Public Health Bulletin No. 2g2 HEALTH SERVICE AREAS Requirements for General Hospitals and Health Centers Federal Security Agency U. S. PUBLIC HEALTH SERVICE Washington, D. C. FEDERAL SECURITY AGENCY • • • • U. S. PUBLIC HEALTH SERVICE Public Health Bulletin No. HEALTH SERVICE AREAS Requirements for General Hospitals and Health Centers by JOSEPH W. MOUNTIN. . . . Medical Director ELLIOTT H. PENNELL . . . Senior Statistician VANE M. HOGE . . Senior Surgeon United States Public Health Service From the Division of States Relations, Bureau of State Services ■ Prepared by Direction of the Surgeon General United States Government Printing Office WASHINGTON: 1945 FOR SALE BY THE SUPERINTENDENT OF DOCUMENTS. WASHINGTON. D. C PRICE 25 CENTS FOREWORD The general hospital at its best is a superb insti- poses restrictions on conditions under which funds brought into association through the formation of tution. Lack of uniformity, however, has character- can be expended. ‘ service areas and regions. While financial consider- ized its development throughout this country. As a With the foregoing in mind, the authors have at- ations are omitted from the discussion, in the back- rule each institution operates as a self-contained tempted to project a plan for an integrated scheme ground is the familiar pattern of grants-in-aid for . , . , - , „ of hospitals and related facilities to cover every sec- equalizing resources among communities and States, unit. Its location and essential features are deter- r H fe , , . . tion of the nation. Certain concepts of service that Admittedly, this monograph is a library product mined in great measure by the economic circum- are fairly well accepted by students of the subject evolved from such pertinent social, economic, and stances of its clientele. Various devices have been and by practical hospital administrators are fitted facilities data as could be obtained through pub- tried under a voluntary system to expand the base T into the existing structure ot voluntary and public fished material. It is neither an expression of policy of hospital support and to e c hospitals. Supplements to these institutions are sug- of the organization with which the authors are con- one institution to those of another within gested where necessary to bring needed facilities nected nor a forecast of what is to come. If the spheies. Recently there has been much discussion of w^j^n reach Gf persons regardless of geographi- funds and the will to proceed on any plan for ex- further development and of unification throughout caj location. The health center is expanded in func- tending hospital service in a comprehensive way broad areas with State and perhaps national finan- on serve as a device for relating and amplifying should eventuate, many adjustments would be in cial assistance. The introduction of public funds worh Gf hospitals and community health agen- order. For those who, now or later, may have ad- properly carries with it the obligation of extending cjes> Since it is presumed that a large element of ministrative responsibilities in this broad area of service coverage to all political areas that may be public financial support will be necessary, existing social interest, perhaps the monograph may serve involved. Such a scheme of financial aid also im- political units having powers of taxation are as, a point of departure. F oreword Ill Introduction 1 A plan for coordination of hospitals and health centers 1 Outlines for hospital districts 3 Number and general characteristics of districts 4 Estimates of needed beds 5 Effect of State boundaries upon estimates 7 Health centers 7 Integration of general facilities with mental, tuberculosis, and Federal hospitals 9 Sequence of construction and flexibility of use 9 References 11 Selected bibliography 11 Appendixes: Appendix A.—Maps showing counties, districts, and regional areas 13-22 Appendix B.—Tables showing selected statistics for counties, districts, and regional areas. 23-64 Appendix C.—Table showing estimates of hospital beds needed 65-67 Appendix D.—Table showing estimates of health centers needed 68 PAGE CONTENTS HEALTH SERVICE AREAS Requirements for General Hospitals small hospitals, especially in areas lacking wealth and population, are unlikely to be well qualified for much of the work that the community requires; while in the more populous centers unnecessary du- plication of facilities is commonly observed. Lack of hospital connection has the effect of de- priving many physicians of opportunities for contin- uing education afforded by professional association in well-conducted clinics and staff meetings; for the same reason, they may be denied the use of equip- ment other than what they can afford to purchase individually. Rural practitioners, especially, have been isolated from advances in modern medical sci- ence and technology. Rather than become victims of this situation, physicians and other medical per- sonnel concentrate in centers of wealth and popula- tion, thus increasing the maldistribution of medical service. A creditable beginning has been made toward laying the foundation for a public health-organiza- tion in keeping with the needs of this country and its traditions of social service. These departments are handicapped now by lack of physical facilities suited to their needs and in keeping with the posi- tion which they should occupy in public esteem. It may be stated conservatively that less than ten per- cent of health departments are provided with ac- commodations even approaching reasonable stand- ards of adequacy. Moreover, physical separation between hospitals and health departments tends to perpetuate the custom under which preventive and curative services, figuratively speaking, operate in different worlds rather than in relation to the same individuals. Under a less complex order than that which is evolving in the United States, the traditional de- tachment of hospitals from social forces might be tolerated, especially if medical sciences also were static. In the presence of social and scientific prog- ress, the demand for full utilization of all available resources in the interest of both individual and com- munity health is destined to become irresistible. This trend has been recognized for some time by forward thinking individuals in the fields of hospi- tal and public health administration and by stu- dents of health problems.2 Both the American Hospital Association and the American Public Health Association have recognized the need for cooperation between hospitals and public health agencies (1), (2). Interest expressed recently by the Federal Congress and by several State legisla- tures clearly indicates a growing public demand for more adequate health services. However, certain questions need to be resolved before much of this nascent interest can be translated into action. First among these is the development of a functional plan for the delivery of service. and Health Centers1 INTRODUCTION There is ample reason for believing that general hospitals are destined to become increasingly im- portant in the evolution of medical care and health service programs. Pending the time when materials and labor can be released for construction, it is, therefore, highly important that existing plants be studied from the standpoints of location, bed capac- ity, and broad utility in order that added facilities may complement those already in being. The net result of future developments should be to bring the workshops necessary in the performance of pre- ventive and curative services within easy reach of everyone regardless of his economic position or geo- graphical location. These units should be placed also with a view toward inducing an equable dis- tribution of physicians, dentists, and other person- nel involved in carrying out a comprehensive program of health services. In the past, hospitals, for the most part, have been established where there seemed some likelihood that revenue derived from patients would be sufficient to insure their continuation. If the location was well chosen, growth usually followed. On the other hand, where economic conditions proved adverse, the hospital tended to remain static or to discon- tinue operations. In other words, the aggregate of material wealth rather than of human need, in the main, has determined the location and use of hos- pitals. Facilities and skills as a rule have pyramided in the wealthier and more urban communities; while large segments of the population, either because of location or insufficient income, receive less hospital- ization than they need. Furthermore, hospitals, once established, are apt to operate as isolated institu- tions without much regard to the existence of simi- lar facilities within the community or in the surrounding area. As a result of this attempt to furnish all types of care in a self-sufficient unit, A PLAN FOR COORDINATION OF HOSPITALS AND HEALTH CENTERS Some of^the preliminary thinking of the United States Public Health Service (3) regarding an in- tegrated system of facilities for hospital care and health service is exemplified by the diagram in figure 1. This chart depicts in schematic fashion a coordinated plan whereby health services and facili- ties would be integrated through a system of base, district, and rural hospitals and health centers. In the system the base hospital would have the most advanced equipment and specialized staff, as- sociated, wherever practicable, with the teaching, research, and study opportunities of a medical school. This hospital would offer diagnosis and treatment to patients with conditions requiring serv- ices not available in* most local hospitals. Large, well-equipped district hospitals would be strategi- cally located within the area served by the base hospital and would provide general and specialty services beyond the resources of smaller local hos- pitals ; thus only the more complex cases would have to be referred to the base hospital. Other hospitals, including those in the more built-up rural areas, should be prepared to meet the ordinary demands of a community and select for transfer to district and base hospitals those cases requiring highly spe- cialized care. Finally, there would be health centers equipped for diagnosis and treatment of ambulatory patients, as wrell as for the more traditional health department services. Probably a few of these located in sparsely populated areas would contain accom- 1 From the States Relations Division, Bureau of State Services. Special recognition is given to Miss Emily K. Hankla and Miss Georgie S. Brockett for assistance in the preparation of this mono- graph. 2 See bibliography. modations for limited hospital service. 1 COORDINATED HOSPITAL SERVICE PLAN HOSPITAL I SERVICE AREA ■ HOSPITAL ■i HEALTH CENTER ☆ INSTITUTION (CHRONIC DISEASE) A NURSING HOME (CHRONIC DISEASE) Teaching Research Consultation CANCER CLINIC PSYCHIATRIC SERVICE HEART CLINIC MAJOR SURGERY INTERNAL MEDICINE OBSTETRICS PEDIATRICS ORTHOPEDIC SURGERY COMMUNICABLE DISEASES TUBERCULOSIS VENEREAL DISEASE OTHER TEACHING NURSES INTERNS RESIDENTS POST GRADUATES LABORATORY X-RAY PATHOLOGY BACTERIOLOGY CHEMICAL PHYSIOTHERAPY DENTISTRY EYE, EAR, NOSE, THROAT DIETETICS EESaMi C3QM9 fs^Msmsmssm OBSTETRICS EMERGENCY MEDICAL AND SURGERY LABORATORY X-RAY BACTERIOLOGY DENTISTRY PRIVATE OFFICE OR OFFICES FOR PRIVATE PHYSICIANS ADMINISTRATIVE PUBLIC HEALTH OFFICES HEALTH OFFICER SANITARIAN PUBLIC HEALTH NURSES PUBLIC HEALTH CLINICS MATERNAL AND CHILD HEALTH TUBERCULOSIS VENEREAL DISEASE PUBLIC HEALTH EDUCATION MAJOR SURGERY OBSTETRICS INTERNAL MEDICINE COMMUNICABLE DISEASES TUBERCULOSIS VENEREAL DISEASE OTHER PEDIATRICS EYE, EAR. NOSE. THROAT DENTISTRY PHYSIOTHERAPY LABORATORY X-RAY PATHOLOGY BACTERIOLOGY CHEMICAL TEACHING NURSES INTERNS DIETETICS INTERNAL MEDICINE OBSTETRICS EYE. EAR, NOSE, THROAT DENTISTRY MINOR SURGERY LABORATORY X-RAY BACTERIOLOGY PLAN PROVIDES FOR CONSTANT EXCHANGE BETWEEN HOSPITALS OF INFORMATION, TRAINING, AND CON- SULTATION SERVICE, AND PERSONNEL, AND FOR REFERRAL OF PATIENTS WHEN- INDICATED. Figure I—A diagram showing relationships among base, district, rural hospitals and health centers in a coordinated service plan 2 In most communities and in many neighbor- hoods, there is need for a unit that will localize the activities of the health department and make avail- able to physicians and dentists diagnostic and thera- peutic equipment too extensive for them to purchase or operate as individual practitioners. This type of facility is coming to be known as the health center. Preferably, it should be a component part of a hos- pital, but where this is not feasible, the health cen- ter may be erected as a discrete building nearby. In many rural areas, the health center and the outpost type of hospital may be combined both physically and functionally. Hence, a system of primary and subsidiary medical centers is suggested. Making the educational and consultant resources of large medical centers accessible to all physicians for their continued training after graduation not only would equip them to render service superior in character to that now possible but also would reduce the professional disadvantages of rural areas for physician location. Moreover, arrangements by which interns might receive part of their training in rural hospitals should result in larger propor- tions of them becoming interested in rural practice. Consultant specialists and university professors at- tached to the staffs of the primary centers might serve the affiliated centers on a scheduled itinerant basis for demonstration of newly developed medical procedures and on an advisory basis in unusual cases of illness. By developing a group of traveling spe- cialists who periodically would visit smaller cities and utilize local facilities as teaching units, the edu- cational influence of large centers might be extended throughout the region. In addition to the day-by- day training which would be an intimate part of a coordinated scheme, periodic attendance of practic- ing physicians at intramural refresher courses should be stimulated. What has been said about physicians applies to various categories of person- nel—dentists, nurses, dietitians, sanitarians, admin- istrators, and others in health departments and hospitals. Laboratory workers, for example, would benefit from authoritative explanations and demon- strations of new techniques and materials which have come into use since their basic training was completed. the general hospital field, such a framework should serve equally well in outlining districts for health services of other types or guiding the equable dis- tribution of professional personnel, such as physi- cians, dentists, and nurses. District and regional patterns are portrayed on maps presented in ap- pendix A. Tables to accompany each map, showing county names, district and regional designations, and selected statistics 8 for individual counties and for the outlined areas follow in appendix B. Fundamentally, the pattern for each State was evolved through the designation of selected cities as hospital centers and the grouping of counties about these centers into proposed service districts. The districts were then grouped into one or more broad regional areas within State boundaries. Although it is recognized that hospital service areas are not al- ways described by county outlines, districts and regions have been made up of combinations of coun- ties. This political unit has been taken as the basis for computations, perforce because much of the so- cial, economic, and political data which underlie the study are not available uniformly for lesser subdivi- sions. Be that as it may, if in the future any great measure of local public revenue is to be used for defraying costs of hospital construction or mainte- nance of service, the county is apt to enter the pic- ture rather prominently since it is the local taxing unit for the support of most social programs. Outlines of hospital areas reflect groupings which might be used as administrative patterns for over- all service plans. Within each broad region, a city having hospital potentialities of sufficient scope to act as an integrating unit for the entire region is selected as the primary center. As a rule, these pri- mary centers contain several large hospitals and represent the greatest concentration of general-care Establishment of hospitals and health centers where they are lacking would supply the physical framework for coordination of health activities within individual communities. In order that pro- fessional and technical workers may have oppor- tunities to become acquainted with new procedures and that patients may have access to appropriate diagnostic and therapeutic facilities, an organized system linking small hospitals and health centers with large hospitals and with teaching and research centers is needed. To date this has been accom- plished only in small part. Local health departments now send a fair pro- portion of their specimens to State-owned or sub- sidized laboratories for examination. In a few areas, the more enterprising physicians and local hospitals receive similar services from a large hos- pital in the same general region. Outside inter- pretation of X-ray films and electrocardiograph tracings is even less frequent. Some system should be established whereby any physician and hospital could refer problems in diagnosis or therapy to medical and hospital centers whenever indicated. Such an arrangement for consultation on laboratory specimens, X-ray films, or even case histories often obviates the necessity for actual transportation of patients. Not all such problems would require the assistance of large teaching and research centers. Most, in fact, can be handled by good medium-sized hospitals which are reasonably accessible in distance and time. These secondary or district centers, how- ever, would occasionally find themselves faced with unusual cases on which they would need the help of the best equipped and staffed hospital available. OUTLINES FOR HOSPITAL DISTRICTS It is important that a program directed toward the wider distribution of any type of health service be preceded by an evaluation of existing resources and by the identification of areas where deficits exist. With this in mind, the authors have at- tempted to develop regional and area patterns which might be used as a background for evaluating the current distribution of facilities and directing the placement of additional accommodations. While formulated initially as a basis for studying needs in 8 Basic data were obtained as follows: (a) Population totals for counties and land area In square miles from Population, First aeries, U. S. Summary, Table 17, Sixteenth Census of the United States: 1940; (b) estimates of effective buying income in 1940, made by Sales Management on the basis of money actually paid out for goods and services, Federal allotments, money paid out of savings and sur- pluses by business and financial Institutions, plus the nonmoney in- come of farm and village residents, for counties and States from Sales Management survey of buying power, Sales Management, Vol. 48, No. 8, April 10, 1941; (c) physician totals by counting all phy- sicians listed in the 1940 American Medical Directory ; and (d) hos- pital bed totals by tabulating data published for individual general and allied special hospitals in the Journal of the American Medical Association, Vol. 121, No. 13, March 27, 1943. (See footnote 4.) 3 facilities existing in any city or town in the region. The places selected as hospital centers of other dis- tricts within the region are designated as secondary. In addition to serving the ordinary needs of the surrounding territories they also represent ties be- tween distant local communities and the primary center. of which are located in a hospital approved by the American College of Surgeons were considered qualified to be selected as primary centers. Cities or towns with from 100 to 249 beds were designated as possible secondary centers. Because many areas are somewhat removed from any such primary or sec- ondary centers within the same State, other places containing at least 50 beds were suggested as eligible “proposed-secondary” centers on the assumption that the facilities might be increased and upgraded later to meet the criteria for secondary centers. ters were so numerous that their designation as such would have resulted in many small regions. Under such circumstances, only the places were retained which, on the basis of location, number of beds, approvals, hospital distribution over the State, and the composition of broad trade areas, seemed most logical to serve major sections of the State. Those which otherwise wmuld have qualified were desig- nated as secondary or were included within districts having other cities as centers. Because of their proximity to places equipped with greater numbers of hospital beds, a few cities containing important medical schools are hot among the designated primary centers. In this connection, it should be remembered that the principal criterion by which centers were selected was the count of gen- eral hospital beds. Location in a secondary service district, however, does not preclude teaching insti- tutions from having outstanding positions in the educational program. The resulting maps naturally do not reflect details of administrative relationship between individual hospitals which are implied in the design for a coor- dinated hospital plan shown in figure 1. Such affili- ations would have to be worked out within cities and towns generously supplied with hospitals as well as between institutions distantly separated. Even the location of base, district, and rural hospitals and health centers can not be determined without a de- tailed study and evaluation of existing facilities. After hospital accommodations had been re- viewed, counties were classified as possible nucleuses for primary, secondary, or proposed-secondary dis- tricts according to the types of centers which they contained. In some areas, several adjoining counties had cities or town qualified as hospital centers by the definitions used. Where such a choice was pos- sible, the city or town with the greatest number of general hospital beds was designated the center; and the county in which it was located, the nucleus for a district. The nucleus and counties adjacent thereto were then tentatively outlined as a local district. This grouping included all surrounding counties un- less one was needed as a nucleus for a new district made up of outlying counties with lower ranking or no qualified centers. After primary, secondary, and proposed-secondary districts had been outlined, there remained counties which neither contained places with as many as 50 beds nor touched others with such facilities. Single counties of this descrip- tion were attached to the most accessible local dis- tricts, but when two or more of these counties were contiguous, they were grouped into an isolated dis- trict. Possible centers for such isolated districts were designated somewhat arbitrarily by selecting from the most populous towns or cities the one which seemed to offer the best location for the main hospital. An outline of procedures followed in developing the district and area patterns for the several States is presented in the following pages. The first step in developing regional and district patterns consisted in identifying on large-scale State maps the locations of all cities and villages containing hospitals.4 The number of beds in gen- eral and special hospitals and symbols, indicating acceptance of one or more of these institutions for nurse, intern, or resident training, or approval by the American College of Surgeons, were entered in appropriate positions. Places with hospitals were thus described on maps in terms of the facilities located therein. On the basis of hospital distribution alone, there were many instances where more than one or even several alternatives could have been followed in grouping counties into districts and districts into broad regions. Frequently, the hospital data did not provide criteria which permitted a meaningful dis- crimination between two or more such patterns, particularly in reference to regional outlines. There- fore, retail trade practices as portrayed by commer- cial trade area maps 5 were reviewed as a basis for final decisions. From information provided by these sources, it was possible to effect for many district and regional areas boundaries which are apparently more realistic than would have been attained other- wise. Once the hospital data had been summarized on a State map, certain cities and towns were designated as possible centers for local districts. According to standards adopted for purposes of the study, cities containing 250 or more general hospital beds some NUMBER AND GENERAL CHARACTERISTICS OF DISTRICTS * Hospital bod totals used for selecting hospital centers and defin- ing service districts and regions within each State were obtained by tabulating data published for individual general and allied special hospitals in the Journal of the American Medical Association, Vol. 121, No. 13, March 27, 1943. Included in the general and allied special category are all general hospitals plus those rendering special- ized services commonly provided by general hospitals, i.e. maternity, industrial, isolation, eye-ear-nose-throat, orthopedic, children’s, con- valescent and rest, chronic, and others offering similar limited types of care. General hospitals operated by the Bureau of Indian Affairs are counted on the assumption that they represent facili- ties operated on a local area basis, hut other Federal hospitals are excluded. Also in the excluded group are all mental and tuberculosis hospitals and infirmary units of correctional and custodial institu- tions. When local districts had been tentatively charted, broad regions, each consisting of a primary district and usually one or more secondary, proposed-sec- ondary, or isolated districts, were outlined. The number of regions was limited by the number of cities or towns qualified to serve as primary centers, except that at least one region was set up in each State. In several States, the possible primary cen- The design of districts and regions, as determined on the basis of the procedures outlined above, com- bines the three-thousand-odd counties into 760 dis- tricts making up 126 regional areas within State 6 Trading area map of the United States published by Rand McNally and Company, Chicago; trading area maps for geographic divisions of the United States from Sales Management, Vol. 48, No. 8. (April 10, 1941) ; and Cleartype county-town trading area and trading center maps for the individual States published by Ameri- can Map Company, New York. 4 boundaries (table 1). Resides the 126 primary dis- tricts, there are 298 secondary, 285 proposed-second- ary, and 106 isolated districts. A region of average composition thus contains approximately 6 districts distributed as follows: 1 primary, 2 secondary, 2 pro- posed-secondary, and 1 isolated. The local districts have on the average 4 counties each, a total popula- tion of 173,000, a land area of 4,000 square miles, and buying incomes of approximately $97,580,000 per year. The mean number of hospital beds is 610; of physicians, 230. On the whole the districts classified as primary are more populous, wealthier, and better supplied with both physicians and hospital beds than the others. Comparison of arithmetic means for primary districts and for all districts shows that the population is over 8 times as great; total buying income, reflecting both population and per-capita- income differences, is more than 8.5 times as large; and physicians and hospital beds are about 4 times as numerous in the typical primary as in the average district. Each one of the factors that have been dis- cussed—population, buying income, hospital beds, and physicians—exists in lesser degree as the classi- fication of districts changes from primary to sec- ondary, from secondary to proposed-secondary, and from proposed-secondary to isolated. Furthermore, calculations showing relationships indicate that per capita income, population per square mile, and the ratios of hospital beds or physicians to population all decrease as the rank of the district decreases, while the percentage of the population which lives in rural communities increases. There is not a cor- responding difference in the average land area for districts of the various types. More specifically, the average population in a primary district is 589,991, in contrast to 188,889 in secondary, 74,050 in proposed-secondary, and 58,728 in isolated districts. The mean number of persons per square mile decreases similarly from 112 to 18; and the percentage in urban communities, from 75 to 14. Although per capita income does not decline in the lower ranking—and less populous—districts at as rapid a rate as does total income, the average is $6Bl in primary in contrast to $269 for each per- son in the isolated areas. From 166 per 100,000 in primary, the mean number of physicians drops to 108 in secondary, 81 in proposed-secondary, and 74 in isolated districts. Particularly significant are the proportionate differences in hospital beds. Those in general and special hospitals average 4.6 per 1,000 population in primary, 8.0 in secondary, 1.6 in pro- posed-secondary, and 0.8 in isolated districts. For purposes of calculating future bed require- ments in non-Federal general hospitals, 4.5 beds per 1,000 population has been taken to represent a rea- sonable standard of adequacy. In arriving at this figure certain assumptions are made: ESTIMATES OF NEEDED BEDS 1. These beds would accommodate all persons, other than those suffering from tuberculosis or mental disorders, requir- ing hospitalization. 2. All factors which tend to limit the amount of hospitali- zation, such as distance, insufficient accommodations, inability to pay for service, and unwillingness to enter hospitals, would he removed or reduced to an appreciable minimum. ‘3. The scheme of administration would he such as to main- tain an average annual utilization of all beds equivalent to not less than 80 percent of capacity. The figure of 4.5 beds per 1,000 population ad- mittedly is a compromise between a theoretical ideal and a practical achievement. The aggregate of beds, 628,000, attained by adding estimated deficits to the existing number of beds, if used at 80 percent of capacity would make available 1.4 days of care an- nually per person on the basis of the 1940 popula- tion. Actually during 1942 the civilian population of the continental United States obtained in non- Federal general and allied special hospitals care equivalent to 0.92 days per person. This was ac- complished in about 465,000 beds, entailing an aver- age utilization of 72 percent. It wTas accomplished also despite serious inadequacies of hospital accom- modations in many States, and absence of compre- hensive measures for removing the economic barri- ers which now limit hospitalization especially for low-income groups. These national averages mask wide differences, even among such broad areas as States. For example, in an urban State like Massa- chusetts with 5.5 beds per 1,000 population the number of days of care were 1.4 per person per annum, while in Mississippi, a predominantly rural State, the corresponding figures are 1.6 beds, and 0.3 days of care, respectively. When consideration is limited to the four contiguous States of Massachu- setts, Rhode Island, Connecticut, and New York, which together account for nearly one-sixth of the population in the United States, the actual days of care per person in general and allied special hospi- tals in 1942 averaged 1.335. This is actual experi- ence—with financial barriers, lack of appreciation Table 1.—Number of primary, secondary, proposed-secondary, and isolated hospital districts and identifying characteristics Type of districts Number districts Cou Number nties Average Average population per district (1940) Percent urban (1940) Population per square mile (1940) Per capita income (1940)i Physicians per 100,000 population (1940)2 General special beds ( Number ind allied lospital 1942)* Per 1,000 population All 760 3,070 4.0 173,249 56.5 44.2 $563 133 463,330 3.52 Primary _ — 126 653 5.2 539,991 75.1 112.0 681 166 310,422 4.56 Secondary ... 