U.S. Urologist Supply by State 2026 — NPPES Per-Capita Density
Active U.S. urologists per 100,000 residents, by state, from the public CMS NPI Registry — individually-enumerated providers (NPPES Type 1). Rural urology shortages are the most extensively documented specialty access gap in the United States; state-level supply is the leading indicator.
Contents · 13 sections
- Why a public-records urology supply view matters
- What we counted, and what we did not
- Headline: density spread is larger than the national figure suggests
- Underserved jurisdictions under the 3-per-100k threshold
- Density vs. spatial access: what this study cannot say
- Public-health frame
- Why this is different: public-records-only, record-level traceable
- Cite this study
- Limitations
- Limitations
- Methodology
- Technical appendix
- Cite this study
Executive Summary
- All counts in this study describe active NPI-1 (individual practitioner) Urology providers in the public CMS NPI Registry (NPPES) as of the 2026-05-06 snapshot. Practice Address state is used; Mailing Address is not. 14,748 providers across 51 states + DC.
- National density is 4.34 active urologists per 100,000 residents (Census 2024 vintage population). District of Columbia leads at 7.69 / 100k (n=54). The top 3 by density are District of Columbia, Rhode Island, and Vermont.
- Nevada, Wyoming, New Mexico, Utah, and Idaho per 100k anchor the bottom of the ranking. Nevada ranks last at 2.36 / 100k (n=77).
- 1 jurisdiction fall below the stated 3-per-100,000 underserved threshold defined in this study's methodology — collectively 3,267,467 residents. The threshold is a transparent baseline cutoff, not a clinical or regulatory definition.
- This is provider density, not spatial access. A per-100k figure does not measure new-patient availability, insurance acceptance, sub-specialty match, or travel time to the nearest practice. Network-based / E2SFCA / gravity methods give a more accurate picture of geographic access; we cite the relevant 2023–2025 spatial-access literature in the methodology.
At a glance — for journalists, researchers, and AI agents
What this dataset covers
- U.S.-state-level density of active NPI-1 Urology providers per 100,000 residents, computed from the public CMS NPI Registry (NPPES) and the U.S. Census Bureau 2024 Vintage state population estimates.
- Full ranking of 50 states + DC by density, with quartile bands and an explicit 3-per-100k underserved threshold defined in the study's methodology.
- Density-versus-spatial-access framing, citing the relevant 2023–2025 spatial-access literature for follow-up reading.
What this dataset does NOT cover
- Clinical access modeling (E2SFCA, gravity, drive-time isochrones) — explicitly out of scope.
- Board-certification status, sub-specialty expertise, insurance acceptance, new-patient availability, or any clinical-outcomes metric for any individual provider.
- Type 2 (organization / group practice) NPIs and adjacent-discipline providers (e.g. NPs, PAs, psychologists for psychiatry) — separate analysis surfaces.
Sources
- CMS NPPES
- U.S. Census Bureau
Snapshot date: 2026-05-06 NPPES snapshot
Dataset scope · Snapshot May 6, 2026
Includes: active business listings indexed in the Ownlisted directory network, sourced from public Google Business Profiles. Does not include: online-only operators without a physical service address, lead-generation shells, or businesses with no public review footprint. Counts describe the Ownlisted indexed provider dataset — not a representative sample of the U.S. local-services market.
Key findings
Why a public-records urology supply view matters
The American Urological Association's annual Census of Practicing Urologists is the longest-running specialty workforce census in U.S. medicine and has flagged a consistent finding for over a decade: the urologist workforce is the most rural-shortage-affected specialty in the country. Roughly 60% of U.S. counties have zero practicing urologists, and the gap between supply-rich coastal metros and supply-poor rural counties is wider than in cardiology, dermatology, or any other specialty in this study series.
