25 154 3 39 60 65 131 25 79 149 79 52 192 21 3201
Rural 145 90 99 181 178 183 14 34 0 103 211 21 80 166 238 273 113 187 112 111 42 35 138 289 138 154 75 108 28 33 6 70 183 260 23 180 103 110 268 0 143 45 261 265 53 74 151 121 83 343 74 6395
Large Rural 102 66 110 226 200 41 18 0 0 50 230 52 124 266 203 151 199 162 119 92 26 31 291 288 291 160 104 121 28 96 22 145 239 321 58 337 174 241 202 1 173 62 185 399 41 27 151 233 124 146 42 7170
Urban 667 128 865 383 6431 1192 377 167 124 2753 1179 175 190 2333 1306 534 564 502 647 232 913 859 1677 1459 1677 710 112 355 324 194 1117 372 2410 1598 147 2138 502 645 2489 188 851 145 899 3700 465 70 1602 1887 230 1331 59 51874
  950 312 1107 834 6854 1505 434 201 124 2936 1689 274 432 2818 1791 1044 950 939 907 547 1008 961 2198 2224 2198 1093 355 676 390 384 1149 613 2942 2372 272 2695 809 1021 3113 192 1206 312 1410 4495 584 250 2053 2320 489 2012 196 68640
Percentages                                                                                                        
Isolated Rural 3.8% 9.0% 3.0% 5.3% 0.7% 5.9% 5.8% 0.0% 0.0% 1.0% 4.1% 9.5% 8.8% 1.9% 2.5% 8.2% 7.8% 9.4% 3.2% 20.5% 2.7% 3.7% 4.2% 8.5% 4.2% 6.3% 18.0% 13.6% 2.6% 15.9% 0.3% 4.2% 3.7% 8.1% 16.2% 1.5% 3.7% 2.4% 4.9% 1.6% 3.2% 19.2% 4.6% 2.9% 4.3% 31.6% 7.3% 3.4% 10.6% 9.5% 10.7% 4.7%
Rural 15.3% 28.8% 8.9% 21.7% 2.6% 12.2% 3.2% 16.9% 0.0% 3.5% 12.5% 7.7% 18.5% 5.9% 13.3% 26.1% 11.9% 19.9% 12.3% 20.3% 4.2% 3.6% 6.3% 13.0% 6.3% 14.1% 21.1% 16.0% 7.2% 8.6% 0.5% 11.4% 6.2% 11.0% 8.5% 6.7% 12.7% 10.8% 8.6% 0.0% 11.9% 14.4% 18.5% 5.9% 9.1% 29.6% 7.4% 5.2% 17.0% 17.0% 37.8% 9.3%
Large Rural 10.7% 21.2% 9.9% 27.1% 2.9% 2.7% 4.1% 0.0% 0.0% 1.7% 13.6% 19.0% 28.7% 9.4% 11.3% 14.5% 20.9% 17.3% 13.1% 16.8% 2.6% 3.2% 13.2% 12.9% 13.2% 14.6% 29.3% 17.9% 7.2% 25.0% 1.9% 23.7% 8.1% 13.5% 21.3% 12.5% 21.5% 23.6% 6.5% 0.5% 14.3% 19.9% 13.1% 8.9% 7.0% 10.8% 7.4% 10.0% 25.4% 7.3% 21.4% 10.4%
Urban 70.2% 41.0% 78.1% 45.9% 93.8% 79.2% 86.9% 83.1% 100.0% 93.8% 69.8% 63.9% 44.0% 82.8% 72.9% 51.1% 59.4% 53.5% 71.3% 42.4% 90.6% 89.4% 76.3% 65.6% 76.3% 65.0% 31.5% 52.5% 83.1% 50.5% 97.2% 60.7% 81.9% 67.4% 54.0% 79.3% 62.1% 63.2% 80.0% 97.9% 70.6% 46.5% 63.8% 82.3% 79.6% 28.0% 78.0% 81.3% 47.0% 66.2% 30.1% 75.6%

Head to Head: Physician Assistants in 2000 Compared to Family Physicians in State and National Location - PA, NP, and US population distributions considered.

Bowman FP Grad Studies 2004

State Rural

Family Medicine

Rural Coding

Physicians in Poverty Series

Family Medicine Central: National Comparisons of Workforce

Ranking Medical Schools and FP Residency Programs

FP Graduates 1997 - 2003 Summary Tables

Family Medicine Physician Distribution

Physician Workforce Studies

www.ruralmedicaleducation.org

 

louis vuitton outlet michael kors outlet louis vuitton outlet coach factory outlet louis vuitton outlet wolf grey 3s kate spade outlet lebron 12 louis vuitton outlet foamposites Louis Vuitton Outlet louis vuitton outlet cheap jordans michael kors outlet online cheap jordans kate spade handbags lebron 12 sport blue 3s coach outlet online retro jordans for sale