293 1,089 3.7 138,339 45.2 38.5 510 108 120,684 2.98 Proposed-Sec _ 235 867 3.7 74,050 24.1 19.9 321 81 27,514 1.58 Isolated 106 461 4.4 53,728 14.2 12.9 269 74 4,710 0.83 1 Average per capita income based on effective buying income, esti- mated for counties and presented in “Sales Management Survey of Buying Power.” Sales Management, Vol. 48, No. 8, April 10, 1941. 2 Tabulations based on data obtained from the American Medical Directory, sixteenth edition, 1940, American Medical Association, Chicago. 3 Tabulations based upon data for beds in general and allied spe- cial hospitals as published in the Journal of the American Medical Association, Vol. 121, No. 13, March 27, 1943. Beds in Federal hos- pitals operated by the Bureau of Indian Affairs are included ; how- ever, all other beds in Federal hospitals and all beds in mental and tuberculosis hospitals are excluded. 5 649782 0 - 45 -2 of hospital service, and insufficient local facilities still operating. In comparison, a ratio of 4.5 beds per 1,000 population at 80 percent occupancy would provide only 1.314 days of care annually per person. In estimating bed requirements for the types of hospitals under consideration, authorities'* arrive at ratios as high as 8.25 beds per 1,000 population. For several reasons, the authors of this paper feel justi- fied in using a basis of estimate which is somewhat below these theoretically desirable ratios: First, a coordinated scheme of operation in any program of hospital development should even out wide varia- tions in use of existing hospitals; and second, it would seem that by first bringing up ratios of beds available for all areas to a reasonable standard, pos- sible excess construction in favored communities may be averted. LEGEND TYPE OF DISTRICT HOSPITAL CENTER AREA INCLUDED Primary Secondary Proposed- secondory Isolated Regional outline District outline County outline In these calculations, 4.5 general hospital beds are assigned to each 1,000 of the population. It is not suggested, however, that all of these beds be located in the districts where the people reside. Experience has shown that better medical service can be pro- vided by concentrating highly specialized facilities and professional skills in the limited number of places which might reasonably be considered as medical centers. Facilities of primary centers are PROPOSED LOCATION OF BEDS TO SERVE RESIDENTS OF 6 Mills and Sanford (4) in their recent estimate of civilian hos- pital needs for the decade following the war base their calculations on a ratio of 4.5 beds in general and allied special hospitals for each 1.000 of tlie population. They call attention to the fact that this does not include allowance for additional beds, needed in convalescent and chronic disease hospitals, estimated at 0.75 and 2.0, respec- tively. If these are included, the over all estimate for hospital bods exclusive of those for mental and tuberculosis hospitals would be 7.25 per thousand population. The Study Committee in their report, on the Hospital Survey for New York (5) used the rate 4.5 beds per 1.000 persons. This ratio excluded, however, hospitals for com- municable disease, eye-ear-nose-and-tbroat, and allowance for care of chronic disease and convalescence. Emerson (6) has estimated the number of hospital beds for general care, communicable and chronic disease, and convalescence required by a city of 100,000 population to be 8.25 per 1,000. The Interdepartmental Committee to Coordinate Health and Welfare Activities (7) recommended the construction of enough general hospital beds to bring all State averages np to the level of 4.5 beds per 1,000 population. Manger, Southmayd, and others (8), as early as 1927 in a report of the Com- mittee on County Hospitals before the American Hospital Associa- tion, based their estimate on 5 beds per 1,000 population. Other estimates fall considerably below the foregoing figures, but they are generally based upon the demand for service which may be expected under the limitations and restrictions which prevail in the com- munity. Lee and Jones (9) on the basis of strictly medical factors esti- mated that 4.62 beds in general hospitals are needed per 1,000 population. They pointed out, however, that no allowance was made in these estimates to provide for convalescent homes or for the care of the chronically ill patient who can not be cared for at home. LOCAL DISTRICTS OF DIFFERENT TYPES WITHIN A REGION Primary districts 4.5 beds per 1,000 population, all located within the district Secondary and proposed- 4.5 beds per 1,000 population, secondary districts of which 0.5 are to be located in the primary center and 4.0 in the local district Isolated districts - 4.5 beds per ipOO populotion, of which 0.5 are to be allo- cated to the primary center, 1.5 divided equally among adja- cent secondary, proposed-secon- dary, and/or primary centers, and 2.5 located in the local district r iguuk Maps depicting local district groupings of counties in a broad region and the proposed transfer from the basic 4.5 general hospital beds per 1,000 provided for residents of isolated find secondary areas to more complete hospital centers situated in other local districts. 6 required not alone to serve cases of all types among their own populations but also to diagnose and sometimes to treat patients with unusual conditions referred from surrounding areas. For this purpose, according to the formula used herein, primary dis- tricts would have in addition to their basic 4.5 beds, 0.5 of a bed for each 1,000 persons residing in other districts of the same broad region (fig. 2). Perhaps it is desirable to point out that only when the popu- lation of all other districts within the region equals that of the primary would the combined ratio be equivalent to 5.0 per thousand based on the popula- tion of the primary area. Usually, the population of the surrounding territory would be sufficiently numerous to produce a ratio of more than 5.0. In each secondary or proposed-secondary district, the estimated number of beds needed is again based upon a standard of 4.5 beds per 1,000 population, but of this total it is assumed that 0.5 per 1,000 will be located in the primary center. Thus, 4.0 beds are assured for the care of resident population not re- quiring the unusual skills represented in the pri- mary center. On the other hand, secondary as well as primary hospital centers will attract patients from the outlying areas. For this reason, 1.5 beds per 1,000 based upon the population of isolated districts has been allotted to, and divided equally among, the centers of adjacent higher ranking districts. The resulting accretions of beds usually do not ma- terially increase the ratios in districts where they are added, because, as a rule, the number of persons residing in isolated areas is small in comparison with the population in districts of other types. Iso- lated districts are thus left with 2.5 beds per 1,000 population for services within the skills generally provided by the medical profession. As already indi- cated, 2.0 beds for each 1,000 residents of these districts have been allotted to the primary and secondary centers which serve the remote areas in question. ondary, 46,400 in proposed-secondary, and 9,800 in isolated districts. Since in the calculation of deficits one of the basic assumptions was a supplementary allotment of beds to primary centers in order to provide for highly specialized diagnostic and thera- peutic procedures, it is to be expected that many of the primary areas would need new beds to meet the standard adopted. The mean deficit as computed is 450 for primary, 177 for secondary, 198 for proposed-secondary, and 92 for isolated districts. Proportionate to the present number of beds, how- ever, which average 2,464, 412, 117, and 44, respec- tively, in the four types of districts, the number of new beds needed is relatively smaller in the primary than in the others. Meeting the estimated construc- tion needs in primary districts would be equivalent to increasing existing facilities by about one-fifth, whereas in secondary districts the increase would be nearly one-half. In proposed-secondary and in iso- lated districts, the number of new beds required is on the average almost twice as great as the number now existing. It should be remembered in this con- nection that the computation of deficits was based upon a formula according to which the minimum number of beds actually assigned to isolated dis- tricts was only 2.5 per 1,000 population, the other 2.0 beds per 1,000 having been allotted among pri- mary and secondary centers to provide residents of the isolated districts with services requiring highly specialized facilities and skills. character, were reviewed to estimate the changes in bed deficits that would result if trade area lines were given precedence over State boundaries in determin- ing the composition of the adjacent health service areas. Memphis, located as it is in southwestern Ten- nessee and serving also portions of both Arkansas and Mississippi, offers an excellent example of this type of situation (fig. 3). Undoubtedly, persons from both Arkansas and Mississippi are hospitalized in Memphis. When this area is reconstructed with- out regard to State boundaries, the deficit for Ten- nessee is changed from 7,343 to 7,608 beds, an in- crease of 265 in the number of new beds needed in that State. On the other hand, deficits for Arkansas and Mississippi are reduced by 45 and 377 beds, respectively. Thus, by making Memphis an inter- state center about 100 beds would be saved in the national estimate of beds needed. Similar calcula- tions were made for Maryland, Virginia, and the District of Columbia. Such an adjustment reduces the deficits .for Maryland by 350 beds and for Vir- ginia by 5 beds. The District of Columbia, however, would need no additional beds because of the large number already located therein. In all, there are some 12 to 15 regions where considerable crossing of State lines in quest of medical service of one type or another is likely. Whether or not a hospital con- struction and service plan can be developed without regard to such boundaries will depend very largely on the scheme of administration and financial sup- port. Since prevailing opinion favors State super- vision under a limited scheme of Federal aid, the natural tendency will be for States to become self- contained units with respect to care for illness. EFFECT OF STATE BOUNDARIES UPON ESTIMATES Estimates of bed requirements would be altered in certain localities if the definition of service area outlines were not limited by State boundaries. In instances where large trade centers are situated near State borders, persons from neighboring States avail themselves of hospital and other facilities and serv- ices which these cities afford. Maps, depicting the areas surrounding several outstanding cities of this HEALTH CENTERS Health centers must of necessity be considered in connection with any coordinated system of hospital development, although they have many physical and functional requirements of their own. Under a com- prehensive program, the objectives of health centers are to integrate and localize selected health activi- ties and relate the needs of people served with the resources of the broad surrounding area. The health In order that general hospital beds may be avail- able according to the ratios described in preceding paragraphs, provision of 165,000 new beds is neces- sary. The number which would be required in each of the suggested hospital service districts is shown in appendix C.7 More than 56,600 of these new beds would be needed in primary, about 51,800 in sec- 7 The estimates of deficits presented in appendix table C were based upon hospital beds reported early in 1943 and upon the popu- lation distribution of 1940. (See footnote 3.) Their applicability to individual districts at a later time will naturally depend upon changes which may have occurred in both population and hospital bed totals during the interval. 7 LEGEND TYPE OF DISTRICT HOSPITAL CENTER AREA INCLUDED PRIMARY SECONDARY PROPOSED- SECONDARY REGIONAL OUTLINE STATE OUTLINE Figure 3—A suggested hospital service region, centered at Memphis, Tenn., extending across State lines, and based upon existing hospital facilities center concept, therefore, embraces a variety of pur- The facilities and services contemplated for a health health centers may take the form of separate build- poses, which, in general, are those apart from the center necessarily vary with the size and character ings. For especially isolated areas, where full-scale requirements of patients actually hospitalized. In- of the community. They will also be influenced by hospital construction is not feasible, the health eluded, however, are general medical service for the extent of the local need for an additional device center is the appropriate nucleus for the develop- ambulatory patients and preventive health services, to relate public health with medical, dental, nursing, ment of limited in-patient service. Such service The health center would furnish accommodations and hospital services. Broadly speaking the func- should be operated in close association with a com- and facilities for all agencies concerned with com- tions of a health center may be discharged through plete hospital, even though the latter may be located munity-wide health services. In certain localities, a number of operating units so long as the service at considerable distance. At the same time, rural it might also be used to afford office space to is unified through an appropriate coordinating centers should relate the functions of all local health private physicians and dentists so that they may mechanism. agencies with those in other areas. Before health be in close proximity to the services and facilities of Insofar as circumstances permit, health center centers can be spotted, local studies of need must be both the hospital and the health center; thus they facilities should be incorporated in the physical made, particularly since the type of construction could be relieved of the necessity of procuring plant of community hospitals. If the scheme of will be influenced very materially by the scheme of equipment for which they have only limited use. hospital development has already been established, hospital development into which all units are to 8 be fitted. Some insight into the scope of the prob- lem can be obtained, however, by a rough allocation of facilities according to population groups. Estimates presented in appendix D are based upon the assumption that each city of 100,000 popu- lation or over requires a large center from which the program as a whole can be administered and one additional neighborhood service unit for each 100.000 population. Likewise, a city in the popula- tion range of from 25,000 to 100,000 needs a smaller administrative center and one neighborhood service unit. A combination administrative and service unit is provided for an urban community in the 5,000 to 25.000 population class, while a similar type of unit but of smaller size is allotted to each city in the population class between 1,000 and 5,000. Centers carrying administrative designations not only house the agencies responsible for community-wide health activities, but are in addition neighborhood service centers for the immediate localities. In making these estimates, it is anticipated that facilities in com- munities of the above categories would serve people in the surrounding country-side in numbers roughly equivalent to 25 percent of the population in those communities. Beyond these zones, plans call for combination administrative-service units for each 5.000 persons. A number of these rural health centers might have limited accommodation for hos- pital in-patients in addition to the more usual facilities. Application of the criteria described above to the population census for cities, towns, and rural areas indicates that roughly 400 administrative and about 800 neighborhood service centers will be necessary in cities of 25,000 or more inhabitants. Approximately 6,000 combination administrative and service centers are required in the small cities and towns, while to meet the needs of remote rural areas, the estimates provide some 7,000 service units. In the aggregate, health centers of the several types total more than 14,000 service units. operating nucleus for limited hospital care in ex- ceptionally remote rural areas. Furthermore, a health center might be a self-contained unit located in a discrete building, or space for one or more of its functions might be provided in a community hospital. nostic service and treatment suited to mental or tuberculosis patients before or after institutional care are generally agreed to be desirable functions of general hospitals and health centers. Therefore, the following possibilities should always be borne in mind in the projection of any construction pro- gram : First, complementary work between institu- tions of different types; second, conversion of facili- ties to different uses depending upon natural changes in disease incidence or improvement in medical procedures which alter hospitalization re- quirements. INTEGRATION OF GENERAL FACILITIES WITH MENTAL, TUBERCULOSIS, AND FEDERALB HOSPITALS Requirements for mental and tuberculosis hos- pitals are not presented on this occasion since these hospitals do not, under the present scheme of or- ganization, fit into the community pattern. Here- tofore, their location has not been determined by the factors that influence general hospital development. Although it is not so important, as in the case of general hospitals, that mental and tuberculosis hos- pitals be immediately accessible, certain aspects of their operations eventually should be tied into the general program of health service. While they differ functionally and administratively from general hos- pitals as a group, it is highly desirable that they have a working relationship with general commu- nity resources. Diagnostic facilities and various continuing home services need to be established in each local area so that through one coordinated sys- tem of community service there may be a flow of patients from general to tuberculosis and mental hospitals and vice versa. For some time to come, and perhaps always, large and well-staffed hospi- tals for nervous and mental conditions rather than general hospital centers will furnish inspiration and direction for the psychiatric program. To a some- what lesser extent, the same may be true of the sanatorium in relation to the over-all tuberculosis program. General hospitals should be prepared, however, to give those specialized services, such as surgery, for which the mental or tuberculosis hos- pitals might not be equipped. Furthermore, diag- SEQUENCE OF CONSTRUCTION AND FLEXIBILITY OF USE A program of construction designed to meet all deficits in hospital facilities of the several medical types—general, mental, tuberculosis, chronic dis- ease, and convalescent—and in health centers ob- viously cannot be undertaken in its entirety imme- diately on completion of State-wide determination of need. Supporting fiscal bodies are likely to prefer extending such programs over a period of years. In any event, considerable time is required for site acquisition, drawing of detailed plans, and for recruiting and training additional personnel. Perhaps ten or even twenty years may be consumed in completing a system. Considerations such as those enumerated indicate the desirability of some scheme of priority ratings for different types of projects. Within a State, priority values would probably vary from time to time, depending upon the extent of deficiencies in the several categories of facilities at the onset of the program and upon how rapidly these deficits are met from year to year. If the most urgent needs are to be considered first, however, sequence for construction of units should be decided in advance. To accomplish this end, weights might be given to different types and de- grees of need, and financial assistance regulated to insure that construction of the most urgently re- quired facilities be consistent with the importance of such projects in the total picture. In other words, a well conceived program to wipe out deficits would provide for concentration on high priority projects during the early years of a construction period. A health center, to j-epeat for the sake of empha- sis, is a device through which may be accomplished any one or any combination of three basic purposes. It may provide accommodations for community health agencies, for practicing physicians and den- tists, and for out-patient services. To these might be added a fourth purpose, that of furnishing an 8 The selected population served by Federal institutions can not be estimated at present; however, if the hospital regions for the general population are made sufficiently broad, it is possible that in time Veterans and other Federal hospitals may be so located that they also will serve areas that are more or less conterminous with general hospital regions. In this case, lessening of the load on com- munity resources by Federal hospitals could be measured In terms of the population in hospital districts. 9 As an example, a tentative plan of priorities is presented whereby letters are assigned to different types of construction in order of necessity. The most essential projects are classified “A”, the second in order “R”, etc. In the actual operation of a pro- gram, ratings of this general type might be trans- lated into numerical values with intermediate grad- ations. For illustrative purposes, proposed facilities are grouped into A, B, C, and D categories as fol- lows : Tuberculosis hospitals in States where existing facilities average 80 percent or more of need. Mental hospitals in States where existing facili- ties average 80 percent or more of need. Under a priority scheme such as the one outlined, well-conceived additions to existing hospitals would logically rate as new construction. The plans for such additions might include reasonable expansion of service facilities and equipment, in keeping with the number of new beds represented. Where im- provement of plants or construction of supplemen- tary units, such as housing facilities for nurses or other employees, seems the most reasonable pro- cedure for making additional space available for care of in-patients, the same rating which a new hospital providing an equivalent number of beds would receive is indicated; otherwise, a “D” pri- ority or none. late these requirements into grant-in-aid terms, and to array projects by relative priority ratings. The Federal agency, on the other hand, would have to rearrange priorities as necessary to take into account needs for facilities in the several States in relation to their resources and to the amount of Federal money available for any given year. Above all, flexibility of use should characterize individual units as well as the over-all State plan for hospital development. Estimates made on the basis of general hospital needs only may be found too high when functional integration with other types of institutions within a broad region is finally effected. A factor likely to play a prominent role in determining what hospital facilities may be needed iii the future is the development of improved diagnostic and therapeutic procedures. The general hospital came into being largely in response to the demands of modern surgery. As various clinical services developed, the practitioners found advan- tages in hospitalizing increasing proportions of their patients. For a long time, it seemed that the upward trend in the use of hospital beds would con- tinue indefinitely. Experience of the past few years indicates, however, that rest in bed even for a sick person can be overdone. Moreover, recent discover- ies, such as the sulpha drugs and penicillin, have materially shortened the course of many illnesses and in some instances have lessened the need for hospitalization. Other therapeutic advances may be equally profound in their influence. For instance, a. really effective agent for the prevention or treat- ment of tuberculosis would in a very short time make available for other uses thousands of beds now reserved for care of the tuberculous. Eventually gains such as those enumerated may be partially balanced by additional needs for hos- pitalization in a population characterized by in- creasing proportions in the older age brackets. Fur- thermore, as acute conditions lessen, attention will be focused more and more on the diagnosis of rela- tively obscure but none the less handicapping chronic illnesses. Rehabilitation of persons with such conditions or with impairments of types which now go largely untreated will probably demand additional diagnostic and therapeutic facilities. Factors other than those cited might be presented “A” 'priority rating.—General hospitals in com- munities beyond the service range of existing hos- pitals or in districts where facilities average less than 40 percent of need.9 Health centers in such communities, especially if incorporated in the basic plan of mi approved new hospital. Tuberculosis hospitals in States where existing facilities average less than 40 percent of need. Mental hospitals in States where existing facili- ties average less than 40 percent of need. “2?” priority rating.—General hospitals in dis- tricts where existing facilities average from 40 to 60 percent of need. Health centers other than those with “A” priori- ties. Tuberculosis hospitals in States where existing facilities average from 40 to 60 percent of need. Mental hospitals in States where existing facili- ties average from 40 to 60 percent of need. “(7” priority rating.—General hospitals in dis- tricts where existing facilities average from 60 to 80 percent of need. Tuberculosis hospitals in States where existing facilities average from 60 to 80 percent of need. Mental hospitals in States where existing facili- ties average from 60 to 80 percent of need. “Z>” priority rating.—General hospitals in dis- tricts where existing facilities average 80 percent or more of need. The place of convalescent and chronic disease hospitals in a priority schedule may well depend upon whether or not such facilities could effectively relieve a need for additional general hospital beds in a district. If so, they might receive the rating which otherwise would be assigned to construction or expansion of general hospitals; if not, a priority of the lowest order. Good administration dictates that, exqept in un- usual situations, State plans preclude approval of any project for a hospital of less than 50 beds. On the other hand, in the interest of good medical care, it is highly desirable that patients not be re- quired to travel more than 50 miles except for uncommon conditions. There will be areas so sparsely settled as to make these conditions un- attainable. Developing limited bed service in con- nection with the health center is believed to be the most satisfactory way to meet the immediate hos- pital needs of these localities. Such provisions should be supplemented by arrangements for prompt trans- fer of patients whenever conditions warrant. In the event of a national program, undertaken with Federal and State funds to assist communities in meeting reasonable hospital and health facility standards, an over-all scheme of priorities will be- come a necessity. Under such a program, it would be incumbent upon a State to determine the amount and location of additional facilities needed, to trans- 8 Need as used In defining priorities refers to the over-all estimate of bed requirements as given in a State plan. Tentatively, these needs might be defined as 4,5 beds per 1,000 population for general and allied special hospitals (footnote 4), 5.0 beds per 1,000 for mental hospitals, and 2.5 beds per annual tuberculosis death for tuberculosis hospitals. 10 to show that no one can forecast with certainty future requirements for hospital beds, in terms either of numbers or of purposes to be served. Much of this uncertainty should not be a matter of any great moment if flexibility is worked into the basic designs of individual hospitals and of the system as a whole. Primary emphasis in expanding facilities, of course, must always be placed upon improving services in areas where the needs are greatest. REFERENCES (1) American Hospital Association: A Statement of the American Hospital Association in Regard to Hospital Care. Hospitals, 18:34 (November 1944); Report of the Committee on County Hospitals, 1935, 1936. Tr. Am. Hosp. Assoc., 37:877-888 (1935) and (1936). (2) American Public Health Association: Medical Care in a National Health Program, An Official Statement Adopted October 4, 1944. Am. J. of Pub. Health, 34:1252-1256 (December 1944); Relations between Health Departments and Hospitals. Am. J. of Pub. Health, 18:290-299 (March 1928). (3) Parran. Thomas: Statement before the Senate Subcom- mittee on Wartime Health and Education, (July 12, 1944). Hearings before a subcommittee of the Commit- tee on Education and Labor, United States Senate, Seventy-eighth Congress, second session, pursuant to S. Res. 74, Part 5, p. 1774—1791. U. S. Government Print- ing Office, Washington (1944). (4) Mills, Alden B. and Sanford, Russell T.: Civilian Hos- pital Needs in the Postwar Decade. The Modern Hos- pital, 61:82-84 (October 1943). (5) Hospital Survey for New York, Vol. 11, Report of Study Committee, p. 169, United Hospital Fund, New York (1937). (6) Emerson, Haven: Estimating Adequate Provision for Organized Care of the Sick. The Modern Hospital, 35:49-51 (September 1930). (7) Interdepartmental Committee to Coordinate Health and Welfare Activities: A National Health Program, Re- port of the Technical Committee on Medical Care, p. 16-21. U. S. Government Printing Office, Washington (1939). (8) American Hospital Association; Report of the Comnlit- tee on County Hospitals for 1927. Tr. Am. Hosp. Assoc., 29:195-240 (1927). (9) Lee, Roger, I. and Jones, Lewis Webster: The Funda- mentals of Good Medical Care, Publication No. 22 of the Committee on the Costs of Medical Care, University of Chicago Press (1933). SELECTED BIBLIOGRAPHY Architectural Record: Building Types Study No. 67—Public Health Centers, 92:63-78 (July 1942); and Building Types—Health Centers, with Case Studies and Time Saver Standards, 88:83-102 (September 1940). Bachmeyer, Arthur C. and Hartman. Gerhard: The Hospital in Modern Society. The Commonwealth Fund, New York (1943) particularly Chapter XXIX p. 723-766. Boas, Ernst P.: Statement before the Senate subcommittee on Wartime Health and Education (September 20, 1944). Hearing before a subcommittee of the Committee on Edu- cation and Labor, United States Senate, Seventy-eighth Congress, second session, pursuant to S. Res. 74, Part 6, p. 2058-2062. U. S. Government Printing Office, Washington (1944) Cabot, Hugh ; Doctors or Trustees—Which? The Modern Hos- pital, 62:40-50 (June 1944). Commission on Hospital Care: Scope of Study and Planning for a State Hospital-Study; Organization and Survey Pro- cedure for a State Hospital-Study. Chicago (3944). Committee on Local Health Units; Units of Local Health Service for All the States. Am. J. Pub. Health, 33:404-409 (April 1943). Grain, Kenneth C.: Small Hospitals Raise Standards with Aid of Bingham Associates Fund. Hospital. Management, 51:18-20, 74 (April 1941). Curran, Jean A.: Bedside Versus Fireside Medicine. The Modern Hospital, 64:43-44 (February 1945). Davis, Graham L.: Content and Administration of a Medical Care Program—Hospitals and Hospital Construction. Am. J. Pub. Health, 34:1239-1243 (December 1944); Some Mat- ters that Confront the Commission on Hospital Care. Hos- pitals, 18:23-26 (August 1944); Those Horse-and-Buggy Hospitals Must Go. The Modern Hospital, 62:50-53 (March 1944). Draper, Warren F.: Hospitals in the Public Health Panorama. Pub. Health Rep., 59:513-522 (April 21, 1944). Eutsler, George W.: The Outpatient Department is the Key to Coordination of Public Health Service. Hospitals 19:38-40 (January 1945). Faxon, Nathaniel W.: The Medical Structure—Government, Hospital and Physician. The Modern Hospital, 40:71-73 (June 1933). Hiscock, Ira V,: Mutual Interests of Hospitals and Public Health Organizations. Hospitals, 10:9-13 (January 1936). Hoge, Vane M.; The Outpatient Department Belongs to the Community. The Modern Hospital, 63:47-49 (November 1944) ; The Public Health Center and the Community Hos- pital. The Modern Hospital, 63 :56-57 (August 1944) ; Blue- print for Postwar Building and Service. The Modern Hos- pital, 62:50-52 (June 1944); Add Another Two Billions for “Adequate” Future Plant. Hospitals, 17 :21-24 (Decem- ber 1943) ; Rural Hospital Needs. Hospitals, 12:27-30 (No- vember 1938). Hullerman, Hugo V.: Hospitals Must Share in Community Problems. Hospitals, 19:34-37 (January 1945). Little, Clarence C.: Facing the Challenge of a New Era. Hos- pitals, 18:23-25 (June 1944). Mac Donald, Neil F.: Developments in Planning of Hospitals. Hospital Progress. 