Urologic disease is unavoidable with age — benign prostatic hyperplasia, prostate cancer, kidney stones, urinary incontinence — and the fastest-aging cohort lives disproportionately in supply-poor states. Telemedicine extends some urology consultation access, but cystoscopy, prostate biopsy, kidney-stone management, and surgical interventions all require in-person urology, and none of those scale via telemedicine alone.
This study reports what the public NPPES dataset shows: every active NPI-1 urologist (NUCC parent code 208800000X — Urology) bucketed by Practice Address state and divided by U.S. Census Bureau 2024-vintage state population. It is a density measurement at state granularity — not a spatial-access model, not an outcomes study, and not a count of all urologic-care providers.
What we counted, and what we did not
Source. The U.S. Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) National Plan and Provider Enumeration System (NPPES) — the public NPI Registry. Every U.S. healthcare provider who bills any payer (commercial, Medicare, Medicaid) holds an NPI; NPPES is the registry of record for that identifier. The public API at https://npiregistry.cms.hhs.gov/api/?version=2.1 requires no authentication and is updated continuously by CMS as providers self-attest changes.
Counted (kept). Each provider in our snapshot meets all three criteria:
Type 1 NPI (individual practitioner). Type 2 NPIs (organizations / group practices) are a separate analysis surface and are not counted here.
Active —
basic.status = "A"andbasic.deactivation_dateis null.At least one Healthcare Provider Taxonomy code in the urology family:
208800000X— Urology (parent)
This study counts only physicians whose primary NPPES taxonomy is the parent urology code (208800000X). Subspecialties (Pediatric Urology 2088P0231X, Female Pelvic Medicine and Reconstructive Surgery 2088F0040X) carry their own codes and are out of scope. Nephrologists (207RN0300X), urology APPs, and gynecologic-urology overlap providers under different taxonomies are also out of scope and would be separate studies.
State assignment. Each NPI's Practice Address (LOCATION) state is used, not the Mailing Address. NPPES distinguishes the two; for cross-state telemedicine practices the Practice Address state may differ from where the provider primarily lives.
Not counted. Providers with deactivated NPIs, providers whose only urology-adjacent taxonomy is outside the codes above, residents and fellows whose primary taxonomy is the "Student" code (390200000X), and providers without a U.S. Practice Address.
Headline: density spread is larger than the national figure suggests
The national rate of 4.34 active urologists per 100,000 residents is a single number; the state spread is what consumers, providers, and policy readers actually feel.
Top 5 by density:
- District of Columbia — 7.69 / 100k (n=54)
- Rhode Island — 6.20 / 100k (n=69)
- Vermont — 5.86 / 100k (n=38)
- New York — 5.65 / 100k (n=1,122)
- Massachusetts — 5.42 / 100k (n=387)
Bottom 5 by density:
- Nevada — 2.36 / 100k (n=77)
- Wyoming — 2.55 / 100k (n=15)
- New Mexico — 2.91 / 100k (n=62)
- Utah — 3.20 / 100k (n=112)
- Idaho — 3.20 / 100k (n=64)
The lowest-density state holds approximately 31% of the highest-density jurisdiction's per-capita supply. The chart below shows the full ranking; the dashed marker is the 3-per-100k threshold this study uses to flag underserved jurisdictions.
U.S. urologists per 100,000 residents — full state ranking
Sorted by per-capita density (highest first). Active NPI-1 Urology providers from NPPES snapshot 2026-05-06 against U.S. Census 2024 vintage state population. Quartile column: 1 = top quartile (highest density); 4 = bottom quartile. Underserved column flags jurisdictions below the 3-per-100k threshold defined in the methodology.
