Value explorer / UT
UT: the directory by county and ZIP
- 68,984
- practitioners
- 30.5%
- have a workplace
- 13,958
- provider organizations
- 537
- tax records (not added)
- 27
- counties
The bar is the share with a workplace listed, not the number of practitioners. Ranking by headcount would just rank by population.
| County | Practitioners | Has a workplace | Provider orgs | Tax records | ZIPs |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| +Salt Lake County | 33,373 | 29.9% | 5,790 | 217 | 37 |
| +Utah County | 11,882 | 29.7% | 2,461 | 77 | 19 |
| +Washington County | 5,021 | 34.9% | 1,021 | 42 | 13 |
| +Davis County | 4,947 | 29.4% | 1,327 | 46 | 11 |
| +(county unknown) | 3,865 | 23.9% | 335 | 7 | 33 |
| +Weber County | 3,217 | 29.2% | 885 | 31 | 9 |
| +Cache County | 1,413 | 37.2% | 548 | 25 | 11 |
| +Box Elder County | 918 | 24.5% | 164 | 9 | 5 |
| +Iron County | 838 | 39.4% | 240 | 8 | 2 |
| +Tooele County | 689 | 38.3% | 220 | 15 | 5 |
| +Summit County | 496 | 29.8% | 172 | 9 | 5 |
| +Carbon County | 403 | 35.5% | 126 | 7 | 2 |
| +Uintah County | 374 | 40.9% | 130 | 9 | 1 |
| +Sevier County | 336 | 47.9% | 133 | 7 | 4 |
| +Sanpete County | 261 | 30.7% | 74 | 2 | 5 |
| +Wasatch County | 218 | 42.2% | 86 | 4 | 2 |
| +Millard County | 172 | 63.4% | 40 | 3 | 3 |
| +Duchesne County | 163 | 47.9% | 42 | 4 | 4 |
| +Grand County | 140 | 37.9% | 48 | 5 | 1 |
| +San Juan County | 125 | 48.8% | 41 | 3 | 2 |
| +Juab County | 64 | 40.6% | 29 | 2 | 1 |
| +Kane County | 44 | 29.5% | 23 | 1 | 2 |
| +Morgan County | 15 | 73.3% | 17 | 2 | 1 |
| +Wayne County | 9 | 11.1% | 2 | 0 | 2 |
| +Piute County | 1 | 0.0% | 1 | 1 | 1 |
| +Beaver County | 0 | — | 0 | 0 | 1 |
| +Garfield County | 0 | — | 3 | 1 | 2 |
By profession, statewide
| Profession | Practitioners | Has a workplace |
|---|---|---|
| behavioral-health | 25,276 | 17.9% |
| physician | 10,560 | 77.3% |
| other-clinical | 9,275 | 6.7% |
| rehab-therapy | 6,697 | 30.3% |
| advanced-practice | 4,737 | 64.8% |
| dental | 2,492 | 21.0% |
| nursing | 2,153 | 24.1% |
| pharmacy | 2,060 | 7.6% |
| student | 1,858 | 6.5% |
| chiropractic | 944 | 37.7% |
| support | 549 | 4.9% |
| dietary | 522 | 27.2% |
| eye-vision | 516 | 69.8% |
| no-taxonomy | 396 | 4.8% |
| group | 390 | 62.1% |
| agency | 228 | 5.3% |
| podiatry | 188 | 79.3% |
| facility | 93 | 11.8% |
| emergency-medical | 28 | 32.1% |
| supplier | 20 | 10.0% |
| transport | 2 | 0.0% |
Release 2026-10-07. Methodology 0.7.3-draft.
Counts come from the NDH bulk export at the release named above. Organizations are split by record type and never summed: roughly half the Organization file is `ein` tax records that carry an NPI and an address, so adding them to provider organizations roughly doubles the count. Practitioner geography uses the primary address; 14.85% of practitioners list addresses in more than one state and are counted only in the first. Counties are derived from the Census ZCTA-to-county relationship file, taking the county holding the largest share of a ZIP's population; ZIPs with no dominant county are grouped as unknown. Payer organizations carry no address at all and cannot appear in any geography. Profession categories here come from the directory's own Practitioner.qualification taxonomy, not from NPPES. H54 categorises the same practitioners against their NPPES taxonomy and lands 1 to 2 points different per profession as a result: PA physicians read 73.0% here and 74.3% there. Neither is wrong. This view describes what the directory says about itself, which is the right frame for a directory explorer; H54 asks how the directory compares to the federal registry.
Data as JSON: /api/v1/explorer/ut.json. Looking for one provider? Search by name or NPI.