25 :255-257 (September 1944). Mills, Alden B.: Service is the Cornerstone. The Modern Hos- pital, 63:43-45 (December 1944). Mills, Alden B. and Mills, Patsy: The Need for More Hospi- tals in Rural Areas. The Modern Hospital, 44 :50-54 (March 1935). Mountin, Joseph W.: Correlating the Public Health Center with the Community General Hospital. Architectural Record, 96:81-82 (August 1944). Building Types Study No. 92; Housing of health departments. Pub. Health Rep., 57:781-789 (May 22, 1942). Reprint No. 2382; Voluntary 11 Hospitals and the National Health Program. Hospitals, 13:24-30 (April 1939) ; Specific contributions which hospi- tals can make to public health programs. Tr. Am. Hosp. Assoc., 41:479-484 (1939). Ostrander, Forst R.; Rural Hospital Council. The Modern Hospital, 64:72-73 (February 1945). Parrau, Thomas: A Clean Bill of Health. The Modern Hos- pital, 63:60-63 (September 1944); Next Objectives. The Modern Hospital, 48 :44-45 (January 1937). Pratt, J. H.: Better Rural Medicine. A. M. A. Bulletin, 27:122-128 (1932). Proger, Samuel: Regional Organization in Maine—An Over- All View. The Modern Hospital, 63:46-48 (October 1944) ; Distribution of Medical Care. J. Am. Med. Assoc., 124 :823- 826 (March 25, 1944); The Tufts Postgraduate Medical Program. New England J. of Med., 225:351-358 (Septem- ber 4, 1941) ; The Joseph H. Pratt Diagnostic Hospital. New England J. of Med., 220:771-779 (May 11, 1939); Statement before the Senate subcommittee on Wartime Health and Education (September 18, 1944). Hearings before a subcommittee of the Committee on Education and Labor, United States Senate. Seventy-eighth Congress, sec- ond session, pursuant to S. Res. 74, Part 6, p. 1875-1877, U. S. Government Printing Office, Washington (1944). Rankin, W. S.: The General Hospital and Public Health. Hospitals, 10:9-14 (December 1936) ; The Rural Hospital— Its Purposes and Management. The Modern Hospital, 44:41-45 (March 1935); Hospitalization. Southern Med. J., 24:1113-1115 (December 1931). Salmon, Edwin: Health Services in City Planning. The Mod- ern Hospital, 63:46-47 (August 1944). Saskatchewan Health Services Survey Commission: Report of the Commissioner. McConica, King’s Printer, Regina (1944). Sensenich. R. L.: Statement before the Senate subcommittee on Wartime Health and Education (September 18, 1944). Hearings before a subcommittee of the Committee on Edu- cation and Labor, United States Senate, Seventy-eighth Congress, second session, pursuant to S. Res. 74, Part 6, p. 1890-1897. U. S. Government Printing Office, Wash- ington (1944). Southmayd, Henry J.: Study Proves More Data Needed to Solve Rural Hospital Problem. Hospital Management, 51:20-21, 73 (March 1941) and 51:27-29, 52-54 (April 1941). Southmayd, Henry J. and Smith, Geddes: Small Community Hospitals. Commonwealth Fund (1944), Chapter VII, p. 123-135. Stone, Harvey B.: Statement before the Senate subcommittee on Wartime Health and Education (September 18, 1944). Hearings before a subcommittee of the Committee on Edu- cation and Labor, United States Senate, Seventy-eighth Congress, second session, pursuant to S. Res. 74, Part 6, p. 1898-1904. U. S. Government Printing Office, Washing- ton (1944). Subcommittee on Wartime Health and Education: Interim Report from the Committee on Education and Labor, U. S. Senate (January 1945). Welfare Supervision Board: Hospitals in Manitoba, (mimeo- graphed) Winnipeg (September 1944). Wilinsky, Charles F.: Dovetailing Health Work. The Modern Hospital, 47 :61-63 (September 1936). W. K. Kellogg Foundation: W. K. Kellogg Foundation, The First Eleven Years (1942). 12 Figure I-The composition, based upon existing hospital facilities, of primary, secondary, proposed-secondary, and isolated districts making up broad hospital service regions; and the name and location of district and regional hospital centers for the NEW ENGLAND STATES TYPE OF HOSPITAL AREA DISTRICT CENTER INCLUDED Primary # EHZ3I3SI Secondary C> Proposed * t p secondary Isolated • I ] Regional outline LEGEND Appendix A-Maps showing counties, districts and regional areas Note: Numerical symbols conform with sequence of counties as listed in appendix tables. 13 Figure 2*The composition, based upon existing hospital facilities, of primary, secondary, proposed~secondary, and isolated districts making up broad hospital service regions; and the name and location of district and regional hospital centers for the MIDDLE ATLANTIC STATES LEGEND TYPE OF HOSPITAL AREA DISTRICT CENTER INCLUDED Primary • MMii Secondary C ESS2SZD Proposed- g , secondary * Isolated • I II Regional outline >- Ld C/) CC u £ u z * cr e B Z < z 5 uT Z z U CL Note: Numerical symbols conform with sequence of counties as listed in appendix tables. 14 Figure 3* The composition, based upon existing hospital facilities, of primary, secondary, proposed-secondary, and isolated districts making up broad hospital service regions; and the name and location of district and regional hospital centers for the EAST NORTH CENTRAL STATES LEGEND TYPE OF HOSPITAL AREA DISTRICT CENTER INCLUDED Primary # EMslgiMii Secondary C Proposed- . p- . secondary * 1 1 Isolated • I ~l Regional outline OHIO MICHIGAN INDIANA Note: Numerical symbols conform with sequence of counties as listed in appendix tables. ILLINOIS WISCONSIN 15 < § i n r W 3 m rn ::: 5 J I | < O If zl| y l a> Q _j I w ft 5 • * g LU O 0 o i 1 o> -1 . £ o O fe to T, rr “2 w "O ® id £ o £ O c *- >1 I s e§ I K Q a. “? Figure 4-The composition, based upon existing hospital facilities, of primary, secondary, proposed-secondary, and isolated districts making up broad hospital service regions; and the name and location of district and regional hospital centers for the WEST NORTH CENTRAL STATES b MISSOURI lOWA MINNESOTA KANSAS Note: Numerical symbols conform with sequence of counties as listed In appendix tables. NORTH DAKOTA NEBRASKA 16 DELAWARE VIRGINIA LEGEND TYPE OF HOSPITAL AREA DISTRICT CENTER INCLUDED Primary • If..J / Secondary ® Proposed- . r ■ ■ , secondary ‘ -1 Isolated • I . ~l Regional outline DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA MARYLAND SOUTH CAROLINA NORTH CAROLINA FLORIDA Figure 5-The composition, based upon existing hospital facilities, of primary, secondary, proposed-secondary, and isolated districts making up broad hospital service regions; and the name and location of district and regional hospital centers for the SOUTH ATLANTIC STATES Note: Numerical symbols conform with sequence of counties as listed in appendix tables. GEORGIA , 17 Figure 6'The composition, based upon existing hospital facilities, of primary, secondary, proposed'secondary, and isolated districts making up broad hospital service regions; and the name and location of district and regional hospital centers for the EAST SOUTH CENTRAL STATES KENTUCKY TENNESSEE i ALABAMA MISSISSIPF LEGEND TYPE OF HOSPITAL AREA DISTRICT CENTER INCLUDED Primary ® EE3SHE! Secondary *> EZZSZSISI Proposed- , p : ---t-tti secondary ::; Isolated • I ] Regional outline Note: Numerical symbols conform with sequence of counties as listed in appendix tables. 18 OKLAHOMA Figure 7-The composition, based upon exist hospital facilities, of primary, secondary, proposed-secondary, and isolated districts making up broad hospital service regions and the name and location of district and regional hospital centers for the WEST SOUTH CENTRAL STATES ARKANSAS LOUISIANA TEXAS LEGEND TYPE OF HOSPITAL AREA DISTRICT CENTER INCLUDED Primary ® Secondary ® I'.fv-jV.'.-.-L] Proposed* I r:::::::::::: rn secondary Isolated • 1 Regional outline Note: Numerical symbols conform with sequence of counties as listed in appendix tables. 19 Figure 8-Jhe composition, based upon existing hospital facilities, of primary, secondary, proposed-secondary, and isolated districts making up broad hospital service regions; and the name and location of district and regional hospital centers for the Mountain states-Part i MONTAN/1 IDAHC WYOMING LEGEND TYPE OF HOSPITAL AREA DISTRICT CENTER INCLUDED Secondary ® ESSSISI Proposed' . , . ——, secondary * • 1 v Isolated • l 1 Regional outline Note: Numerical symbols conform with sequence of counties as listed in appendix tables. 20 Figure 9-The composition, based upon existing hospital facilities, of primary, secondary, proposed_secondary, and isolated districts making up broad hospital service regions; and the name and location of district and regional hospital centers for the MOUNTAIN STATES - Part II UTAH COLORADO NEVADA LEGEND TYPE OF HOSPITAL AREA DISTRICT CENTER INCLUDED Primary • gaOMLM Secondary ® 1.."., TZ3 Proposed- , p "i secondary Isolated • I I] Regional outline NEW MEXICO ARIZONA Note: Numerical symbols conform with sequence of counties as listed in appendix tables. 21 Figure 10' The composition, based upon existing hospital facilities, of primary, secondary, proposed-secondary, and isolated districts making up broad hospital service regions; and the name and location of district and regional hospital centers for the PACIFIC STATES LEGEND TYPE OF HOSPITAL AREA DISTRICT CENTER INCLUDED Primary • BUSHS Secondary ® ESSSSS23 Proposed" | l:::::'::~Trrni secondary Isolated • I Regional outline Note; Numerical symbols conform with sequence of counties as listed In appendix tables. CALIFORNIA WASHINGTON OREGON t 22 Appendix 1 - Tahlee •bowing eeleoied •Utiatloi for oou&tiee, dletrlote, end regional arMi Table !• Tho composition, bated upon existing hospital facilities,*/ of primary, secondary, proposed-eecondary, and Isolated district a up broad hospital service regions; and county, district, regional, and Stats totals for sslscted itsas per- tinent to an evaluation of hospital needs in the XW OOLAID STARS Table I. The composition, based upon existing hospital of primary, secondaiy, proposed-secondary, and isolated districts asking up broad hospital service regions; and county, district, regional, and State totals for selected itens per- tinent to an evaluation of hospital needs In the XV ZKOLAXD STARS - Continued 9TA7C HCtlON pceomnon^' KM m SUCUL AM ALUCO tft&AL H0»iTALfi/ wirwuin^ (DOLLAM) LAND MfaV PCRMM ft* AURAL MU AW •00 AIK OOUVTY MtMttATWtt* TOTAL TOTAL TOOftfT Of TOTAL ft* ipoo TOTAL Kt 100,000 TOTAL cm ft* CAPITA MLCS MLC TOTAL (UMd inxiwin comes ioot 1,709,262 551,080 32 7.385 6.3 2.598 152 1,602.06 820 6.899 369 HAHSPOHD SJOIOI 1.709,262 551.080 32 7.385 6.3 2.598 152 1,602.06 820 6,899 369 Primary district! Hartford District 1. Hartford 2. Litchfield 1. Middlesex ■*. follaad 625.095 650,189 B7,06l 5:2S 230.367 127.591 52.379 29,506 20,893 37 2.865 2.329 297 156 83 6.6 962 723 99 89 31 151 698.06 392.66 56.77 56.62 16.03 797 2,669 761 938 S 253 Secondary dletrlote: lev Karen District 1. lew Rarea 2. Fairfield 902,700 686,316 618,386 226,158 98.572 127.586 25 3.913 ! $ 6.3 1.636 839 595 159 766.26 605.92 360.32 869 1,262 609 633 787 lew London District 1. lev London 2. t Indian I8I.667 125,226 56.223 96.555 52.715 31,860 52 607 3 3.3 222 ie 122 137.76 99-23 38.51 759 1,188 672 516 153 HUB 867,226 506,169 60 2.837 3«3 992 U7 667,32 528 31,060 27 Biiooa hboioi 660,316 330.291 72 1,252 2.7 695 108 223.03 685 26,622 19 Primary dietriot■ Bancor Dletriot 1. Peaohecot 2. Hancock 3. Piscataquis 6, Waldo 5. Washlnctea 206,919 97,106 32,1*22 18,1*67 21,159 37.767 ihi*,9i*i 53.086 28,511 18,667 15,619 29.260 70 539 305 ill 56 3 2.6 226 U3l 20 20 37 109 102.18 56.ll 18.02 8.18 8.20 13.67 696 12.185 3.608 1.562 3.968 736 2.553 17 Secondary dietrlotei Waterrllle Dletriot 1. Kennebec 2. Knox 3. Linooln *. Somerset 158.961 77.231 27.!91 16.291* 38,265 99.063 32.233 18,292 16,296 32,266 62 630 269 81 50 30 2.7 ao 119 33 23 35 132 S3 16.26 8.06 16.39 539 5.632 a^5 28 Proposed-eeoondary dietrlotei Honlton Dletriot 1. Aroostook 96.636 96.636 16,287 86,287 91 283 283 3.0 59 59 62 35.18 35.18 373 6,805 6.805 16 POHTUID HBOIOI 386,910 173.878 65 1.585 6.1 697 128 226.29 580 6,618 60 Primary dletriot■ v Portland Dletriot 1. Otnsberland 2. Oxford 3. Sactdahno 6. Tort 290.335 166,000 62,662 19.123 82,550 36.215 8,888 56.129 67 1,169 870 63 186 6,0 381 *8 15 80 131 169.01 IOO.36 19-38 8.30 61.01 582 6.223 881 2.085 257 1,000 69 Secondary dietrlotei Leeieton Dletriot 1. Androscoggin 2. Franklin 19.896 38,160 18,266 19.896 60 616 368 68 6.3 116 98 13 120 8:5 8,96 572 2.1«5 678 1.717 66 •TATI ■WON SOPtAATlOH^ •COS IN SENEAAL AND ALLIED SPECIAL HOSPITALS" ptmsouM^ INCOME^ (DOLLARS) LAND AREA 8/ PERSONS PEA AURAL SOU APE MILES SOU ARE county OESXMATION8 TOTAL TOTAL PERCENT Of TOTAL TOTAL PER 1.000 PERSONS TOTAL PEA 100,000 PERSON* TOTAL (IH UCLUONf) PEA CAPITA MILE MASSACHUSETTS 1*.316,721 1*57.21*5 ii 23.71*5 5.5 7.889 183 3.205.63 71*3 7,907 5»6 BOSTOH HSGIOH u, 316,721 1*57,21*5 11 23.71*5 5.5 7.889 183 3.205.63 71*3 7.907 5**6 Prlaary district: Boston District 1. Suffolk 2. Inn }. Middlesex 4. Horfolk 5. Plymouth 2.82U.935 S63.2U8 >*96.313 971.390 3f5.i8p 168.82U 199.11*9 28.779 ft# 1*5.890 7 18,090 7.92? 1.921* 6,1*27 ‘•8 6.1* 5.791 205 3>S 1,281 559 2u2 2.233.88 791 818.52 361.93 727.10 20U.55 121.78 2.1*1*6 50 500 829 1*03 661* 1.155 Secondary districts: Tail Hirer Blitriot 1. Bristol 2. Barnstable 3. Bake* **. Hantuoket Ull.002 36>*. 637 37.295 5.669 3,1*01 67,651* 36.691 25.291* 5.669 • 16 1,1*83 1.319 135 29 3.6 1*99 121 1*02 79 10 8 282.39 687 235.17 39.65 6.51 3.06 1,107 556 399 106 1*6 371 Pittsfield District 1. Berkshire 122.273 122.273 23.516 23.516 19 6oi* U.9 601* 189 155 189 77.78 636 77.78 91*2 130 91*2 Springfield District 1. Hampden 2. Pranklln 3. Hampshire U5U,021 332.107 **9.}*53 72.1*61 65,207 28,091 20,588 16,52s lU 1,61*1* 1.305 161 178 3-6 6so 150 “I? 129 307.6s 678 233.08 33.35 1*1.25 1,880 2l*2 621 722 537 Worcester District !• Worcester SOU,U70 50U,it70 101.719 101.719 20 1.921* 1.921* 3.8 730 1U5 730 303.90 602 303.90 1.532 329 1.532 IK EAMPSHIKS 1*91,521* 208,299 1*2 2,221 •*•5 656 133 262.50 531* 9,02l* 51* MAHCHB9TWH RSOIOI 1*91,521* 208,299 1*2 2,221 i*s5 656 133 262.50 551* 9,021* 51* Primary district: Manchester District 1. Hillsborough 2. Cheshire 179.8U1 lUU.888 3>*.953 51.1*70 30.31*9 21,121 29 816 731 85 t.5 223 12>* 176 **7 96.95 539 77.72 19.23 1,607 890 717 112 Secondary districts: Concord District 1. Merrimack 2. Belknap 3. Sullivan 110,1*80 60,710 2l*,328 25,1*1*2 1*5,628 ioIbS 7.991* 1*1 ■1*26 253 11 3-9 *8 35 20 58.50 530 31.75 12.U2 lU.33 1.869 £ 537 59 Honorsr District 1. Grafton 2. Carroll 3. Coos 15.58? 39.271* 68,263 32,1*81* 15.589 20.190 69 59!* 306 73 215 6.0 166 167 93 s 51 .lU 51 >* 25-1*3 7.51 18.20 U,l*80 22 1.717 938 1,825 Portsnouth District 1. Bocklnghaa 2. Strafford 101,6?5 5W« 1*3.553 1*2,938 32.523 10.1*15 1*2 385 256 129 3-8 128 126 87 1*1 55.91 550 31.39 2U.52 1,068 95 691 377 BHODB I8LAHD 713.31*6 59.963 8 2.851 i*.o 961 135 1*85.81 681 1,058 67I* PBOriDKCB HBOIOH 713.31*6 59.963 8 2,851 U.o 961 135 1*85.81 681 1,058 67I* Primary district: ProTldenoe District 1. Providence 2. Bristol 3. tent 6ji»,l57 550.2?8 25,51*8 58.311 22,505 .. ll*,981 7.52>* 1* 2,581* l*.l 2,58l* 852 13l* 801 UltO.58 695 1*05.61 10.55 2U.U2 619 1.02U 1*22 25 172 See footnote* at end of table. Bee footnote* at end of table. table I. The composition, baud upon existing hospital facilities,!/ of prlaary, secondary, proposed-seeondary, and Isolated dlstrlots ««iriri£ np broad hospital service regions; and county, district, regional, and State totals for selected Items per- tinent to an evaluation of hospital needs In the RES EHOLARD STATES - Continued Table 2. The composition, baaed upon exit ting hoapltal facilities,!/ of primary, secondary, proposed-secondary, and leolated districts aaklng up broad hospital ssrrloe regions; and county, district, regional, and State totals for selected Items per- tlnont to an oralnatlon of hospital naedt in tba MEDDLE ATLABTIO STATES •TATE POPULATION^ •EOS IN SENEJtAL AND ALLIED SPECIAL HOSPITALS PMTWOlAiaV INCOME^ LAND *«6^ PER RURAL SQUARE MILES SQUARE COUNTY DESIGNATIONS TOTAL TOTAL PERCENT OF TOTAL TOTAL PER 1,000 PERSONS TOTAL PER 100,000 PERSONS TOTAL (IN MILLIONS) PER CAPITA MILE BHOD1 ISLAND (Continued) Secondary districts; Newport District 1. Newport 1^,696 •*6,696 i6,i6h 16.16U 35 160 160 3«>* 70 70 150 27.28 27-28 58U 115 115 1*06 Propoeed-seoondary districts: Westerly District 1. Washington 32.1*93 32. **93 a,29>* a, 291* 66 107 107 3-3 39 39 120 17.95 17.95 552 32J* 32U- 100 TEBIfONT 359.231 235.992 66 1.296 3.$ 523 1U6 205.18 571 9.278 39 B0ELIS090H KSOIOH 359.231 235.992 66 1,296 3.6 523 1U6 205.18 571 9.278 39 Primary district: Burlington District 1. Chittenden 2. Addison 3. Pranklln h. Grand Isle 5. Lamoille IIU.U73 52.008 17, gw 29,601 3.802 11,028 72.71** 18.376 17,9*A a.56** 3.802 11,028 6U Sol •*5 50 33 U.6 20l* 132 18 3S 1U 178 $8 6.9? 12.2** 1.1*0 5.16 517 2,528 532 659 •*75 •*5 Secondary districts: Bennington District 1. Bennington 2. Vindhaa 50.136 22,286 27,850 28,650 1U.658 13.992 57 a9 102 117 U.U 70 8 1>I0 32.11 16.09 16.02 6U0 1,^65 672 793 3H Rutland District 1. Rutland 2. Windsor 83,500 •*5,638 37.862 57.831* 28,556 29.278 69 1T9 61 2.8 % 52 1*10 50.81 30.36 20.1*5 609 1.891* 929 965 Uh Proposed-seecndary districts: Montpelier District 1. Washington > 2. Orange 17.0U8 36.605 19.557 17,01*8 62 9 53 3-2 7*| 56 18 126 37.05 30.38 6.67 632 1.398 70S 690 >*2 St. Johnstary, District 1. Caledonia 2. Essex 3- Orleans 52.52* 2^,320 6,1*90 21,718 •10,189 16,883 6,1*90 16.816 77 131 99 32 2.5 58 31 no 26.02 13.69 2.1*3 9.90 >•95 661* 715 26 STATE RCt'OM POPULATION^ •COt Ml MMOIAL AND ALUCO SPECIAL hospitals*/ PwmoiAms!/ INCOME^ (DOLLAR*} lamo ancaI/ PER RURAL mu aw sqm sms COUNTY DEtltNATIONt TOTAL TOTAL PERCENT OF TOTAL FIR ipoo TOTAL PER iOOtOOO TOTAL (IN SBLUONtl FfR CAPITA SNLMI MLC HJUUt m JIHBMT M,l6o,l65 765,392 IB 16,103 3.9 5.809 1M0 2.90M.69 698 7.522 553 CAMUM5 EfOIOB 731,108 307.611 ■*2 2.510 3.M 9a 126 M58.05 6 a 3.703 197 Primary district! ' Cudra District 1. Candan 2. Burlington 3. Qloucsstar U2U.959 255.727 97.013 72.219 168,105 51.20*1 7M.016 1*2,885 1*0 1,191 973 i6s 50 2.8 M78 m 63 112 227.9*1 3M.M0 536 1.369 2a 819 329 310 Secondary districts! Atlantic City District 1. Atlantic 2. Caps Hay 3. Ocean 190,691 12M.0& 28.919 37.706 77.866 23,61*6 15.51*1 37.706 1*1 1.037 8 Mo 197 5.M 31M as MM 52 165 161.oM 100.M7 fdl 8»*5 1,1*81 w 639 129 Bridgeton District 1. Cumberland 2. Salem 115.**58 p.isk 61,6*10 3*i,*i72 27.168 53 282 2M2 Mo 2.M *5 >♦3 112 69.07 M6.51 22.56 598 853 503 550 135 K0ASZ UOIOH 3A29.057 *•57.781 13 13.593 M,o M.8S8 IM3 2.MM6.6M 7iM 3.819 898 Primary district: levark District 1. Xssaz 2. Bergen 3. Hudson M. Passaic 5- Union 2,536.723 837.3>*0 M09.6M6 652,0110 S?;S 1*2,1*51 2.273 15.711* 21.701 I* 11,026 M.516 3.136 1.511 1,190 *1.3 3.693 *55 M30 1M6 1,850.09 719.2? 257-8M M23.M9 a§.92 232.55 729 703 128 I 103 3,608 Secondary districts! Morristown District 1. Morris 2. Sussex 3. Warren 205,5*15 125,732 29.632 50,181 113.706 69,681 20,090 23.935 55 85 89 2.8 271 187 31 53 132 !56.32 8M.36 a.19 30.77 663 WB 361 151 lev Brunswick District 1. Middlesex 2. Monmouth 3. Somerset •152.705 217.077 161.238 7H.390 153.652 1*3,210 77.283 33.159 3*i 1.178 500 522 156 2.6 5M7 ao 226 ill 1a 3S:S 120.32 *•5.33 65M 1.096 *177 307 M13 Trenton District 1. Merosr 2. Hunterdon 23M.08M !97.318 36,766 91.118 61,1*16 29.702 39 816 816 3.5 377 3$ 161 16M.1M 1M2.29 a.85 701 663 228 *135 353 JH TOBX IS.^.lte 2.313.2*19 17 65.392 M.g 27.17M 202 10.630.61 789 *17.929 281 ALBAHT BMC 101 9*18,609 381.903 MO 3,662 3.9 1,**95 158 688.68 726 13.083 73 Primary district! Albany District 1. Albany 2. Columbia 3. Cresne M. Bsnssslasr 3. Schoharie *♦33.351 221.315 M1.M6M 27.926 121,83** 20,812 29.9*17 22. *197 36.*183 18.195 36 1.933 1.155 101 60 609 8 M.5 726 170 26 168 3M5.0M 203.98 26.80 16.78 85.1*2 12.06 796 3.U7 R II? 625 139 2l Hospital had totals need for eelectlng hoepltal oentere and defining eerrlce dletrlete and raglcne within aach State were obtained hy tabulating data publlahed for Indlrldual general and allied special hospitals In the Journal of the American Medloal Association, Tol. la, Ho. 13, March 27. 19b3. Included In the general and allied special category are all general hoepltale plus those rendering epeolalised eerrlcee commonly provided by general hoepltale, l.e. maternity, Industrial, Isolation, aye-ear- noea-throat, orthopedic, children's, convalescent and rest, chronic, and others offering elmilar limited types of care. Cenarml hospitals operated by the Bureau of Indian Affairs are counted on the assumption that they represent facilities operated on a local area basis, but other Tederal hospitals are excluded. Also In the excluded group are all mental and tuberculosis hodpltale and infirmary units of correctional and custodial Institutions, i/ County population totals from Population. Ilret Series, U, 3. Summary, Table 17, Sixteenth Census of the Bolted Stateei igbo, 2l Physician totals represent counts of all physicians listed In the igbo American Medical Directory. 4/ Intimates of effective buying Income in igbo, made by Sales Management on the basis of money actually paid for goods and services, federal allotments, money paid out of savings and surpluses by business sad financial Institutions, plus the nonmoney Income of farm and village rseldents, wore obtained for counties and States from; Sales management survey of buying power. Sales Management, Tol. bB. Ho. 8, April 10, igbl. These data have been reproduced with permission of Sales Management, Inc. 9/ Land area In square miles from Population, first Series, U. 8. Summary, Table 17, Sixteenth Census of the United Stateei igbo. See footnotes at and of table. 24 tablo 2. Tha ooapoaltlon, baoad open ozlatlnc hoapltal faollltlaa.i/ of prlaarr, aaoondary, prepeaad-aaooadarjr, aad laelatod dlatrlota mkiag op broad hoapltal aorrloa raflona; and oonanty, dlatrlot, rational, and Stata total* for aalaotad Itaaa par- t Inant to an oral nation of boapltal naada In tha MXSDU ATLAWIC STiTVS - Contlnoad Tahla 2. Tha composition, baaed upon azlstlnt hospital of primary, saoondary, proposed-secondary, and Isolated districts maJdn* op broad hospital sarrloa rations; aad ooonty, district, rational, and Stats totals for salaotad Itans per- tinent to an oraloatlon of hospital needs In tha MIDDLE ATLANTIC STATES - Continued STATC MCtlON population^ •COS IM tCMCKAL AND ALLHEO tfCOIAL MOtDfTALf" PHTSMUl.’jl' IHOOMC^ (COLLAR* PC* RUAAL MU AM •OUNTY OEtltNATIOMt TOTAL TOTAL PCKOCNT Of TOTAL wtn 1,000 TOTAL PCD 100.000 TOTAL (IN PM OARfTA MLC4 WLC TOTAL MM4WA UILUMMI ns TO HI (Continued) S«00BdjLT7 dl at riots t Olens Halls District 1. Isms 2. Washington 82.761 36.035 *6.726 *5.627 17.199 28,*28 55 236 120 116 2.9 12* 72 52 150 56.33 35-02 21.31 681 1.720 883 837 *8 Oloversvllle District 1. Pulton 2. Hsallton 52.785 48,597 4,188 18,632 14,444 4,188 35 129 129 2.4 II 7 138 3".« 32.2* 2.42 657 2,244 *97 1.7*7 24 Plattsburg District 1. Clinton 2. Isssx 3. franklin 132,470 54.006 as 83.419 32.825 25.77* 24,820 63 517 200 10* 213 3.9 1 lib 177 77.87 27.68 20.J2 29.87 588 4.570 1.059 1,82b 1.685 29 Sohenectady District 1. Schenectady 2. Montgomery 3. Saratoga 2*7.242 122,40* 59,142 65.606 78,422 £8 30.971 32 8*7 5« 196 123 3.* 337 183 69 85 136 174.78 96.3? 37-04 *1.35 707 1.432 »9 173 BUTTILO HKJIOW 2.138,906 652.765 31 9.518 4.4 3.350 157 1.496.49 681 12,*28 172 Primary district I Buffalo District 1. Iris 2. Cattaraugus 3. Chautauqua 4. Oenssse 3. Xlagara 6. Wyoming 1.230,594 79«.377 72.652 123,580 44,481 160.H0 31.394 302,827 131.509 39.929 47.768 22,801 37.4*8 23.372 25 5.253 3.768 286 318 139 575 167 4.3 1.829 1.297 S5 1*7 77 1*9 829-99 537.05 47.97 87.09 27-93 112.8* 17.11 67* 5.101 1.05* 1.335 1,080 501 533 598 241 Secondary districtai Clifton Springs District 1. Ontario 2. Seneca 3. Tates 97,420 55.307 25.732 16,381 57.77* 31.431 15,270 11.073 59 50 6.0 164 101 32 31 168 58.*3 38.12 11.22 9.09 600 1.323 6*9 PS 7* llalra District 1. Cheung 2. Sehoyler 3. T cap kins 129.037 73.718 12.979 42,3*0 53.889 21,213 10,066 22,610 *2 8 £ 5.5 209 100 14 95 162 9*.*7 732 55.74 6.81 31-92 1,234 105 *12 IS Hornell District 1. Steuben 2. Allegany 124,608 84,927 39.681 79.559 *5.820 33.739 64 40* 319 85 3.2 165 120 45 132 73.06 53-37 19.69 586 2,*56 51 1,408 1,0*8 Bochsster District 1. Monroe 2. Livingston 3. Orleans 4. Wayne 557.2*7 158.716 28 438.230 74,95* 38,510 30,00* 27,760 17.229 52.747 36.529 2.563 2.30| 107 111 4.6 IS 8 7* 176 *00.5* 719 331.32 20.97 16.33 31.92 2.31* 2*1 638 s ns to hi no low 9.379.309 874.897 9 *8.367 5-2 20.900 223 7.8O8.50 833 9.756 961 Primary district! law Tork District 1. law Tork City £/ 2. lessen 3. Hockland 4. Suffolk 5. Westchester 8,706,917 520,103 6 7.454.995 *06,7*8 210,998 74.261 52.537 197.355 162.931 573.558 93.637 45,690 39.533 1,02* 501 JS 5.2 19.830 17.782 1 356 1,021 228 7.321.79 8*1 6.323.91 172.26 436.95 2,13* 4.080 299 300 178 922 *35 STATE RESIGN POPULano*^ •COS IN SENERAL AMO ALLIED SPECIAL HOSPITALS*/ phtsiouuis!/ INCOME^ (DOLLARS) LAND AREA A/ PERSONS PER AURAL SQUARE COUNTY OCStSNATIONS .TOTAL TOTAL percent OF TOTAL TOTAL per 1,000 FCRSOItS TOTAL PER 100,000 PERSONS TOTAL (IN ktUJOWt) PER CAPITA MILES WLf nr tobx (Continued) Secondary districts! Blnghaaton District 1. Brooas 2. Chsnango 3. Tioga 229.275 27.072 96,013 51.699 27.760 16.559 92 1,217 1,060 I52 5-3 3*tc ■8 99 198 160.18 119.67 25.36 15.15 699 2,193 710 908 525 107 Kingston District 1. Ulster 2. Delaware 3. 0range 9. Snlllran 306,020 S7.017 *•0.989 1*40,113 37.901 178,161 50,512 39,280 62.993 30.376 58 972 226 **5 588 113 3.2 960 121 95 % 150 222.62 56.07 27.52 106.30 32.73 727 9.928 1,193 1,970 69 Fongtaksopsls District 1. Dutchess 2. Putnam 137.097 120,592 16.555 80,620 69,065 16,555 59 988 963 25 3.6 270 299 26 197 103.91 88.63 15.28 758 1.051 816 235 130 STBACUS* BIOIOH 1,012,318 903,6s9 9o 3.8>*5 3.8 1,929 191 676.99 669 12,662 80 Primary 41 strict 1 Syraonsa District 1. Onondaga 2. Cayuga 3. Cortland 9. Madison 5. Osvago 505.157 295.106 65,508 33.668 39.598 71.275 175.702 70,080 29.755 19,859 25.157 35.851 35 1.832 1,169 280 199 119 125 3.6 761 508 83 9o 58 72 151 355.98 216.99 95.99 25.88 25-50 91.22 709 3.622 792 699 502 661 968 139 Saoondary districts! Utica District 1. Onalda 2. Herkimer y. Otssgo 309.2*6 203,636 59.527 66,082 111.227 58.933 21,092 31.752 36 1,1*89 1,121 158 205 9.8 999 281 % 199 198.13 150.28 35.81 32.09 69l 3.682 1,227 1,992 1.013 89 Watertown District 1. Jeffarson 2. Lewis 3. St. Lawrence 197.916 8*»,003 22,815 91.098 HS® 19.237 51.107 59 529 t3 297 2.7 229 101 21 102 113 123.33 57.13 10.78 55.92 623 5.358 1.293 1.293 2.772 37 FDnrSTLVASU 9,900,180 3.313.303 33 39.205 9,0 13.525 137 6,9oi.l9 697 *•5,095 220 XBI1 BKJIOH 717.566 336.167 **7 2,1*69 3-9 776 108 951.95 629 8.779 82 Primary district! Iris District 1. Iris 2. Crawford 3. larran 295.322 180,889 71,699 **2,789 119.031 9°.539 *•**.599 27,898 UO 1,071 688 293 90 3-6 399 55 116 202.71 128.57 92.05 32.09 686 2.738 812 1,016 910 108 Secondary districts! Bradford District 1. McKean 2. Caaaron 3. Ilk 9. Potter 116,169 56.673 6.852 39,993 18,201 66,512 32.899 3.077 15,582 15,009 57 3**8 197 126 25 3.0 *8 6 30 19 102 69.68 39.38 3.92 16.58 9.80 600 3,299 z 809 1,092 35 law Castle District 1. Lawrsnos 2. Msrcsr 197.916 96.877 101,039 80,280 6S5 9l $ 535 9.9 208 98 110 105 122.33 60.67 61.66 618 1,098 367 681 189 Oil City District 1. Tsnange 2. Clarion 3. forest 108,159 63.958 58,910 5.791 70,399 Its 5.791 65 171 171 1.6 105 70 32 3 97 56.73 37.25 17-95 2.03 525 1.699 675 8 69 8m footnotaa at and of tabla. See footnotes at and of table 25 Table 2, The composition, ban*S upon existing hospital facilities,}./ of primary, secondary, proposed-aseondaiy, and isolated districts asking up hroad hospital serrice regions; and county, district, regional, and State totals for selected leans per- tinent to an evaluation of hospital needs In the MIDDLE ATUL3TIC STATES - Continued Table 2, the ooapooltlon, based upon existing hospital facilities,}/ of prlaary, secondary, proposed-seoondary, and Isolated diet riots Baking up broad hospital ssrrios regions; and county, district, regional, and Stats totals for sslsctsd Itaas per- tinent to nn evaluation of hospital needs In the HIDDU! ATLAHTIG STATES - Continued •TATE REGION DISTRICT popuLanon^ BEDS IN GENERAL AND ALLIED SPECIAL HOSPITALS i/ PHYtioiams^ INCOME*'' (DOLLARS) LAND AREA 8/ IN PERSONS PER AND RURAL SQUARE COUNTY DESIGNATIONS TOTAL TOTAL PERCENT OF TOTAL TOTAL PER 1,000 PERSONS TOTAL PER 100,000 PERSONS TOTAL (IN BULLIONS) PER CAPITA MILES MILE PKHHSTLYANIA (Continued) • PHILADWLFHIA ESOIOH >*.556.377 1,142,324 25 20.705 4.5 7.554 1G6 3.194.07 701 11,514 396 Primary district; Philadelphia District 1. Philadelphia 2. Bucks 3. Chester 4. Delasare 5. Montgomery 2.774.678 1.931.334 107,715 135.626 310.756 289,247 541,811 76,080 82,284 82,516 100,931 12 16,087 13.693 127 453 SOI 1.013 5.8 & 163 8 197 2,092.25 754 1,526.45 56.72 80.68 as.46 as.94 2,181 1,272 135 617 760 IS Secondary districts; Allentown District 1. Lehigh 2. Carhon 239,26s 177.533 61,735 69,886 29 45.512 24,374 716 3.0 651 65 268 220 48 112 144.47 6o4 H7.?8 26.49 i 318 Chambershurg District 1. Franklin 2. Fulton BO.051 69.378 10.673 51.874 65 41,201 10,673 158 2.0 158 95 94 119 36.50 456 34.03 2.47 1.1PJ 67 435 laston District 1. Southampton 2. Monroe 198.761 65.872 33 168,959 >18,660 29,802 17.212 537 2.7 470 67 261 as 43 131 139.I8 700 117.66 a.52 98Jj 202 in Harrisburg District 1. Dauphin 2. Cumberland 3. Juniata 5. Perry 290,802 134, a4 46 177,410 57.689 74.806 37.939 15.373 15.373 23,213 23.213 523 1.8 450 73 408 271 111 9 17 l4o 184.62 635 131.94 3?.47 4.90 8.31 2,012 145 520 555 387 550 Lancaster District 1. Lancaster 2. Lebanon 285,14s 155.076 54 as, 504 117.572 72,641 37,504 1.033 3.6 $ 325 265 60 114 180.10 632 136.69 43.41 1,308 as 9>*5 363 Beading District 1. Berks 2. Schuylkill 470, as 241,884 228.331 195.236 97.127 98,109 h2 1,269 2.7 592 677 519 308 ai 110 285-00 606 174.63 110.37 1,647 285 864 783 Tork District 1. Tork 2. Adams a7.457 128.355 59 178,022 94,836 39,>135 33.519 382 1.8 326 56 sa 190 31 102 131.95 607 117.60 14.35 i,44o 151 914 526 PITTSBDHOH ESOIOH 3.374,518 1.390.935 4l 12,239 3*6 3.863 114 2,081.15 617 15,ia 222 Primary district; Pittsburgh District 1. Allegheny 2. Bearer 3. Butler 4. Washington 5- Westmoreland 2,170,146 622,149 29 1. >*ll. 539 227.708 156,754 52.866 67.590 63,113 ao.sss ia,624 303,411 156.838 9,402 4.3 8,065 as 148 498 473 2,860 2,175 125 92 196 272 132 1,500.60 691 1,089.12 92.11 46.99 112.79 159.59 3.847 564 VS. 794 857 1.025 Secondary districtt: Altoona District 1. Blair 2. Bedford 3. Huntingdon 223.003 107.337 140.358 39.893 40,809 37.541 41,836 29,903 48 477 2.1 365 42 70 204 lki 35 91 114.56 514 82.24 15.68 16.64 2,443 91 530 1,018 895 Du Bols District 1. Clearfield 2. Jefferson 146,184 101,047 92,094 67,220 54.090 33.8a 69 346 2.4 232 114 102 64 38 70 67.40 461 42.31 25.09 !:SS “ 652 Indiana District 1. Indiana 2. Arnstrong 160,941 119,245 74 79.854 61,720 81,087 57.525 251 1.6 170 81 134 70 64 83 70.17 436 33.88 36.29 1,1*91 108 IS Johnstown District 1. Cambria 2. Somerset 298,416 2y.459 84.957 166,112 56 98,892 67,220 881 3.0 665 a6 268 197 71 90 143.26 480 105.59 37.67 1.779 168 695 i,os4 STATE RESIGN romance i' •COS IN GENERAL AND ALLIED SPECIAL HOSPITALS y PHYSIO!***?/ INCOME (DOLLARS) LANO AREA 8/ PERSONS PER RURAL SQUARE NILES SQUARE COUNTY DETONATIONS TOTAL TOTAL PERCENT or TOTAL TOTAL PER 1,000 PERSONS TOTAL PER 100,000 PERSONS TOTAL (IN MLUON&) PER CAPITA MILE PBniSTLTAIIJl (Continued) Phlllpsfcurg District 1. Centra 2. Clinton 3. Mifflin 130.15s 52,608 3*.557 *2.993 s*,057 37.115 19.963 26,979 65 *07 202 113 92 3.1 117 38 90 68.31 29.01 16.20 23.10 525 2,**S 1.115 g 53 Cniontown Dietriot 1. Payette 2. Creese 2*5.670 TO? 190,98s 151,208 39.780 78 *75 397 78 1.9 178 1*9 29 72 116.85 100.51 16.3* *76 1.377 800 577 178 SOaUMOI BXCIGQI 1.251,719 **3.877 35 3.792 3.0 1.332 106 6?