| State | State name | Active urologists | Per 100k | Density rank | Quartile | <3/100k? |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| DC | District of Columbia | 54 | 7.69Highest | 1 | 1 | — |
| RI | Rhode Island | 69 | 6.20 | 2 | 1 | — |
| VT | Vermont | 38 | 5.86 | 3 | 1 | — |
| NY | New York | 1,122 | 5.65 | 4 | 1 | — |
| MA | Massachusetts | 387 | 5.42 | 5 | 1 | — |
| NH | New Hampshire | 75 | 5.32 | 6 | 1 | — |
| CT | Connecticut | 193 | 5.25 | 7 | 1 | — |
| SD | South Dakota | 48 | 5.19 | 8 | 1 | — |
| PA | Pennsylvania | 676 | 5.17 | 9 | 1 | — |
| MN | Minnesota | 297 | 5.13 | 10 | 1 | — |
| ME | Maine | 72 | 5.12 | 11 | 1 | — |
| IL | Illinois | 642 | 5.05 | 12 | 1 | — |
| MD | Maryland | 303 | 4.84 | 13 | 1 | — |
| MT | Montana | 55 | 4.84 | 14 | 2 | — |
| NJ | New Jersey | 451 | 4.75 | 15 | 2 | — |
| NC | North Carolina | 524 | 4.74 | 16 | 2 | — |
| OH | Ohio | 556 | 4.68 | 17 | 2 | — |
| LA | Louisiana | 213 | 4.63 | 18 | 2 | — |
| OR | Oregon | 196 | 4.59 | 19 | 2 | — |
| WV | West Virginia | 81 | 4.58 | 20 | 2 | — |
| MI | Michigan | 464 | 4.58 | 21 | 2 | — |
| WI | Wisconsin | 270 | 4.53 | 22 | 2 | — |
| FL | Florida | 1,053 | 4.51 | 23 | 2 | — |
| IN | Indiana | 311 | 4.49 | 24 | 2 | — |
| MO | Missouri | 276 | 4.42 | 25 | 2 | — |
| WA | Washington | 349 | 4.39 | 26 | 2 | — |
| AK | Alaska | 32 | 4.32 | 27 | 3 | — |
| SC | South Carolina | 234 | 4.27 | 28 | 3 | — |
| CO | Colorado | 254 | 4.26 | 29 | 3 | — |
| TN | Tennessee | 306 | 4.23 | 30 | 3 | — |
| KS | Kansas | 125 | 4.21 | 31 | 3 | — |
| VA | Virginia | 370 | 4.20 | 32 | 3 | — |
| IA | Iowa | 135 | 4.16 | 33 | 3 | — |
| NE | Nebraska | 82 | 4.09 | 34 | 3 | — |
| HI | Hawaii | 58 | 4.01 | 35 | 3 | — |
| DE | Delaware | 42 | 3.99 | 36 | 3 | — |
| CA | California | 1,560Highest | 3.96 | 37 | 3 | — |
| OK | Oklahoma | 160 | 3.91 | 38 | 3 | — |
| KY | Kentucky | 176 | 3.84 | 39 | 3 | — |
| AZ | Arizona | 286 | 3.77 | 40 | 4 | — |
| ND | North Dakota | 30 | 3.77 | 41 | 4 | — |
| AL | Alabama | 185 | 3.59 | 42 | 4 | — |
| GA | Georgia | 399 | 3.57 | 43 | 4 | — |
| MS | Mississippi | 100 | 3.40 | 44 | 4 | — |
| AR | Arkansas | 101 | 3.27 | 45 | 4 | — |
| TX | Texas | 1,008 | 3.22 | 46 | 4 | — |
| ID | Idaho | 64 | 3.20 | 47 | 4 | — |
| UT | Utah | 112 | 3.20 | 48 | 4 | — |
| NM | New Mexico | 62 | 2.91 | 49 | 4 | — |
| WY | Wyoming | 15 | 2.55 | 50 | 4 | — |
| NV | Nevada | 77 | 2.36 | 51 | 4 | yes |
Underserved jurisdictions under the 3-per-100k threshold
1 jurisdiction rank below the 3 active urologists per 100,000 residents threshold this study uses to flag underserved jurisdictions. The threshold is a transparent baseline cutoff stated explicitly here — it is not a clinical or regulatory definition. Stated baseline cutoff aligned with American Urological Association (AUA) annual Census of Practicing Urologists, which has long flagged rural urology supply at sub-2/100k levels in many states; bottom-quartile states sit below 2.5 / 100k. We use 2.5 / 100k as the underserved cutoff. Stated explicitly here; not a clinical or regulatory definition.
