35552, Detroit, Alabama Overall Health Score Provider Score

The Provider Score for the Overall Health Score in 35552, Detroit, Alabama is 12 when comparing 34,000 ZIP Codes in the United States.

An estimate of 92.04 percent of the residents in 35552 has some form of health insurance. 40.87 percent of the residents have some type of public health insurance like Medicare, Medicaid, Veterans Affairs (VA), or TRICARE. About 62.43 percent of the residents have private health insurance, either through their employer or direct purchase. Military veterans should know that percent of the residents in the ZIP Code of 35552 have VA health insurance. Also, percent of the residents receive TRICARE.

For the 330 residents under the age of 18, there is an estimate of 0 pediatricians in a 20-mile radius of 35552. An estimate of 0 geriatricians or physicians who focus on the elderly who can serve the 184 residents over the age of 65 years.

In a 20-mile radius, there are 177 health care providers accessible to residents in 35552, Detroit, Alabama.

## Overall Health Score Analysis: 35552 vs. Detroit Primary Care

This analysis provides an overall health score comparison, focusing on primary care access and quality within ZIP code 35552 (a hypothetical rural area) and the city of Detroit. The assessment considers physician-to-patient ratios, practice characteristics, telemedicine integration, and mental health resource availability. Due to the inherent complexities of healthcare data and the varying nature of specific information, the scores are presented as relative comparisons, emphasizing strengths and weaknesses in each area.

**35552: A Rural Landscape**

ZIP code 35552, representing a rural environment, likely faces significant challenges in healthcare access. A primary concern is the physician-to-patient ratio. Rural areas often struggle to attract and retain physicians, leading to a shortage of primary care providers. This translates to longer wait times for appointments, increased travel distances for patients, and potentially delayed or neglected care. The overall health score for primary care in 35552 is therefore negatively impacted by this fundamental accessibility issue.

Standout practices in 35552, if any exist, would be those demonstrating innovative approaches to address these challenges. This could include practices offering extended hours, weekend appointments, or a broader range of services under one roof. The presence of a federally qualified health center (FQHC) or a rural health clinic would significantly boost the score, as these facilities are designed to serve underserved populations. However, the likelihood of such resources is lower in a rural setting, further diminishing the score.

Telemedicine adoption in 35552 could be a crucial factor in improving access. Practices that embrace telehealth, offering virtual consultations, remote monitoring, and electronic prescription services, can bridge the geographical gap and provide care to patients who might otherwise struggle to access it. However, the availability of reliable internet connectivity and patient access to technology can be significant barriers to effective telemedicine implementation.

Mental health resources in 35552 are likely to be scarce. Rural areas often lack specialized mental health providers, such as psychiatrists, therapists, and counselors. This scarcity, combined with the stigma surrounding mental illness and the lack of transportation, creates significant barriers to accessing mental healthcare. The overall health score is consequently further diminished by this deficiency.

**Detroit: An Urban Perspective**

Detroit, in contrast, presents a different set of challenges and opportunities. While the city may have a higher concentration of physicians, the distribution of primary care providers can be uneven, with disparities in access based on socioeconomic factors and geographic location. The physician-to-patient ratio, while potentially better than in 35552, might still be inadequate in certain underserved neighborhoods. The overall health score is influenced by these internal disparities.

Standout practices in Detroit could be those that prioritize serving vulnerable populations. This includes practices that accept a wide range of insurance plans, offer culturally sensitive care, and provide services in multiple languages. Practices that actively engage in community outreach and health education programs would also receive a higher score. Furthermore, the presence of teaching hospitals and academic medical centers would contribute positively to the overall quality of care.

Telemedicine adoption in Detroit has the potential to be more widespread than in 35552, due to better infrastructure and a greater tech-savvy population. However, the digital divide remains a concern, with some residents lacking the necessary technology or internet access to participate in virtual consultations. Practices that offer telehealth options while simultaneously addressing the digital divide through patient assistance programs will be rewarded.

Mental health resources in Detroit are likely to be more readily available than in 35552, with a greater concentration of mental health professionals and specialized clinics. However, the city may face challenges related to the social determinants of health, such as poverty, violence, and lack of access to healthy food, which can exacerbate mental health issues. Practices that integrate mental health services into primary care and offer comprehensive behavioral health support will significantly improve the overall health score.

**Comparative Analysis and Conclusion**

In a direct comparison, Detroit likely scores higher than 35552 in terms of overall primary care access, due to a greater concentration of providers and a wider range of available resources. However, Detroit's score is diminished by internal disparities and the complexities of urban healthcare. 35552 faces significant challenges related to access, particularly in the areas of physician shortages, limited mental health resources, and the potential for technological barriers to healthcare.

Both areas can improve their overall health scores by focusing on innovative approaches to care delivery. For 35552, this includes embracing telemedicine, recruiting and retaining physicians, and partnering with community organizations to address social determinants of health. For Detroit, this includes addressing health disparities, expanding access to mental health services, and leveraging technology to improve care coordination.

The analysis highlights the importance of understanding the specific healthcare landscape of each area. The data and insights presented can be visualized and analyzed using advanced mapping tools. To explore the spatial distribution of healthcare resources, physician density, and other relevant factors in both 35552 and Detroit, consider using CartoChrome maps.