*.*7 539 9,571 131 Primary dletriott Scranton District 1. Lackawanna 2. Pike 3. Susquehanna *. Wayne 5. Myosins 389,22* 301,2*13 7.**52 33.893 29.93* 16,702 ■S:S8 7,*52 26,887 2*. 2*7 16,702 27 1.3U 1.263 16 32 3-* *2* 33 33 17 109 221.89 180.73 3.02 13.97 15.81 8.36 570 2.975 ,1 396 131 Secondary districts! Ssyrc District 1. Bradford 2. Itoga 85.619 50,615 35,006 66.016 3*.677 31.339 77 *21 331 90 *.9 108 75 33 126 *2.83 27.*2 15.*1 500 2.297 1,1*7 1.150 37 Shaaokln District 1. Worthcaberlimd 2. Montour 3. Snyder 162,561 126,887 15,666 20,208 si.569 17.331 50 335 181 15* 2.1 16* 97 52 15 101 73.16 62.65 5.26 5-25 *50 $ 130 329 178 Wilkes-Barre District 1. Lnseme 2. ColnsBia *92.931 **1,518 51.*13 133.390 10*,957 28.*33 27 1.375 1.195 180 2.8 *92 **6 *6 100 266.31 2*0.90 23. *1 536 1.375 891 *8* 358 Wllllsasport District 1. Lycoming 2. SellIron 3. Union 121,38* 93.633 7.50* 20,2*7 56,368 32,188 7.50* 16,676 *6 350 318 32 2.9 1** ill * 29 119 72.28 61.3* 2.03 8.91 595 2,011 1,215 *78 318 60 U Hospital bed totals used for sslsotlng hospital centers and defining service districts and regions within each State wars obtained by tabulating data published for indlvldnal general and allied special hospitals la the Journal of the American Medical Association, Tol, 121, Eo. IJ, March 27, 1943* Included In the general and allied special category are all general hospitals , plus those rendering specialised services commonly provided by general hospitals, l.s, maternity, Industrial, Isolation, eye-ear- no b»- throat, orthopedic, children's, convalescent sad rest, chronic, and others offering similar limited types of oars. General hospitals operated by the Bureau of Indian Affairs are counted on the assumption that they represent facilities operated on e lo®** UNGie. but other Federal hospitals are excluded. Alec In the excluded group are all mental and tuberculosis hospitals and Infirmary units of correctional and custodial Institutions. ii lOTmt3r po*mlAtlon from: Population, First Series, U. S. Summary, Table 17, Sixteenth Census of the United States: loUo, II Physician totals represent counts of all physicians listed in the ig4o American Medical Directory. 4/ Estimates of effective buying Income In 19*10, made by Sales Management on the basis of money actually paid for goods and services. Federal allotments, money paid out of savings and surpluses by business and financial institutions, plus tbs nonmoney Income of farm and village residents, wore obtained for counties and States from: Sales management survey of buying power. Stiles Management, Tol. 48, Eo, 8, April 10, 1941. These data have been reproduced with permlealon of Salsa Management, Inc, igso L,o,a *r*° *,“r* ■llM fro"! p°lral"‘tl-on- Pdrat Serial, U. S. Summary, Table 17, Sixteenth Census of the United States: 1/ Districts were outlined with the five counties of Esw Tork City treated as a single political unit. See footnotes at and of table. 26 Table )• The coaposltlon, based upon existing hospital facilities,!/ of primary, secondary, proposed-secondary, and Isolated districts making up broad hospital service regions; and county, district, regional, and State totals for selected Items per- tinent to an evaluation of hospital needs In the EAST SOUTH CXVTBAL STATES Table 3.— The composition, based upon existing hospital facilities,!/ of primary, secondary, proposed-secondary, and Isolated districts ■uiiriwg up broad hospital aerrlce regions; and county, district, regional, and State totals for selected Items per- tinent to an evaluation of hospital needs In the EAST BOBTH CENTRAL STATES - Continued I STATE RESIGN DISTRICT AMO COUNTY DESIGNATIONS NMUTIOM S' SCDS IN SCNCRAL AND ALLIED SPECIAL HOSPITALS" PNYWOUNSV INCOME^ (DOLLARS) LAND AREA 8/ IN 30UARC MILES PERSONS PER SQUARE MILE TOTAL RURAL TOTAL PER 1,000 PERSONS TOTAL PER 100,000 PERSONS TOTAL (IN MILLIONS) PER CAPITA TOTAL PERCENT OP TOTAL ILL110I8 7.897.241 2,087.591 26 29.955 3.8 12,186 154 5.229.32 662 55.947 l4l CHICAGO HWI03 5.432, a6 751.182 14 23.500 4.3 9.505 175 4,046.11 745 17.632 308 Friaaiy district) Chicago District 4,569.643 299,881 7 20,447 4.5 8.374 183 3.549.89 777 3.714 1,230 1. Cock “*.063.31*2 107,189 18.415 7.736 3.229-70 954 2. Da Fags 103,480 30.276 310 115 56.50 331 tan# 130.206 30,222 697 19S 95.42 516 4. Lake 121.09“* 41,442 502 165 79.40 457 5. McHenry 37.3H 24,150 67 37 24.20 611 6. till 114,210 66,602 458 122 54.67 845 Secondary districts: Blooalngton District 127.775 75.233 59 433 3.4 177 139 75-98 595 2.704 47 1. McLaan 73,930 34.079 362 103 51.30 1.173 2. Ford 15.007 11.901 la 21 7.83 483 J. Lirtasston 3«.83« 29.253 53 53 16.85 1,043 Danville District 157.369 71,022 45 829 5.3 262 166 101.26 643 1,898 83 1. YeiwUlon 86.791 37.810 325 133 52.51 898 2. Ohaapaign 70.578 33,212 504 129 48.75 1,000 Freeport District 78,622 47,338 60 206 2.6 89 113 42.00 534 1.650 48 1. Stephenson 40,61*6 18,280 190 47 25.11 56a 2. Carroll 17.987 13.155 16 22 8.95 46s J. Jo Dariess 19.989 15,863 20 7.94 6i4 Kankakaa District 93.373 63.699 68 191 2.0 129 138 44,79 480 1,802 52 1. lankskSO 60.877 34.947 ISC 88 30.95 680 2. Iroqaois 32,1*96 28.752 41 4l 13.84 1,122 Bockford Dietrlot 200,637 81,600 4l 666 3.3 246 123 128.26 639 2,196 91 1. Vlnnahago 121,178 33.716 465 161 83.60 520 2. Boons 15.202 7,108 66 17 5.0 i 283 3, Da Kalb 34.388 1-7.932 112 35 22.11 636 4. Ogle 29.869 22, W 25 33 14.47 757 Streator District 204.797 112,409 55 728 3.6 228 111 103.93 507 3,66s 56 1. La Salle 97.801 32.463 434 112 55.58 1.153 2. Bnraaji 37.600 27,366 ld6 38 16.75 86a 3. Orundy 18,398 12,253 UO 17 8.52 432 4. Kendall 11.103 11,105 11 3.45 32C 5. Lee 34,604 23.933 118 4S 18.29 o. Putnaa 5.289 5,289 5 1.34 166 U9T ST. LOTI8 ESOIOI 1.052.931 606,062 58 1,898 1.8 977 93 441.54 4ig 15,4i6 68 Priaarjr dlotrlcti last St. Lonle District 251.971* 131.438 52 554 2.2 258 102 113.45 450 2.707 93 1. St. Clair 166.899 58.362 493 175 84.81 670 2. Clinton 22,912 19.6s? 4o 18 6.62 4gs J. Monroe 12.754 12.754 13 6.O9 380 He Randolph 33.608 24,834 21 33 11.03 594 3. Washington 15,801 15.801 15 4.90 565 Secondary districts) Alton District 177.525 64,687 36 476 2.7 !57 88 87.94 495 1,1*88 119 1. Madison 149,31*9 1*4,711 476 136 77.17 731 2. Bond 14,540 11,149 10 5-90 383 3. Jersey 13.636 8,827 ii 4,87 374 Cairo District 77.836 55.050 68 132 1.7 62 SO 23.5* 303 1,088 72 1. Alexander 25.496 n.089 10c IS 9.81 224 2# Massac 14,937 8.650 16 11 4.06 246 3. Pnlaski 15,875 15.875 8 3.03 204 4. Union 21,528 17.436 16 24 6.68 4l4 5E0S IN GENERAL STATE AND PHYSICIANS 5/ INCOME y ALLIED SPECIAL (DOLLARS) AREAS/ *ER80N8 * HOSPITALS ■*/ PER AND RURAL SQUARE SQUARE MILE OOUNTV TOTAL PER PER TOTAL PER CAPITA DESIGNATIONS TOTAL TOTAL OF TOTAL 1,000 PERSONS TOTAL 100,000 PERSONS (IN MILLIONS) ILLIWOI8 (Continued) Propoaed-eeoondary dlatrletai Carbondale District 61.358 33.171 59 151 2.5 63 103 26.32 929 1,096 59 1. Jackson 37.920 20.399 10) 96 16.71 603 2. Parry 23,938 12.777 98 17 9.61 993 Centralla District 195.695 102,9a 66 251 1.6 192 91 79.15 976 3.070 51 1. Marlon 97.989 29,961 130 95 29.9i 580 2. Wfflnghaa 22.039 15.859 91 26 10.72 983 ■5. Tayefcte 29.15' 23.871 30 20 12.75 718 *• Jefferson 39.375 19,651 33 19.85 579 5. Wayne 22,092 18,089 18 6.92 715 Harrlabnrg Dlatrlot 98*719 38.066 75.799 77 109 i.l 88 89 29-79 302 2,aa 95 1. Saline a, 722 87 36 15.28 389 2. Gallatin n,9i9 u,9l9 8 2.81 928 J. Hamilton 13.959 10,926 10 2.72 G35 9. Hardin 7.759 7.759 n 8 1.9g 183 5. Pope T .99* 7,999 5 1.96 381 6. White 20,027 15.929 a 6.09 501 Herrin District 115,288 61,780 59 117 1.0 ?o 78 9l.g6 363 1,220 99 I. Williamson 51.929 29,510 80 9i 19.9g 99l 2. Franklin 53.131 26.593 37 92 19.98 93*1 3* Johnson 10.727 10.727 7 2.9c 3% Olney Dlatrlot 119,582 83.766 73 113 1.0 117 102 99.95 388 969 99 1. Bichland 2. Clay 17.137 18.997 9.306 13.973 75 22 19 8.19 6.22 3, Crawford 21.299 16,983 8,979 8,979 38 26 9.00 992 U. Wdwards 6 2.56 225 5> Jaeper 13.931 13.931 11 3.38 55 6. Lawrence 21,075 19,862 13.729 6.737 2U s.75 7* Wabash 19 6.9o 2a PHOBIA HKJIOH 690,999 291,863 96 2,100 3-3 769 120 358.67 560 8,690 79 Primary dlatrlot; Peoria Dlatrlot 365,155 178,279 99 1,187 3-3 962 127 213-78 585 9,69’ 79 1. Peoria 153.379 93,911 800 226 113.71 624 2. Polton 99.621 33.050 108 52 17.55 S7* ■5. Knox 52.250 20,156 200 70 32.92 728 4. Marehall 13.179 13.179 19 5.86 395 5* Mason 15.358 11,359 a 6.91 591 6. Stark S.Sffi 8,881 15 3-7S 291 7- Tatenell 58,362 28,6l9 79 99 23.9) 653 8. loodford 19,129 19,129 15 9.61 537 Secondary districts: Macomb District 57,17? 36.913 26,999 15,279 69 200 3.5 76 133 26.68 967 1.505 38 1. McDonough 135 9) 13-32 582 2. Henderson 8.99' 8,9*9 6 I.98 381 J. Warren 21,286 12,190 65 27 11.38 592 Moline District ag.160 77.176 35 713 3-3 231 106 118.a 592 2,992 88 !• Hock Island 113.323 20,591 99, 123 67.69 920 2* Henry 9j, 79* 20,261 171 50 20.3' 826 3. Mercer 17.701 15,108 19 18 7.2« 556 U. Whiteside 93.338 a,a6 82 Uo 22.89 69O sphihotuld hsoioh 771.600 938,989 57 2.957 3.2 935 ia 383.OO 996 19,259 59 Primary district: Springfield Dlatrlot 293.805 198,839 51 1,181 U.O 358 122 159-79 599 9.971 66 !• Sangamon 117,?12 92,9bg 750 168 83-57 880 2. Cass 16,925 ?,920 a 8.3s 370 3# Christian 38.569 29,285 122 93 17.30 709 4. Logan 29,938 16,686 115 96 13.72 622 5. Macoupin 96,309 27.087 26 9l 15.82 872 6. Menard 10,66) 8.077 11 9.36 312 7. Montgomery 39,999 20.375 188 28 16.69 706 3«« footaota* at enA oT t»Mi See footnote* «t end of teal*. Table 3, The composition, based upon existing hospital facilities,},/ of primary, secondary, propoeed-secondary, and isolated districts making up broad hospital service regions; and county, district, regional, and State totals for selected items per- tinent to an evaluation of hospital needs in the EAST NORTH CENTRAL STATES - Continued Table 3.— The composition, bated upon existing hospital of primary, secondary, proposed-seoondary, and Isolated districts making up broad hospital Berries regions; and county, district, regional, and State totals for selected items per- tinent to an evaluation of hospital needs in the EAST NORTH CENTRAL STATES - Continued STATE REGION DISTRICT AND COUNTY DESIGNATIONS POPULATION BEDS IN GENERAL AND ALLIED SPECIAL HOSPITALS^/ PHYSICIANS 5/ INCOME (DOLLARS) LAND AREA 8/ IN SQUARE MILES PERSONS PER SQUARE MILE TOTAL RURAL TOTAL PER 1,000 PERSONS TOTAL PER 100,000 PERSONS TOTAL (IN MILLIONS) PER CAPITA TOTAL PERCENT OF TOTAL ILLINOIS (Continued) Secondary district*: Decatur District 157.363 82,011 52 536 3.6 201 128 83.11 528 2.530 62 1. Macon s'*. 693 25.388 628 121 56.20 577 2. Do Witt 18,244 11.913 36 22 ?.19 399 Moultrls 13.^77 10.376 11 6.26 365 6. Platt 16,659 12.136 25 22 5.M0 637 5. Shorty 26,290 22,198 67 25 8.06 772 Jacksonville District 73.053 1*7.627 65 175 2.U 87 119 29-76 1*07 1,618 65 1. Morgan 36.378 16,53>* 165 57 18.37 565 2. Calhoun 8,207 8,207 5 1.90 259 Oreene 20,292 lU,7l0 10 18 6.73 363 6. Scott 8.176 8,176 T 2.76 251 Quincy District 136,31*9 90,1*21 66 38U 2.8 161 118 60.25 1*1*2 3.233 Up 1. Adaas 65.229 2*1,760 320 82 36.33 866 2. Brown S.053 8.053 8 2.66 307 3. Hancock 26.297 23.722 33 9.03 797 4. Pike 25,360 22,1*56 39 28 8.95 829 5* Schuyler 11.630 11.630 25 10 3.6s U36 Proposed-secondary districts: Mattoon Dlotrlct 111,030 69,586 63 181 1.6 128 115 50.09 651 2,1*07 66 1. Coles 38,1*70 14.4U6 76 67 22.1*1 507 2. Clark 18,81+2 13.561 21 6.85 505 3. Cumberland 11,698 11,698 6 2.60 367 4, Douglas 17.590 16.752 37 26 7.65 420 5. Edgar 2i*,630 15.169 70 28 10.77 628 INDIANA 3.627.796 1,560,086 65 9.339 2.7 6.131 121 1.868.13 5>*5 36,205 95 IVAN ST ILLS REGION 51*3. !*85 310,800 57 921 1.7 567 10U 218.61* 1*02 7.612 71 Primary district! Xvaneville District 200,110 82.030 61 683 2.U 2i*7 123 100.86 50l* 1.565 130 1. Vanderburgh 130.783 33.721 U51 181 79.56 2Ul 2. Gibson 30,709 19.855 32 29 10.31 69? 3. Poaoy 19.183 13.565 19 5-58 Ul6 4. Warrick 19. >*35 14,909 18 5.63 391 Secondary districts: How Albany Dlotrlct IOO.195 60,091* 60 156 1.6 80 80 33-79 337 1,528 66 1. Tloyd 35.061 9.667 116 37 15.82 lUq 2. Clark 31,020 19.527 Uo 22 9.96 386 3. Harrison 17.106 17,106 9 3.91 679 4. Washington 17.008 13,816 12 4.10 516 Proposed-secondary districts: Bedford District 78,968 56,1*1*1 69 75 0-9 • 75 95 29-25 370 1.386 57 1. Lawrence 35.01*5 19.138 50 31 13.01 659 2. Jackson 26,612 17.992 25 25 10.79 520 }. Orange 17.3U 17.311 19 5.65 405 Washington District 120,060 75.678 63 193 1.6 122 102 61*. 27 369 2.063 58 1. Daviess 26,163 16.851 90 2U 8.69 633 2. Dubois 22.579 13.722 11 22 7.06 633 3. Knox >*3.973 20,635 92 56 21.36 517 6. Martin 10,300 10,300 9 2-33 365 5. Pike 17.01*5 13.970 13 6.85 335 Isolated districts: Tell City Dlotrlct UU.152 38,757 88 ll* 0.3 63 97 10.27 233 1.092 Uo 1. Perry 17.770 12.375 lU 15 U.2S 386 2. Crawford 10.171 10,171 9 2.26 312 3. Spencer 16,211 16, ai 19 3-75 396 BEDS IN GENERAL STATE POPULATION y AND PHYSICIANS y INCOME y REGION ALLIED SPECIAL (DOLLARS) AKAl/ HOSPITALS 1/ PER RURAL SOU ARE COUNTY PER PER TOTAL PER MILES MILE DESIGNATIONS TOTAL TOTAL 1,000 TOTAL 100,000 (IN TOTAL PERSONS PERSONS MILLIONS) INDIANA (Continued) roar watnj region 374,155 188,872 50 1,156 3.1 **35 116 209.25 559 >*.533 83 Primary districts Port Wayne District 237.191* 93,587 39 767 3.2 286 1a 1U3.55 605 2,085 114 1. Allas 2. Adant 155,084 a, 254 36.671* 15.393 15.056 52o8 20U 18 110.48 7.01 671 345 3. Da Call) 24.756 62 27 11. >*3 365 **. falls 19,099 13,682 67 22 6.71* 368 5. Whitley 17,001 12.782 15 7.89 336 Secondary districts: Hose City District 80,429 65.^79 81 305 3.8 su io4 35-79 41*5 1.637 49 1. Noble 22.776 17.3**5 227 28 U.05 4io 2. Kosciusko 29.561 23.183 58 26 12.66 538 3. Lagrange 14, 352 13.740 14,352 11 4,78 379 1*. Steuben 10,599 20 19 7.30 310 Fropoead-aeoondary districtsi Vabash District 56,532 29,806 53 1.5 65 115 29.91 529 811 70 1. Wabash 26,601 13.778 55 33 14.17 4a 2. Huntington 29.931 16,028 29 32 15.74 390 INDIANAPOLIS HIOIOH 1.827.61*3 860,1*01 >*7 5.305 2.9 2.1*33 133 l,oUo.6o 569 19,848 92 Prlsutry district: Indianapolis District « I37.9f*7 25 2.331 **•3 1.023 188 409.78 374.46 751 1,842 296 1. Varies 70.0U7 2.321* 92} 402 2. Hamilton 24,614 19.039 30 10.66 1*03 J. Hancock 17.302 12,1*81 7 21 8.34 S? 4, Hendricks 20,151 20,151 22 7.16 5* Johnson 22,1*93 16,229 23 9.16 315 Secondary districts: Anderson District 159.523 66,881 1*2 319 2.0 187 117 87.55 5>*9 1.135 l4l 1. Madison 88.575 31.285 a; 9** 50.33 2. Grant 55.81} 25.558 90 76 31.12 4a 3* Tipton 15.135 10,031* 10 17 6.10 261 La Fayette District 150.31*9 9l*,662 63 5S 2.9 185 123 83.IS 553 2.953 51 1. Tippecanoe 51,020 15.952 8} 39-08 901 2. Benton 11.117 11.117 n 5.14 409 3. Carroll 15.1*10 15,1*10 14 5.64 374 4. Clinton 28,1*11 l1*. 705 1*3 29 15.83 407 5* fountain 18.29S l**.535 18 7.75 397 6. farran 9.055 9.055 22 1 2.66 36s 7. White 17.037 13,881* 17 7.08 •*97 Logansport District 11*0,219 69.980 50 357 2.5 151 106 71.67 511 1,888 74 1. Cass 36,908 16.731 120 Us 19.23 4i5 2. Fulton 15.577 11.71*2 31 17 367 Howard >*7.752 13,957 100 1*7 26.5! 29} 4, Miami 27.926 15.494 106 30 l4.li $ 3. Pulaski 12,056 12.056 9 4.48 Martinsville District 83.363 52.612 63 391 4.7 87 10l* 35.8O 429 1.632 51 1. Morgan 19,801 1U.792 310 29 8.00 1*06 2. Brown 6.I85 6,185 3 1.07 324 J, Monroe 36,534 15.661* 35 35 18.12 412 4. Putnam 20.839 15.967 1*6 20 8.6l 490 Munois District 138.113 63.305 1*6 3>*2 2-5 156 113 71.26 516 1,410 98 1. Dslaware 71*, 963 25.2U3 22S 89 42.92 4oo 2a Blackford 13.78} 6.673 30 14 7.52 167 3. Jay 22,601 13,1*61 35 25 8.54 5 4. Randolph 26.766 17.928 1*8 28 12.28 Richmond District 124,865 60,200 Ug 2>*8 2.0 136 109 67.73 542 1,188 105 1. Wayne 59.225 24,082 130 7>* 36.09 405 2. Fayette 19,1*11 6,51} 40 16 9.38 215 3. Henry 1*0,208 23.588 78 U? 19.57 1*00 4. Union 6,017 6,017 4 2.69 168 See footnotes at end of table. See footnote! at and of table. Table J.~ The conpoeltlon, based upon existing hospital facilities,.*/ of primary, secondary, proposed-seoondary, and Isolated districts aaklng up broad hospital serrloe regions; and county, district, regional, and State totale for selected Iteas per- tinent to an evaluation of hospital needs In the KAST ITOHTH CEITHAL STATIS - Continued Table 3.— The composition, based upon existing hospital of primary, secondary, proposed-secondary, and Isolated districts Baking up broad hospital serrloe regions; and county, district, regional, and State totals for selected liens per* tlnent to an eralnation of hospital needs la the IABT NORTH CENTRAL STATES * Continued STATE . RESIGN DISTRICT AND COUNTY DESIGNATIONS POPULATION BEOS IN SENCRAL ANO ALLIED SPECIAL HOSPITALS-1/ PHTWOtA INCOME y (DOLLARS) LAND ANCaH' IN SOU ARC MILES PERSONS PER SQUARE MILE TOTAL RURAL TOTAL PER 1,000 PERSONS TOTAL PER 100,000 PERSONS TOTAL (IN MILLIONS) PER CAPITA TOTAL PERCENT OF TOTAL INDIANA (Continued) Terrs Heats District 191.233 10>*,5l6 55 1*69 2.5 209 109 95.07 1*97 1.950 98 1. Vigo 99.709 33.281 382 125 fau.30 22 2. Olay 25.365 17,23' 19 9.15 ). Parke 17,35s 17.358 20 5-27 U51 4. Sul 1 Iran 27.01U 21.937 50 26 8.3>* 5. Vermillion a.7S7 1U.695 37 19 8.01 263 Proposed-secondary districts: ' Batesrllle District 73.825 58,1*07 79 50 0.7 58 79 21+-97 338 1,606 1*6 1. Blplsy 18.89S 15.831 50 16 7.06 1*1*2 2, Dearborn 23,05: 13.812 18 p* 39 306 3. Tranklin lU.UlP la, 1*12 1 4.06 39U 4. Jennings 13,680 10.568 10 3-32 377 5. Ohio 3.782 3.782 1 l.lU 87 Crawfordsrille Dietriot >♦9.312 31.691* 6U 139 2.8 62 126 2>*.71 501 931* 53 1. Montgoasry 27.231 15,11*2 85 38 15.33 5*>7 2. Boone 22,081 15.552 5*1 2>* 9-38 **27 Linton District U3,U20 33.739 78 50 1.2 3** 78 1U.26 328 91*0 >*6 1. Greene 31.330 21,6Hc 50 22 10.67 51*9 2. Owen 12,090 12.090 12 3-59 391 Madison District 37.057 30.131* 81 50 1.3 38 103 12.7>* 31*1* 780 U« 1, Jefferson 19.912 12,989 50 22 7.53 3 66 2. Scott 8.978 8,978 7 3.10 193 3. Switzerland 8.167 8.167 9 2.11 221 Shelhyrille District 90,878 56.3?!* 62 120 1.3 107 118 1*1.88 1*61 1.590 57 1. Shelhy 25.953 15,162 50 30 lU.Ol uog 2. Bartholomew 28,276 16.538 35 35 12.20 1*02 3. Decatur 17.722 11,657 23 2] 7.2>* 37° 4. Rush 18,927 12.967 12 21 8.U3 409 SOOTH BEND RES ION 682,513 180,011 26 1.957 2.9 696 102 399-81* 586 1*, 212 162 Primary district: South Bend District 336,310 110,538 33 877 2.6 366 109 202.17 601 2,298 1U6 1. St. Joseph 161,82; 32.257 l*2l* 171* 107.96 1*67 2. Elkhart 72.631 ■ 2>*,797 85 83 1*2.85 1*68 3. La Porte 63.660 21,001+ 327 69 33-76 60S k. Marshall 25,935 20,222 1*1 32 12.86 1*1*1* 3. Starke 12.258 12,258 8 U.7I* 311 Secondary districts: Gary District 31*6,203 69.J+73 20 1,080 3.1 330 95 197.67 571 1,911* 181 1. Lake 293.195 28,1*15 983 278 173-6 51U 2. Jasper 1&.397 11,183 1*0 11 5.UI 56 3. Newton 10,775 10.775 lU {*•50 U13 U. Porter 27.836 19,100 57 27 1U.O8 1*25 MICHIGAN 5,256,106 1,801,239 31* 23,020 l*.l* 6,360 121 3.503.52 667 57.022 92 DETROIT EEGION 3,816,603 1,01*0,151* 27 18,839 1+.9 1+.837 127 2,672.25 700 2i*,U66 156 Primary district; Detroit District 2,262,691 22U.270 10 lU.909 6.6 3,1*01 150 l,7l*9.21 773 2.366 956 1. Wayne 2,015,623 85,81*2 13.113 2.906 1.600.31 607 2. Macomb 107.638 59,1*12 177 71 53-38 1*81 3. Monroe 58,620 t UO,ll*2 129 1*5 30.63 562 4. Washtenaw 80,810 38.871* 1,1*90 379 6U. 89 716 STATE REGION DISTRICT AND COUNTY DESIGNATIONS POPULATION BEOS IN GENERAL AND ALLIED SPECIAL HOSPITALS IS PHYSICIAN* IS INCOME (DOLLARS) LAND AREA 8/ IN SQUARE MILES PERSONS PER SQUARE MILE TOTAL RURAL TOTAL PER 1,000 PERSONS TOTAL PER 100,000 PERSONS TOTAL (IN MILLIONS) PER CAPITA TOTAL PERCENT OF TOTAL MIOBIQAH (Continued) Secondary districts: Bay City District 9?.599 b5.6b3 1*9 261 2.8 86 92 • S-30 5b8 i.»J 71 1. Bay 7<». 981 27.025 239 7b bb.73 bb6 2. Arsnao 9.233 9.235 12 6 3.88 568 J. Gladwin 9.385 9.385 10 6 2.69 503 mat District 301.267 123. b3i bl 912 3.0 271 90 187.15 621 l.8b? 163 1. Geneses 227,9bb 73,02b 786 215 150.88 6bb 2, Lapeer 32.116 26.751 32 22 13.57 65? 3* Shiawassee bi.207 23.656 9b 3b 22.70 5S0 Jackson District 175.310 102.122 58 508 2.9 196 112 10b,81 598 2,060 85 1. Jsckson 93.108 b5.b52 330 113 63.56 7°5 2. Hillsdale 29,092 22.711 65 28 12.35 601 3* Lenawee 53.UO 35.959 113 55 28.60 75b Lansing District 191,bll 87,027 b5 b65 2.b 235 123 125.65 656 1.697 113 1. Ingbea 130,616 b3.i57 373 17? 99.28 55? 2. Clinton 26,671 22.2M9 55 22 10,2? 571 3. laton 3b,12b 21,621 37 3b 16.08 567 Petoskey Dlttrlct b2.b66 27.870 66 139 3.3 38 89 2b.7b 583 1,600 27 1. Snaet 15.791 9.772 112 17 12.17 b6i 2. Charleroix 13.031 10.127 27 8 6.02 bib 3. Cheboygan I3.6bb 7.971 13 6.55 725 Pontiac District 27b.931 128,077 b7 793 2.9 21b 78 165.13 601 i.bbs 190 1. Oakland 25b,06s 110,962 756 192 15b.20 877 2. Livingston 20,863 17.115 37 22 10.93 571 Port Hnron District 106.336 66.b73 63 155 1.5 88 83 63.71 599 1,701 63 1. St. Clair 76,222 36.35? 155 67 50.19 7bO 2. Sanilac 30.11b 30,111* 21 13.52 961 Saginaw District 225,Sbo 127.023 56 bbH 2.0 195 86 131-15 581 2.970 76 1. Boginas I30,b€s b7.67b 38b 125 86.28 812 2. Huron 32.58b 29.960 30 20 15.33 822 3. Midland 27.09b 16.765 18 12-93 520 **. Tuscola 35.69b 32,62!* 31 32 16.61 816 Propcssd-seoondary districts! Alta District 58.187 39.533 68 9b 1.6 b6 79 27.8b bT8 1.138 51 1. Oratlot 32,205 21,96b 5? 28 16,26 566 2. Isabella 25.982 17.569 35 18 11.58 572 Alpena District bb,e62 28,982 65 72 1.6 50 67 20.30 b52 3.019 15 1. Alpena 20,766 7.958 72 15 11.69 568 2. Alcona 5,b6} 5.b63 2 1.97 677 3. Montmorency 3,8bO 3,sbo 3 l.W 555 b. Presque Isle 12,250 9.178 ? b.21 65b 5. Oscoda 2.5b3 2.5b3 1 •95 565 Isolated districts! Grayling District 39.703 39.703 100 86 2.2 37 93 21.26 535 3.307 12 1. Crawford 3.765 3.765 b5 3 2.69 563 2. Clare 9.163 9.16’ 25 8 b.5? 572 3. Iosco 8,560 8.560 8 b.°8 5b7 U. Ogemaw 8,720 8,720 16 8 b.2b 57b 5. Otsego 5.827 5.827 7 3.I8 530 6. Hosooomon 3,668 3,668 3 2.51 521 GBASD RAPIDS BSOIOH 1.115.959 595.277 53 3.2b7 2.9 1,25b 112 667.66 598 16,018 70 Primary district: Grand Rapids District b7o,929 . 238,878 51 1.17b 2-5 518 110 600 5.511 85 1. Kent 2b6,338 77.lb7 «bb 327 l79-b9 862 2e Allegan bi.839 33,885 60 36 18.59 829 3. Barry 22.613 17,b36 35 20 8.U9 5b9 Ionia 35.710 25.22? 35 16.5? 575 3* Mecosta 16.902 11.915 31 12 7.36 563 6. MontCain 2S.5S1 23.260 70 25 12.78 712 7> Sewaygo 19,286 16.766 23 13 6.bo 857 8. Ottawa 59.660 33.238 ill 50 32.80 56b See footnotes at end of table. See footnotes at end of table. Table 3. The coapoaitioa, bated upon existing hospital of prlaary, secondary, propoeed-seoondary, and Isolated districts Baking up broad hospital eervice regions; and county, district, regional, and State totals for selected liens per- tinent to an evaluation of hospital needs in the HAST ROBTH CK9TBAL STATS 3 - Continued Table 3, The composition, based upon existing hospital facilities,! / of prlaary, secondary, proposed-secondary, and Isolated districts Baking up broad hospital serriee regions; and county, district, regional, and State totals for selaeted It ewe per- tinent to an evaluation of hospital needs in the XABT SOUTH CKSTBAL STATES - Continued 1 a g w £ € $ 3 tu S' 8 fd W rH 8 H'V K-i KV 1 I i QrJ * 2 S8R CO Q tO WN-83 h- tO\£. Q Q vo minus KVAf KVVD KVQ OV KV UVlTVit m to KV ics cu rH r- rH-=f mCV VO 60 OrvCfvr»rH KV CU rH KVrH CVJ ■Zt rH KV SSR£ At rH o rH 60 OAt At Q 60 rH rH inincrNO 1 LAN ! AREA is rH H H CVJ cu *s UVrH rH CU rH rH KV rH rH rH rH rH KV rH rH * 1 a 5 S d § g oc 5 “ s 60 60 VO VO 3 rH VO VO in ITS 3 At R? si I $ At m 5 rH in 3 j I r-cnw O w H Kvin»-4 vo vo r-J in KVrH f—At KVfvj 60 rH f—rH At 60 VD KVbO KVKV KV mo cu r- CTv 60 r?SvO f-< VD W O CfV 60 rH CTV 60 rH fdCRS 60 rH t— KVKNO ■8 833 Ss3 a CD VO rH vo m HNHH r4 k- m KVrH rH VO r-4 iRJ? r< Rirt'1 KxS' CU rH »Ol o r> “ § s H « R H 3 € H cr. 5? KV £ Ov VO OV OV rH rH j rH (H H h-KMCCTi jsr miCVAt rH *» rH rH H trsvo N- KV H r-» CTv « irveo^s-vo »h 90 Jt rH r-4 to ovov KV AJ t~-At vo n» At CVJ rH f--ineu At-3- KVAt KVVO m KV rH Q. t- o VD At CU At vo o CTv CU 60 tu o i s« s.S* £ f-g c. in CO kv cvj e\r cu CU KV KV CU KV CU BEOS IN AN ALLIED H08PIT < >- cuvo VOVO S«» At to VD o Pvlu HH Q OViCV At H rH 90 LTv K*x KV KVrH ITiWvO V03 rH *JP&R 3R23 jH 60 o t— ITV60 o> to KV K\ r-4 in rH to 3 mvo 60 KV 3 rH rH SiS5 KVt At At . KV rH «H 60 At At KV KV IASS' O « to RrSS o cr. S>»3>a r—»h HHWW VO l?\Pv£> OVO Q CT.VD Q 0\ O'.VO Q 4TVfO«S i-4 CTv b5 *-4 f—VO »Jf r-4 OVf—O KV !« Vo'j&f^Jt' VOH « KVfwCU vo r-av inovin H KKA a| Kvfn'S VO VD O VD b& At At I- 83$ i-4 a&sa H VO Q r-» m VO O KV KV rH *H 83S3 rH K“\ O «*- trv 90 SO K CVJ r-t r-i tso kv 3- r-4 r-t c KV S^S^JSg rH KV »-H rH At KV rH ■S33°' f fs'~c' ITATE IEOIOH 3 z v o 2 g § 11 9 4* O IJ 4» O -4 N 4» V O •8 g-g 4* •rH $4 4» s II •t* ■H Jtj Sill S §■3* i 2 M W ► 4* 4* O i 4* •H • (4 W 4® U a « «H }v p So S„i»5SS ■ 4» V u -> •*4 «C» & *» o -4 9 £ *3 *s » Fi 6 rH 8 1 4* 4* f* Kj ® B S 8 »Is 15« slaSsI » >4 o ■eH 0 r* p 4» O ■ 4» ♦» 0 ■o fr 1 4» 4* 5 r^3 U K) U % s 4» O t g s ♦» *» o Marie District Lnac O S o s 'll C o « at; s llll o 6 >4 5 J2 s? INCOME (DOLLARS) LAND AREA 5/ PERSONS PER RURAL SOU ARE OOUNTY DESIGNATIONS TOTAL TOTAL PERCENT OF TOTAL TOTAL PER 1,000 PERSONS TOTAL PER 100,000 PERSONS TOTAL (IN MILLIONS) PER CAPITA MILES MILE OHIO (Conti mad) Sandusky Distriot 1. Irl* 2. Enron 7S.001 43.201 34.SCO 37.122 18,327 18.795 48 289 £ 3.7 104 54 50 133 52.69 30.60 22.09 676 761 264 497 102 ftenbenrille District 1. Jefferson 2. Bolaont 3. Harrison 214,056 98.12? 99.614 20,313 115,751 47,s6o 50.386 17,505 54 392 229 163 1.8 175 IS 17 82 100.75 56.62 37.04 7.09 471 '■& S? 157 Youngstown District 1. Mahoning 2. Tronbo.ll 372.566 240,251 132.315 99.196 43.201 55.995 27 1.074 886 188 2.9 391 300 91 105 267.86 176.20 71.66 665 1.049 419 630 355 Froposad-secondary districts! PslnsrrUit District 1. Lab* 2. Ashtabula 118,694 50.020 68.674 59.481 25.738 33.743 50 171 71 100 1.4 129 s 109 76.70 30.83 45-87 646 938 232 706 127 OOLDMBOS HHHOI 1,270,265 576.908 45 2.906 2.3 1.697 134 718.34 566 12.919 98 Primary dlstricti Colnabns District 1. Franklin 2. Delaware t. Fairfield 4. Payette 5. Hearing 5. Haring 7. Madison g. Pickaway 9. Union 638.862 388.712 26,780 48,490 21.3*5 21,504 62.279 21,811 27,889 20,012 213.928 58,444 17.836 26,550 11.983 15.327 30.792 17.114 19.907 15.975 33 1,841 1.675 35 106 25 2.9 l,04l 772 19 15 77 22 24 27 163 405.15 286.23 12.17 22.32 12.89 7.12 34.01 10.51 9.77 10.13 634 4,420 8 4a 686 464 8 145 Secondary districts! Mount Tsrnon Distriot 1. Inox 2. Monos’ 46,670 31.024 15,646 36.548 20,902 15,646 78 117 117 2.5 55 39 16 118 21.36 16.25 5.11 458 936 $ 50 Springfield District 1. Clark 2. Champaign ’as? 25.258 41,908 24.985 16,923 35 293 258 35 2.4 142 110 32 117 71.40 58.33 13-07 591 402 433 145 Zanesville Distriot 1. Hnsringna 2, Coshocton 3- Guernsey 4. Morgan 9. lobls 6. Parry 199,112 69.795 30.594 38.822 14,227 14.587 31.087 128,120 32.295 19.085 23.778 14,227 14,587 24,148 64 340 225 63 52 1.7 172 69 27 31 13 8 24 86 92.25 41.78 15.11 15.57 4.12 u3:g 463 2.989 667 562 3 4o4 409 67 Proposad-asoondary districts! Canton Distriot 1. Hardin 2. Logan 56,685 27,061 29,624 39,284 19,468 19,816 69 64 60 4 1.1 72 33 39 127 26.19 11.39 14.80 462 8 461 61 Marietta District 1. Washington 2. Athena 3. Monroe 108,344 43.537 46,166 18,641 77.890 28.994 £8? 72 102 s 0.9 1? 40 12 91 20.26 20.31 4.12 412 1.596 637 g 68 Marion Distriot la Marion 2. Crawford 3. Wyandot 8:g 35.571 19,218 39.230 14,081 12,822 12.327 39 149 50 99 1.5 116 s 19 116 57.30 24.96 22.43 9.91 575 1.215 405 4o4 406 82 TOLBDO EMIOH 841,952 362.368 43 2.517 3.0 1,081 128 526.01 625 6.946 ia Primary district! Toledo District 1. Lucas 2. Ottawa 3. food 420.489 51.796 115.689 57.301 19.855 38.533 28 1,827 1.760 42 25 4.3 612 537 n 54 146 301.51 266.49 12.80 22.22 717 1,224 545 263 618 344 STATE REGION DISTRICT AND COUNTY DESIGNATIONS POPULATION & BEOS IN GENERAL AND ALLIED SPECIAL HOSPITALS if PHYSICIANS 5/ INCOME (DOLLARS) LAND AREA 2/ IN SQUARE MILES PERSONS PER SQUARE MILE TOTAL RURAL TOTAL PER 1,000 PERSONS TOTAL PER 100,000 PERSONS TOTAL (IN MILLIONS) PER Capita TOTAL PERCENT OF TOTAL OHIO (Continued) Secondary district*: Lima District 230,166 122,521 56 657 2.1 265 120 119-67 563 2.691 82 1. Allan 73.303 25.506 298 107 68.15 610 2. Aaglalse 28.037 17,280 ?u 13-73 600 J. Hancock ‘*0.793 18.632 66 % 20.73 932 4. Mercer 26.256 21,615 51 22 11.22 656 5. Putnaa 25,016 25,016 27 11.52 6s6 6. Van Vert 26.759 16.872 66 50 16.12 609 Proposed-secondary districts: Tremont District 89.513 61,613 66 115 1.3 96 107 68.75 565 961 93 1. Sandusky 1*1.Ol!* 20.536 70 35 21.96 610 2. Seneca 68,699 21.077 65 57 26.79 551 Vsueeon District 71.892 56.966 76 83 1.2 72 100 37-16 517 1,266 58 1. Pulton 23.626 20,610 5? 22 12.62 607 2. Henry 22.756 17.931 16 22 10.12 616 3. Williams 25,510 16.603 16 26 16.61 6a Isolated districts: Defiance District 39.896 27,601 69 35 0.9 36 90 19.12 679 826 68 1. Deflanes 2^.367 12,076 35 21 12.96 610 2. Paulding 15.527 15.527 15 6.18 616 wiscousn 3.137.387 1.658,663 66 12,223 3-9 3.523 112 1,766.19 563 56.715 57 OHEB BAT BIOIOH 329.815 169,382 51 1.029 3.1 269 82 176.76 530 6.563 50 Primary district: Orson Bay District 277.608 131.358 67 935 3.6 237 85 156.52 557 3.676 76 1. Brown S3.10S 30.501 638 87 56.72 525 2. Door 19.095 13.656 66 12 9.06 491 3. Xewannee 16,680 11,695 20 12 6.02 331 4. Manitowoc 61,617 26,911 192 6t 36.71 589 5. Oconto 27.075 21.712 68 15 7.65 1,106 6. Outagamie 70,032 27.082 170 62 60.58 636 Propossd-ssoondary districts: Marlnstta District 52.207 38,026 73 96 1.8 3| 61 20.26 388 2,887 18 1. Harlnstts 36,225 22,062 80 26 15.77 1,38! 2. PIorsmco 6.177 6,177 99 4«9 3. Porest 11,805 11,805 16 6 3.68 1,010 MADISOH BZOICV 715.882 669,813 63 3.131 6.6 896 125 373.65 522 15.632 66 Primary district: Madison District 390.793 208,670 53 1.983 5-1 597 153 232.88 596 5.753 68 1. Bane 130,660 58.670 1,300 325 92.66 1.197 2. Columbia 32.517 22,761 110 61 16.03 778 3. Dodge 56.280 33.528 107 37 22.80 892 6. Iowa 20.595 20.595 76 16 6.98 761 5« Jefferson 38,868 21,109 75 6? 26.52 566 6, Book * 80,172 28,550 237 95 53-17 721 7- Sank 33.700 23.677 80 32 16.92 860 Secondary districts: La Crosse District 166,663 97.868 67 669 6.6 135 92 68.03 666 3.725 39 1. La Crosse 59,653 16.966 522 67 37.6’ 665 2. Buffalo 16,09c 16,09c 16 8 5.66 712 3* Jackson 16.599 16,060 29 1C 6.11 1,000 6. Trempealeau 26,381 26,381 50 26 9.20 739 5. Ternon 29,960 26.391 52 26 9.65 805 800 footnote* at end of teblo. Bo* footnote* at end of tail*. 31 Table 3.— The composition, baaed upon existing hospital of primary, secondary, propo sad-secondary, and isolated districts making up broad hospital serrlce regions; and county, district, regional, and State totals for selected itesis per- tinent to an evaluation of hospital needs in the EAST WORTH CBHTRiL STATES - Continued labia 3.— The competition, baaed upon •zlatlng hoipltnl of primary, aaoondary, propoaad-eaoondary, and laolatad dlitrloti making up Inroad hotpltal earrloe region*; and county*, diatrlot, regional, and State total* for aalaotad Item* par- tlnent to an •valuation of hotpltal nooda in tho SAST WORTH CKHTBAL STATUS - Continued STATE REGION POPULATION BEOS IN GENERAL AND ALLIED SPECIAL HOSPITALS y PHYSICIANS INCOME (DOLLARS) LAND AREA 8/ PERSONS PER RURAL SQUARE COUNTY DESIGNATIONS TOTAL TOTAL PERCENT OF TOTAL TOTAL PER 1,000 PERSONS TOTAL PER 100,000 PERSONS TOTAL (IN MILLIONS) PER CAPITA MILES MILE Wisconsin (Continued) Proposed-secondary districts! Monroe District 1. Green 2. Lafayette Ul.gl*! 23,11*6 18.695 & 18,695 85 89 u 2.1 68 27 a 115 a.16 13.63 7.73 506 S 3* Prairie dn Chien District 1. Crawford 2. Grant 3* Richland 79.3>*8 18,328 1*0,639 20,381 62,637 13.706 32.916 16,017 79 as 71 87 60 2.7 76 19 38 17 93 30.38 5-38 17.56 7.66 383 2.358 586 1,168 586 3“ Sparta District 1. Monroe 2. Ideas 3* Juneau 57.237 30,080 8,l*l*9 18,708 &ai 8,1*1*9 16,087 79 172 117 10 65 3.0 62 26 3 15 73 a.20 11.98 1.96 7.28 370 2.387 915 677 795 26 KILHium EMIOH 1.31*1.855 321,876 2** 5.562 6.1 1.785 133 883.26 658 6,067 2a Prinary district: Milwaukee Dlatrlot 1. Milwaukee 2. Ozaukee 3. B&clne 6. faahlagtoB 5- Tankesha 971.091 766,885 18,985 9U.0U7 28,1*30 62.766 156.598 6l,213 16.959 22,63s 19.068 38.960 16 6.351 3,698 70 373 90 120 6.5 1,612 1.192 19 101 30 70 165 667.55 550.30 10.05 58.80 16.33 36.07 687 1.795 239 235 S 556 561 SeooBdary district*: Pond da Lac District 1. Pond du Lac 2. Green Lake 3- Marquette 85. 