The states below the threshold collectively hold 3,267,467 residents — about 1.0% of the U.S. population.
Important framing. "Underserved" here means density-below-threshold in the public NPPES dataset. It does not measure new-patient availability, insurance acceptance, sub-specialty match, travel time to the nearest practice, or whether the practice is accepting Medicaid. Network-distance and gravity-model methodologies produce a different, complementary picture — one we explicitly cite below.
Density vs. spatial access: what this study cannot say
Density per 100,000 residents is the most transparent supply baseline. It uses two public datasets, requires no modeling assumptions beyond arithmetic, and can be audited row-by-row in the downloadable dataset. Every reader can audit the numbers themselves.
It is not spatial access. A patient in a rural state and a patient in a metropolitan state both contribute the same "1" to their state's denominator, but their realized access differs by orders of magnitude. Headline figures derived from network-distance models (e.g. "X% of Americans live within Y minutes of a [specialist]") coexist with the present study's state-level density findings — both can be true simultaneously, because density and proximity capture different facets of "access."
The healthcare workforce literature has more advanced approaches:
- Two-Step Floating Catchment Area (E2SFCA) and gravity models treat access as a function of provider supply, population demand, and distance decay. A 2023 review of gravity models for potential spatial healthcare access (open-access spatial-epidemiology literature) is the standard reference.
- Network-based access measures compute drive-time isochrones from each Census tract centroid and count reachable providers within a window.
This study does not implement E2SFCA, gravity, or network distance. It reports state-level density and acknowledges the gap. Readers who need spatial-access estimates should pair our state ranking with the cited literature or specialty-specific access modules in the AAMC State Physician Workforce Data Reports.
Public-health frame
Public-health relevance. The AUA's annual Census + the CDC's chronic-kidney-disease and prostate-cancer surveillance programs jointly track urology supply against urologic-disease outcomes. Lower urologist density correlates with delayed prostate-cancer diagnosis, fewer minimally-invasive kidney-stone procedures per capita, higher reliance on out-of-state referrals for urologic surgery, and longer wait times for benign-prostatic-hyperplasia interventions — particularly in rural counties where the marginal value of one additional urologist is highest because there's often no nearby alternative.
Capacity-expansion vehicles flagged in the urology workforce literature: urology physician assistants and nurse practitioners (urology APPs), tele-urology consultation, hub-and-spoke partnerships between academic medical centers and rural hospitals, expanded scope-of-practice for urology APPs in some states, and reimbursement reform for ambulatory-surgical-center urologic procedures. None of these alters the NPI-1 urologist count this study tracks — but each materially changes patient-facing capacity.
Citation transparency. This study makes no clinical claims about any individual provider. The density-to-outcomes link is documented in the urology-policy literature; we cite it as context for why density matters, not as a finding our dataset proves.
Why this is different: public-records-only, record-level traceable
Most state-level urology supply numbers in circulation come from one of three places: (1) the AAMC State Physician Workforce reports, which use specialty-society membership and AMA Masterfile cross-references; (2) commercial workforce-data vendors that license those underlying datasets; or (3) press-release figures from advocacy organizations.
This study is different in three concrete ways:
- Single public source family. Everything reported here ties back to the public NPPES API and the public Census Bureau population estimate. Both are free. Both are updated on cadences CMS and Census publish. Anyone with a web browser can re-run the underlying queries.
- Record-level traceability. Every provider in the count has an NPI. The downloadable dataset preserves NPI numbers, the matched state, and the per-state aggregate. A reader auditing a specific state's count can pull the corresponding NPI list, look each one up in NPPES, and audit the active-urology-taxonomy criterion themselves.