62.353 16,092 9.097 67.662 28,668 9.877 9.097 56 S 29 3.6 98 73 16 9 115 65.98 36.97 7-75 3.28 538 1*536 726 % 56 Kenosha District 1. Kenosha 2. Walworth 96,608 63,505 33.103 37.672 16.760 22.732 39 295 220 75 3.1 98 tz 101 62.20 39-18 2J.02 666 833 273 560 116 Othkoah Dlatrlot 1. (lnne'bago 2. fanahara sKns 80.507 ll*, 268 36.528 20,292 16.236 36 269 ? 2.8 86 80 6 91 55.73 50.95 6.78 588 1,082 656 628 88 8h»boy«en Dlatrlot 1. Shehoygaa Z. Calmest 93.839 76.2a 17,618 65.636 28,018 17,618 69 356 356 5.8 91 78 13 97 7.35 552 sa 506 315 116 WAD31D HW3I0H 750.035 517.372 69 2,501 3-3 573 76 336.56 666 26,653 28 Prinary dlatrlot I Woasan District 1. Marathon 2. Clark Langlade U. Lincoln 5* Portage 6. Shawano 7» Taylor 8. Waupaca 9. Wood 326,012 75.915 33.972 23.227 22.536 35.800 35.378 20,105 36.616 1*1*. 1*65 220,231 68,667 31.610 13.732 10,660 20,023 29,813 20,105 23.351 22,690 68 1.109 310 50 125 81 126 38 96 283 3.6 261 68 a 15 17 30 a 10 £ 76 160.82 36.15 12.86 II.36 9-37 15.52 VJ 17.08 22.69 632 9.100 1.592 1,222 858 900 810 1,176 979 751 812 36 Secondary districts: Ashland District 1. Ashland 2. Iron 3. Price 50.317 a,801 10.069 18,1*67 32.589 10,700 6.676 15,215 65 227 202 25 6.5 36 22 5 9 72 a.66 10.92 3.67 6.85 626 3.053 i*?a 1,26s 16 Chippewa Palls District 1. Chippewa 2. Busk 53,1*1*0 60,703 17.737 66,601 30.335 16,066 76 166 131 35 2.8 5 9 76 23.60 17.22 6.18 600 1.935 1.025 910 30 Kan Claire District 1* Won Claire 2. Dunn 3* Pepin 82,271 66.999 27.375 7.897 66,966 16,256 20.793 7.897 55 320 290 30 3-9 67 6s 16 5 81 61.67 27-72 10.28 3.67 506 1.766 569 858 237 *»7 STATE REGION DISTRICT AND COUNTY DESIGNATIONS POPULATION lJ BEOS IN GENERAL AND ALLIED SPECIAL HOSPITALS-1/ PHYSICIAN* ?/ INCOME (DOLLARS) LAND AREA 8/ IN SOU ARC * MILES PERSONS PER SQUARE MILE TOTAL RURAL TOTAL PER 1,000 PERSONS TOTAL PER 100,000 PERSONS TOTAL (IN MILLIONS) PER CAPITA TOTAL PERCENT OF TOTAL VISCOSSIH (Continued) Superior District 0S.36U 60,589 62 329 3*3 77 78 >»i*.68 1*51* 5.713 17 1. Douglaa *7.119 11.983 22* 1*0 *7-95 1,310 2. Bayfield 15.827 15.827 15 11 *.8« l.*7* J. Burnett 11.382 11,382 30 7 2.87 guo U. Sawyer llt5>tO 11,51*0 55 12 Ms 1.273 5* WaahBorn 12.1*96 9.857 7 *.63 816 Propoaad-aaoondary dlatrlotai Preaoott Blatrlot *6.313 1*0,520 87 103 2.2 36 78 20.11 i*ji* 1.327 35 1. Pleroe 21,1*71 18.955 88 17 9.23 591 2. St. Croix 2**,gl*2 21,565 15 19 10.88 736 Bhinelander Blatrlot 27,852 19.331 69 75 2.7 25 90 17.1*3 626 1,981 11* 1. Onalda 18.938 10.1*37 75 17 11.71* l.llU 2. Tllaa 8,89* 8,89!* 8 5.69 867 Rloe Lake Dlatrlot 60,1*86 5*.767 91 172 2.8 1*8 79 25.19 1*16 1,800 5>* 1. Barron 3*.289 28,570 112 PH 15.08 866 2. Polk 26,197 26.197 60 2** 10.11 931* J,/ Hospital bad totals used for selecting hospital centers and defining eervioe districts and regions within each State were obtained by tabulating data published for individual general and allied special hospitals in the Journal of the American Medical Association, Vol. 121, Ho. 13* March 27* 19**3« Included in the general and allied special category are all general hospitals plus those rendering specialised services commonly provided by general hospitals, l.e. maternity, Industrial, Isolation, eye-aar- nose-throat, orthopedic, children*s, convalescent and rest, chronic, and others offering similar limited types of care. Osneral hospitals operated by the Bureau of Indian Affaire are counted on the assumption that they represent facilities operated on a local area basis, but other federal hospitals are excluded. Also In the excluded group are all mental and tuberculosis hospitals and Infirmary units of correctional and custodial Institutions. 2/ County population totals from; Population, first Series, U. S. Summary, Table 17, Sixteenth Census of the United States: 19*K), 2/ Physloiaa totals represent counts of all physicians listed in the I9UO American Medical Directory. 2/ Estimates of effective buying Income in 19*40* made by Sales Management on the basis of money actually paid for goods and services, federal allotments, money paid out of savings and surpluses by business and financial Institutions, plus the nonmoney income of farm and village residents, were obtained for counties and States from: Sales management survey ef buying power. Sales Management, Vol. **B, Ho. 8, April 10, 19*41. These data have been reproduced with permission of Sales Management, Inc. 9/ Land area la square miles from; Population, first Series, U. 8. Summary, Table 17» Sixteenth Census of the United Staten 19*40. % 32 See footnotes st end of table. Table 4. The eoapoeltion, baaed upon existing boepltal facilities, 1/ of primary, secondary, proposed-secondary, and Isolated districts making up broad hospital ssrrlcs regions; and county, district, regional, and Stats totals for selected Items per- tinent to an evaluation of hospital needs In the VIST WORTH CffITRJLL STATXB Table U.— The composition, based upon existing hospital facilities,i/ of primary, secondary, proposed-secondary, and Isolated districts making up broad hospital service regions; and county, district, regional, and State totals for selected Items per- tinent to an evaluation of hospital needs in the WIST NORTH CENTRAL STATES - Continued STATE RESIGN POPULATION^7 •COS IN SENCRAL AND ALLIED SPECIAL HOSPITAL %V PNTSIOIANS^ INOOSK^ (DOLLARS) LAND AREA 8/ PERSONS PER RURAL SOU ARE MILES SQUARE COUNTY DESIGNATIONS TOTAL TOTAL PERCENT OF TOTAL TOTAL PER 1.000 PERSONS TOTAL PER 100,000 PERSONS TOTAL (IN MILLIONS) PER CAPITA MILE IOWA 2,538,26s 1.454,037 57 7,209 2.8 3.083 121 1.367.55 539 55.986 45 COUHCIL BLUWS RBOIOH 312.334 218,289 70 623 2.0 310 99 137.71 44l 9.097 34 Prtsary dlatrlott Council Bluffs District 1. Pottawattanle 2. Cass 3. Harrison 4. Hills 5. Montgonery 6. Shalby 'S:fp 18,647 22,767 15.06U 15.697 16,720 90.425 25.317 12,845 18.773 10.563 9.934 12.993 58 349 285 50 14 2.2 !58 69 21 20 17 19 12 102 78.15 41.69 9.15 7.58 5.09 7.73 6,91 502 693 z 587 43 Pruposed-oseondary districts: Creston District 1. Union 2. Adair J. Adams H. Hlnggold 5. Taylor 65,027 16,280 13.196 10,156 11.137 14,258 56.994 8,247 13.196 10,156 11.137 14.258 88 60 60 0.9 55 16 11 7 10 11 85 23-35 a 3.48 359 !,5S 538 528 26 Osceola District 1. Clarks 2. Decatur 3. Lucas 4. Wayne 52,124 10.233 14,012 I1*. 571 13.508 43.089 6.952 14,012 8.817 13.308 83 115 65 30 20 2.2 49 10 11 15 13 94 18.19 w 349 1.925 429 9 532 27 Isolated districts: Shenandoah District 1. Page 2. Trenont 39.532 24,887 14,645 27.781 70 99 S 2.5 4g 33 15 121 18.02 13-72 4.50 456 1,047 535 512 38 DK voms HXOIOH 738.276 361,377 49 1.940 2.6 911 123 435.00 589 12,824 58 Primary district: Das Moines District 1. Polk 2 e Boone Dallas h. Jasper 5. Madison 6. Marion 7# Story 8. Warren 37U.U35 195.835 29.782 24,649 31.496 14,525 27.019 33,*f34 17.695 147.316 31.764 17.409 18,672 21,034 10,894 16.445 17.526 13.572 39 919 788 20 61 10 4o 2.5 525 322 23 39 35 12 8 15 l4o 243.89 165.67 12.50 11.66 15.49 5.60 9.09 20.00 5.88 651 / 573 8 565 568 568 572 78 Secondary districts: Marshalltown District 1. Marshall 2. Hardin Poweshiek U, Tana 99.122 35.406 22.530 18.758 22,428 63,862 16,166 14.552 13.548 19.596 64 1 359 216 s 3.6 124 46 31 21 26 125 4s.o4 19.35 10.64 9.50 8.55 485 574 589 720 4o Mason City District 1. Cerro Oordo 2. Tloyd 3. Iranklln 4. Hancock §. Mitchell 6. Winnebago 7. Worth 20.169 16.379 15,402 14,121 m 86,065 13.001 11,488 12.373 15,402 10,925 11,427 11,449 64 358 225 60 46 27 2.6 22 15 ll 18 6 100 67.21 30.79 8.4l 5.73 5.88 5.78 6.56 4.06 497 3.505 576 s 9 402 401 39 Waterloo District 1. Black Hawk 2. Bremer Butler h. Grundy 129,382 79.946 17.932 17.986 13.518 64,134 18,854 13.776 17.986 13.518 50 304 254 50 2.3 127 83 20 13 11 98 75-86 55.74 8.26 6.30 5.56 586, 2,089 51 582 501 62 STATE RESIGN DISTRICT POPULATION V BEOS IN GENERAL AND ALLIED SPECIAL HOSPITALS y PHYSICIAN* y INCOME (DOLLARS) LAND AREA 8/ PERSONS PER AND RURAL SQUARE MILES SQUARE COUNTY DESIGNATIONS TOTAL TOTAL PERCENT OF TOTAL TOTAL PER 1,000 PERSONS TOTAL PER 100,000 PERSONS TOTAL (IN MILLIONS) PER CAPITA MILE IOWA (Continued) IOTA OITT REGION 898,176 97!*, 829 53 3.279 3-6 1.229 137 998.91 555 17.915 50 Primary district: • Iowa City District 1. Johnson 2. Cedar Iowa Louisa 5. Muscatine 6. Washington 129,826 86,613 67 33,191 16,009 16.88U lU.366 17.016 17,016 11,389 11,389 31,296 13,010 20,055 1U.828 1,150 8.9 1.000 8 92 50 350 259 226 18 18 15 32 21 66.59 513 a.os 7.16 7.09 1?S 9-25 3.199 9l 620 585 889 903 939 568 Secondary districts: Burlington District 1. Des Moines 2. Henry 3# Lee 95,872 36.291 38 36.809 10,972 17,999 13,389 91,079 11.935 596 5-7 255 26 265 122 127 39 25 58 57.37 598 27.92 6.03 23.92 1.371 70 9og 99o 522 Cedar Bapids District 1* Linn 2. Benton I. Buchanan h, Delaware 5. Jones 171,999 82,529 Us 89,192 22,301 22,879 15.51U 20,991 16,61*9 18,987 19,725 19.950 13.335 922 2.5 287 25 35 75 as 125 126 23 26 23 17 105.31 6i9 75-37 8.96 7-25 6.55 7.18 3.158 59 713 718 569 573 585 Davenport District 1. Scott 2. Clinton 129,1*70 39.018 89,71*8 15.566 1*1*,722 18.952 26 £ 175 3.9 162 125 109 53 101.19 781 69.13 32.01 1,198 113 953 695 Dubuque District 1. Dubuque 2. Clayton 3. Jackson 107.283 59.315 55 63.768 19.876 29.331* 29,331* 19,181 15.105 260 2.9 230 10 20 129 116 77 28 19 57.18 533 9i.03 7.88 8.27 2.030 53 608 778 691* Ottumwa District 1. Wapello 2. Appanoose ■J. Davis Jefferson 5- Keokuk 6. Mahaska 7. Monroe 8. Tan Buren’ 166,920 101,251 61 UU,280 12.710 2l*,2l*5 15.832 11,136 8,9o9 15,762 8,989 18,1*06 18,906 26,1*85 15,1*61 lU,553 9.396 12,053 12.053 278 1.7 162 50 11 30 25 175 105 96 18 11 a 23 5 13 73-52 9i*o 27.29 8.67 3.a 6.63 6.89 12.91 9.28 3.69 3,g78 92 523 8 579 i 987 Propo«»d-*«oondary district*: Hew Hampton District 1. Chickasaw 2. Allamakee 3. Payette U. Howard 5* Winneshiek 97.356 79,817 77 15,227 12,29!* 17,189 19,212 29,151 a.350 13,531 10,001 22,263 16,960 179 1.8 51 22 51 25 30 101 109 19 17 36 11 18 37.30 383 5.88 5.75 12.97 9.82 7.88 3.031 32 505 639 728 971 688 SIOUX cm REGION 589.982 399.592 68 1.372 2-3 633 107 296.93 503 16,150 37 Primary dUtrlet! Sioux City District 1. Woodbury 2. Cherokee 3. Ida h, Monona 5. Plymouth 175,672 77.098 91* 103,627 a. 263 19,258 11,789 11,097 11.097 18,238 19,800 23,502 18,11*9 712 9.1 569 35 29 5^ a6 123 % 26 m.09 632 82.93 8.15 5.02 S:S 3.922 51 866 689 863 Secondary districts: Carroll District 1. Carroll 2. Audubon 3. Crawford Greene 5. Guthrie 6. Sac 106,51*6 89.593 89 22.770 17.381 11,790 11.790 20,538 16,177 16.599 12,511 17,ao 17.ao 17,639 19,979 135 1.3 120 15 117 no 29 16 25 16 22 93.39 907 10.66 9.61 n 5-73 7.76 3,1*81 31 5S 716 569 596 578 See footnotes at end of table. See footnotes at end of table. 33 Table U.— The composition, based upon existing hospital of primary, secondary, proposed-secondary, and isolated districts making up broad hospital service regions; and county, district, regional, and State totals for selected items per- tinent to an evaluation of horplfcal needs in the ITS ST NORTH CENTRAL STATES - Continued Table U. The composition, based upon existing hospital facilities,!/ of primary, secondary, proposed-secondary, and isolated districts making up broad hospital service regions; and county, district, regional, and State totals for selected items per- tinent to an evaluation of hospital needs in the VEST NORTH CENTRAL STATES - Continued STATE REGION DISTRICT AND COUNTY DESIGNATIONS POPULATION S' BEDS IN GENERAL AND ALLIED SPECIAL HOSPITALS^/ PHYSICIANS S' INCOME^ (DOLLARS) LAND AREA 5/ IN SQUARE MILES PERSONS PER SQUARE MILE .. . TOTAL RURAL TOTAL PER 1,000 PERSONS TOTAL PER 100,000 PERSONS TOTAL (IN MILLIONS) PER CAPITA TOTAL PERCENT OF TOTAL IOWA (Continued) Tort Dodge District 128.790 89.336 69 283 2.2 163 111 65.66 508 3.659 37 1. Webster 61,5a 18,617 225 66 28.36 718 2. Calhoun 17.536 17.536 30 22 7.5? 572 Hamilton 19,922 13,186 22 8.36 577 4, Humboldt 13.%9 10,660 7 5.28 635 5* Pocahontas 16,266 16,266 20 6.55 580 6. Wright 20.038 13.063 28 26 9.36 577 Isolated districts: Spencer District 178,676 163,617 80 262 1.6 157 88 76.6P 629 5,788 31 1. Olay 17.762 11.163 26 IS 10.16 571 2. Buena Vista 19,333 16,566 24 18 9.26 573 Dickinson 12,185 12,185 15 13 5.65 382 h, Emmet 13,606 7.755 35 15 6.6? 395 5» Kossuth 26,630 21,676 30 IS 10.32 979 6. Lyon 15.376 12,818 20 1; 5.29 588 7. O'Brien 19.?93 15.525 32 21 9*59 575 8. Osceola 10,607 10,607 16 ' 6.62 398 9. Palo Alto 16,170 12.796 23 13 6.55 561 10. Sioux 27,209 26,52s a 19 8.59 766 KANSAS 1,801,028 1,067,087 58 5.669 3.0 2,070 115 811.90 651 82,113 22 KANSAS Cm REGION 1.217.506 722,806 59 3.237 2.7 1.627 117 516.57 626 67.710 26 Primary district: Kansas City District 178.398 52.961 30 829 6.6 217 122 79-01 663 627 285 X. Wyandotte 165.071 23.613 814 191 69.68 151 2. Johnson 33.327 29.368 15 20 9-53 676 Secondaiy districts: Emporia District 71.905 52.039 72 161 2.0 77 107 32.90 658 6,139 17 1. Lyon 26,626 13.236 161 33 15.62 852 2. Chase 6.365 6.365 5 2.26 776 1. Coffey 12,27! 12,278 10 6.37 656 4. Greenwood 16,695 12,692 18 6.83 1.150 5. Morris 10,363 7.6ss 11 3.S6 707 Tort Scott District 66,665 66,037 68 165 2.2 62 96 23.98 372 2.328 28 1. Bourbon 20,966 10,387 110 2] S.89 639 2. Allen 19,376 12,630 35 23 7.32 505 J. Anderson 11,658 9.051 11 3.90 577 6. Linn 11,969 11.969 7 3-87 607 Hays District 69,682 58,278 84 165 2.1 60 86 25.08 361 6.106 11 1. BUI* 17.508 11,12’ 165 15 6.01 900 2* Graham 6,071 6.071 : 1.70 891 3. 0shorn* 9.335 9.835 ll 3-71 898 4. Rooks 8,697 8,697 1 3.03 893 5. Rush 8,235 8,285 1 2.94 726 6. Russell 13,666 8,665 11 5.82 897 7. Trego 5.822 5,822 1.81 901 Learsnworth District 76.270 66,602 58 165 2.2 113 168 27.83 365 1.277 60 1. Learenworth 61,112 a, 892 120 82 15.86 665 2. Atchison 22,222 9.576 65 26 8.87 6a 3. Doniphan 12.936 12.936 7 3.12 391 Sabetha District 69.157 58.992 85 183 2*6 70 101 26.07 377 3.068 23 1. Hemaha 16,761 16,761 100 18 5.86 7oq 2, Brosn 17.395 11,285 25 13 7.32 578 3. Marshall 20,986 16,931 38 22 7.83 qn 4. Pottawatomie 16,015 16.015 20 17 5.08 850 STATE REGION POPULATION BEOS IN GENERAL AND ALLIED SPECIAL HOSPITALS ■*/ PHYSICIANS y INCOME (DOLLARS) LAND AREAS/ PERSONS PER RURAL SQUARE COUNTY DESIGNATIONS TOTAL TOTAL PERCENT OF TOTAL TOTAL PER 1,000 PERSONS TOTAL PER 100,000 PERSONS TOTAL (IN MILLIONS) PER CAPITA MILES MILE KAXSA8 (Continued) Saline District 1. Saline 2. Dickinson lllsworth 4, Lincoln 5* Ottawa 79,881 29.535 22.929 9.855 8.33? 9,22b 1:81 13.**5!* 9.855 8.338 9,22U 62 205 135 s 2.6 81 1*6 13 7 7 8 101 36.bb 17.87 9.3s 3.8b 2.1b 3.21 1*56 3.7b7 720 855 TV 726 723 a Topeka District 1. Shawnee 2. Jackaon J. Jeffereon 4. Osage 5« Wabaunsee lbl,68b 91.2U7 13.382 12,718 15,118 9.219 70,966 23,blb 10,1*97 12,718 15.118 9,219 50 587 587 b.i a2 159 12 i I lb 150 73.19 5?. 39 b.08 2.93 b.19 2.60 517 3,262 5^ 721 791 b3 Propoaad-eeoondary dlatrlota: Chanute District 1. Veosho 2. Wilson 3* Woodson 1*7,9’*7 22,210 17.723 8,014 30.905 12,068 10,823 8,01>* 6U 86 56 30 1.8 1*2 20 18 1* 88 16.05 8.51 5.5b 2.00 335 1,665 587 57b 50b 29 Concordia District 1. Cloud 2. Jewell 3. Mitchell 4. Republic 3* Washington 69,601 n,2hj 11.970 11.33? 13.12& 15,921 57.001 10,992 11.970 7.57? 10,51*1* 15,921 82 139 75 Ul* 20 2.0 71 22 \l 13 9 102 25.05 7.67 3.2b 5.80 360 3.952 711 915 716 719 891 IS Lawrence Dletrlot 1. Donglaa 2. Traaklln 3. Ulami 65.5b9 25.171 20,889 19,bag 33.310 10,781 10,696 11.833 51 105 65 Uo 1.6 105 55 25 25 160 29.29 13.86 §. 08 6.35 bb7 1.637 1*68 577 592 bo Manhattan Clatrlet 1. Blley 2. Olay J. deary U9.120 20,617 13,281 15,222 zb, 1*36 8.95s 8,763 6.715 50 90 50 bo 1.8 69 28 15 26 ibo 23.53 10.84 5.99 6.70 b79 1,681 62b 658 399 29 Parsons District 1. Labette 2« Montgomery 80,081 30.352 *9.729 31.053 16,058 lb. 995 39 209 98 111 2.6 88 3b 5b no 36.81 13.62 23.19 b6o “I j 61 Pittsburg District 1. Crawford 2. Cherokee 7b,008 bb.igi 29.817 1*1,185 2U,o66 17.119 56 121 100 21 1.6 ?2 67 25 12b 31.36 23-17 8.19 b2b 1.185 598 587 62 Initiated dlatrlota; Colby District 1. Thomas 2. Cheyenne ”5* Core 4. Logan 5. Rawlins 6. Sheridan 7. Sherman S. Wallace bi.egb 6.U25 6,221 '♦,793 3,688 6,618 5.312 6,ba 2,216 38.388 6,1*25 6,221 b.793 3,688 6,618 5.312 3.115 2,216 92 b2 23 19 1.0 3i 3 5 5 2 6 2 7b I6.b6 3.13 2.20 ilif i:8 3.62 1.05 395 8,177 1.070 1,027 1.070 1.073 1,078 893 1.055 911 5 Horton Dletrlot 1. Horton 2. Decatnr 3. Phllllpe It. Smith 38,282 9.831 7>3b 10.1*35 10,582 35.520 7,06? 7.b3b 10.1*35 10,582 93 b5 30 15 1.2 37 15 8 5 9 97 13-52 3.68 2.72 3.88 3.2b 353 3.578 880 3 893 11 WICHITA HHOIOH 583.521* 32b, 281 56 2,212 3.8 6b3 no 295.33 506 3b,b03 17 Primary dletrloti Wichita District 1. Sedgwick 2, Butler 3* Kingman 187.325 lb3.311 32.013 12,001 55.280 28.3b5 I8,ib7 8,788 30 S92 825 60 7 b.s 256 211* 28 lU 137 115.13 96.78 lb.10 b.25 615 3.309 1.3 S65 57 See footnotes at end of table. See footnotes at end of table. 34 Table U. The composition, bated upon existing hospital of primary, secondary, and Isolated dietricta making up broad hotpltal terries regions; and county, district, regional, and State totals for selected items per- tinent to an oralnation of hospital needs in the VS3T NORTH CENTRAL STATES - Continued Table U,— The composition, bated upon existing hospital of primary, secondary, proposed-secondary, and Isolated districts making up broad hospital terries regions; and county, district, regional, and State totals for selected items per- tinent to an eraluation of hospital needs in the WEST NORTH CENTRAL STATES - Continued •eos m 8ENCRAL •TATE POPULATION AND A 5 INCOME 3/ RESIGN ALLIED SPECIAL (DOLLARS) PERSONS hospitals^ PER AMD RURAL SQUARE ■SQUARE MILE COUNTY TOTAL PER PER TOTAL PER CAPITA MILES DETONATIONS TOTAL TOTAL or TOTAL 1,000 PERSONS TOTAL 100,000 PERfiONS (IN MILLIONS) UISAS (Continued) Secondary districts; Great Bend Dietriot 35.310 19,019 59 135 3.8 31 88 15.96 952 l,69i 22 1. Barton 25,010 12,29? 135 IS 11.22 % 2. Pawnee / 10,300 6.767 13 9.79 Halstead District 611,815 96.573 10,669 72 383 5.9 79 122 28.65 99g 2.3?9 590 27 1. Harray 21,71? 286 U2 10,20 2. Marion 18,951 18.951 35 16 6.83 959 3. UoPhereon 29,152 16,958 60 21 11.62 895 Hutchinson District 32.213 51.112 55 258 2.8 91 99 95.37 992 3.999 26 1. Beno 52.165 22,152 157 53 26.91 1.255 2. Pratt 12,3*18 5.757 20 11 6.80 729 3. Bice 17,213 12,716 56 17 8.07 721 9. Stafford 10,987 10,98? 25 10 9.09 799 Proposed-secondary districts: Dodge City District ue'esi* 38.167 82 100 2.1 97 101 20.70 999 6,106 8 1. Pord 17.25*1 8,767 90 20 10.28 1,083 2. Clark U,0S1 9,081 10 6 1.67 98*1 3. Idwards 6,377 6.377 6 2.82 6l9 9. Cray *»,772 9.773 1 1.92 86g 5- Sod^eaan 3,535 3.535 .88 860 6. Kiowa 5.112 5.112 6 1.95 720 7. Meade 5.522 5.522 6 2.18 976 Mulraae Olatrlet 38.231 28,112 79 132 3.5 93 112 15.68 910 1.9*9 19 1. Stumer a6,l61 18,917 ?° 35 9.79 1.1*3 2. Harper 12,068 9.195 92 8 5.99 *01 Winfield Dletrlet 55.552 33.299 60 162 2.9 59 97 29.20 936 2.930 23 1. Cowley 32,139 15.881 162 91 19.11 1.136 2. Chautauqua 9.233 9.233 6 2.88 667 3. Slk 8,180 8,180 7 2.21 69? Isolated districts: Carden City District 32.593 26,258 81 85 2.6 18 55 19.10 933 7.178 5 1. Tlnney 10,092 3,807 93 6 6.29 1,302 2. Oreeley 3. Hamilton I.63S 2,69? 1.63s 2.695 31 1 2 .99 1.00 783 992 U. Kearny 2.525 2.525 1 .76 *53 5< Lens 2,821 2,821 2 1.07 720 6, leee 6,869 6,869 2 2.13 1,0*1 7. Scott 3.773 3.773 11 3 1.58 723 8. Wichita 2,185 2.185 1 .88 729 Literal District 1,996 12,986 75 65 3.7 13 75 9.58 551 3.916 9 1. Seward 2. Grant 2,130 1,996 9? 5 1 9.83 •92 568 3. Haskell 2,068 2,088 1 .62 579 h, Morton 2,186 2,186 18 2 1-27 725 5. Stanton 1,993 1.99J 2 .63 676 o, Stevens 3.193 3.193 2 1.31 729 Medicine Lodge Dletrlet 13.985 13,9*5 100 11 82 5.96 992 1.996 7 1. Barter 9.073 9.073 2 9.p 1,196 2. Coseacbe 9,912 9,912 3 1.60 800 mart so? a 2,792.300 1,902,202 50 12.355 9.9 3.527 126 1,599.80 571 80,009 35 WLOTH KBCIOB 560,620 392,921 61 1,861 3.3 969 83 269,59 972 37.69J 15 Priaary dletrlet: Duluth District 289,639 117.585 9l 1,101 3.9 279 96 169.95 ■ 595 17,932 16 1. St. Louis 2. Aitkin 206,917 17.865 59,355 17.865 989 221 s i9o.go 9.9s 6,281 1,829 J. Cook 3.030 3.030 65 9 1.13 1,903 9. Itasca 32.996 28,121 25 11.53 2.663 5- Koochiching 16.930 11.309 22 12 6.82 6. Lake 6.956 2,910 30 9 9.09 2,132 BEDS IN GENERAL •TATE POPULATION AND PHYSICIAN* 5/ INCOME REGION ALLIED SPECIAL (DOLLARS) AREAS'' PERSONS HOSPITAL*!/ PER AND RURAL SOUARE SQUARE MILE COUNTY TOTAL PER PER TOTAL PEH CAPITA MILES DESIGNATIONS TOTAL TOTAL OF TOTAL 1,000 PERSONS TOTAL 100,000 PERSONS (IN MILLIONS) urmrasow. (Continued) Secondary districts: Creokston District 121,096 106,603 s6 292 2.6 78 a 66 62.56 35i 8,656 16 1. Polk 37.736 ' 27,062 126 31 16.6- 2,012 2. Clearwater n.153 11.153 . 2.71* 1,005 1,126 *5. Kittson 10,717 10,717 31 g 6.51 U, Mahnonen g.056 8,056 15 1.76 576 5. Marshall IS.36U 18,366 30 1 5.50 1,800 6. Korean 16.766 16,766 25 4.68 885 7. Pennington. 12.913 7,613 6,896 65 1; 6.82 622 S. Bed Lake 7.613 2.10 632 Propoeed-eeeondary districts! Bemidjl District 58,270 66,200 79 133 2-3 33 57 19.77 339 6. **33 9 1. Beltraal 26,107 16,680 87 18 10.56 2.517 2. Hubbard 11,085 8,662 3.55 9^2 3. Lake of the food* 5.975 5.975 2 1.37 1.308 U. Roseau 15.103 15,103 66 1 6.31 1,676 Bralnerd District 50.872 35.81*7 70 182 3-6 65 88 17-95 353 3.052 17 1. Crow ling 30,226 15,201 95 26 12.75 999 2. Csss 20,6>t6 20,666 87 19 5.20 2.053 Cloquet District iw.ego 38,386 86 153 3.3 3** 76 l6.s6 325 2.272 20 It Carlton 2. Pins 24, ZLZ ZL.kfS 16,908 21,678 77 76 23 11 9.18 5.68 860 1,612 vmtupous HIOICJ 1,960,872 890,162 65 8,620 6.6 2.355 120 1,198.18 611 36,120 5>* Prlnary district: Minneapolis District 710,1»«8 168,071 21 3.562 5.0 1.139 160 567.10 770 3.550 201 1. Hennepin 568.899 66,069 3.357 1,032 491.62 5*5 2. Anoka 3. Carror 22,U43 17.606 9.982 17.606 10 11 6.19 6.90 625 358 Dakota 39.660 16,621 66 28 19.61 57! 5. Isanti 12.950 12.95C 17,693 12 11 3.9s W2 6. McLeod 21,380 63 22 S.97 698 7. Wright 27.550 27.550 25 25 9-83 671 Secondary districts: Perga* Palls District 166,818 130.75C 78 666 2.8 125 75 66.86, 389 7.619 22 1. Otter Tall 53.192 42,361 175 63 17.6g 2,000 2. Becker 26.562 a, 567 72 17 8.6s 1,515 3. Olay 25.337 15,866 50 IS 16.02 1,050 Douglas 20.369 15.318 50 15 8.18 637 5* Grant 9,828 9.S28 9 6.19 557 6. Trawerns 8,283 8,283 16 5 3.12 572 7. Wadena 12.772 9.856 63 12 5.72 536 S. Wilkin 10,1*75 7.730 62 6 3.67 752 Mankato District 118,268 78,267 65 298 2.5 1U 97 57-39 665 3.031* 59 1. Blue Harth 36.203 20,569 150 6l 23-79 7>K 2, Taribault 23,91*1 20,239 22 19 10.90 713 3. Martin 24,656 ' 17,668 5 23 10.25 7°7 ft. Kioollet 18.282 S.S95 16 5.71 659 5* Waseca 15,186 10,916 26 13 6.76 615 Hew Uln District 95.326 80 328 2.7 96 79 56.0' •*53 " 6,238 28 1. Brown 13,878 165 26 13.2* 613 2. Cottonwood 16.163 13.336 70 12 7.04 660 3. Jackson 16,805 13.965 27 13 6.83 698 h. Redwood 22,290 19,020 23 16 10.67 S76 5. Renville 26,625 26,625 17 9-5’ Qgo 6. Watonwan 13.902 10,502 **3 10 6,7« 633 St. Cloud District 180,565 133.316 76 660 2.6 126 70 69.09 383 5.270 3>* 1. Steams 67,200 66,950 252 62 30.11 1.356 UoU 2, Benton 16,106 10.371 5.66 3. Kandiyohi 26,526 18,901 35 20 11.85 826 h. Meeker 19.277 15.357 6i 12 6.32 620 5* Pope as 10,980 51 8 6.21 681 6. Sherburne 8,271 2.87 638 7. Todd 27.638 26,686 59 16 8.09 967 See footnotes at end of table. See footnotes at end of table. 35 Table U.— The composition, based upon existing hoepltal facilities,!/ of primary, eeoondary, propoeed-eecondary, and Isolated districts making up broad hospital service regions; and county, district, regional, and State totals for selected Items per- tinent to an evaluation of hospital needs In the TEST NORTH CENTRAL STATES Continued Table U.— The composition, based upon existing hospital facilities,i/ of primary, secondary, propoted-secondary, and Isolated districts making up broad hospital service regions; and county, district, regional, and State totals for selected lte*s per- tinent to an evaluation of hospital needs In the WIST NORTH CENTRAL STATES - Continued STATE REGION POPULATION BEOS IN GENERAL AND ALLIED SPECIAL HOSPITALS-*/ PHYSICIANS INCOME^ (DOLLARS) LAND AREA 8/ PERSONS PER RURAL SQUARE MILES SQUARE COUNTY DESIGNATIONS TOTAL TOTAL PERCENT OF TOTAL TOTAL PER 1,000 PERSONS TOTAL PER 100,000 PERSONS TOTAL (IN MILLIONS) PER CAPITA MILE • Minnesota (Continued) * St. Paul District 1. Ram Bey 2. Chisago 3. Washington 349,489 309,935 13,124 26,1*30 1*6, ni* 16,206 13,121* 16,781* 13 2.592 2.529 21 42 7.4 3 9 28 144 276.36 261.24 4.75 10.36 791 969 160 4ig 390 361 Shakopee District 1. Scott 2. Le Sueur 3. Rice 4. Sibley 83.597 15.585 19,227 32,160 16,625 64,537 15.585 19.227 13,100 16,625 77 216 112 18 ' 86 2.6 86 l4 Uo 13 103 31-63 5-83 7.18 12.62 6.00 378 1.S69 Si2 495 581 45 Propoted-secondary districts: Little Palls District 1. Morrison 2. Kanabec 3* Mllle Lace 52,682 27.1*73 9.651 15.558 1*6,635 21,426 9,651 15,558 89 ll 15 1.9 30 17 3 10 57 16.85 7.67 2.87 ' 6.31 320 2,229 1.136 525 568 2U Montevideo District 1. Chippewa 2. Lac qui Parle 3. Swift 4. Yellow Medicine 64,822 16,927 15.509 15,469 16,917 56 . 873 11.707 15.509 12,740 16.917 88 204 50 £ 57 3-1 47 11 10 10 16 73 28.00 8.95 5.40 6.52 7-13 432 2,860 582 773 747 758 23 Pipestone District 1. Pipestone 2. Lincoln 3. Lyon 4. Murray 5. Robles o. Rock 93.368 13.791* 10.797 21.569 15,060 21.215 10.933 71.979 9,112 10.797 13,894 15,060 15.297 7.819 77 333 81 61 91 25 59 16 3.6 72 12 8 18 8 20 6 77 42.89 7.27 3-58 11.75 5-38 10.14 4.77 459 3,622 464 540 713 70S 712 1*85 26 Isolated districts: Morris District 1. Stevens 2. Big Stone 21,1*86 11,019 10,1*47 18.272 7.825 10,447 85 82 32 50 3-8 IS 7 11 84 1% 5.63 464 1,080 570 510 20 ROCHESTER REGION 270,808 169.639 63 1.874 6.9 70S 261 132.03 488 6,246 43 Primary district: Rochester District 1. Olmsted 2. Dodge 3. Pillmore U, Goodhue 5. Wabasha 130.636 42,658 12.931 25,830 31.561* 17.653 91.158 16,346 12,931 25.830 a, 602 14,449 70 1.520 1.299 15 120 86 11.6 593 508 10 27 30 18 1*54 63.1*6 25.87 4.52 9.96 15.97 7.14 4s6 3,228 655 435 859 75s 521 4o Secondary districts: Austin District 1. Mower 2. Preoborn 3. Steele 87,61*2 36,113 31.780 19.749 48,44l 17,806 19,580 11,055 55 227 105 72 50 2.6 72 s 19 82 44.19 17.66 17.53 9.00 504 1.830 703 702 425 4s Winona District 1. Winona 2. Houston 52.530 37.795 14.735 30,o4o 15.305 14.735 57 127 112 15 2.U 43 31 12 82 24.38 19.15 5.23 464 1,188 623 565 44 MISSOURI 3,784,664 1,823,968 u« 12,740 3.4 5.299 140 1,908.28 504 69,270 55 COLUMBIA REGION 5**9.205 401,755 73 1.149 2.1 547 100 181.56 331 20,361 27 Primary district: Columbia District 1. Boons 2. Audrain 3. Callaway 4. Cooper 5. Howard 6. Moniteau 7. Randolph 11*8,092 3l». 991 22.673 23,094 18,075 13,026 85.529 16,592 10,948 14.797 11,986 10,418 9.250 11.538 58 584 298 53 75 20 33 105 3.9 % a 30 23 13 9 33 132 57.89 19.02 8.81 5.94 6.28 3.45 3.42 10.97 391 4^144 683 692 835 469 418 1*84 36 BEDS IN GENERAL STATE \ POPULATION & AND PHYSICIANS 5/ INCOME5' LAND PERSONS REGION ALLIED SPECIAL (DOLLARS) ANCA & HOSPITALS PER RURAL SQUARE MILES SQUARE COUNTY PER PER TOTAL PER CAPITA MILE DESIGNATIONS TOTAL TOTAL OF TOTAL 1,000 TOTAL 100,000 (IN TOTAL PERSONS PERSONS MILLIONS) MISSOURI (Continued) Secondary dlatrlotel Hannibal District 77.525 56,660 73 225 2,9 » 77 99 29-04 375 ’•85 50 1. Marlon 31.576 11,49c 10,711 225 43 16.6S 2. Lewis 11.490 11 3.07 505 Monroe h. Ralls 13.195 10,040 13.195 10,040 3-99 1.72 669 478 5. Shelby 11,224 11,224 10 3-58 502 Jefferson City District 62,085 35.227 57 100 1.6 60 97 23-17 373 1.589 39 1. Cole 34,912 10,644 100 4l 17-58 385 2. Miller 14,798 12,208 3.70 603 3. Osage 12.375 12.375 11 1.89 601 Holla District 93.533 17.437 85.060 91 143 1.5 73 78 23.61 252 4.973 19 1. Phelps 12,296 143 16 6.08 677 2. Crawford 12.693 12.512 5 3.00 760 3. Dent 11.763 8,612 6 3.61 756 U. Gasconade 12,411 12,414 15 3.20 520 5. Marie. 8,638 8,638 .68 526 6. Pulaski 10,775 10,775 f 2.68 551 7* Texas 19.813 19.813 17 4.36 1.183 Propose4-secondary districts: Kirksrille district 122,314 98,648 81 63 0.5 108 88 37.a 304 4.952 25 1. Adair 20,246 10,166 63 23 8.83 574 2. Clark 10,166 10,166 7 2.55 509 3, Knox 8.87f 8,878 I 2.23 512 4. Linn 21,416 12.036 21 7.50 624 5« Macon 21.396 17,190 17 7.30 Sl4 b. Putnam 11.32) 11.32) < 2.04 518 7* Scholar 6.62) 6,627 ) 1.81 ss 8. Scotland 8.55) 8.551 ) 2.32 9# Sul1Iran 13.701 13.701 13 2.63 654 Isolated districts: Lebanon District >*5.656 40,631 89 34 0.7 33 72 10.64 233 2,109 22 1. Laclede 18,718 13.693 24 16 4.85 770 2. Camden 8.973 8,971 1.36 655 3. Wright 17.967 17.967 10 9 4.43 684 IASS AS COT ESOIOH 1,114.170 512.7>»7 46 3.307 3.0 1,634 l4y 611.27 549 19.870 56 Primary district; Kansas City District 595.836 477,828 150,460 25 2,631 4,4 1,066 179 423.21 710 3.74s 159 1. Jackson 62,584 2.557 915 57l:|l 601 2. Cae. 19.534 30.417 19.534 21 698 3. Clay 19.267 5f 54 16.09 413 h. Johnson 21.617 15.7>*9 16 24 7.14 826 5» Lafayette 27.856 18,982 36 If 634 6. Bay 18,584 16 574 Secondary dl.trlot.i Marshall Dl.trlct 65.314 4g,64i 76 loo 1-5 75 115 a.39 327 2, 218 30 1. 8i*line 29,416 17.si; loo 43 11.07 m 2. Carroll 17.814 13.71*1 15 5.89 3* Charlton 18,084 ' 18,084 17 4.43 759 St. Jo.eph Dl.trlot 143.956 94,067 64,630 45 323 2.2 189 131 71.95 500 2,098 69 1. Buchanan 18.356 323 13) 58.04 4il 2. Andrew 13.015 13,015 14 2.52 430 3. Clinton 13,261 9,749 14 5.21 420 4. He Kalb 9.751 9.64« 7 2.46 423 5. Platte 13,862 13,862 17 3.72 4i4 Proposed-secondary districts: Marywllle Dl.trlot 70.633 6U.933 92 so 1.1 69 98 21.71 307 2.637 27 1. Hodaway 25.556 19.856 80 31 9.01 877 2. Atchison 12,897 12.897 14 4.4o gg 3. Gentry 13.35S 13.359 10 3.47 4. Holt 12,476 12,476 9 3.21 456 5. Worth 6.3>*5 6,3**5 5 i.62 267 See footnotes at end of table. See footnotes at end of table. Table 4. The composition, baaed upon existing boepltal facilities,.!/ of primary, eeoondary, ppopoeed-eecondary, and isolated dletrlote making up broad boepltal service rogione; and oounty, diatrlet, regional, and State totala for aeleoted Itene per- tinrat to an evaluation of hospital needs in tha VKST HORTH CHTTBAL STAIM - Continued Table 4. The oonpoeltlon, based upon existing hospital of primary, secondary, proposed-eeoondary, and Isolated districts aablng up broad hospital service regions; and oounty, district, regional, and Stats totala for selected Itens per- tinent to an evaluation of hospital needs In the VIST NORTH CENTRAL STATES - Continued STATE RESIGN population^ •COS IN CENCRAL AND ALLIED MEDIAL MOMlTALt*/ PHYSICIAN. INCOME^ (DOLLARS) LAND ANCA 8/ PERSONS PER RURAL SOU ARC MILES SQUARE COUNTY DESIGNATIONS TOTAL TOTAL PERCENT OF TOTAL TOTAL PER 1,000 PERSONS TOTAL PER 100,000 PERSONS TOTAL (IN MILLIONS) PER CAPITA MILE MISSOURI (Continued) Sedalla District 1. Petti. 2. Benton 3. Hen 17 4. Morgan 77.931 33.336 11,142 22.313 n.iuo 51,462 12.908 11,142 16,272 ll,l4o 66 70 70 0.9 78 37 9 23 9 100 28.01 359 14.12 2.54 8.34 3.01 2.754 SI w 28 Isolated districts: Sereda District 1. Yernon 2. Batas Cedar 4. Hickory 5. St. Clair 76,lt66 25.5*6 19.531 13,1116 65.327 17.405 16.573 11.697 6,506 13.146 85 47 27 20 0.6 72 94 14 12 4 11 19.08 7.?7 5.4S 2.56 .82 2.2*1 250 3,284 23 % 4T0 699 Trenton District 1. 0 randy 2. Caldeoil 3. Darle.e 4. Harrieon 5. Livingston 6. Meroer 84,034 15.716 11.629 13.39* 16,525 18,000 8,766 66,294 8,670 11.629 13.39* 13.843 9.9** *,766 79 56 38 18 0.7 S 101 14 13 15 11 25.?2 308 5.42 3-g 2-96 4.92 7.05 2.03 3*435 27 % 720 8 ST. LOUIS HKIOI 1,726,002 649.576 58 7.731 4.5 2.744 15*9 98O.35 568 18,968 91 Primary dl.trlet: St. Louis District 1. St. Louie 6/ 2. franklin 3. Jefferson 4. St. Charles 5. Uarron 1,189,1165 1,090.27s 33.*6* 32.023 25.562 7.734 215,944 149,810 24.776 18,865 14.75? 7.734 18 7.21? 7,124 4o 55 6.1 2.397 202 2.304 33 23 28 9 836.77 703 8OO.65 11.96 10.81 11.34 2.01 3.146 378 558 II? & Secondary dletrlctei Cape Girardeau 1. Cape Girardeau 2. Bollinger Perry 4. Soott 96,408 37.775 12,898 15.35* 30.377 58.969 15,236 12,898 11.451 19.3*4 6l 193 2.0 171 22 5 82 6 11 18 33-48 547 18.05 1.57 4.32 9.54 2.091 46 IL6 8 Poplar Bluff District 1. Butler 2. Carter 1. Dunklin 4. Ripley 5« Stoddard 6. Wayne 1113,868 34.276 6,226 &S 33,00<) 12.794 120,589 *KS 35.949 12.606 29,901 12.794 84 186 l4l 45 1.3 78 54 19 3 28 5 'I 34.50 2**0 9.66 •97 13.72 2.14 l:U 4,018 36 716 506 543 639 837 777 Fropoeed-eecondary dletrlctei Louisiana District 1. Pike 2. Lincoln 3. Montgomery U5.1611 18,327 40.495 13,658 90 50 1.1 50 4o 89 18 15 7 i:S * 4.20 3.14 1.843 25 681 629 533 Isolated districts: Charleston District 1. Mississippi 2. Hew Madrid 3* Pemiscot 109.793 23,149 39.7*7 46.857 95.371 17.967 39.7*7 37.617 87 60 55 11 20 29 26.85 245 6.18 8.46 12.21 l-S & 70 flat Elver Dl.trlet 1. St. francole 2. Iron 3. Madleon 4. Reynold. 3. Ste. Oenevlsvs 6. Washington 93.813 &8S 9.656 9.370 10.905 17.492 74.743 23,081 10,44c 6,242 9.370 8,118 17.492 80 6l 0.7 32 29 68 35 7 8 72 25.06 267 13.84 2.01 2.60 1.05 2.88 2.68 ’•§ * 3 822 760 Meet Plains District 1. Howell 2. Oregon 3. Shannon 47,1*91 22,270 13.390 11. *31 S:SS 13.390 11,831 92 22 0.5 22 22 46 14 5 3 10.31 217 6.22 2.58 1.51 2,703 18 920 784 999 STATE RESIGN POPULATION SE08 IN GENERAL AND ALLIED SPECIAL HOSPITALS y PHYSICIANS y INCOME (DOLLARS) LAND AREA PERSONS PER RURAL SQUARE MILES SQUARE COUNTY DESIGNATIONS TOTAL TOTAL PERCENT OF TOTAL TOTAL PER 1,000 TOTAL PER 100,000 PERSONS TOTAL (IN MILLIONS) PER CAPITA MILE MISSOURI (Continued) SPHIHOPIKLD HSOIOH 395.287 259.890 66 553 1.4 374 95 135.10 342 10,071 39 Primary dletrlot! Springfield Dletrlot 1. Greene 2. Christian 3. Cede 4. Sallee 5. Lawrence S. Polk 7. WeLeter 186,113 90.541 13.538 11,248 11.523 24.637 17,400 17.226 117.607 29.303 13.538 11,248 11.523 20,005 14,764 17.226 63 279 279 1.5 211 142 4 1 25 17 8 113 67.31 46.30 2.4l 2.26 4.28 4.33 362 4,136 S 504 537 619 642 590 45 Secondary districts! Joplin District 1. Jasper 2. Barton 3. Newton 121,892 78.705 14,148 29.039 58,820 24.872 11,156 22,792 4s 264 238 26 2.2 "A 13 IB 94 53.12 42.51 3.47 7.14 436 1,865 642 594 629 65 leolated dlatrletei Bran eon Dletrlot 1. Taney 2. Barry 3. Dougin* 4. McDonald 5. Oaark 6. Stone 87,282 15,600 !5.749 10,766 11,298 83.463 10.323 19.727 15,600 15,749 10,766 11,298 96 10 10 0.1 48 6 16 6 8 6 6 55 14.67 2.08 5.49 2.10 2.4l ills i6b 4,070 656 800 8O9 540 756 509 21 KXBHA5XX 1.315.834 801,6s6 61 4.626 3.5 1.635 124 613.73 466 76.653 17 LINCOLN HSOIOH 366,688 • 217.083 59 1,184 3*2 ’ 510 139 160.84 439 11.456 32 Primary dletrlot! Lincoln District 1* Lancaster 2. Cass 3. Saline Seward 146.754 100,585 16.992 15,010 14,167 54.638 18,601 12.724 11.972 11.341 37 III 15 10 4.9 262 214 16 15 17 179 74.23 58.65 5.29 2:|2 506 2.544 845 552 575 572 58 Propoeed-eecondaiy districts: Beatrice District 1. Oe«e 2. Jefferson 3. Johnson Pawnee 62,296 29.588 15.532 8,662 8,514 45.109 18,705 9,228 8,662 8.514 72 139 86 15 12 26 2.2 «S 36 17 8 8 111 24.85 12.66 7.02 \% 399 2,245 858 577 ?77 433 28 Hastings District 1. Adana 2. Clay 3. franklin Kearney 5. Nuckolls 6. Thayer 7* Webster 80,394 S® 7.740 6,854 10,446 12,262 8.071 62,599 7.740 6,854 7.796 12,262 8,071 78 146 90 16 20 20 1.8 22 10 7 8 8 11 8 116 31.76 12.06 3.50 3.36 2.24 3.64 4.U 2.85 395 3.953 562 570 578 512 579 577 575 20 Nebraska City District 1. Otoe 2. Nemaha 3* Richardson 50.953 18,994 12,781 19.178 33.829 11,655 9,i42 13.032 66 136 57 21 2.7 55 22 22 108 19.81 7.71 4.94 7.16 389 1.560 613 % 33 fork District 1. York 2. fillmore 26,291 14,874 11.417 20,908 9.491 11.417 80 50 50 1-9 31 21 10 118 10.19 6.47 3.72 J88 1.154 577 577 23 See footnotes at end of table. See footnotes at end of table. Table U.— The composition, based upon existing hospital of primary, secondary, proposed-secondary, and isolated districts Baking up broad hospital service regions; and county, district, regional, and State totals for selected Items per- tinent to an evaluation of hospital needs In the WIST NORTH CENTRAL STATES - Continued Table U.— The composition, based upon existing hospital of primary, secondary, proposed-secondary, and Isolated districts Baking up broad hospital service regions; and county, district, regional, and State totals for selected Itens per- tinent to an evaluation of hospital needs In the WIST NORTH CINTRAL STATES - Continued BEOS IN GENERAL STATE AND PHYSICIANS 3/ INCOME y ALLIED SPECIAL (DOLLARS) APCA */ PERSONS hospitalsI/ PER AND RURAL SQUARE MILE COUNTY PER PER TOTAL PER CAPITA MILES DESIGNATIONS TOTAL TOTAL OF TOTAL TOTAL 1.000 PERSONS TOTAL 100,000 PERSONS (IN MILLIONS) HEBHASFA (Continued) OMAHA HSOIOH 969,166 586,603 62 3.662 3.6 1.125 119 652.89 677 65.197 15 Primary district: Omaha District 311,666 70,023 22 2,008 6.6 562 176 201.10 665 2.235 139 1. Douglas 2*47,56? 23,718 1.920 6si 176.06 335 2. Dodge 23.799 11.937 55 28 12.02 529 3. Sarpy 10,835 8 |«3| 230 4, Saunders 17,892 20 15 756 5* Washington n.578 8,289 13 10 3-69 385 Secondary dletrlatsi Alliance District 36.75k 2U.219 70 160 6.0 32 92 17.76 511 6,986 5 1. Box Butte 10.736 6.1*83 105 12 6.63 1,066 2. Dawes 10,12? 5,866 25 12 5.62 1.389 J. Sheridan 9,869 9.869 10 7 5.07 2,666 4. Sioux 4,001 k,001 1 .62 2,063 Columbus District 81,806 71.366 87 192 2.3 82 100 28,6l 3k7 3,680 22 1. Platte 20.191 12.559 155 19 T-57 672 2. Boone 12,127 12,127 10 6.05 683 J. Butler 13,106 13,106 12 15 3-73 3 ft. Colfax 10,627 7,819 11 6.68 5. Merrick 9,35k 9.35k 11 3.66 667 b. Nance 7.693 7.653 16 7 2.60 63s 7. Polk 8,7“»8 8,7ks 9 9 2.36 k33 Grand Island District k5.927 26.797 58 191 6.2 Uo 87 20.05 637 1,667 28 1. Hall 27,523 8.393 175 28 16.76 560 2. Hamilton 9.982 9.982 16 « 3.02 56i 3* Howard 8.422 8,622 6 2.27 566 Norfolk District 6k,536 51.327 80 150 2.3 67 106 22.67 368 2,872 22 1. Madison 2k, 265 13.779 132 37 10.05 572 2. Antelope 13,28$ 13.289 10 10 6.0$ 853 3. Pierce 10,211 10,211 8 t 3.05 8 4, Stanton 6,887 6,887 3 1.68 5. Wayne 9,880 7.161 9 3.60 U43 Propoeed-seoondary districts: Kearney District 87,k82 67.823 78 !52 1.7 97 111 35.07 6oi 6,187 16 1. Buffalo 23.655 16,012 60 30 9.73 952 2. Custer 22,591 19.623 35 2U 8.86 2,562 1, Dawson 17.890 16.202 30 23 8.57 983 4. Harlan 7,130 7.130 6 1.6c 575 5. Phelps 8,k52 5.092 16 9 6.30 565 6, Sherman 7.766 7.766 11 5 2.01 570 McCook District kl,515 35.303 85 126 3.0 3k 82 17.29 616 k.303 10 1. Red Willow 2. Frontier 11.951 6.617 i$? 75 2$ 716 966 ■J. Furnas 10,098 10,09s Uo 10 6.29 722 Oosper 3.687 3.687 1 .66 666 5. Hayes 6. Hitchcock 62$U 2:8 11 6 .61 2.06 711 722 Morth Platte District 61,872 26,286 63 75 1.8 3k 81 20-39 687 5.907 7 1. Lincoln 25,k25 12.996 75 26 12.57 2.525 2. Keith 8.333 l,7k2 5.176 6 6.56 1.072 3. Logan 1.7k2 1 .66 570 4. McPherson 1.175 1.175 1 .11 655 5. Perkins 5.197 5.197 2 2-53 885 Scottsbluff District kk.756 29.595 66 80 1.8 Ug 107 22.69 507 2.867 16 1. Scotts Bluff 2. Banner 33.917 1.603 18,756 1.603 80 39 19.66 .10 726 738 3. Morrill 9,k36 9,k35 9 3.13 1.603 Winnebago District 56,600 69.536 88 131 2.3 66 81 19.10 337 2.170 26 1. Thurston 2. Burt 10,21+3 12,5^6 £3 85 12 7 12 2.83 6.51 $ 3. Cuming 13.562 11.052 26 13 5.83 571 4. Dakota 9.836 5,280 7 2.6? 255 5. Dixon 10,1+13 10,613 8 7 3.66 6sc •EOS IN GENERAL STATE POPULATIOH AND PMYWCIAH*!* INCOME REGION ALLIED SPECIAL (DOLLARS) ARIA*/ PERSONS DISTRICT HOSPITAL* y PER AMO RURAL SQUARE MILES SQUARE COUNTY TOTAL PER PER TOTAL PER CAPITA MILE DESIGNATIONS TOTAL TOTAL OF TOTAL 1,000 PERSONS TOTAL 100,000 PERSONS (IN MILLIONS) HXBRASKA (Continued) Isolated diatriotsi Imperial District 10,1*32 10,1*32 100 27 2.6 7 67 1*,20 1*03 1,815 6 1. Chase 5.310 5.310 19 i* 2.66 sg5 2. Dandy V 5.122 5.122 8 3 i.5* 9a 0•Halil District 7*.838 72,306 97 55 0.7 55 73 a.61 289 7.099 11 1. Holt 16,552 lU,020 2C 1C •*.77 2,1*08 2. Boyd 6,060 6,o5o 18 1* 2.10 538 3. Osdar 15.126 15.126 13 U.50 7*3 4. Garfield 3,i*i*i* 3,1*1*1* 3 1.06 570 5. Orselsy 6,81*5 6.SU5 6 2.15 570 6. Knox 16,1*78 16,1*78 11 U.22 1,1Z* 7* Talley 8,163 8,163 15 8 2.1*9 570 8. Wheeler 2.170 2.170 •32 576 Sidney District 22,723 19.335 85 68 3.0 21 92 10.86 1*78 *.965 5 1. Cheyenne 9.5p5 6.117 U8 7 5.1*1* 1,186 Z. Arthur i,oi»5 l,0l*5 .15 706 3. Daual 3.580 3.580 1* 1.82 *3* 5. Oarden 5,680 5.680 1* 1.78 1.685 5. Hiehall 3.913 3.913 20 6 1.67 953 Valentine District 30,259 30.259 100 U9 1.6 20 66 11.91 39* 12,1*66 2 1. Chany 9.637 9.637 15 6 U.l*5 5.982 2. Blaine 1.538 1.538 1 • 37 711 J, Brown 5.962 5.962 22 5 2.26 i.as *. Grant 1.327 1.327 1 .9!* 762 5* Hooker 1.253 1.253 3 1.23 722 6. Isyapaba 3.235 3.235 2 .1*8 $ 7* Loup 1.777 1.777 .21 8. Book 3.977 3.977 12 1 1.1*5 1.012 9. Thomas 1.553 1.553 1 .52 716 HOETH DAKOTA 61*1.935 510,012 79 2.503 3-9 518 81 25U.59 397 70,051* 9 BISMABCIC ESOIOH 158,891* 130,871* 82 1*76 3.0 116 73 51.39 323 2*.*57 6 Primary district) Blomarolc District 87,868 65,687 75 326 3-7 82 93 31.1*5 358 10,508 8 1. Burleigh 22,736 7.21*o 259 '*7 13.91 1,61*8 Z. Hanono 11.699 11.699 5 3.W* 1.5*6 J. Kidder 6,692 6,692 3 1.52 1.377 5. McLean 16,082 l6,082 25 10 3.79 2.289 5. Morton 20,181* 13. >*99 U2 15 7.21 1.931 o. Oliver 3,859 3,859 .39 720 7» Sheridan 6,616 6,616 2 1.19 995 Proposed-seoondary districtsi Dickinson District 58,083 52.21*1* 90 103 1.8 28 1*8 15.81 272 10,665 5 !• Stark 15.U1U 9.575 86 ID 6.1*0 1.319 Z. Billings 2.531 2.531 1 .18 1.139 3. Drum 8.376 8,3?6 2 1.1*3 2,068 Ha Golden Talley 3.1*98 3.%8 It 1.54 l.OlU 5# Orant 8,261* 8.26U 17 2 1.28 1,672 6, Hettinger 7.1*57 7,1*57 1* 2.U6 l.lV5 7. Marosr 9,611 9.611 3 2.27 1,092 8. Slope 2.932 2.932 .25 1,226 Isolated distv'ots: Tort Tates District !• Sioux ■5:21 100 *7 *7 3-6 VD CJ 1*6 H.13 •75 319 3,28* 1,12* 1* 2. A Anne l*,664 U.661. 2 1.77 990 3. Bowman 3.860 3.860 2 l.6i 1.170 See footnote* at end of table. See footnotes at end of table* Table U,— The composition, baaed upon srlsting hospital facilities,i./ of primary, secondary, proposed-secondary, and Isolated districts making tip broad hospital service regions; end county, district, regional, and State totals for selected Item* per- tinent to an evaluation of hospital needs in the WIST NORTH CENTRAL STATES - Continued Table U.— The composition, based upon existing hospital facilities,*/ of primary, secondary* proposed-secondary, and isolated districts making up broad hospital service regions; and county, district, regional, and State totals for selected itens per- tinent to an evaluation of hospital needs in the VEST NORTH CENTRAL STATES - Continued STATE REGION POPULATION y •ED9 IN SEHCNAL AND ALLIED SPECIAL HOSPITALS J/ PHYSICIANS y INCOME (DOLLARS) LAND AREA 8/ PERSONS PER RURAL SQUARE COUNTY DETONATION* TOTAL TOTAL PERCENT OP TOTAL TOTAL PER 1,000 PERSONS TOTAL PER 100,000 PERSONS TOTAL (IN MILLIONS) PER CAPITA MILES MILE BOOTH DAKOTA (Continued) - TABOO BTOIOB 335.2*9 253.753 76 1,261 3.8 295 8* 1*7.30 439 26.559 13 Primary dlftrloti /ergo District 1. C&aa Z. Bernes }. Benson 4. Richland 5. Steele 6. Trelll 119.736 77.*92 52.8*9 20,269 17.814 II.B97 10,061 10,061 20,519 16,772 6.193 6.193 12,300 12,300 65 Jj90 4.9 100 23 16 122 102 79 12 6 15 3 7 62.51 522 35-15 8.03 4.05 8.61 1.45 5.22 7.119 17 1.7*9 l,4s6 863 1.450 710 861 Secondary district*: Derlls Lake District 1. Rsasey 2. Benson 3. Carolier 4. *ddy 5. Towner 55.119 **.?15 *9 15,626 9.422 12,629 12,629 13.923 13.9,23 5,7*1 5,7*1 7,200 7,200 3 31 s 4.6 *0 75 16 8 2 3 19.90 36I 8.08 2.77 3.69 2.58 2.78 5.826 9 i,a* 1,412 1.513 1 .a Orend Forks District 1. Grand Tories Z. Tel son *3,647 23,419 5* 34,51* 14,290 9,129 9.129 190 4.4 175 15 s 119 5 2*.*2 559 21.5* 2.88 2, *35 18 1,438 997 Jaacstoira District 1. Stutsaan Z, Tester 3- Briggs 4. La Honrs 5. Logan 52.996 23.495 5»*24 5,818 10,298 7.561 44,206 14.705 5.824 5.818 10,298 7.561 *3 1*1 2,7 116 1 25 *2 79 27 5 I 3 19.93 376 11.42 2.63 2.02 2.58 1.28 5.776 9 2.27* 6*8 714 1.137 1,003 Proposed-secondary districts: Grafton District 1. Welsh Z. Pcabins 36,418 20,7*7 15.671 32,3*8 16.677 15.671 75 2.0 60 13 25 69 16 9 13.29 365 7.81 5.48 2.411 15 1.28? 1,12* Isolated districts: Oakes District 1. Dickey Z. McIntosh 3' Sargent 27.373 9.696 8,98* 8,693 tf.373 9,696 8,98* 8,693 100 16 16 0.6 1* 51 7 I 7.25 265 3.45 1.82 1.98 1% 9 993 *55 MOOT EtOIOS 1*7,752 125.3*5 *5 765 5.2 107 72 55.90 37* 19.03* * Primary districti Hlnot District 1. Bard 2. Bnrke 3. BcBenry 4. Mountrail 5. Henrllle 69.683 31.9*1 10,482 5.533 53,106 76 15,40* its 10,482 5.533 3*1 3*1 4.9 s ‘ 85 30.88 4*3 20.56 1-97 3-52 3.1* 1.69 7.860 9 2,0*8 1,121 1.890 1.900 901 Secondary districts: Tllllston District 1. Til Haas Z. Divide 3. UoXentle 31.*27 16,315 7,086 8,426 26,037 10,525 7,oe6 8,*26 82 i4o 4.4 1*0 / 17 53 10 6 1 11.29 355 7.67 2.0* 1.58 6.213 5 2,100 1,303 2,810 Proposcd-ssoondaiy districtsi Bottlnean District 1. Bottineau 2. Bolette 25.836 13.253 12.583 25.836 13.253 12.5*3 100 166 75 91 6.4 20 77 10 10 7.05 3.95 3.10 273 2,612 I.699 913 10 Bngby District 1. Fierce 2. Tells 20,406 9,208 11,198 20,406 9,208 11,19s 100 119 5S 5.* 11 5 6 5* 6.68 3.15 3.53 327 2.353 1.053 1,300 9 BEOS IN GENERAL STATE POPULATION AND PHYSICIANS 5/ INCOME5' PERSONS REGION ALLIED SPECIAL (DOLLARS) AREA HOSPITAL 81/ PER RURAL 'MWABT SQUARE COUNTY PER PER TOTAL PER CAPITA MILES MILE DESIGNATIONS TOTAL TOTAL OF TOTAL 1,000 PERSONS TOTAL 100,000 PERSONS (IN MILLIONS) SOOTH DAKOTA 642,961 484,874 75 2,220 3.5 t 508 79 276.72 430 76.536 s SIOUX TILLS RSGIOK 642,961 484,874 75 2,220 3.5 508 79 276.72 430 76,536 8 Primary districti Sioux Tails District 103,272 59.922 58 362 3.5 84 81 52.26 506 3.102 33 1. Minnehaha 57.697 16,865 344 58 37.75 8!5 2. Lincoln 13.171 10,65] 6 3.94 576 }. McCook 9.793 9.341 9.793 6 2.57 571 4. Moody 9.34l IS 5 3-39 523 5- Turner 13.270 13.270 9 4.61 611 Secondary district•: Aberdeen District 72,418 55.403 77 251 3-5 58 80 32.47 44s 7.359 10 1. Brown 29.676 12,661 185 32 19.79 1.671 2. Idminds 7,814 7.811 10 4 1.95 1.153 Paulk 5.168 5,16s 19 3 1.64 997 4. Marshall 8,880 8,880 4 3.21 875 5. McPherson 8,35] 8.353 24 1.79 1,151 6. Spink 12.527 12.527 13 13 4.03 1.506 Hot Springs District 21,267 17.184 81 166 7.8 31 146 6.64 312 5,400 4 1. Tall Hirer 8.08; * 4.006 115 23 3-5? 1.748 2. Caster 6,023 6,02] 5 2.44 1.552 3. Shannon 5,356 5.366 51 .50 960 h, Washington 1.789 1.789 1 .11 l,l4o Mitchell District 57,729 47.096 82 231 4.0 46 80 23-35 4o4 3.965 15 1. Darison 15.336 4.703 218 16 11.92 432 2. Aurora 5.387 5.387 ; 1.04 711 3. Douglas Hanson 6,348 5,400 b.jUS 5,400 4 4 1.69 1.87 435 431 5. Hutchinson 12,668 12,668 13 < 3.50 814 6. Miner 6.836 6,836 ■ 1.64 571 7. Sanborn 5.754 5.754 3 1.69 571 Pierre District 19.409 6,624 15.087 78 102 5-3 14 72 8.82 454 5.872 3 1. Hughes 2,302 102 ! 4.86 762 2. Hyde 3.U3 3.113 1 1.15 869 3- Lyaaa 5.045 5.045 1.60 1,685 4. Stanley 1.95* 1.95! .55 1.495 5. Solly 2,668 2,668 •66 1,061 Hapld City District 40,984 24.132 59 164 4.0 44 107 23.29 568 9.927 4 !• Pennington 23.799 9.955 164 31 17.03 2,776 2. Haakon 3.515 3.515 1.56 1,815 3. Jackeon 1.955 1.955 1.05 809 4. Meade 9.735 6.727 3.51 3.466 5- Taehabaogh 1.980 1,980 .14 1,061 Watertown District 52.533 17.014 39.171 75 162 3.1 4o 76 23.24 442 3.507 15 1. Codington 6,397 135 1< 12.69 691 2. Clark 3. Deuel 8.955 8,450 8.955 8,450 3 2.68 2.10 976 636 4. Orant 10,552 7.807 21 1 3.52 6s4 5. Haalln 7.562 7.562 5 2.25 520 Tankton District 48,233 38,111 79 170 3*5 47 97 19.13 397 1.961 25 1. Tankton 16,725 9.927 170 20 7.88 524 2. Bon Home 10,241 10.241 I! 2.79 580 3- Olay 9.592 6,26s 10 3-91 45I U. Union 11.675 11.675 6 4.55 Proposed-secondary districts: Deadwocd District 27.097 15.477 57 100 3-7 28 103 15.28 564 3.051 9 1. Lawrence 19.093 8,004 7.473 8,004 75 21 10.11 800 2. Butte 25 1 5.11 2,251 See footnote* at end of table. See footnotes at end of table. 39 Table h.-~ The composition, haeed upon existing hotpltal facilities,*/ of primary, secondary, proposed-secondary, and Isolated districts making up broad hospital serrlce regions; and county, district, regional, and State totals for selected items per- tinent to an evaluation of hospital needs in the WEST NORTH CENTRAL STATES - Continued Table s* The composition, based upon existing hospital facilities,*7 of primary, secondary, proposed-secondary, and isolated districts making up broad hospital service regions; and county, district, regional, and State totals for selected items per- tinent to an evaluation of hospit ad needs in the SOUTH ATLANTIC STATES BEOS IN GENERAL STATE AND PHYSICIAN* 3/ INCOME5' LAND PERSONS RESIGN ALLIED SPECIAL (DOLLARS) AREA 1/ HOSPITAL*-!/ PER RURAL SQUARE SQUARE COUNTY PER PER TOTAL PER CAPITA MILE DESIGNATIONS TOTAL TOTAL TOTAL 1,000 TOTAL 100,000 (IN TOTAL PERSONS PERSONS MILLIONS) SOOTH DAKOTA (Continned) Enron District 31.566 20.723 66 69 2.2 22 70 15.65 U96 3.2|5 10 1. Beadle ig,6Ug 8,805 5C 16 11.06 1,261 2. Hand 7.166 7.166 IS 2 2.56 1.U36 3. Jeranld *♦.752 >4.752 >4 2.03 528 Madison District 39.803 29. >439 7>4 98 2.5 27 68 17.57 UUl 2,191 18 1. Lake 12, >412 7.39*4 5° 8 5.67 571 2. Brooking* 16.560 11. au 48 12 801 3. Kingsbury 10,831 10,831 7 U.ll 819 Mobrldge District 29.385 7.274 26.377 90 90 3.1 13 >4*4 9.79 333 6,805 u 1. Walworth >4,265 50 5 3.8b 737 2. Oaapbell 5.033 5.03; 1 .79 763 3. Corson 6,755 6.755 1.55 2,525 4. Deway 5. Potter * 8S m 40 1-52 2.07 1.893 887 Rosebud District 26,250 26,250 100 71 2.7 12 U6 7.U0 282 6.U7U 4 1. Todd 5.714 5.71 >4 55 .69 1.388 2. Bennett 3,98: 3.98j •78 1,187 ■J. Jones 2.509 2.509 .95 973 4. Mellette >4.107 u,10i : .61 1,306 5. Tripp 9.937 9.937 16 >4.37 1,620 Webster District 29.>452 26.939 91 82 2.8 16 5*4 8.52 289 2,171 l4 1. Day 13.565 13.565 13.37** 50 U.72 1,060 2. Robert» 15.887 32 7 3.80 1,111 Isolated districts: Chamberlain District 31.051 31.051 100 90 2.9 20 6U 9.65 311 3.477 9 1. Brule 6.195 6,195 2.66 829 U9U 2. Buffalo !.853 13, >440 i.85: 20 2 .17 3. Charles Uli 13.1*143 37 8 2.95 1.151 4. Gregory 9.554 9.554 33 6 3-87 1.023 Lemmon District 12,512 12,512 100 12 1.0 Us 3.66 293 s.oUg 2 1. Perkin* 6.585 6.585 12 3 2-6U 2,866 2. Armstrong >42 >42 518 3. Harding 3,010 3,010 .64 2.683 4. Ziebach 2.875 2.875 2 • 38 1.982 •EOS IN GENERAL STATE POPULATION AND PHYSICIANS IS INCOME 5/ REGION ALLIED SPECIAL (DOLLARS) ANIAt/ PERSONS HOSPITALS 1/ PER AND RURAL SQUARE MILE COUNTY PER PER TOTAL PER CAPITA MILES DESIGNATIONS TOTAL TOTAL OF TOTAL 1,000 PERSONS TOTAL 100,000 PERSONS (IN MILLIONS) DILiVABl 266.505 127.073 is 1.230 1.6 339 127 197.80 712 1.978 135 IILMIBOTOH BSOIOS 266,505 127.073 1*8 1.250 1.6 339 127 197.80 7l2 1.978 135 Primary district: Wilmington District 266,505 127.073 18 1.230 1.6 339 127 197.SO 7l2 % 135 1. Hew Castle 2. Kent 179.562 54.Ill 55.51? 26,971 60 253 39 140.47 22.91 3» Sussex 52,502 1*4,550 201 47 31.39 DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA 663,091 1,212 6.1 2.213 338 700.20 106 61 10.870 FLORIDA i,S97,i*li* 851.623 15 5,571 2.9 2,276 120 900,91 175 51,262 35 JACKSONVILLE RSOIOH 935.639 515.337 55 2,271 2.1 937 100 380.53 107 29.366 32 Primary district; Jacksonville District 262,676 70.163 27 968 3.7 267 102 Hi .75 510 3.512 75 1. Dural ao.iU] 33.512 817 228 125.36 771 2. Baker 6,510 6,510 2 1.21 585 J. Bradford 8.717 8.717 5 1.87 293 4. Olay 6.U6S 6,16a 5 1.38 650 5» Hassau 10,826 7.331 10 2.51 6. St. Johns 20,012 7.922 121 17 9.36 609 Secondary districts; Daytona Beach District 75,116 3l,2l9 15 217 3-3 100 133 38.98 517 2,101 31 1. Volusia 53.710 19.683 177 86 31.83 1,115 2. Flagler 3,008 3,008 1 .75 183 3. Putnam 18,698 11.558 70 13 6.10 803 Orlando District ll*5,89l* 7l,6o1 51 580 1.0 225 151 78.13 536 1.590 32 1. Orange 70,071 25.563 298 133 11.85 916 2. Brerard l6,ll2 10,422 42 27 8.17 1,032 1. Lake 27.255 19,638 178 35 11.76 996 a. Osceola 10,11C 6,891 ho 12 3.10 1.325 5. Seminole 22,304 12,087 22 IS 9.95 321 Pensacola District 103.652 66,203 61 225 2.2 101 97 37.19 362 2.625 39 1. Iscaabla 71,667 37,218 225 8? 32.78 663 2. Okaloosa 12,900 12,900 ; 2.27 938 3. Santa Bosa 16,085, 16,085 5 2.11 1,021 Proposed-secondary districts: Oalnesrllle District 79.360 59.767 75 102 1.3 66 83 22.22 280 3.360 21 1. Alachua 38,607 24,850 65 32 13.27 892 2. Columbia 16.85s 11.023 37 21 1.79 786 5. OilChrist 1,250 1,250 2 .88 339 h, Lery 12.550 12.550 5 2.16 1,103 5. Union 7.091 7.091 3 .82 2**0 Panama City District 112,278 93.019 S3 91 0.8 65 58 22.80 203 1.935 23 1. Bay 20,686 9.076 5C 20 6.63 753 2. Calhoun 8,218 8,218 1 1.50 557 J. Oulf 4. Holmes 1^7 6.95! I5.4I7 5 6 IM 1.39 3 5* Jackson 34,128 29,319 31 18 7.48 912 6. Walton 14,246 11,676 10 4 2.67 1,016 7. Washington 12,302 12,302 8 1.85 597 JJ Hospital bed totals used for selecting hospital centers and defining service districts and regions within each State were obtained by tabulating data published for individual general and allied special hospitals in the Journal of the American Medical Association, Tol. 121, No. 13, March 27, lncluded in the general and allied special category are all general hospitals plus those rendering specialised services commonly provided by general hospitals, i.e. maternity, industrial. Isolation, eye-ear- nose-throat, orthopedic, children's, convalescent and rest, chronic, and others offering similar limited types of care. General hospitals operated by the Bureau of Indian Affairs are counted on the assumption that they represent facilities operated on a local area basis, but other Federal hospitals are excluded. Also in the excluded group are all mental and tuberculosis hospitals and infirmary units of correctional and custodial institutions. lj County population totals from: Population. First Series, U. S. Summary, Table 17, Sixteenth Census of the United States: 19**0 if Physician totals represent counts of all physicians listed in the American Medical Directory. 4/ Estimates of effective buying income in 19**0, made by Sales Management on the basis of money actually paid for goods and services. Federal allotments, money paid out of savings and surpluses by business and financial Institutions, plus the nonmoney Income of farm and village residents, were obtained for counties and States from: Sales management survey of buying power. Sales Management, Vol. UB, No. 8, April 10, I9UI. These data have been reproduced with permission of Sales Management, Inc. 8/ Land area in square miles from: Population. First Series, U. 8. Summary, Table 17, Sixteenth Census of the United States: \sk). ±f Districts were outlined with Bt. Louis City and St. Louis County treated as a single political unit. Sss footnotss st sod of tabls 40 Table 5, The composition, bated upon existing hotpltal facilities,2/ of primary, tooondarjr, proposed-seeondary, and Itolatad dlttrlota Baking np broad hotpltal ttrrloe regions; and county, dlttrlct, regional, and State totale for telaoted Iteae per- tin rat to ra evaluation of hotpltal needs in tha SOUTH ATLASTIC 9TATZB - Continued Tabla 5. Tha composition, hotad upon existing hotpltal prlmaiy, sacondary, propetad-tacondary, and Itolatad dlttrlota aaklng up broad hotpltal tartlet raglont; and county, dlttrlct, regional, and Stata totala for talactad Items par- tln rat to an oral nation of hotpltal naadt in the SOUTH ATLANTIC STATZS - Continued STATE RESIGN DISTRICT AND COUNTY DESIGNATIONS POPULATION •EOS IN SENCRAL AND ALLIED SPECIAL hospitals!/ PHYSICIANS INCOME (DOLLARS) LAND AREA IN SQUARE MILES PERSONS PER SQUARE MILE TOTAL RURAL TOTAL PER 1.000 PERSONS TOTAL PER 100,000 PERSONS TOTAL (IN MILLIONS) PER CAPITA TOTAL PERCENT OF TOTAL TLORIDA (Continued) Isolated diatrictsi Lire Oak District 66,029 57.204 87 37 56 14.44 219 4,156 16 1. Suwannee 17.073 13,646 11 3.89 677 - 2. Dirts 7,01s 7.018 I 1.62 688 ■5. Hamilton 4, Lafayette l'J£ 4 2 514 543 5. Madison 16,19c 13,460 ! 3.25 702 0. Taylor 11.565 8.897 8 3.03 1.032 Tallahassee District 90.331* 59.828 66 58 0.6 76 84 24.72 274 3.787 24 1. Lson 31,646 15,406 33 31 12.63 685 2. franklin 5.991 2.723 7 1.6c 3. Gadsden n.450 20,452 25 32 7.23 508 4. Jefferson 12,032 12,032 4 1.75 598 5. Liberty 3.752 3.752 1 .60 838 D, Wakulla 5.463 5.463 1 .82 6l4 MIAMI BXOIOH 442,062 113.734 26 1,644 3.7 658 i4g 268.81 608 11.901 37 Primary district 1 Miami District 326.713 66,632 20 1,286 3-9 530 162 202.39 619 6.298 52 1. Dade 267.73? 52.14! 1.173 458 175.05 2,054 2. Broward 39.794 8.230 113 58 21.60 i.as 3. Collier 5.102 5.102 4 1,46 2,032 4. Monroe 14,078 1,151 10 4.28 994 Secondary districts; . Vest Palm Beach District 91.5a 34,364 38 287 3.1 104 114 55-33 605 3.724 25 1. Pal* Beach 79.9«! 22,832 257 92 50.51 1.978 2. Hendry 5.231 5,237 2.25 1,187 3. Martin 6.295 6,295 30 1 2-57 559 Propotsd-secondary districts; Tort Pierce District 23,828 12.738 53 71 3.0 24 101 11.09 465 1.879 13 1. St. Duels 11.871 3.831 50 14 6.5O 588 2. Indian Hirer 8,951 5.901 21 3.51 511 3. Okeechobee 3,000 3,000 1.08 780 TAMPA BZOIOI 519.713 222.552 43 . 1,656 3.2 681 131 251.57 4s4 12.995 4o Primary dlatrlet: Tampa District 317.720 110,397 35 1,166 3.7 446 l4o 164.55 518 3,244 98 1. Hillsborough 180,14c 64,266 506 191 85^2: l,04o 2. Hernando 5.64: 5.641 1.84 488 Manatee 26,091 11.568 103 27 10*5i 701 4. Pasco 13.98I 11,420 20 10 3.44 IS 5. Pinellas 91,852 17.502 537 212 53.21 264 Proposad-aeeondary districts; Lakeland District 108,814 53.762 49 232 2.1 118 108 47.35 435 4,278 25 1. Polk 86,665 40,603 214 96 40.21 1,861 2. Glades 2.745 2.7*5 •73 746 3. Hardee 10.158 7.44a 3.11 6V 4. Highlands 9.246 2,966 18 13 3.30 1,041 Ocala District 48,130 39.144 81 85 1.8 3f 79 15.54 323 2,748 18 1. Marion 31.243 22,251 85 26 11.90 1,617 2a Citrus 5,846 5.846 1.50 570 3a Sumter ll,04l ll,04l 6 2.14 561 Sarasota District 45,040 19,249 43 173 3.8 7! 175 24.13 536 2.725 17 1. Sarasota 16,106 U,9dr 122 4c 10.77 586 2. Charlotte 3.66; 3.663 4 \ 1.37 705 3. Da Soto 7.792 3.737 26 3.21 64g 4. Lee 17.488 6,884 25 27 8.78 786 BEOS IN GENERAL STATE POPULATION ij AND PHYSICIANS 3/ INCOME y RESIGN ALLIED SPECIAL (DOLLARS) arcaS/ hospitals!' PER AND RURAL SQUARE MILE COUNTY PER PER TOTAL PER CAPITA MILES OESIONATIONt TOTAL TOTAL OF 1,000 TOTAL 100,000 (IN TOTAL PERSONS PERSONS MILLIONS) OSOROIA 3.123.723 2.049,915 66 5.906 1.9 2.825 90 1,007.86 323 58.518 53 1TUUJTA HBOIOH 1,362,629 827,244 61 2.766 2.0 1,400 103 504.94 371 16.688 82 Primary district: Atlanta District 692,484 304,345 44 2,006 2-9 S 139 332.05 480 4.194 165 1. Pulton 392,886 82,100 1.627 237.97 523 2. Carroll 34.156 27.942 23 7.54 495 428 Cherokee 20,126 17.475 35 13 4.50 4. Clayton 11,655 11.317 3 1.25 149 5. Cobb 38.272 29.605 3' 27 9.65 a 6. Coweta 26.972 19.790 23 7.70 7. Da Ealb 86,91*2 41,387 305 51 U9.00 26' 8. Douglai 10,053 7.498 6 2.17 201 9. Fayette 8,170 8,170 2 1.01 If* 10. Jorsyth 11,322 11.322 6 1.42 243 437 11. Owlnnstt 29.087 24,896 is 5.0; 12. Henry 15.11' 15.119 5 2-95 331 13* Rockdale 7,724 7.724 3 1.80 128 Secondary districta: Athena District 94.988 67,070 71 163 1.7 66 70 26.45 278 1.532 62 1. Clarke 28.398 7.748 l4s 29 14.92 125 2. Barrow 13,064 9,090 10 3-28 171 J. Jackson 20,089 16.795 15 14 4.4c 337 4, Madison 13.431 13.431 5 1.88 281 5. Oconee o. Oglethorpe 7.576 12,430 7.576 12,430 2 6 ,46 1.42 186 432 Roae Dlatrlot 146,868 94,901 65 318 2.2 101 69 49.47 337 1.977 74 1. Ployd 56,l4l 29.859 213 4l 23-13 514 2. Bartow 25.283 iq,i42 15 6.58 476 3. Chattooga 14.732 15.490 56 12 5-!3 317 4. Cordon IS 13 4.57 358 5. Polk 28,467 15.678 30 20 10.06 312 Propoted-aaeondary dlatrlot*: Dalton District 86.359 68,864 80 50 0.6 55 64 19.53 226 1,403 62 1. Whitfield 26,105 15.657 50 15 8.54 281 2. Catoosa 12.199 12.199 5.894 13 i.a 167 3. Dad* 5.894 3 .60 165 4. Murray 11.137 31,024 11.137 6 1.53 342 448 5. Walker 23.977 18 7.65 Gainesville District 75.445 65,202 86 87 1.2 49 65 15.81 ao 1,688 45 1. Hall 34,822 24,579 87 26 10.70 426 2. Banks 8,733 s.733 4 .47 231 3. Dawson 4.479 4,479 1 .it 213 4, Haherahaa 14,771 14,771 15 2.8C 283 5. Lumpkin 6,22} 6.223 1 i.o4 2*7 88 68 68 2.4 19 17 2 66 5.89 5.07 .82 205 816 674 142 35 Isolated district*: Washington District 1. Wilkes 2. Lincoln 3. Taliaferro 4. Warren 38,640 15,084 7.042 6,278 10,236 35.103 11.547 7.042 6,278 10,236 91 Uo ho 1.0 20 8 6 2 4 52 6.91 3.05 1.01 .83 2.02 179 1,204 472 253 3 32 COLOTBOS MOIOK 675.571 472,940 70 1.015 1.5 496 73 191.76 284 l4,6o6 46 Primary district: Columbus District 1. Muscogee 2. Chattahoochee 3. Harris U. Marlon 5. Talbot 117.155 75.494 15.138 11,428 6.954 8,l4l 63,830 22,214 15.138 11,428 6,954 8,096 54 250 250 2.1 109 59 5 93 42.39 37.78 .34 2.25 .92 1.10 362 1.693 220 ■53 465 365 390 69 Secondary districts: Thomaerllle District 1. Thomas 2. Brooks J. Grady Mitchell 94,701 31.289 20,497 19.654 23,261 67.748 18,606 16,047 15,001 18,094 72 182 110 47 25 1.9 72 34 13 10 15 76 24.11 10.48 3.80 k 255 2,010 540 z 511 47 Warm Springs District 1. Meriwether 2. Pike 3. Upson 57.494 22,055 4o,l6l 18,63s 10.375 ll,l4g 70 125 125 2.2 34 17 5 12 59 13.68 4.01 1.24 8.43 238 1,062 499 230 333 54 Proposed-seoondary districts; Albany District 1. Dougherty 2. Baker 3» Calhoun h, Lee 5* Terrell 70,859 10,438 7.837 16.675 48,123 9.510 7.344 10,438 7.837 12,994 68 50 50 0.7 54 29 2 8 2 13 76 22.09 14.65 •59 2.00 .77 4.08 312 1,654 326 355 289 355 329 43 1 STATE REGION POPULATIONtj BEDS IN GENERAL AND ALLIED SPECIAL HOSPITALS y PHYSICIANS & INCOME (DOLLARS) LAND AREA PERSONS PER RURAL SQUARE MILES SQUARE COUNTY DESIGNATIONS TOTAL TOTAL PERCENT OF TOTAL TOTAL PER IsOOO PERSONS TOTAL PER 100,000 PERSONS TOTAL (IN MILLIONS) PER CAPITA MILE MOHCU (Continued) • Lagrange District 1. Tm^) 2. Heard 52,489 43.879 8,610 23,029 14,419 8,610 44 88 88 1.7 4l 72 78 18.57 17-77 .80 354 748 447 301 70 Moultrie Dlatrlot 1. Colquitt 2. Cook 3. lift 4. Worth sU.goU 33.012 11.919 18.59? 2l.37*» 69.529 22,865 11,919 13.371 21.374 82 82 1.0 50 32 s 65 4 19 12 21.22 250 9.44 2.65 6.02 2.61 1.635 563 226 266 580 52 Valdosta District !• Lowndes 2* Berrien J* Bohols U, Lanier 55,826 Uo.231 3i,s6o 16,265 15.370 15.370 2,96 U 2,96U 5.632 5.§32 72 94 1.7 82 12 36 27 6 1 64 18.06 324 13.04 3.92 .22 .88 1.564 506 466 425 167 36 Isolated dlstrlots: Americas Dlatrlot 1. Sumter 2. Sohley' 3. Stewart 4. Taylor 5. Webster 55.632 116.351 24,502 15,221 5.033 5.033 10,603 10,603 10,768 10,768 •1,726 U.726 83 55 l.o 35 20 42 76 24 5 8 4 1 13.23 238 7.78 .97 1.91 2.16 .41 1.711 33 491 162 I*63 4oo 195 Balnbrldge Dlatrlot 1. Decatur 2. Olay 3. Warty It. Miller 5. Quitman 6. Randolph 7. Seminole 86,511 73.938 85 22,234 15.882 7,064 7,06U 18,679 15.905 9.?98 9.?98 3.435 3.435 16.609 13,162 8,692 8,492 89 1.0 47 42 49 57 12 5 9 3 1 11 8 18.41 213 5.76 1.70 3.41 1.39 * •39 3.96 1.80 2.529 34 612 224 526 287 170 436 274 M100H HBOIOH 371.624 279.364 75 666 i.s 278 75 102.59 276 8,146 46 Primary dlatrloti Macon District 1. Bibb 2. Crawford Je Houston U. Jones 5. Monroe 6. Peach 7. Twiggs 140,789 83.783 7,128 11.303 8,331 10,749 10.378 9.117 77.971 25.918 7.128 11.303 8.331 10,7% 5.425 9.117 55 371 371 2.6 132 94 101 2 5 3 8 10 3 52.00 369 40.01 .98 2.58 1.03 2.38 4.02 1.00 2,260 62 251 313 SI 399 151 365 Secondary districts! Dublin Dlatrlot 1. Laurens 2. Bleckley 3. Johnson U. Treutlen 5. Wheeler 6. Wilkinson 83.406 75.592 91 33.606 25,792 9.655 9.655 12.953 12.953 7,632 7.632 8,535 8,535 11,025 11,025 109 1.3 109 50 60 24 6 6 2 5 7 16,06 193 8.08 l.g4 2.17 1.34 1$ 2,301 36 811 219 $ 306 458 Proposed-aeeondary dlstrlots: Bastman Dlatrlot 1. Dod«o 2. Pulaski 3. Telfair >t. W11 ooi 58,751 52.440 89 21, 022 17.711 9,829 6,829 15.145 15.145 12.755 12.755 94 8 1.6 35 60 11 5 i 12.27 209 4.01 2.48 3-72 2.06 1.576 37 % 440 383 Isolated dlstrlots; Cordale Dlatrlot 1. Crisp 2. Ben Hill 3. Dooly &. Irwin 3. Macon 5. Turner 88,678 17,540 14,523 16,886 12.936 15.9^7 10,846 73.361 9.611 7.135 16,886 12.936 15.947 10,846 83 92 30 24 38 1.0 61 64 15 13 7 7 10 9 22.26 6.04 5-99 2.75 2.03 3.14 2.31 251 2,009 44 255 394 372 399 293 See footnotes at end of table. See footnotes at end of table. table 5.- The composition, based upon existing hospital f acuities,of primary, secondary, proposed-secondary, and laolated districts making up broad hospital serrlce regions; and oounty, dlatrlct, regional, and State totals for ealacted Items per- tlnsnt to an evaluation of hospital needs in the SOUTH ATLANTIC STATES - Continued Table 5.— The composition, based upon existing hospital of primary, secondary, proposed-secondary, and isolated dietriots making up broad hospital serrloe regions; and county, district, regional, and State totals for selected items per- tinent to an evaluation of hospital needs in the SOUTH ATLANTIC STATES - Continued BEDS IN 8CNCRAL STATE POPULATION AND PHYSICIANS 37 INCOME- RESIGN ALLIED SPECIAL (DOLLARS) AREA 37 PERSONS HOSPITALS 17 PER AND RURAL SOU ARE MILE COUNTY TOTAL PER PER TOTAL PER CAPITA MILES DESIGNATIONS TOTAL TOTAL OF 1,000 TOTAL 100,000 (IN TOTAL PERSONS PERSONS WU.ICNS) OBDROIA (Continued) - SAVAHHAH HWHOH 452,280 295.429 65 956 2.1 376 83 135.69 300 13.700 33 Primary district: • Sofrannah District 133,904 37.908 28 513 3.8 157 117 58.10 434 lt}60 UUl 98 1. Chatham 117.970 21.974 513 150 55-7J 2. Bryan b,288 6,288 4 .84 1.47 439 3. lffin|jh«a 9.646 9.646 3 480 Secondary districts: Taycross District 95.023 73.085 77 193 2.0 79 83 25.14 265 4,520 a 1. 17ar. 27.929 11,166 147 31 11.66 912 2. Atkinson 3. Bacon 7.093 8,096 7.093 8,096 •91 1,94 318 SI U, Brantley 6,871 6.871 .71 5. Charlton 5.256 5.256 6 1.14 799 6. Clinch 6,437 21,541 6.437 14 6 1-35 796 7. Coffaa 16,}66 32 17 4.78 613 8. Plsroo 11,800 11,800 8 2.65 342 Propossd-ssoondaiy districts: Brunswick District 46,244 28,306 61 82 1.8 38 82 14.66 317 2,156 a 1. Glynn 21,920 6,885 55 22 8.76 423 2. Caaden 5.910 5.910 !