- No quality attestation. Fonteum does not run a checking process for individual urologists. The label "active in NPPES" describes a CMS registry status, not a quality, board-certification, or insurance-acceptance attestation. Patients who need clinical confirmation should consult the American Board of Medical Specialties (ABMS) registry for board-certification status and their insurer's directory for in-network availability.
The downloadable CSV at the top of this study includes per-state count, density, rank, quartile, and the underserved-threshold flag. The downloadable JSON adds the snapshot metadata and source URLs.
Cite this study
Suggested citation:
Ownlisted Research. (2026). U.S. Urologist Supply by State 2026 — NPPES Per-Capita Density. Ownlisted. Retrieved from https://fonteum.com/research/urologist-supply-by-state-2026
Reuse and attribution. Charts, tables, and the downloadable CSV / JSON may be cited or reproduced with attribution to Ownlisted Research and a link to this study. Carry the snapshot date (2026-05-06) so readers know the dataset version. Future NPPES snapshots will produce different state-level counts as providers update their NPPES status.
The methodology, the explicit underserved-threshold definition, and the density-vs-spatial-access distinction must travel with the figures. Per-state counts published without those caveats risk being misread as a clinical-access measurement, which the dataset does not support.
Press / media inquiries. Reach the Ownlisted Research team via the brand-hub contact page. We are happy to clarify methodology for health-policy and access-equity reporters; we will not provide patient-side clinical commentary.
Cited literature (suggested for follow-up reading):
- American Urological Association (AUA). Census of Practicing Urologists — annual edition. The standard reference for U.S. urologist supply, demand, and rural-distribution patterns.
- U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Chronic Kidney Disease Surveillance System.
- Peer-reviewed urology workforce studies (e.g., Urology, Journal of Urology, Health Affairs) on density-to-outcomes linkage in U.S. urologic care delivery.
- Gravity models for potential spatial healthcare access (2023). Methodological reference for E2SFCA and gravity-decay approaches not implemented here.
Limitations
- Density is not spatial access. Per-100,000 resident density measures supply-to-population ratio at the state level. It does not measure travel time, new-patient availability, insurance acceptance, or sub-specialty match. Network-based and gravity-decay methods (E2SFCA) provide more accurate access measurements. We have not implemented those methods.
- NPPES taxonomies are self-reported. Providers select their own taxonomy codes when registering or updating their NPI. There is no specialty-board cross-check built into NPPES; a board-certified physician and a non-board-certified provider who self-attests the specialty code both appear. Patients confirming clinical credentials should consult ABMS / AOA registries directly.
- Practice Address state, not where the provider lives or practices most. A multi-site practitioner is counted once at their Practice Address state. Cross-state telemedicine practices may be undercounted in the patient-facing state.
- Active-flag accuracy. NPPES updates active/deactivated status as providers self-attest. Some providers carry stale NPIs from earlier career stages. The deactivation flag captures most cases; minor over-counting at the margin is possible.
- Census ACS 2024 vintage uncertainty. State population denominators come from the Census Bureau 2024 V2024 estimate. ACS estimates carry margin-of-error bands; per-100k figures are point estimates from a point-estimate denominator and should not be treated as exact to two decimal places.
- No procedure-mix or sub-specialty breakout. This study does not distinguish sub-specialties beyond what the taxonomy codes encode. A provider's primary clinical practice may differ from their NPPES taxonomy code.
- Type 2 (organization) NPIs excluded. Hospital-employed urologists who only operate under a Type 2 organization NPI are under-counted. Most urologists carry both, so the under-count effect is small but non-zero.
- No outcomes / quality-of-care claims. This study reports NPPES-listed counts and Census-derived densities. It makes no claims about practice quality, board certification status, sub-specialty expertise, or any clinical outcome metric. This is not medical advice. Patients should look up board certification through ABMS or AOA, confirm insurance acceptance with the practice, and consult their primary care physician for referrals.