-43 656 3. McIntosh 5,292 5.292 1.24 4. fayns 13.122 10, ag 27 3-23 Statesboro District 98.227 84,273 86 132 1.3 60 61 22.26 227 2,«oq 6*rf 35 1. Bulloch 26,010 20,982 70 20 6.20 2. Candler 9.10; 9.103 20 2.22 251 J. teamiel 23.517 7,401 19,942 12 5-58 6s6 4. Brans 7,4o: 1.88 186 3. Jenkins 11,843 9,023 42 2.50 351 0. Screven 20,355 17.822 11 3.85 651 leolatad dlatrlete: Tidal la District 78.882 71.857 16,952 12,843 91 36 0.5 42 53 15.53 197 2,855 28 1. Toonbo 23 11 4.78 51** 2. Appling 14,4o- 11.581 3.03 3* Jeff Darle 8,84: 8,841 1.71 331 U. Liberty 8.595 8.595 4 i.a 5K 5. Long 4,086 4,086 2 .48 U03 d, Montgomery 9,66! 9,668 1.20 235 7. Tattnall 16,243 16,243 13 11 3.12 493 MAHTLAHD 1,8a,244 740,893 4l 7.561 U.2 2,989 164 1,144.30 628 9.887 184 BALTD40ES E*OIOI 1.502,228 532.383 35 6,801 4.5 2,622 175 967.99 644 7.173 209 Primary district: Baltimore District 1. Baltlaore 6/ 1,106. a4 208,653 19 6.162 5.6 2.235 2.134 202 781.24 706 1,844 600 1,014,925 127.023 39.054 34.362 6,ia 735.85 689 2. Carroll 51 20.32 z 3. Harford 35.060 30.093 4l 39 17.25 4. Howard 17.175 17.175 11 7.82 251 Secondary districts: Baston District 50.8M 18,784 46,281 91 109 2.1 52 102 24.69 486 972 52 1. Talbot 14.256 109 24 10.98 279 2, Carolina 17.549 17,549 14,476 14,476 15 8.31 320 3> Qnaan Annas 13 5.4c 373 •mllabnry District 104,746 74,684 71 288 2.7 99 95 52.15 498 1,775 59 1. Hloonloo 54,530 a,a7 177 30 a, 31 380 2, Dorchester 28,006 17.904 75 a 12.68 580 3. Somerset 20.965 17.057 56 is 5.45 33S U. Worcester a,245 18,506 si 12.71 4*3 STATE REGION POPULATION BEOS IN GENERAL AND ALLIED SPECIAL HOSPITAL 8 J/ PHYSICIANS* 5/ INCOME (DOLLARS) LAND AREA 5^ PERSONS PER RURAL SQUARE MILES SQUARE COUNTY DESIGNATIONS TOTAL TOTAL PERCENT OF TOTAL TOTAL PER 1.000 PERSONS TOTAL PER 100,000 PERSONS TOTAL (IN MILLIONS) PER CAPITA MILE MABTLAHD (Continued) Froposed-secondary districts: Annapolis District 1. Anne Arundel 2. Calvert 3* Prince Georges 168,3“9 S3 8“,“90 136.933 55.306 10, “8“ 71.1U3 KL f 119 85 25 9 0.7 155 75 7 73 92 79-80 32.28 3-85 “3.67 1*71* 1,1a “17 ag “85 150 Ilkton District 1. Cecil 2. Kent 39.872 26,“07 13.U65 33.59“ 22,889 10,705 8“ 83 52 31 2.1 8 19 133 20.“3 12.66 7.77 512 636 352 28*‘ 63 Isolated districts: Lsonardtoen District 1. St. Uaryt 2. Charles 32.238 l“,626 17.612 32.238 1U.626 17.612 100 “0 20 ' 20 1.2 28 1“ 1“ 87 9.68 “.05 5.63 300 825 S 39 CUVHKHLAHD HSOIOH 319.016 208,510 65 760 2.“ 367 115 176.31 553 2.71“ 118 Primary district: Cumberland District 1. Allegany 2. Garrett 3. Washington 177.792 86.973 a,98i 68,838 9“.59“ 36,266 a,981 36,3^7 53 “89 3“7 1“2 2.8 18“ 77 30 77 103 98.89 52.20 6.85 39-8“ 556 ‘•511 668 “62 11“ Secondary districts; Frederick District 1. Frederick 2. Montgomery ihl.psU 57.312 83,912 113.916 37.65“ 76,262 81 271 205 66 1*9 183 50 133 130 77-“2 8$ 5“8 1.158 66“ Ugl* 122 HOSTS CAK0LIH1 3.571.623 2,597.““8 .73 8,678 2.U 2.7“0 77 1,089.98 305 “9,1“2 73 ASHT7ILLS HSOIOH 381.079 301.“7“ 79 906 2.U 362 95 107.66 283 6.503 59 Primary district; Asheville District 1. Buncombe 2. Haywood ■J. Henderson 4. Madison 5. McDowell b, Transylvania 7. Tancey 2““.569 108,755 3U.80U 26,01*9 22,522 22.996 12.2U1 17.202 'S* 26,827 20,668 22,522 20,107 9,180 17.202 71 657 “18 75 99 “0 25 2.7 S2 25 32 8 1“ 7 5 112 8“,70 53-?3 s.“s 9.66 3.12 “•57 3-07 1.87 3“6 3,159 6“6 5“3 % “42 379 311 77 Proposed-secondary districts: Franklin District 1. Macon 2# Cherokee 3. Clay U. Graham 5. Jackson 6. Swain 79.059 15,880 18,813 6.U05 6,“18 19.366 12.177 79.059 15.880 18,813 6.“05 6,1*18 19.366 12.177 100 162 86 25 2.0 “8 7 18 2 3 8 10 61 11.39 2-75 2.92 •32 •5“ 3.L7 1.39 1““ 2,5““ s ag 295 $ 31 Sutherfordton District 1. Rutherford 2. Polk 57.“51 >*5.577 11,87“ “8,1*61* 36.590 11,87“ 8“ 87 58 29 1.5 39 29 10 6s 11.57 9.09 2.“8 201 800 566 23“ 72 ddhham HSOIOH 1.235.308 933.“l6 76 2.722 2.2 1,010 82 35“-9l 287 19.176 6“ Primary district; Durham District 1. Durham 2. Chatham 3e Granville Orange 5. Person 6. Take 291.95? 80,2**“ 2“.726 29.3UU 23.072 lol:^ 172.623 20.0“9 2“.726 25.353 19,“is 20,1*30 62,647 59 1,462 883 22 “1 28 “88 5.0 l*2l* 217 10 15 27 11 1““ l“5 115-25 “0.18 5.20 6.“2 5.“i 5.5i 52.53 395 3.213 299 707 5“3 398 “00 866 91 S*e footnotes at end of table. See footnotes at end of table. Table 5. The composition, bated upon eilatlng hospital faeilltlea.i,/ of primary, secondary, propoted-ieoondary, and laolatod districts making op broad hospital aervlco regions; and county, district, regional, and State totals for selected Items per- tinent to an evaluation of hospital needs In the SOUTH ATLANTIC STATUS Continued Table 5. The composition, based upon existing hospital of primary, secondary, ppopossd-seoondary, and Isolated districts making op broad hospital service regions; and ooonty, district, regional, and State totals for selected Items per- tinent to an evaluation of hospital naadt in the SOUTH ATLANTIC STATUS - Continued BEOS IN GENERAL STATE AND INCOME5' LAND PERSONS REGION ALLIED SPECIAL (DOLLARS) arca57 HOSPITALS 17 RURAL SQUARE COUNTY PER TOTAL PER TOTAL PER CAPITA MILES MILE DESIGNATIONS TOTAL TOTAL OF 1.000 100,000 (IN TOTAL PERSONS PERSONS MILLIONS) NORTH CAROLINA (Continued) Secondary district*: Goldsboro District iso.413 156.532 87 153 0.8 105 58 42.66 236 2,441 7>» 1. Wayne 58.328 38.125 118 48 18.18 555 2. Duplin 39.73S 39.73s 18 7.17 822 Greene 18,548 ' 18,548 1 3.1*1 2b9 U. Johnston 63.798 60,120 35 32 13.90 795 Kinston District 70.4a 4s,o66 68 l**7 2.1 52 7>* 21.35 303 1.390 51 1. Lenoir 1*1,211 25.823 10S 3j* IJi.gO 391 2, Carteret 18,28U 11.317 38 l4 3* Jones 10,926 10,926 4 •96 467 Rooky Mount District 165,371 133,1*21 72 461 2.5 131 71 51.25 277 1.930 96 1. Nash 55.605 42,018 246 11 13.32 552 2. Ndgecombe 49,162 30,036 58 56 16.23 3. Franklin 30,382 30,382 20 5.05 4g4 4. Wilson 50,219 30.985 157 37 16.66 373 Proposed-secondary districts: Henderson District 53.106 **5,1*59 22,314 86 83 1.6 27 51 13.77 259 71*1 7>* 1* Tanoe 29.961 83 18 9.27 #9 2. Warren 23.1^5 23,11*5 9 4.50 445 Roanoke Rapids District 1. Halifax 111,012 56.512 99.908 U5.Uog 90 87 87 o.s 57 3? 51 20.93 189 13.22 1.955 722 57 2. Bertie 26,201 26.201 l4 4.89 693 3» Northampton 28.299 28.299 13 2.82 540 Sanford District 62,982 52.766 84 84 1.3 3? 62 15.81 251 861 73 1. Lee 18,71*3 13.783 50 l> 5.3! 255 2. Harnett 1*4,239 38.983 31* 25 10.42 1 606 Washington District 184.473 36.L31 144,969 78 185 1.0 124 67 51.73 280 4,004 46 1. Beaufort 27.86c 69 24 10.43 831 2. Craven 31.298 19.483 31 23 11.29 725 3. Hyde 7,860 7,860 .61 63S 4. Martin 26,111 22,145 25 17 6.86 481 5. Pamlico 9,706 9.706 .64 341 6. Pitt 61,244 45,590 60 Uo 19.64 656 7. Washington 12.323 12,323 2.26 336 Isolated districts: Columbia District 11.597 11.597 100 15 1.3 7 60 1.85 160 787 15 1. Tyrrell 5.556 I'M 15 .62 399 2. Dare 6,041 6 1.23 388 Elizabeth City District 83,474 65,075 20.568 9,004 82 45 0.5 44 53 20.30 243 1,881 44 1. Pasquotank 45 16 9.07 229 2. Camden 5,440 5,440 •4o 239 3. Chowan 11.572 7.737 6 3.11 180 4. Currituck 6.709 6,709 3 .85 273 5. Oates 10,060 10,060 3 .85 s 6. Hertford 19.352 19.352 3.90 7. Perquimans 9.773 9.773 2.12 261 WILMINGTON REGION 426,286 354,170 83 922 2.2 280 66 110.86 260 8,1*69 50 Primary district; Wilmington District 100,709 67,302 67 364 3.6 72 71 36.96 367 2,680 38 1. Hew Hanover 1*7.935 li*.528 3ll* 53 29.99 194 2. Brunswick 17.125 17.125 50 2.06 873 3. Onslow 17.939 17.939 2.55 756 4, Pender 17,710 17.710 2.36 857 Secondary districts: Fayetteville District 106,760 85.775 80 214 2.0 70 66 25.1*6 238 1,624 66 1* Cumberland 2. Sampson 59,320 41,892 47.440 1*3,883 208 6 50 20 16.78 8.6a 661 963 Lumborton District 172,911 158,4lt 92 279 1.6 94 51* 36.76 213 56 1. Robeson 76,860 71.057 180 50 18.87 2. Bladen 27.156 27.156 8 4.54 879 3. Columbus 45,663 42,652 70 25 8.35 939 4. Scotland 23.232 17,547 29 11 5.00 317 BEOS IN GENERAL STATE AND PHYSICIANS 3/ INCOME " REGION ALLIED SPECIAL HOSPITALS" (DOLLARS) AREA PERSONS PER AND RURAL SQUARE COUNTY PER PER TOTAL PER CAPITA MILES DESIGNATIONS TOTAL TOTAL OF TOTAL 1,000 TOTAL 100,000 (IN TOTAL PERSONS PERSONS MILLIONS) BOOTH CABOLIBA (Continued) Proposed-secondary dletrlete: Plnehuret District >»5.906 1*2,681 93 65 1.4 44 96 11.68 254 1,086 42 1. Moore 30.969 27.744 65 29 8.68 672 2. Hoke 14.937 14.937 15 J.OO 4l4 WIHSTOH-SAUM RIO I OH 1.528.950 1,008,388 66 4,128 2.7 1,088 71 516.55 338 14,994 102 Primary districti Winston-Salem District 1. Jorsyth 279.857 126,U75 169,Ujl U6f66c 61 1,027 846 3.7 221 134 79 99.53 356 63.77 !-g 109 2. Davidson 53.37' 31.786 75 32 15.20 548 3- Dario £8 14,909 2.61 264 4. Stokes 22,656 10 3-19 459 5. Surry >♦1.783 32.76; 106 29 12.47 537 6. Yadkin 20.657 20,657 10 2.29 335 Secondary districts: Charlotte District 250,316 127.370 51 953 3.8 23C 92 119.85 479 1.51*5 162 1. Mecklenburg 151,826 50.927 741 !p7 89.28 542 2. Cabarrus 59.39: 43,821 146 **3 21.21 3. Union 39.097 32,622 60 20 9.36 Gastonia District 111,718 7*3.732 67 400 3.6 65 58 30.74 275 666 168 1. Canton 87.531 55.070 315 51 25.09 358 2. Lincoln 24,187 19,662 85 14 5.65 30 s Greensboro District 333.827 202,108 6l 633 1.9 264 79 130.59 391 2.893 115 1. Guilford 153,916 56,102 43: 151 80.10 651 2. Alamance 57.421 40,890 4S 4: 23.34 454 3. Caswell 20,032 20,032 . 1 2.41 435 4. Randolph W+,551* 37.573 63 7.67 SOI 5* Rockingham 57.898 47.5II 95 17.01 572 Shelly District 96.670 65,801 68 212 2.2 61 23.52 243 s 99 1. Cleveland 58.055 37.471 100 15.06 2. Burke 38,615 28,350 112 25 8.1*6 506 Stateerllle Dletrlot isU,737 125,612 6s 50,424 32,302 13,454 13,451* U3U 260 2.7 114 62 54.13 293 1,769 104 1. Iredell 34 12.76 591 2. Alexander 2.14 255 3. Catawba 4. Rowan 32.759 47.097 127 107 15.23 24.00 4o6 517 Propoead-eeoondary districts: Albemarle District ilU.367 97.952 86 206 1.8 57 50 31.25 273 1,897 60 1, Stanly 32.834 28.771* 106 22 9.36 399 2. Anson 28.U4- 24,856 50 13 6.24 3 3. Montgomery 16,280 16,280 1 4.4o 4, Richmond 36,810 28,042 50 15 11.25 477 Banner Ilk District 29,5>*l 29,541 100 73 2.5 16 54 3.74 127 467 63 1, Avery 13,561 13.561 73 ! 1.01 247 2. Mitchell 1-5,980 15,980 1 2.73 220 Wllkesboro District 127.917 115.841 91 130 1.0 62 4e 23.20 181 2, as 58 1. Wilkes 1*3,00- 58.525 55 17 7.40 765 2. Alleghany 8,31*1 22.664 8,341 6 1.20 230 5. Ashe 22,664 25 9 2.93 427 4. Caldwell 35.795 18,114 28,197 50 18 8.52 476 5* Watauga 18,114 12 3.15 320 BOOTH CAEOLIBA 1,899, sol* 1.433.693 75 3.859 2.0 1,1*02 74 530.62 279 30,594 62 OHABLESTON HEOION 325,3>*5 235.748 72 709 2.2 276 85 88.22 271 7.750 42 Primary district: Charleston District 194,1*29 116.758 60 619 3.2 200 103 64,80 333 3.776 51 1. Charleston 121.105 49.830 470 165 52.89 945 1,214 2. Berkeley 27,12? 27.128 58 9 3.10 3* Colleton 26,268 22,895 4s 12 4.96 1,04s 4. Dorchester 19.928 16.905 49 14 3.85 569 See footnotes at end of table. See footnotes at end of table. Table 5.— The oonpoeltlon, based upon existing hospital of priaary, secondary, prcpossd-seoondary, end Isolated districts asking up broad hospital Mrrlcs regions; and county, district, regional, and Stats totals for sslsotsd Itaaa per- tinent to an evaluation of hospital needs In the SOUTH ATLASTIC STATXS - Continued Table 5. The composition, based upon existing hospital of primary, secondary, propoted-secondary, and isolated districts making up broad hospital serriee regions; aad county, district, regional, aad State totals for selected items per- tinent to aa era!nation of hospital needs in the SOOTH JLTLABTIC STATUS - Continued STATE REGION DISTRICT population^ •COS IN GENERAL AND ALLIED SPECIAL HOSPITALS V PHYSICIANS y (DOLLARS) LAND ajkaB/ PER RURAL SQUARE MILES SQUARE COUNTY DESIGNATIONS TOTAL TOTAL PERCENT OF TOTAL TOTAL PER 1,000 PERSONS TOTAL PER 100,000 TOTAL (IN PER CAPITA MILE SOUTH CAROLINA (Continued) Proposed-sscondary districts! Elngetree District 1. W111lamsbnxg 2. Georgetown 67.363 1*1,011 26.352 58.622 37.829 20.793 87 60 60 0.9 27 15 12 1*0 12.H3 5-85 6.58 185 1.744 93i 813 39 leolated dletrlote! Bldgeland District 1. J Riipor 2. Allendale 3. Beaufort U. Heapton 63.553 11,011 13,01*0 22.037 n.Wi 60,36s 11,011 13.01*0 is,852 17.>*65 95 30 30 0.5 s 29 8 77 10.99 .81 2.2** H.6l 303 173 2.230 S5 672 562 28 Colombia asaios 1,016,01*5 779.305 77 . I.8U7 i.s 706 69 261.85 258 17.1>*7 59 Primary dlatriot: Columbia. District 1. Richland 2. Calhoun J. Talrflsld H. Kershaw 5« Lexington 6. Hewbsrry 2H7.7**3 10l*,gl*3 16,229 2**,187 32.913 35.991* 33.577 159.58** 3|.939 27)166 33.21*9 22.795 6h 6H0 5U1 58 1*1 2.6 27** 200 10 11 16 17 20 111 78.38 1*8.56 2.99 7.29 8.72 316 3.968 7Hs k 62 Secondary districts: Florence District 1. Florence 2. Dillon 3. Horry H. Marlon 182,265 70.582 29.625 51.951 30,107 1UU.6I8 52,006 25.758 1*6,885 19.969 79 1*32 27** 65 93 2.U 117 58 17 20 22 61* H7.38 22.55 5.65 12.12 7.06 260 2,8l*l* «°5 1*07 1.152 1*80 6H Greenwood District 1. Greenwood 2. Idgefleld 3. McCormick U. Saluda 85.536 1*0,083 17.89lt IO.367 17.192 72.328 27.063 17.891* 10.367 17,001* 85 101 101 1.2 1*2 28 6 3 5 1*9 21.69 1H.2H 3-29 1.38 2.78 25H ‘•IS H«1 H03 1*1*2 1*8 Orangeburg Dlatriot 1. Orangeburg 2. Bamberg 82,350 63.707 18,61*3 68,829 53.186 15.61*3 81* 132 132 1.6 1*9 39 10 60 17.77 13.58 H.19 216 1.515 1,120 395 51* Bock Hill District 1. Tork 2. Chester 3. Lancaster 12l*,78l* 58.663 32.579 33,5*12 89.1*72 34.173 26,187 29.112 72 257 155 50 52 2.1 78 1*6 17 15 63 32.67 17.90 ea 262 1.771* 685 g 70 Sunter District 1. Sumter 2. Clarendon 3. Lee 108,871 52.^3 31,500 2**,908 90,002 36.589 31.500 21.913 83 ill* ill* 1.0 59 37 12 10 51* 22.26 13.22 H.6H U.Ho 20H 1,792 hS 61 Fropossd-ssoondary districts! Aiken District 1. Aiken 2. Barnwell 20,138 61.257 1*1,119 20,138 87 60 60 0.9 37 27 10 53 15.83 ua 226 1.650 1.097 553 H2 Hartsrllls District 1. Darlington 2. Chesterfield 3> Marlboro 111*, 1*1*2 1*5,198 35.963 33.281 93.1*15 9S 28,386 82 111 79 32 1.0 50 22 15 13 HI* M 7*H5 226 1,820 545 zs 63 QBXXHTILL1 HSOIOH 558,1*11* 1*18,61*0 75 1.303 2.3 1*20 75 180.55 323 5.697 98 Primary district: Greenrllle District 1. Greenrllle 2. Laurens 180,765 131.081* 99.1*97 31.587 73 561 508 53 3.1 166 iHl 25 92 72.55 52.3 10.2H Hoi 1.502 789 713 120 STATE POPULATION 5/ •EOS IN GENERAL AND PHYSICIANS 3/ iNOose^' LAND SCSI Off ALLIED SPECIAL HOSPITALS-*^ (DOLLARS) AREA **/ PER RURAL SfKPAfff SQUARE OOUffTY DESIGNATIONS TOTAL TOTAL PERCENT OF TOTAL TOTAL PER 1,000 PERSONS TOTAL PER 100,000 PERSONS TOTAL (IN MILLIONS) PER CAPITA MILES MILE SOUTH CASOLH1 (Continued) Secondary district*i Anderson District 1. Anderaon 2. Abberilla I. Ooob** H. PickBB* 185,266 88,712 22.931 36.512 37.111 6*1,034 17.981 33.692 31.928 80 5? 4o 45 1.4 111 60 60 10 22 19 47.49 28.25 4.17 7.07 8.00 256 2.456 776 670 501 75 Spartanburg District 1. Spartanburg 2. Cherokee J. Union 192.3*3 127.733 33.290 31.360 139.921 IM 22,882 73 4go 4ll 54 25 2.5 143 107 18 18 74 60.51 45.33 6.59 8.59 315 1.739 in 830 394 515 VIRGINIA 2.677.773 1.733.098 65 7.108 2.7 2,889 108 1.063.33 397 39.899 67 CHAHLOTTSSTILL* ENOION 280,73*» 207,681 74 1.119 4.0 387 158 110.83 395 6.195 45 Primary district: Charlottesville District 1. Alheaarla 2/ 2. Fluvanna 3. Greene 4. Nelson 72.599 53.199 44,052 24,652 7,088 7.088 5,218 §,218 16.2U1 lb,24l 73 575 575 7.9 166 229 15°4 2 10 28.19 388 23.62 1.24 .75 2.58 1,648 44 745 282 i1?3 468 Secondary diatriota: ' Harrisonburg District 1. Rockingham 2/ 2. Page §4.920 5p,057 14,863 46,152 31. 289 14,863 84 171 146 25 3.1 46 84 36 10 23.08 19.44 3.64 420 1,187 31* 46 Winchester District 1. Frederick 2/ 2. Clarke 3. Shenandoah 4. Warren 65.512 26,103 7.159 20,898 11.352 49,586 14,008 7.159 20,898 7.521 76 209 151 33 25 3.2 72 110 30 5 % 28.00 i4.a 2.6s 6.07 5.04 427 *•8 174 507 ag 49 Fropoaed-seeondary districts: Staunton District 1. Augusta 7/ 2. Highland- 3. Rockbridge 2/ 87.703 56.109 ■♦,875 26.719 58.744 35.399 4.875 18,470 67 164 107 57 1.9 103 71 5 27 117 31.56 22.40 •83 8.33 36o 2,024 1.001 4i6 607 43 LTNCHBDHO BSGION 313,080 223,646 71 624 2.0 234 75 103.15 329 5.096 61 Primary district: Lynchburg District 1. Campbell JJ 2. Amherst 3- Appomattox 4. Bedford 5- Pittsylvania 2/ 22*1,015 70,589 20,273 9.020 P:6u5 139.833 23.129 20.273 9,020 ge 62 37<* 2'5 a 170 188 84 87 ll 20 62 S4.l4 ».:S 5-5* 33-99 376 $ 1,028 71 Proposed-secondary districts: South Boston District 1. Halifax 2. Charlotte 3« Mecklenburg 59,065 1*1,271 15,861 31.933 83.813 36,019 15,861 31.933 94 59 59 0.7 46 17 10 19 52 19.01 8.59 2.18 8.24 213 1.941 808 468 665 46 NORFOLK REGION 625, ai 312.232 50 1.524 2.4 744 119 298.60 478 5.873 106 Primary district: Norfolk District 1. Norfolk 7/ 2. Princess Anne 258.927 238.943 19,984 53.212 35.828 17.384 a 84c 840 3.2 391 151 161.62 155.77 5-85 624 667 4oo 267 388 8m footnotes at sad of table. 8m footnote* at and of table. Table 5. The composition, based upon existing hospital of primary, secondary, proposed-secondary, and Isolated districts up broad hospital serrlce regions; and county, district, regional, and State totals for selected Items per- tinent to an evaluation of hospital needs In the SOUTH ATLANTIC STATUS - Continued Table 5. The composition, based upon existing hospital facilities,* / of primary, secondary, proposed-secondary, and Isolated districts making up broad hospital service regions; and county, district, regional, and State totals for selected Items per- tinent to an evaluation of hospital needs In the SOUTH ATLANTIC STATUS - Continued BEOS IN GENERAL STATE AND PHTSICIANS y INCOME y ALLIED SPECIAL (DOLLARS) AREA V HOSPITALS i/ PER RURAL SQUARE MILES SQUARE COUNTY 4al PER PER TOTAL PER CAPITA MILE DESIGNATIONS TOTAL OF 1,000 TOTAL 100,000 (IN TOTAL PERSONS PERSONS MILLIONS) Virginia (Continued) Secondary districts: Newport Hews District 102,202 51.792 9,258 51 505 5.0 155 . 152 57.25 560 506 252 1. Narwlok X/ U6.3J-5 291 67 36.05 75 2, Kllsaheth City 7 / 38,101 28,780 91 55 l5.g5 57 ■5, Jamee City 7 / 8,85$ 5.901 n lj 5.53 151 5. Fork 8.857 8.857 I 1.72 123 Proposed-sscondary districts: Nassawadox District 50,627 50.627 100 53 1.0 5a 83 12.58 258 696 73 1* Northampton 17.597 17.591 53 18 6,05 226 2. Accomack 33.030 33.030 25 6.55 570 Petersburg District 122,821 8O.776 66 111 0.9 101 82 50.69 331 2,560 50 1. Dinwiddle 2/ “*8.797 18,166 89 56 22.93 513 2. Brunswick 19.575 19,575 5.13 579 3. Oroonsrllls I**. 866 12.131 3 3.85 301 5. Prince George X/ 20,905 12,226 22 l5 6.03 291 5. Sony 6,19: 6,191 1.10 200 6. Sussex 12,585 12,585 11 2.66 596 Suffolk District 1* laasemond X/ m 59,128 22.771 80 115 1.6 80 52 25 70 22.28 12.69 301 56 2. Isle of Wight 3* Southampton w 13.381 22.976 35 5 22 3-57 6.02 3 Isolated districts: Mathews District 16.697 16.697 100 13 78 5.1J 251 312 55 1. Mathews 7.1% 7.15! t 1.95 87 2. Gloucester 9.5“*8 9.558 c 2.25 225 RICHMOND HBQION 739.587 533.972 59 2,518 3.3 925 125 333.10 550 ’ 11,573 65 Primary district; Richmond District 307,177 110,951 36 2,155 7.0 538 175 I89.60 617 a5T 152 1. Henrico X/ 235,002 51,960 “*,275 “*.275 2,155 506 175.98 2. Charles City .65 185 3, Chesterfield 4, Goochland 31,:$ M 5.5s 1.01 575 5. Haaorer 18,500 18,500 16 5.07 6. New Kent “1,092 >1.092 2 1.3 212 7s Powhatan 5.671 5.671 1.0“ 268 Secondary districts! Alexandria District 169,5a 76,382 55 135 0.8 175 103 68.55 5o5 1,312 129 1. Arlington 7/ 90.563 102 96 57.98 32 2. Fairfax 50,92! 38.353 29 8-3’ 5i6 3, Loudoun 20,291 20.291 32 7.W 517 5. Prince William 17.738 17,738 5.79 357 Proposed-seoondary districts! rarmrille District 73.720 67.556 15,922 11,W 92 55 0.7 5; 72 18.01 255 2.338 32 1. Prince Ndward 55 it 5.12 s 2. Amelia 8,“*95 8.595 •97 3« Buckin^iaa 13.398 13.398 i 2.32 57' 5. Cnaherland 5. Lunenburg i7 i7,:18 2 6 •95 3.07 288 553 6. Nottoway 15.556 12.857 l5 5.58 308 Frederioksharg District 83.153 73.077 88 85 1.0 73 88 29-9! 360 2,587 33 1. Spotsylvania 7/ 19,971 9.905 13.9**5 13.9*15 75 25 13.5c St 2. Carolina 12 2.62 3s Culpeper Louisa 13.365 13.365 13.665 13.665 12 6 5.87 2.79 s 5s Orange 12,659 12,659 10 13 5.08 355 6s Stafford 9.558 9.558 5 1.10 271 •COS IN GENERAL •TATE POPULATIOH?/ AND PHYSICIANS ?/ INCOME^ region ALLIED SPECIAL (DOLLARS) AREAS/ PERSONS HOSPITALS*/ PER AND RURAL SQUARE MILE COUNTY TOTAL PER PER TOTAL PER CAPITA MILES DESIGNATIONS TOTAL TOTAL 1,000 TOTAL 100,000 (IN TOTAL PERSONS PERSONS MILLIONS) YlftOIKU (Continued) leoletad districts; Colonial Beach Dietriot 40, Bps 40,826 100 32 78 9.43 231 948 43 1. Westmoreland 9.512 9,512 6 2.30 236 2. King George 5.431 5.431 5 .95 178 3. Lancaster 8.786 8,786 10 2.70 142 U, Horthuaherlond 10,463 10,46; 8 2.26 200 5« Hicbnond 6.634 6,634 3 1.22 192 Warren ton Dietriot 36.712 36.712 100 34 93 10,46 255 1.254 29 1. Tsaqoler 21,03; 21 7.89 660 2. Uadloon 8,465 « 1.46 327 3. Happahannock 7.208 7,208 5 1.11 267 West Point Dietriot 28,488 28,488 100 a 74 7-11 250 978 29 1. King Killian 7,855 7.855 1 2.72 278 2. Xaaex 7.006 7.006 1 1.69 250 3. ting and Qncen 6.954 i .96 315 4. Middlesex 6.673 • 5 1.80 132 BOARD RXC10H 719.161 555.567 77 1,423 2.0 599 83 217-65 303 11.262 64 Prlnary dletrloti Boaaoke Dietriot 198,427 112,958 57 496 2.5 231 116 91.5? 462 2,689 74 1. Roanoke 2/ 112,184 as? 437 175 73-04 303 2. Botetourt 16.447 6 2.76 3. Craig 3.769 3.769 3 .82 4. noyd 11.967 11.967 8 1.88 383 5 • Kranklin 25,864 25,867 < 3.82 718 6. Montgomery XI 28,196 21,206 59 30 9-27 400 Secondary dietriota: Clifton lorge Dietriot 56.340 23.579 65 177 4.9 4l 113 17.01 468 992 37 1. Alleghany J/ 29.14; 16,358 164 34 15-35 452 2. Bath 7.191 7.191 13 7 Richland* District 77.199 63.333 35.063 82 222 2.9 72 93 20.06 260 1.326 58 1. fasoeell 41,607 176 39 12,40 522 2. Bland 6.731 6.731 46 ! .90 369 3. Sayth 28,861 21.539 28 6.76 435 Proposed-eeoondary dietriot el Abingdon Dietriot 74.592 61,161 82 l4g 2.0 54 72 18.49 248 1,066 70 1. Washington 7/ 2. Bnaeall 2:1 34.534 26,627 106 43 13 14.70 3-79 $ Ortmdy Dietriot 52.743 31.477 52,743 100 70 1.3 a 4o 9.48 180 843 63 1. Buchanan 31.477 5< if 5*75 508 2. Dloksnson 21,266 a, 266 20 6 3-73 335 Martlnorllla Dietriot 53.174 43,094 81 111 2.1 34 64 14.05 264 863 62 1. Henry 7/ 36.561 26,481 91 29 11.49 39U 2. Patrick 16,613 16,613 20 5 2.56 469 Horton Dietriot 1. flea 118.743 52,458 107.396 4l,Ul 90 133 101 1.1 8 61 23-19 12a 195 ‘•a 89 2. Lea 39.296 39.296 32 19 454 3. Scott 26.989 ».989 13 3.48 539 Pulaakl Dietriot 107.943 91.303 85 65 0.6 73 68 23.78 220 2,096 51 1. Pnlaeki 2. Carroll 3. Cllee 22.767 m xa 14,635 65 a 7 5.72 2.95 3.28 $ § 4. Orayaon 21,916 20,111 16 5.52 5. Wythe 22,721 18,068 20 6.31 460 3m footnotaa at tnd of table. tea footnotes at end of table. 46 Tall* 5. Th. oowposltlon, bas.4 upon .slating hospital facilities,l/ of prlaarj, secondary, proposad-s.oondary, and Isolated district! Baking up broad hospital sorrlco regions; and county, district, regional, and State totals for selected Iteas par- tlnent to an evaluation of hospital needs in the SOUTH ATLANTIC STARS - Contlimed Table 5, The composition, based upon existing hospital facilities, 1/ of primary, secondary, proposed-secondary, and Isolated districts naklng up broad hospital service regions; and county, district, regional, and State totals for selected Items per- tinent to an evaluation of hospital needs In the SOUTH ATLANTIC STATES - Continued •TATE RESIGN POPULATION BEDS IN SENCRAL AND ALLIED SPECIAL HOSPITALS*/ PHYSICIAN* V INCOME^ (DOLLARS) LAND AREA 5/ PERSONS PER RURAL IN SQUARE COUNTY DESIGNATIONS TOTAL TOTAL PERCENT OF TOTAL TOTAL PER 1.000 PERSONS TOTAL PER 100,000 PERSONS TOTAL (IN MILLIONS) PER CAPITA MILES MILE net tihoiiu 1.901.97* 1.367.652 72 5.5a 2.9 1,83* 96 753-80 396 2*. 090 79 CHAEUSTOM BXOIOI 1.039.336 778.969 75 3.321 3.2 98* 95 *12.29 397 10,81* 96 Primary district i Charleston Distrlot 1. Kanawha 2• Boone 3. Clay s 4. Jackson 5* Putnaa 6. Roane 296.277 195.619 28,556 15.206 16,598 19.511 3). 787 205,293 105.617 28.556 15.206 16.598 18.529 20,787 69 90* 88* 20 3.1 307 10* 2*7 15 5 13 11 16 132.82 109.98 8.1* 2.*9 *.08 3.6* *.*9 **8 3.0*9 908 501 81 Si 97 Secondary districts: Becklsy District 1* Raleigh 2. Stunners 107.096 86,657 20,U09 88, *29 S;g 83 310 2.9 250 60 91 85 76 15 38.52 360 & 359 ill Huntington Distrlot 1. Cabell 2. Lincoln 3. Mason 4. Vayne 178,151 97.*59 22,886 22,270 35.566 91.905 21,893 22,886 18,732 28,39* 52 658 658 3.6 180 101 ‘1 1U 11 68.53 56.28 3.00 *.** *.S1 385 1,662 279 *38 *32 513 107 Logan District 1. Logan 2. Mingo J. fyonlng 138,3** 67.768 *0,802 29.77* 121,786 62,602 88 393 199 15* 2.8 11* 82 60 37 17 51.50 26.86 15.31 9.33 372 *23 50* 100 Montgomery District 1. Payette 2. licholas 10*.698 80,628 2*,070 9*,089 75.070 19.019 90 282 2.7 202 80 92 88 77 15 32.9s 28.19 *•79 315 6*9 80 Welch District 1. McDowell 2. Meroer 162,6*3 9*.35* 68,289 125.370 85,1*8 *0,222 77 325 *.* 153 9* s 7*.98 35-38 39.60 *61 950 8? 171 Propoeed-eeoondary districts: Roncere rte District 1. Greenbrier 2. Monroe 52.097 38.520 13.577 52.097 38,520 13.577 100 85 l.S 85 *7 90 ll 12.96 2*9 10.6* 2.32 l.*99 1,026 *73 35 PAHUHSTOBO HSOICW *99.637 383.171 77 1,21* 2.* *61 92 170.97 3*2 10,836 *6 Prlaaiy district: Parkersburg District 1. food 2. Pleasants t. Hitch's *. Wirt 90.955 60.852 67 62.399 32.296 6,692 6,692 290 3.2 290 97 107 73 8 1* 2 *3-33 35.5* 2.*5 *.33 1.01 *76 1,18* 368 i30 *52 23* 77 Secondary districts: Clarksburg District !• Harrison 2. Doddridge 3. Tyler 106.393 82,911 10,923 12.559 67.72* *6,9** 10.923 9,857 6* 229 229 2.2 116 109 10* 3 9 *8.10 *1.16 2.63 *•31 *52 s §6 107 Xlkins District 1. Randolph 2. Barbour 3. Pendleton 4. Pocahontas J, Tucker 0. Upshur 7. Webster 12*.53l 30.259 I9.86q 10,88* 13.906 13.173 18,360 18,080 111,9*8 22,126 19.86q 10,88* 13.906 13.173 13.910 18,080 90 318 2.6 17* 50 25 s 108 87 3f 16 6 18 li 7 30.79 8.66 *•73 1.87 3-92 3.87 *.29 3.*5 2*7 *.339 695 9*3 *21 352 551 29 Martinsburg District 1, Berkeley 2, Jefferson 3, Morgan 5*.521 29,016 16.762 8.7*3 36.532 13.953 13.836 8.7*3 67 253 188 25 *0 *.6 *9 90 29 13 7 18.95 11.78 5.1* 2.03 3*8 760 316 211 233 72 STATE REGION POPULATION BEDS IN GENERAL AND ALLIED SPECIAL HOSPITALS i/ PHYSICIANS V INCOME (DOLLARS) LAND AREA 8/ PERSONS PER RURAL SQUARE MILES SQUARE COUNTY DESIGNATIONS TOTAL TOTAL PERCENT OF TOTAL TOTAL PER 1.000 PERSONS TOTAL PER 100,000 PERSONS TOTAL (IN MILLIONS) PER CAPITA MILE WXST VIBOIHIA (Cent limed) Propot»d-»»eoBdAry districts: Keyser District !• Mineral 2. Grant J. Haapshire h. Hardy 56,807 pa, as 8,806 12.97** 10,813 65.953 13.361 8,805 12,976 10.813 86 50 50 0.9 36 16 7 6 9 66 16.10 257 6.96 2.19 2.87 2.10 2.031 Ss 639 585 27 Veston District 1. Lewis 2. Braxton "5. Calhoun U. 0liner 68,1*30 22,271 a.65s as 60,162 16.003 a,658 12.1*55 12,066 88 76 76 1.1 55 27 18 6 6 30 15.70 229 7.69 6.25 1.96 2.00 1.529 392 517 281 339 65 VHHLI90 HMIOI 363,001 205.562 57 986 2.7 389 107 170.56 670 2,660 169 Prlaary district: Wheeling District !• Ohio 2. Brooke J* Hancock 4. Marshall 170,389 66,757 73.115 12,016 25,513 12,076 31.572 23.978 uo.189 18,687 39 80 3.6 201 132 16 118 89.66 55.05 10.01 13.69 11.11 526 586 107 89 82 306 292 Secondary districts! Tairnont District 1. Marion 2. Taylor 3. Wetzel 110,966 73.772 68,683 1*2.1*33 19,919 12,1*88 22,31*2 18,851 66 235 205 30 2.1 12 19 95 68.30 635 36.71 6.67 6.92 866 309 175 362 131 Morgantown District !• Monongalia 2. Preston 81,668 65,013 80 51.252 36.597 30,Ul6 30,616 178 168 10 2.2 83 58 25 102 32.58 399 25.85 6.73 1,010 365 665 81 J7 Hospital bed totals used for selecting hospital centers and defining service districts and regions within each State were obtained by tabulating data published for Individual general and allied special hospitals In the Journal of the American Medical Association, Vol. 121, No. 13, March 27, lncluded in the general and allied special category are all general hospitals plus those rendering specialised services commonly provided by general hospitals, l.e. maternity. Industrial, isolation, eye-ear- aose-throat, orthopedic, children's, convalescent and rest, chronic, and others offering similar limited types of care. General hospitals operated by the Bureau of Indian Affairs are counted on the assumption that they represent facilities operated on a local area basis, but other Federal hospitals are excluded. Also in the excluded group are all mental and tuberculosis hospitals and infirmary units of correctional and custodial Institutions. 2./ County population totals from: Population. First Series, U. S, Summary, Table 17, Sixteenth Census of the United States: 19^0> 2/ Physician totals represent counts of all physicians listed in the I9UO American Medical Directory. 2/ Estimates of effective buying Income In 19**0, n»de by Sales Management on the basis of money actually paid for goods and services. Federal allotments, money paid out of savings and surpluses by business and financial Institutions, plus the nonmoney Income of farm and village residents, were obtained for counties and States from: Sales management survey of buying power. Sales Management, Vol, Us, No. 8, April 10, These data have been reproduced with permission of Sales Management, Inc. 9/ Land area In square miles from: Population. First Series, U. S. Summary, Table 17, Sixteenth Census of the United States: 19%. 2/ Districts were outlined with Baltimore City and Baltimore County treated as a single political unit, 2/ Districts were outlined with the 2U independent cities of Virginia and the counties of which they originally were a part treated as a single political unit. Sea footnote! at and of table. 47 Table 6. The composition, based upon existing hospital of primary, secondary, proposed-secondary, and Isolated districts asking up broad hospital service regions; and county, district, regional, and State totals for selected Iteas per- tinent to an evaluation of hospital needs In the EAST SOUTH CENTRAL STATES Table 6. The conposltlon, based open existing hospital of primary, secondary, proposed-seoondary, and Isolated districts Making up broad hospital serrloe regions; and county, district, regional, and State totals for selsoted Itaas per- tinent to an evaluation of hospital needs In the EAST SOOTH CENTRAL STATES - Continued STATE REGION POPULATION BEDS IN GENERAL AND ALLIED SPECIAL HOSPITALS V PHYSICIANS 3/ INCfttC < (DOLLARS) LAND AREA 0/ PERSONS PER RURAL SQUARE MILES SQUARE COUNTY DESIGNATIONS TOTAL TOTAL PERCENT OF TOTAL TOTAL PER 1,000 PERSONS TOTAL PER 100,000 PERSONS TOTAL (IN MILLIONS) PER CAPITA MILE ALABAMA 2,832,961 1.977.020 70 5.11*0 1.8 2,075 73 682.20 291 51.078 55 BIEMIKtHAM HEOIOH 1.579.512 1.038.581* 66 3.329 2.1 1.296 79 913-73 262 22,888 69 Primary district: Birmingham District 1. Jefferson 2. Bibb 3. Blount 9. St, Clair 5. Shelby 565.873 959.930 20.155 29,1*90 27.336 28,962 21*6,621 11*0,717 20,155 29.1*90 27.297 28,962 1*1* 2,212 2,176 36 3.9 606 51*7 13 s 17 107 229.98 210.79 2.59 2.90 9.09 9.11 397 3.829 1.117 625 690 691 801 198 Secondary districts: Gadsden District 1. Etowah 2. Cherokee De Kalb 4. Marshall 177.978 72.580 19,928 1*3.075 1*2.395 123,61*5 30.720 19,928 SI8 69 252 212 4o 1.1* 108 56 7 *2! 61 S3 8.10 200 2,509 778 571 71 Jasper District 1* Walker 2. Cullman J. Fayette 4. Laaar 5. Marlon 6. Winston 200,1*25 61*. 201 1*7.31*3 21.651 19.708 28.776 18.796 183,281 18.983 19.708 28.776 18,71*6 91 195 125 50 20 1.0 20 3 17 11 57 28.35 10.00 7.53 3.32 2.57 3.12 1.81 l9l 9,i6o 809 793 627 605 *793 633 98 Tuscaloosa District 1. Tuscaloosa 2. Greene J. Hale 4. Pickens 11*8,1*25 76,036 19.185 25.533 27.671 117.71*5 >♦5.356 19,185 25.533 27.671 79 3 17 1.0 125 85 •11 19 15 89 26.69 19.65 2.10 2.39 2.55 180 3.535 1,390 695 663 887 92 Propossd-secondary districts: Anniston District 1. Calhoun 2. Clehorns 76.91*8 63.319 13.629 l*l*,Ull 30.782 13.629 58 60 60 0.8 6l *9 79 20.33 18.59 1.79 269 1,189 610 579 65 Huntsnrille District I. Madison 2* Jackson J. Linestone 4. Morgan 191.909 66.317 1*1,802 Sfi 152.1*95 53.267 38.968 31.300 28,960 79 152 70 20 12 50 0.8 109 1*0 20 17 32 57 36.59 17.97 9.6s ifcs 190 3.096 X.S $ 63 Sheffield District 1. Oolhert 2. Franklin 3. Lauderdale 9, Lawrsnos 135.755 39.093 27.552 1*6,230 27,880 ‘g;$ 2l*,0l*2 31.187 27.880 76 H*5 75 £ 1.1 82 29 17 32 9 60 30.93 7.51 3-79 16.86 2.32 229 2,639 616 699 688 686 52 Talladega District 1. Talladega 2. Olay 3> Coosa 82.199 51.832 16,907 13,1*60 66,632 36,265 16.907 13,U60 81 160 160 1.9 90 27 ? 