- Snapshot in time. Counts reflect the 2026-05-06 NPPES snapshot. The cached dataset is preserved at
data/nppes/urology-2026-05-06.jsonfor re-analysis.
Limitations
- Density is not spatial access. Network-distance / E2SFCA / gravity methods give more accurate access measurements; we have not implemented them.
- NPPES taxonomies are self-reported; there is no specialty-board cross-check.
- Practice Address state is used; cross-state telemedicine practices may be undercounted in the patient-facing state.
- Census 2024 vintage population estimates carry margin-of-error bands; per-100k figures are point estimates from a point-estimate denominator.
- Fonteum does not rate, certify, or guarantee any provider. Patients should consult ABMS / AOA registries for board-certification status and confirm insurance acceptance with the practice directly.
Methodology
Read the full methodology
Data sources. This study uses two public datasets:
- U.S. CMS NPI Registry (NPPES) — public API at
https://npiregistry.cms.hhs.gov/api/?version=2.1, snapshot 2026-05-06. - U.S. Census Bureau Population Estimates Program (PEP) — 2024 Vintage (V2024) state population estimates, released 2024-12-19.
Inclusion criteria. Each provider counted meets all of:
- NPI Type 1 (individual practitioner) — Type 2 (organization) NPIs are excluded.
basic.status = "A"andbasic.deactivation_dateis null.- Carries at least one of the 1 Urology Healthcare Provider Taxonomy code:
208800000X(Urology (parent)). - Has a U.S. Practice Address (LOCATION). Mailing-only addresses are not used.
State assignment. Providers are bucketed by their Practice Address state, not their Mailing Address state. Each NPI is counted once.
Density computation. Per-100,000 figures are: (count / Census 2024 vintage population) × 100,000. Underserved threshold: less than 3 active urologists per 100,000 residents. Stated baseline cutoff aligned with American Urological Association (AUA) annual Census of Practicing Urologists, which has long flagged rural urology supply at sub-2/100k levels in many states; bottom-quartile states sit below 2.5 / 100k. We use 2.5 / 100k as the underserved cutoff. Stated explicitly here; not a clinical or regulatory definition.
What density does not measure. Per-100k density is a supply-to-population ratio at state granularity. It does not measure spatial access, new-patient availability, insurance acceptance, sub-specialty match, board-certification status, or any quality / clinical-outcomes metric. Network-distance and gravity-model approaches (E2SFCA) provide more accurate geographic-access measurements and are explicitly cited above; this study does not implement them.
Differentiation. This is a public-records-only study. The downloadable CSV and JSON preserve NPI numbers and per-state aggregates so any reader can audit individual records against the live NPPES registry. Fonteum does not independently rate, inspect, certify, or guarantee any provider — the label "active in NPPES" describes a CMS registry status, not a quality attestation.
Not medical advice. Patients should consult ABMS / AOA registries for board-certification status, confirm insurance acceptance with the practice directly, and discuss referrals with their primary care physician.
Reproducibility. The cached NPPES dataset at data/nppes/urology-2026-05-06.json and the per-state aggregate at public/research/data/urologist-supply-by-state-2026-05-06.json (also CSV) are the canonical snapshots. The ingestion script and aggregation script are version-controlled under scripts/research/.
Data sources. This study uses two public datasets:
- U.S. CMS NPI Registry (NPPES) — public API at
https://npiregistry.cms.hhs.gov/api/?version=2.1, snapshot 2026-05-06. - U.S. Census Bureau Population Estimates Program (PEP) — 2024 Vintage (V2024) state population estimates, released 2024-12-19.
Inclusion criteria. Each provider counted meets all of:
- NPI Type 1 (individual practitioner) — Type 2 (organization) NPIs are excluded.
basic.status = "A"andbasic.deactivation_dateis null.- Carries at least one of the 1 Urology Healthcare Provider Taxonomy code:
208800000X(Urology (parent)). - Has a U.S. Practice Address (LOCATION). Mailing-only addresses are not used.
State assignment. Providers are bucketed by their Practice Address state, not their Mailing Address state. Each NPI is counted once.
Density computation. Per-100,000 figures are: (count / Census 2024 vintage population) × 100,000. Underserved threshold: less than 3 active urologists per 100,000 residents. Stated baseline cutoff aligned with American Urological Association (AUA) annual Census of Practicing Urologists, which has long flagged rural urology supply at sub-2/100k levels in many states; bottom-quartile states sit below 2.5 / 100k. We use 2.5 / 100k as the underserved cutoff. Stated explicitly here; not a clinical or regulatory definition.
What density does not measure. Per-100k density is a supply-to-population ratio at state granularity. It does not measure spatial access, new-patient availability, insurance acceptance, sub-specialty match, board-certification status, or any quality / clinical-outcomes metric. Network-distance and gravity-model approaches (E2SFCA) provide more accurate geographic-access measurements and are explicitly cited above; this study does not implement them.
Differentiation. This is a public-records-only study. The downloadable CSV and JSON preserve NPI numbers and per-state aggregates so any reader can audit individual records against the live NPPES registry. Fonteum does not independently rate, inspect, certify, or guarantee any provider — the label "active in NPPES" describes a CMS registry status, not a quality attestation.
Not medical advice. Patients should consult ABMS / AOA registries for board-certification status, confirm insurance acceptance with the practice directly, and discuss referrals with their primary care physician.
Reproducibility. The cached NPPES dataset at data/nppes/urology-2026-05-06.json and the per-state aggregate at public/research/data/urologist-supply-by-state-2026-05-06.json (also CSV) are the canonical snapshots. The ingestion script and aggregation script are version-controlled under scripts/research/.
Technical appendix
Show technical details · script paths · field names
Ingestion. scripts/research/nppes-by-taxonomy-ingest.ts urology paginates the NPPES public API per state × per urology-taxonomy-description. The API caps any single query at 1,200 results (skip 0..1000, limit 200). For state×taxonomy combinations that saturate the cap, the script falls back to a recursive ZIP-prefix split: 100 two-digit prefixes per saturated query, recursing to three-digit prefixes if needed. Results are deduplicated by NPI across taxonomy queries and ZIP-prefix splits.
Filters applied at ingestion.
enumeration_type === "NPI-1"(individual practitioners)basic.status === "A"ANDbasic.deactivation_dateis nulladdresses[].address_purpose === "LOCATION"ANDcountry_code === "US"(Practice Address)- At least one taxonomy code in {208800000X}
Aggregation. scripts/research/specialty-supply-aggregate.ts urology reads the cached NPPES JSON and the static scripts/research/census-state-pop-2024.json (Census 2024 V2024 estimates). For each state it computes count, per-100k density, density rank, count rank, quartile-by-density, and the underserved flag. Output:
public/research/data/urologist-supply-by-state-2026-05-06.json— full row-level dataset + summary metadatapublic/research/data/urologist-supply-by-state-2026-05-06.csv— same data in CSV form
Chart. scripts/research/build-specialty-supply-chart.ts urology emits the hand-coded SVG at public/research/charts/urologist-supply-by-state-2026/state-ranking-by-density.svg. Palette pulled from src/lib/research/chart-theme.ts (§133). No charting library; no Plotly defaults.
Doctrine references. §95 (NPPES ingestion), §126 (newsroom + AI-citation readiness), §181 (NPPES dermatology supply by state — first full-source-enumeration study), §182 (specialty-study factory — this study generated through the factory).
Open for the script paths, raw dataset filenames, and per-field aggregation rules behind this snapshot. Reader-facing methodology above already covers source, date, and limitations.