99 11.28 8.38 1.89 1.01 137 2,001 g 698 9l MOBIL* RSOIOI 325.771* 23l*,i*l*7 72 1*87 1.5 290 79 89.90 276 9,000 36 Primary district: Mobile District 1. Mobile 2. Baldwin 3> Washington 190,1*86 191,971* 32.32** 16,188 105,682 57.170 32.32** 16,188 55 U13 1*13 2.2 156 132 18 6 82 70.81 63.32 6.70 .79 372 J*??5 1,298 1,613 1.069 98 BEOS IN GENERAL STATE POPULATION AND PHYSICIANS?/ INCOME y ALLIED SPECIAL (DOLLARS) AREA®/ PERSONS HOSPITALS*/ PER AND RURAL SQUARE SQUARE MILE COUNTY TOTAL PER PER TOTAL PER MILES DESIGNATIONS TOTAL TOTAL 1,000 TOTAL 100,000 (IN TOTAL PERSONS PERSONS MILLIONS) iumui (Continued) Isolated districts: Jackson District 135,288 'SiS 95 74 0.5 84 62 19.09 l4l 5.070 a 1. Clarke 27.636 16 17 4.79 l,24l 2, Choctaw 20,195 20,195 5 1.77 2* 3. 1 scant) la 30.67! 29.465 £*.l4« 22 2; 6.1< 962 1*. Monroe 29.465 16 3.44 914 5. Center 27.3a 27.3a 36 19 2.90 U3KTOOMSHT BWOIOW 927.675 703.989 76 1.324 1.4 589 63 178.57 192 19.190 48 Primary dletrlct; Montgomery Dletrlct 236,0U5 149,101 63 336 1.4 179 76 69.12 293 3.959 60 1. Montgomery 114,420 36.336 279 129 54.45 790 2. Autanga 20.977 18.31! 20 8 2.40 599 1. Bello ok 19.810 16.70} 8 2.16 615 4. Crenshaw 5* Minors 23.631 31.457 37 10 17 2.92 4.63 611 628 6. Lowndes 22,661 22,661 7 2.56 716 Secondary dlstrlotsi Dothan Dlstrlot 119.434 95.836 80 i4g 1.2 73 61 19-58 164 2,281 52 1, Houston 45.665 28.471 l4g 31 10.6< 578 2. Dale 22,685 19.064 14 2.58 560 3. Cenera 29.172 26.365 18 3.66 578 4. Henry 21,912 21,912 10 2.65 565 Sslaa District 171.825 143.872 84 185 1.1 108 63 29.92 174 4.287 4o 1. Dallas 55.245 35.411 185 43 15.61 85 2# Chilton 27,955 23.97! 18 4.09 3. Marengo 35.736 31.599 26,610 22 4.41 97? 4. Perry 26,610 12 2.84 734 5. Wilcox 26.279 26.279 13 2.85 900 Tuskegee Dlstrlot 99.884 67.457 68 222 2.2 77 77 15.97 160 1,867 53 1. Macon 27.654 23,711 134 42 4.09 616 2. Lee 36.455 23.J16 20,424 88 24 7.60 612 3. Bussell 35.775 11 4.28 639 Proposed-seoondary dlstrlotsi Alexander City Dlstrlot 102,932 85,983 84 115 1.1 51 50 13.22 128 1.890 54 1. Tallapoosa & 28,630 83 16 5.35 711 2. Chambers 36.005 17 4.79 598 3. Randolph 25,516 a,34s 32 18 3.08 581 CreenTille District 100,353 32,447 82,215 82 154 1.5 48 4e 15.82 158 2.657 38 1. Butler 27,372 86 16 4.54 773 2* Conecuh 25.489 25,485 16 10 2.58 850 3. Covington 42.417 29.354 52 22 8.70 1,034 Troy Dlstrlot 97.202 79.525 25.438 82 163 1.7 53 55 14.94 154 2.249 43 1. Pike 32.491 70 19 6.52 673 2. Barbour 32.722 26.453 27.634 52 17 4.22 899 3. Coffee 31.987 41 17 4.20 677 nSTDOIT 2.845,627 1.996.300 70 5.309 1.9 2.761 97 872.06 306 40,109 71 LomroToi BsoiOK 1.594,984 1,242,463 78 2,500 1.6 1.283 so J88.ll 243 22,056 72 Primary dlstrlot! Lexington Dlstrlot 150.290 79.289 53 652 4.3 270 180 S:5 502 1,542 97 1. Payette 78,89$ 29.595 509 185 280 2. Bourbon 17,932 U.235 50 21 4.75 300 3. Harrison 15.124 10,28* 35 17 5-12 308 He Jessamine 12.17* 8.982 15 3.14 5. Scott 14,314 9.894 26 19 4.30 6. Woodford 11,847 9.299 32 15 3.20 193 See footnotes at end of table. See footnote* at and of table. Table 6. The oonpoaitlon, band upon existing hospital facilities,!/ of prlaary. secondary, propoaad-aaoondary, and Isolated dlatrleta aaklng op broad boapltal nrrloa ration•; aad county, district, rational, and Stata totals for selected Itaaa par- tinnt to an eraluAtioa of hospital needs in tha CAST SOOTH CBTHAL STATES - Continued Tabla 6. The composition, baaad upon existing boapltal facilities,!/ of prlaary, aaoondazy, propoaad-aaoondary, and laolatad dlatrlota waking up broad boapltal aarrloa region*: aad oounty, dlatrlot, regional, and Stata totala for aalaoted Itaaa par- tiaent to an oral tint ion of hospital nasds in tha EAST SOUTH CENTRAL STATES - Continued •EOS IN SENERAL STATE AND PKYSJCtAWS 5/ INCOME ALLIED SPECIAL (DOLLARS) a«a5/ HOSPITALS^ PER RURAL SQUARE MILES SQUARE COUNTY PER TOTAL PER TOTAL PER CAPITA MILE DC8I8NATI0N8 TOTAL TOTAL OF TOTAL 1.000 100,000 (IN TOTAL PERSONS PERSONS MILLIONS) mrucrr (Continued) # Secondary districts! Berea District 91.933 80.967 88 233 2-5 65 71 15.95 175 58 1. Madison 28.541 21,206 233 37 8.06 2. Iat111 17.978 14,347 2.83 262 3. Oarrard 11,910 11,910 3 2.51 234 4. Jackson 16.33! 16.339 •98 337 3. Hockoastle 17,165 17.165 1.57 312 . Covington District 200.452 70,579 35 478 2.4 213 106 95.72 478 l.lf* 167 1. Kenton 93.13! 22.051 378 102 51.96 166 2. Boone 10,820 10,820 10 1.93 252 J. Caapbell 71.918 1?.133 100 77 36.13 151 U. Gallatin 3* Grant 4.307 4,307 9.876 9.876 2 15 .88 2.57 100 250 b. Pendleton 10,392 10.392 1 2.25 279 Hat&rd District 180,212 163,387 91 40.431 23.946 23,946 223 1.2 81 45 22.74 126 2,608 69 1. Perry 2. Breathitt 105 38 5 10.86 1,60 a 3. Clay 23,901 23.901 8 1.48 475 4. Knott 20,007 20,007 3 .9* 356 3. Leslie 14,981 14,981 18 2 • 75 4is 6. Letcher 40,592 31,164 100 23 6.4: 339 7. Owsley 8,957 8,957 2 .65 197 Proposed-seoondary districts! Ashland District 96.400 62,339 65 106 1.1 73 76 26.79 278 911 106 1. Boyd 45.938 11.877 25.545 25.545 86 50 20.23 159 2. Carter 20 11 3.31 402 3. Oreennp 24,917 24.917 12 3.25 350 Danville District 101,403 86,210 85 125 1.2 84 83 20-3! 201 1,862 54 1. Boyle 17.07' 10.341 76 2S 7.1 181 2. Casey 19.962 19,962 !-3’ 435 3. Lincoln 19.859 19.859 ‘ If 2.76 34c 4. Marlon 16,913 13.127 20 14 3.09 s 5. Mercer 14.629 9.956 12,965 12.965 20 16 3.70 6. Washington 11 2.37 307 Frankfort District 32,244 20.752 64 75 2.3 36 112 11.0* 343 417 77 1. Franklin 23.30s 11,816 75 • 2 8.76 ai 2. Anderson 8,936 8.936 2.29 206 Harlan District 1. Harlan 119.087 94.157 79 75,275 66.004 250 2.1 130 *5 4g 71 24.65 15.16 207 Sil 2. Bell 43,812 28,153 120 37 9.49 370 Meysvllle District 69,504 62,932 91 19,066 12,494 56 0.8 65 94 16.16 233 1.585 44 1. Mason 56 23 7.3; 239 2. Bracken 9.389 9.389 13 s.ii 206 3. nswing 4. Lewis 12 5 2.61 1.50 s 3. Nicholas 8.6i! 8.617 11 1.88 6. Robertson 3.419 3.419 3 •66 101 Falntsvllls District 86,076 86.076 100 95 l.l *2 49 9.47 110 1,601 54 1. Johnson 25.77! 25.771 85 16 4.63 264 2. llllott 8.713 8,713 3 .83 240 3. Lawrence 17.275 17.275 10 10 1.67 425 4. Magoffin 17.490 17.490 5 1.01 303 3. Morgan 16,827 16,827 8 1.33 369 Plkevllle District 135.078 IJO.893 97 90 0.7 65 4s 19.36 143 ■•a 95 1. Pike 71,122 66.937 90 32 io.4: 2. Ployd 52.986 52.986 8.25 4o: 3. Martin 10,970 10,970 .70 231 Winchester District 37.939 24.563 65 60 1.6 43 113 10.85 286 636 60 1. Clark 17.988 9.394 # 60 22 6.46 2. Montgomery 12,280 7,49a 3.69 3. Powell 7.671 7.671 •70 173 o oc s Ul 2 u> it VD ft Q CM ir>K\C5vo i 5 «!| as r-BO tr>rH rH ft r>-PSo aso o o - s ONKVrH HHHH KNM) CM KVCMVO ft VO CM rH rH K\ 3 KNBO rH 10 rH CM KV ft - CM ft CM ft Os BO rH CM 'jgVD 0.=t rH US VO KWO O ir» cm ft ft vp CM asjt ONVD N ON as to kv vd"?n as as as rH i Jr cr> oo kv r-t NN KK'd’- o 2 sag KV d CM CM K'* to ft VO CM BO d rH rH : i5? " s r-CM lTkK>v OJ 18 R S K ft ft ovo 5^ BO VO ft KV KVKN rH rH •* — o H O • CM rH ft s * I O o 8 H H as 8 s R -=f VO e VO f- as 5 SM&8SIS pcir'g.S'S & JSVSPSPIRRg £3 £2 KVrH rH rH » o -J < o QKMOO rt IOHHH rH'rH ft ff KTC3 RS- Q CM ft O lOCTv uS rH rH rH K\ ITS r- ft as s«»fl&sisa rH ft 3K'2m SOrtS to it»i2Scm av^vo K*VrH OVfii BO CM f^ioCvS bo vo as VO ~t asft o rH u>lr> CM KMT\H SNN J£o Rif O OJ4 cA*k\S 5^kj ft rH ITva-.KVCM BO O VO as bo as cm ftus ft as VO rH rH irv* rH rH VO ft < o Q rA*o o h cnj ro MHHHHHH KMOH yvvo 1 *» M b | £ 4» 0 4* 0 4* « ■R h 4» S! 5 S 5 * f feg ! O 5 65 ii s o 5 as z °. 1 ft . O rH rH ft U O (* H llllill g,rH CM KV* »AvO o ♦» Sfr ■4* rH 0 0 0 0 • «» H N h C d Sfillsil 5 .O ft CM KV* ITWO O o *» • • C •HR ® ”i5£3S *S t8 pq »5 5 i • rH CM irv o 3B 3 ♦» o •P fl H «*> h °gs.s SfcgSIsg rH ® d a X P, ■HiftKown •H rH CM KVt UN VO 1 ♦» --i h *> 0 *S2 r S «rH • O R R «J5 85 1 o H C 0 ** IIHI t 1 C • i 8 | g CM lhitl|K «Sal at § s M-^mcaat J rH CM KV* ITVVO r- rH O •H R • S' °-PJ-§3 3582 5 8 e5 ft M K) ft ft o 0 T* • ■fl8 •H • O i M O ■— ■ i « s § •d | PH •d a C £68832 wao C rH CM KVJt m o R rH CM * ctcoouapB S 4 f « « * • • •H rH CM ITWO N 5 a fi J ” cS W Vh rH CM rA 1 See footnote! at end of table. See footnotes at end of tattle. 19 Table 6. The composition. hated upon existing hospital of primary, secondary, propooed-secondary, and isolated districts making up broad hospital service regions; and county, district, regional, and State totals for selected items per- tinent to an evaluation of hospital needs In the HAST SOUTH CENTRAL STATES - Continued Table 6. The composition, based upon existing hospital facilities,*/ of primary, secondary, proposed-secondary, and Isolated districts asking up broad hospital service regions; and county, district, regional, and State totals for selected Items per- tinent to an evaluation of hospital needs In the EAST SOUTH CENTRAL STATES - Continued PERSONS PER SQUARE MILE ov KV § 5 CVJ KV R s R In UV CVJ KV s £a s-sksss CJVKVVO VO a W In KvS'lrX^ CTV rH CG KVrH Kv'lFvUVm CVJVOa KVP— VO UVa CVJ KV 8 a 5d •^trgcCB&R k no r— k- to m ctv rH f-ovaavo Wa uvuvvo 3S 3 = Sa K\ I u | VO H 'fS- rH VO KV CVJ R rH CVJ rH CO KV CVJ fj R rH t a KV !tj < a a CTV rH O COHWHh- CO KV Cvi CVJ mo CO NCTVN4 rH KVa K-r-a KV irvKvma cvj cvjvo voa rH f-O CVJ o CVJ rH CM O VO f— UV mp-OJ KV CM CTV CO UV CM rH r-H * ° — s < *1 1 = 3 s ss-e (Aa h wh tO KMO -=f KVrH £h JJ'kvSm VjONCUh CTva CVJ o KV da rH KVCM rH KV 1 r— CVJ 8? tas^R’S a CO rH rH CVJ rH K11 s O 8 H £ CTV VO a R R S' rH I *■ 2 g VO CO a VO CO a rH rH cvjvovo CVJ H KrS-S^ jjvCM uvo cvj RR^S'Staa CVJ rH CTV CTV K- K\a VD KV KV KV rH rH KV CTV CM VO UVVO KV CVJ a! S o KV rH CTV a rH s? rH < _l i fi «SS3 K §1 s 2-S o. VO H CVJ d VO a- rH r-H CVJ CVJ rH a UV S o 5* RR uvuv rH rH CO KV & ITVrH KV CVJ CVJ l7v irva 53SS w VjD KV rH rH °R £ dx 09 < u < KV CTV CTV CO CVJ CTV 8 CO 60 o KV CO o UV CO CO •R CC O o ft. itvjd irvKvaa kv avo CTV CTV KV CM KV a rH ova OVO CO g o w h-w ovo k- «.»s a CO VO K\a cvj p- KVa VO CVJ rH f*-UV SO cv? a OV KV KV f— CO CO VO KVQ vo ovKvaaa O CM a CTV UV k-RRRR KVKVVO KV vo rH oa X o K -1 «* »- kvuvovvo cvi UV pH HH -83°' cvj O uv ISS" uvova r-^a UVrH rH rH R K c\T KV KV rH rH CVJ KV CM UVf— oa VO CM rH ITV a pH CVJ KV UV UV rH rH rH rH rH UV O VO KV rH rH h 0l rH i g S' a rH K-CVJa «-sa VO O vo RRS.S'S a VO CVJ CTV VO kvit vo cvi rH r-UVCO CVJ UTVrH CVJa O a r-lTVKV f— KV KV P-- CU » f- S vo vo coa CTV UV VO KVQVD lf» vo Cm uv ov ctv KVOVrH KV co uvboa < »— CTV OVVO CVJ UVrH rH rH RrS"' r*- co cvj o to KV rH rH aN K CO 3 rH rH v^c\?7h KV CO CO CTV UV i-h'vd ov t- cm Kvuv vo WHHH tt^CTvCMvd CVJ rH ♦» ■g § * j_ o tel 3 u £1 ■£ I 1 4» s 3 B g O STATE REGION O 4 X < i 1 E ® W o «5 bIs o "3 S 3 *> a jH •h a «s s CH t Eg .3 •HH C RH rH c S c 'b i*stt a ill! g.« «o a ® • • • ► rH CVJ KV H fi 3El|s P O 2 jH O a § 1 § | t o a 3^313|§ 3 •rH ■d iiilil SSeflll >4 «H « « « .3 fe| t ES Sg|| 5ffe5: • &°. . . . Ch w km=t 1 •CT 13 .—i g to H « H CVJ | m 2 rH CM »Aa 8 o rH OHCJ kW (§ *CT J ■H £ a pH CVJ KVa ITVVO ►s 1 a S 5 2 rH CM KVa UV 2 o 5 • • • • O H CVJ Kva 13 a M pH CM KV o >• STATE RESIGN DISTRICT POPULATION^ BEOS IN GENERAL AND ALLIED SPECIAL HOSPITALS*/ PHYSICIANS INCOME^ (DOLLARS) LAND AREA 8/ PERSONS PER AND RURAL SQUARE COUNTY DESIGNATIONS TOTAL TOTAL PERCENT OF TOTAL TOTAL PER 1,000 PERSONS TOTAL PER 100,000 PERSONS TOTAL (IN MILLIONS) PER CAPITA MILES MILE MISSISSIPPI (Continued) Proposed-seoondary districts: Corinth District 1. Alcorn 2. Prentiss 3- Tippah 4. Tishomingo gU.jUh 26.969 20,921 19.680 16.974 76,726 19,191 20,9a 19,680 16.974 91 no 5S 1.3 50 59 20 10 10 10 '1:8 3.04 2.56 1.71 1.738 405 418 464 451 49 Greenwood District 1. Leflore 2. Carroll 3- Heines 4. Tallahatohle '5:81 20,651 39. no 34,166 127,726 38.639 20,651 34,270 34,166 86 ia 71 25 25 0.8 88 59 41 8 24 15 25.20 170 13.02 1.60 6.45 4.13 2,634 m i 56 Grenada District 1. Grenada 2. Calhonn 3. Choctaw 4. Montgomery 5. Webster 6. Talohnsha 101,743 90,040 88 19,052 13.221 20,893 20,893 13,54b 13.548 18,387 15.047 127 1-2 67 35 25 71 70 12 1| 11 \l !4:g 141 2.24 1:1? 8? 403 416 504 37 MoConb District 1. Pike 2. Aolte 3. Lincoln 84,400 68,270 81 35,002 25,104 a. 892 a,892 27.506 a, a?4 102 1.2 53 4? 56 66 29 10 17 14.54 172 8.08 1.55 4.91 1.725 410 S 49 Oxford District 1. Lafayette 2. Benton J. Marshall 4. Panola 5. Pontotoc 6. Tate 7. Union 155.709 145,924 94 a,257 17.824 10,429 10,429 25,522 22.772 34,4a 54,4a 22,904 22,904 19.3$9 19.309 a,s67 18,265 139 0.9 77 15 47 100 64 26 11 17 13 10 15 19.9JJ 128 •52 2.84 5.08 2| 3.839 679 412 710 704 Si 422 4l Philadelphia District I# Neshoba 2. Attala }. Leaks 4, Scott 5. Winston 128,574 114,586 89 27.882 24,171 30.227 25.936 24.570 24.570 23,144 20,409 22.751 19.300 120 0.9 S a 60 47 12 13 15 7 13 19:16 l4g 4.16 4.55 ts 3-07 724 s 606 4l Tylertown District 1. Walthall 2. Lawrence 3. liar Ion 55.602 49,538 89 17.534 17.534 13.983 13.983 24,085 18,oa 98 1.8 53 45 30 54 I 17 9.08 I63 l:U 4.75 1.386 403 433 550 4o Isolated districts! Clarfcsdals District 1. Coahoma 2. De Soto 3* Quitman 4. Tunica 124.797 48.333 26.663 27.191 22,610 112,629 90 36,165 26,663 27.191 22,610 64 0.5 32 32 69 55 30 13 15 11 a.66 174 11.73 3.11 3.23 3.59 1,918 $ 412 458 65 Tupelo District 1. Lee 2* Chickasaw 3« Itawaaba 80,187 71.975 90 38,838 30.626 a,4a a,4a 19,922 19.922 113 1.4 61 52 60 75 38 17 5 12.06 150 8,05 2.82 1.19 ‘i 541 53 USB ID LAW ESOIOH 585.156 418,582 72 1,092 1.9 443 76 116,55 199 15,204 38 Primary district ■ Herldlan District 1. Lauderdale 2. Clarice 3. Jasper U. Keeper 3. Wewton 144,443 58.247 .1® a,867 24,249 108.962 22,766 g;® a, 867 24,24g 75 387 2.7 332 55 110 76 59 11 9 9 22 27.57 191 17.3* 2.88 2.00 1.80 3.55 3.438 721 697 683 757 580 42 See footnotes at end of table. See footnotes at end of table. 50 Table 6. The composition, based upon existing hospital of primary, secondary, proposed-secondary, and isolated districts making np broad hospital service regions; and county, district, regional, and State totals for selected items per- tinent to an evaluation of hospital needs in the IAST SOUTH OSTEAL STATES - Continued Table 6. The composition, based upon existing hospital of primary, secondary, proposed-secondary, and isolated districts making up broad hospital service regions; and county, district, regional, and State totals for selected Items per- tinent to an evaluation of hospital needs In the EAST SOUTH CENTRAL STATES - Continued STATE Util ON population y SCO8 IN SCNERAL AND ALLIED SPECIAL HOSPITALS y PHYSICIAN* V INCOME (DOLLARS) LAND AREA PERSONS PER RURAL SQUARE MILES SQUARE COUNTY OESISNATIONS TOTAL TOTAL PERCENT OF TOTAL TOTAL PER 1,000 PERSONS TOTAL PER 100,000 PERSONS TOTAL (IN MILLIONS) PER CAPITA MILE MISSISSIPPI (Continued) Secondary district*! Hattiesburg District 1. Porr**t 2. Lamar 3. Pearl River 9. Perry 5. Stea* 81.569 36.901 12,096 19.125 9,292 6.155 55.616 13.875 12,096 13.996 9.292 6.155 68 210 2.6 160 22 68 67 82 31 8 16 8 6 20,90 256 13.11 1.18 *a 1.32 2.898 669 500 828 5S 28 Laurel District 1. Job** 2. Covington J. Jefferson Dari* 6. Salth Wayne U8, **57 1*9,227 17.030 15.869 13.1*03 16,928 95.252 26,022 17.030 15.869 19.603 l6,928 so 160 1.6 160 61 37 7 7 52 19.25 163 u.63 2.69 1.82 1-32 1.79 3’5S 616 6l6 662 827 39 Proposed-secondary dlitrlotai Columbus Dl*trlst 1. LevaA** 2. Clay 3. Monro* I*. Rorubes 5. Oktibbeha 139.7^3 35.21*5 19,030 37.66s 25.669 22.151 107,098 21,600 13.603 29.175 25.669 17.251 77 166 1.2 58 60 25 a 90 66 32 12 23 10 13 23.69 7.60 3.15 6.07 3.20 3.67 168 2.860 3 769 @ 69 Oulfport District 1. Harrison 2. Hancock 3. Jackson 82,728 50.799 11.328 20,601 33.660 I1*. 791 7.190 11.659 61 171 125 9 37 2el 107 129 86 11 22.36 16.6s 1.88 6.00 270 1,816 585 s 66 Isolated districts: Laoedal* District 1. Oeorg* 2. Omens 18, a6 8,70l* 9.512 is, a6 8.706 9.512 100 8 66 2.98 1.69 1.69 166 1.209 681 728 15 fimssn 2.915.8>*1 1,888.635 65 5,780 2.0 2,908 100 911.16 312 61,961 69 CHAJTASDOQA HROIOI 33i*.7S7 179.669 56 816 2.6 326 97 125.25 376 6,182 SO Primary district: Chattaaooca District X. Hamilton 2. Bledsoe 3. Bradley 9, Marlon 5- Meigs 6. Bhea 7• Seqnatehle 261*, 258 180.1*78 8.358 28,698 iq.lSo f.393 16.353 5.038 121,805 69.376 8.358 17.167 19,160 6.393 16.353 5.038 66 708 2.7 631 55. 22 275 106 223 5 21 9 3 15 1 112.30 625 97.70 s’M 3:S ’ill 2,666 ss 333 507 213 335 273 100 Proposed-seoondary districts: Athens District 1. McMlna 2. Monroe 3. Polk 70.529 30.781 2**. 275 15.1*73 57.666 2D,6«9 21,682 15.673 82 106 1.5 78 28 51 72 22 16 11 12.95 186 7.02 2.91 3.02 “I 636 66 OOZTIUB BBOIOI 852.110 612,567 72 1,270 1.5 666 78 206.62 260 11,867 72 Primary district: Xnorrlllo District 1. Knox 2. Anderson 3. Blonat 4. Oralngsr 5. Jefferson 0. Loudon 7. Roane 8. Sevier 9. Onion 359.019 178,668 26,506 61,116 16.356 18,621 19.838 27.795 23.291 9.030 216,371 60 66,888 23.763 30.376 12,668 18,196 23.291 9.030 757 2.1 597 60 30 30 50 10 326 90 212 11 n 17 11 21 16 3 116.26 318 86,56 6.56 8.35 1.19 2.12 5.00 6.gi 2.92 .69 5.501 103 517 33« 586 310 ss 603 212 STATE RESIGN POPULATION S' BEOS IN GENERAL AND ALLIED SPECIAL HOSPITALS y PHYSICIANS V INCOME^ (DOLLARS) LAND AREA 5/ PERSONS PER RURAL SQUARE COUNTY DESIGNATIONS TOTAL TOTAL PERCENT OF TOTAL TOTAL PER 1,000 PERSONS TOTAL PER 100,000 PERSONS TOTAL (IN MILLIONS) PER CAPITA MILES MILE TKTNXSSSX (Continued) Secondary districts: Greenerllle District 1. Greene 2. Cooke 3. Haablen 82.099 3?.**05 24,083 18,611 63,690 32.621 20,508 10,561 78 187 130 12 >*5 2-3 53 19 16 18 65 15.4g 6.95 3-32 5.a 189 1.225 617 434 17** 67 Johnson City District 1# Washington 2. Carter 3* Unicoi 100,886 51.S31 35.127 14.128 63,688 ».|99 26,611 10.778 63 ss 30 15 1.6 86 65 13 8 85 25.32 15.99 6.81 2.52 251 867 3a 355 185 116 Propoeed-eecondary districts; Kingsport District !• Sul1Iran 2. Hawkins 3* Johnson 110,606 6g,Og5 28.523 12.998 82,198 **0.677 28.523 12.998 7>» 117 102 15 1.1 87 63 18 6 79 25.09 20.26 3.62 1.21 227 1,221 428 4g4 299 91 Pleasant Hill District 1. Cvabcrland 2. Weutrsss 3. Morgan 4. Orerton 5. Pickett 6. Putnaa 7• Tea Buren g. White 116.515 !5.592 14,262 15.242 ig,gS3 6,213 26,250 4,090 15,983 109,645 !5.592 14,262 15.242 18,883 6,213 21,886 4,090 13.*»77 94 50 50 0.4 67 11 5 7 10 2 21 1 10 58 13.45 1.99 1.57 1.30 4.24 .22 2.08 115 3.381 $ gl !S 255 385 3>* Isolated districts: La Pollette District 1. Caaphsll 2. Claiborne 3. Hancock 4. Scott 82.985 31,131 2U.657 11.231 15.966 78.975 27,121 r’lp 95 49 23 15 2 9 59 10.82 5-79 2.46 .62 1.95 130 1.672 447 445 5**9 50 umPEis Rsaios 891.529 522.553 59 2.030 2.3 1,005 113 320.09 359 12,47s 71 Prlaary district: Menphls District 1. Shelby 2. Payette 3* Tipton iu6,6og 358,250 30.322 28.036 120,153 65.308 30.322 2**.523 29 1,805 1,805 **•3 628 591 17 20 151 228.99 221.32 3.01 4.66 550 1.913 751 704 458 218 Proposed-seoondaty districts: Jackson District Is Madison 2. Carroll J. Chester U. Crockett 5* Gibson o. Hardeman 7* Haywood 8. Henderson 225.891 54,115 25.978 11.12U 17.330 1(4,835 23.590 27.699 19.220 181,426 29.783 25,978 11,124 17.330 33.240 23.590 m 81 126 84 10 32 0.6 179 53 21 7 13 35 25 17 8 80 45.05 17.87 >*.36 1.57 2.59 g.31 2.86 **•55 2.94 201 4,007 561 596 269 607 655 519 515 56 Isolated districts: . Dyerehnrg District 1. Dyer 2. Lake 3. Lauderdale 4. Ohlon 101.594 34,920 30.978 81.520 24,886 11.235 a. 677 23,722 80 50 35 15 0.5 95 37 7 22 29 94 23-77 8.9** 2.41 5.00 7.42 234 1.728 3 487 550 59 Paris District 1. Henry 2, Benton 3e Humphreys U, Weakley 79.772 25.877 11.976 12,421 29,49s 69.790 19.**82 11.976 12,421 25.911 87 49 49 0.6 65 22 6 12 25 81 l4.o4 5.5** 1*53 1.87 5.10 176 2,160 599 430 555 576 37 Sarannah District 1. Hardin 2. Decatur 3. McXalry 4. Perry 5. Wayne 69,664 17.806 10.261 20,424 7.535 13.638 69,664 17.806 10, a6i 20,424 7.535 13.638 100 38 12 4 13 I 55 8.24 2.03 1.4i 2.64 .89 1.27 118 2,670 w g? 741 26 3«« footnotaa at and of tabla. footnota* at and of tabla. Table 6. The composition, honed upon existing hospital facilities,2/ of primary, secondary, proposal-secondary, and Isolated districts aaking np hroad hospital serrles regions! and oonnty, district, regional, and State totals for selected Items per- tinent to an evaluation of hospital needs In the EAST SOOTH Cliff fill STiTIS - Continued Table The composition, based upon existing hospital facilities,* / of primary, secondary, proposed-secondary, and Isolated districts Baking up broad hospital Berrios regions; and county, district, regional, and State totals for selected Items per- t inont to an oral nation of hospital needs in the WIST SOUTH CXHTBAL STATUS BEOS IN GENERAL STATE POPULATION AND PHTSICIANS 5/ INCOME2' ALLIED SPECIAL (DOLLARS) area!/ PERSONS HOSPITALS 1/ PER AND RURAL SQUARE MILE COUNTY TOTAL PER PER TOTAL PER CAPITA MILES DESIGNATIONS TOTAL TOTAL OF 1,000 100,000 (IN TOTAL PERSONS PERSONS MILLIONS) TENNESSEE (Continued) NASHVILLE BSOION 837.'♦I? 57*».066 69 1.666 2.0 911 109 261.38 312 13.1*31* 62 Primary district: Nashrille District 387,784 195.270 50 1.307 3-1* 15** 183.50 1*73 3.087 126 1. Daridton 257.267 89.865 1.20U 159.64 532 2. Cheat has 9,928 9.928 5 1-37 $ 3. Robert»on 29.0h6 22.37* **5 22 5.15 h. Rutherford 33.60U 24,10* 1*2 35 8.0' 630 5. Sumner 32.71' 27.890 16 21 4.94 552 6. Willla*son 25,220 21,100 20 i*,3i 591* Proposed-secondary districts: Clarksrllle Dletrlet 73,045 57.710 79 67 0.9 1*7 61* 13.32 182 1.720 42 X. Montgomery 2. Dickson 33.3>*6 1?.718 i6.al 67 25 16 7-78 3.61 SI J. Houston 6,1*32 6,1*32 3 •6' % 4. Stewart 13.5% 13,559 3 1.29 Columbia District 135,075 108,701* 80 103 0.8 93 69 26.73 198 3.11*2 !*3 1. Maury **0,357 29,2*10 26,68* 50 36 9-75 6i4 2. Giles 23.926 23 19 5-31 619 ■J. Hlcfcsan 14.87’ 14.87: 8 l.Ul 6r h, Lawrence 28.726 2>*,91' 20 lU 5-05 634 5. Lewis 5,81*9 5.849 2 i.ol* 285 6. Marshall 16,030 12,1*1*8 10 lU i*.17 377 Lebanon District Tl.qqg 66.046 92 87 1.2 50 69 10.72 ll*9 *•3 1*5 1. Wilson 25,267 19.317 61 20 U.62 2. Cannon 9,880 9,880 26 > 1.15 270 3. De Kalb 1**, 588 14, 588 1 1.57 3H 4. Smith 5- Trousdale 16,11*8 6,113 16,11*8 6.113 i 2.35 1.03 S Isolated dlstrictsi Cellna District 1*0,890 1*0,890 100 26 64 3-1*3 84 46 1. Clay 10,961* 10,901* 1* •71 2. Jackson 15,082 15,082 < 1.32 327 3. Maoon 14,904 14,904 13 I.3U 30b Shelhyrllle District 128,625 105,1*1*6 82 102 0.8 96 75 23.68 184 2.982 1*3 1. Bedford 23,151 l6,6ll* 1*0 20 5.1*9 482 2. Coffee 18.95' ll*,l*10 13 3-55 1*35 3. franklin 23.892 21.132 30 16 **.30 561 4, Orundy 11.552 11.552 6 1.24 35* 5# Lincoln 27.211* 22,530 32 23 5.27 581 0. Moore 19:78 4.09! 2 •2? 122 7. Warren 15,115 16 3-5>* 1*43 STATE REGION population^ BEOS IN GENERAL AND ALLIED SPECIAL HOSPITALS y physicians y INCOME (DOLLARS) LAND AREA 8/ PERSONS PER RURAL SQUARE MILES SQUARE OOUNTY DESIGNATIONS TOTAL TOTAL PERCENT OF TOTAL TOTAL PER 1.000 PERSONS TOTAL PER 100,000 PERSONS TOTAL (IN MILLIONS) PER CAPITA MILE AHKAHSAS 1.949.3*7 1.517.477 7* 3.227 1.7 1,*29 94 505.31 259 52.725 37 HOT SFHIHGS ESOIOS 525.507 411,558 7* 990 1.9 508 97 135.70 25* 16.439 32 Primary dlitrlot: Hot Springs District 1. Garland 2. Hot Spring 3. Montgomery 69.456 4i,664 18,916 8,576 42,796 20,294 13,626 8,576 62 274 3-9 274 l4g 215 129 13 7 24.70 356 19.90 u1 2.143 7a 6a 801 32 Secondary dletrlot*: Texarkana District 1. Miller 2. Heapstead 5 • Lafayette U. Little Hirer 97.**27 31. *7** 32.770 16,551 15.932 78.131 20,053 25.295 16.851 15.932 SO 260 2.7 203 57 75 77 30 18 16 11 22.95 236 9-72 6.84 3.18 3.21 2.44j 627 735 3S 4o Propoeed-eeoondary dletrlcte: XI Dorado District 1. Union 2. Ashley 3. Bradley h. Calbotm 5. Coluahia 6. Ouachita 165.952 129.3*6 50,%1 34,603 26,755 a.sgli 15,097 15.5*1 9.636 9.636 29,522 25. **96 31,151 22,176 7* 244 1.5 % 3* a 46 lS 81 s 5 20 25 49.60 299 24.70 I: 1.27 6.43 7.63 4.768 1,052 $ 628 768 73* 35 leolated dletriotei Arkadelphla Dletrlot 1. Clark 2. Dallas 3* Howard 4. lerada 5. Pike b, Polk 7. Sorter 115,229 97.19* *2 24,402 19,324 14,471 11,042 16.621 13,*39 19,569 16,692 11,7*6 11,7*6 15,532 12,322 15.24* 12.193 90 0.8 14 30 46 101 85 23 10 \l 11 15 15 24.78 ao 5.34 » 3.51 us 2.87 4,826 878 672 600 616 615 860 5*5 24 Dermott Dletrlot 1. Ohloot 2. Desha J. Drew 74,443 27.452 27.16c 19.*31 64,047 86 24.369 23,497 16,181 122 1.6 67 25 30 49 66 a 13 15 13.67 184 5.10 4.87 3.70 s 836 33 L1TTLI BOCK EDO 10* 1,423.580 1,105,919 7* 2.237 1.6 1.321 93 369.61 260 36,286 39 Primary dletrlot: Little Book Dletrlot 1. Pnlaskl 2. Penlkner 3. Grant 4. Lonoke 5. Perry 5. Saline 249.799 131.339 156,055 46,909 25,880 20,098 10,477 10,477 29,802 29,802 *.392 8,392 19.163 15.661 53 1,260 5.0 1,230 30 • 405 162 322 35 24 6 11 96,08 385 77.13 5.47 1.73 7.3* 1.09 3.28 4,150 7*1 656 631 800 556 726 60 Secondary districts: Tort Smith Dletrlot 1. Sebastian 2. Crawford 3. franklin 4. Logan 5. Soott 141,679 96,243 68 62,809 26,225 23,920 18,498 15.653 15.683 25.967 22.537 13.300 13.300 247 1.7 235 12 143 101 72 19 8 31 13 45,32 320 32.4i , 4.05 2.43 4.09 2.34 3.367 529 59* 615 727 898 42 Jonesboro District !• Craighead 2. Greene 3. Jackson h. Lawrence 3* Mississippi 6. Poinsett 244,369 201.296 82 47,200 35>71 30,204 23,125 26,427 22,106 22,651 22.651 so, a7 66,339 37.670 31.604 217 0.9 100 . 25 23 69 171 70 37 18 24 22 51 19 6g.01 282 15.a 6.04 5.46 4.19 31.31 6.80 4,206 717 579 637 592 919 762 5* J./ Hospital hed totals used for selecting hospital centers and defining eervloe districts and reglona within each Stata were obtained by tabulating data published for Individual general and allied special hospitals In the Journal of Medical Aaaoclatlon, Vol. 121, Ho. 13, March 27, 1943. Included In the general and allied special category are all general hospitals plus those rendering specialised serviced commonly provided by general hospital*, l.a. maternity. Industrial, Isolation, eye-ear- noee-throat, orthopedic, children's, convaleecent and rest, chronic, and others offering similar limited types of care. General hospitals operated hy the Bureau of Indian Affairs are counted on the assumption that they represent facilities operated on a local area baele, but other federal hospitals are excluded, Alec in the excluded group are all mental and tuberculosis hospitals and infirmary units of correctional and custodial Institutions. 1/ County population totals from: Population. First Series, D. S. Summary, Table 17, Sixteenth Ceneue of the United States! 19>*0 2/ Physician totals represent counts of all physicians listed In tha ig4o American Medical Directory. 4/ Estimates of effective buying Income In 1940, made by Sales Management on tha baala of money actually paid for gooda and eervloea. Federal allotments, money paid out of tarings and surpluses hy business and financial Institutions, plus the nonmoney Income of farm sad village residents, were obtained for counties and States from! Sales management survey of buying power. Sales Management, Tol. 48, Ho. 8, April 10, 1941. Thaes data have been reproduced with permission of Salas Management, Inc. 3/ Land area la aqnare allea fromi Population. Flrat Sarlaa, U. 3. Summary, Table 17, Sixteenth Ceneue of tha United States* 1940. 52 Sea footnotes at and of tabla. Table 7.— The ooapoeltlon, based upon existing hospital of primary, secondary. proposed-secondary, and isolated districts —up broad hospital service regions; and county, district, regional, and State totals for selected items per- tinent to an evaluation of hospital needs in the TUT SOUTH COT HAL STATES - Continued Table 7.— The composition, based upon existing hospital of primary, secondary, proposed-secondary, and isolated districts —irlng up broad hospital service regions; and county, district, regional, and State totals for selected Iteas per- tinent to sn evaluation of hospital needs in the TEST SOOTH CUT HAL STATES - Continued STATE population^ SEOS IN GENERAL AMO PHYSICIANS V moose LAND HOSPITALS^ AREA B/ PER RURAL SQUARE COUNTY DESIGNATIONS TOTAL TOTAL PERCENT OF TOTAL TOTAL PER 1,000 PERSONS TOTAL PER 100,000 PERSONS TOTAL (IN WLUONS) PER CAPITA MILES MILE AST ANN AN (Continued) Propoeed-secondary districts: Bateerille Dlitrlct 1. Independence Z. Isard 3. Sharp H. Stone 5«.577 25.6U3 12.83M 11. **97 8,603 53.310 20.376 12,831* H.U97 8.603 91 62 62 1.1 Hz s 6 3 72 8-93 5.02 1.62 1.51 .78 152 2.535 i & 23 • Tayetterllle Dletriot 1. Washington 2. Benton 3- Madleon S:2S 36,lHs I*.531 73.9**8 29.583 2?.83& W.531 81 91* 55 39 1.0 105 Hi 8 llH 18.17 8.39 8.23 1.55 198 2,681 S 832 Helena Dletriot 1. Phllllpe 2. Lee 3. Monroe 93.913 45.970 26,810 a. 133 70,21*1 32,707 22.361 15.173 75 60 60 0.6 56 30 13 13 60 20,iH 11.30 H.82 H.02 2lH l,9Hl 70H 620 617 Hs Pine Bluff Dletriot 1. Jefferson 2. Arkansas 3. Clereland H. Lincoln ia,8i7 65,101 2H.H37 12.570 19.709 ?>*.899 1*3,811 I8.809 12.570 19.709 78 75 75 0.6 85 50 19 7 9 70 36.77 6;i72 302 3.091 890 1.035 601 565 39 Russellville Dletriot 1. Pope 2. Conway 3. Johneon H. lewton 5. Searcy 6. Tan Boren 7. Tell 122,32** 25.682 a.53o 18.795 10,881 11,9Hz 12,518 20.970 108,671 19.755 16,928 15.677 10,881 11,91*2 12.518 20,970 89 121* 6s 26 1,0 11 13 5 12 10 22 86 Zl.Ho 5.51 H.ai 3.59 W 5:S 175 5.19H 816 560 676 822 66H S'* 9Hz zH Searcy Dletriot 1. White 2. Clehorne 3. Prairie **. Woodruff 87.7**7 37.176 13.131* 15.3d* 22.133 s'*. 077 33.506 13.13J* 15.3d* 22.133 96 98 76 22 i.i 68 3H 9 11 1H 77 “;S 2.22 » 176 2.9p3 1,0Hz & 592 30 1eclated dletrlote; V Porreet City Dletriot 1. St. Pranels 2. Crittenden 3. Croee 10U.562 36.p>*3 91,861 30,3W* 39.101* 22.1*13 88 58 22 22 iH 55 19.69 7.12 8.2H H.33 188 1.885 636 55 Harrloon Dletriot 1. Boone 2. Baxter 3. Carroll H. Pulton 5. Marlon 60.935 15,860 10,281 l1*. 737 56.357 11,622 10,281 l1*. 737 93 • 50 16 8 17 5 83 11.62 H. I. 2.85 1.25 1.00 192 3.0H6 602 571 63H 611 628 20 Peoahontae Dletriot 1. Randolph 2. Clay >*6.705 18.319 28,386 1*3.677 15.291 28.386 91* 33 13 20 71 7-03 2.60 H.H3 151 1,287 637 650 36 L0DI8IA1A 2,363,880 1.383,1*1*1 59 7.132 3.0 2.H6H 10H 789.78 33H H5.177 52 MOHBOX EBOIOH 325.371* 257.019 79 1*61 i.i* 223 69 7H.63 229 8.692 37 Primary district! Monroe Dletriot 1. Ouachita 2. Caldwell 3. Jackson H. Lincoln 5- Morehouse 6. Richland 7. Union 191,151* 59.168 12,0>»6 17.807 2**. 790 27,571 28,829 20.91*3 137.913 ass 15.16s 17.683 20.91*5 28,829 20,91*3 72 1*19 325 10 He 26 10 2.2 152 72 8 11 18 17 15 11 80 53-01 28.27 5.00 5-72 H.58 3.02 277 H.530 642 550 576 906 Hz STATE REGION POPULATION V BEOS IN GENERAL AMO ALLIED SPECIAL HOSPITALS-^ PHTSCIAM^ INCOME (DOLLARS) LAND AREA 8/ PERSONS PER RURAL SQUARE MILES SQUARE COUNTY DESIGNATIONS TOTAL TOTAL PERCENT OF TOTAL TOTAL PER 1.000 PERSONS TOTAL PER 100,000 PERSONS TOTAL (IN MILLIONS) PER CAPITA MILE LODISIAIA ( Continued) Ieclated district•: Tallulah Dlmtrlot 1. Madison 2. Catahoula J. Concordia U. last Carroll 5. Tranklln 6. Tsnsas 7* fast Carroll 13U.220 119,106 I8.W43 12,731 lU,6l8 , 1>»,618 lU.562 11.705 19,023 15.312 32.382 29,5*18 15,9140 15.9140 19,252 19.252 89 *42 111 28 0.3 71 11 6 8 8 a 8 9 53 a.62 161 \% 2.58 3-57 5.10 2.33 2.39 14.162 32 662 732 7°9 z 356 HU OBLHAHS HKOIOH 1,010.572 140U.595 140 >1.303 *♦•3 1,1413 1*40 1426.02 *422 n,68i4 86 Primary district; • Hee Orleaci District 1. Orleans 2. Jefferson 3. Flaqaealnes >*• St. Bernard 5614.562 5*t.!5** 50’. 3*1.556 12,318 12,318 7,280 7,280 10 3,826 3.a6 10 6.8 1.109 1,088 11 9 1 196 308.17 5>i6 292.90 13.02 1.30 .95 2,102 269 199 1109 98*4 510 Secondary districts: Baton District I# last Baton Roue* 2. Ascension 3• Bast Feliciana U. Iberville 5. Livingston 6. St. Helsna 7* Vast Baton Retire 8. Vest Feliciana 205.705 156.66U 88.1415 53.696 a, 215 17,326 18.039 12,655 27.721 22.672 17.790 17.790 9.5*12 9.5*12 11,263 11.263 11,720 11.720 76 261 217 9 35 1.3 % 15 15 a 9 2 H - 5 80 63.07 307 U6.0U U,0l4 1.78 5.77 2.01 • 72 1.50 i.a 58 9 611 665 1420 201 UlO Propoeed-secondary districts: Bogalusa District !• Washington 2. St. Tammany 3. Tangipahoa 103,986 71.961 69 344.14143 19,839 23.62*4 16,637 *15.519 35, *185 V X-5 69 72 20 a 3i 70 23.50 227 7.96 14.8U 10.70 2.376 *1*1 665 908 803 Isolated districts: Thlbodaux District 1. Lafourche 2a Assumption 3* St. Charles St. James 3. St. John the Baptist 6, Terrebonne 136.719 ia,si6 89 38,615 32,76*1 18,5*11 18,5*11 12,3a 12.3a 16,596 16,596 114,766 1I4.766 35,880 26,828 63 0.5 UO 23 £ 67 20 10 7 7 >2 >*9 31.28 229 10.00 3.27 2.08 2.7*1 2.30 10.89 3.683 37 1.157 357 50U 2*49 225 1.391 PIHHVILL* BKGIOH 6a.915 *45*1.1*16 72 982 1.6 >151 72 156.61 2*49 16.25*1 39 Primary district: Pineville District 1. Rapides 2. Allen 3. Avoyelles h. Ivangeline 5. Grant 6. La Salle 7. Vernon 206,697 161,276 73.370 >12.007 17,5*10 13.607 39.256 35.6a 30.1497 26.776 15.933 15.933 10.959 10.959 19,1142 16,313 78 I4I10 2.1 UllO 1a 108 10 22 12 6 13 10 88 U7.U6 230 25-58 3.16 6.00 3.>40 2.75 3.09 3.148 6.270 33 1.329 T75 826 672 670 638 1.360 Secondary dletrlcta: Lafayette District 1. Lafayette 2. Acadia 3. St. Martin *1. Teralllon 15*1,3*15 107.627 *43.9*41 2*1,731 U6,26o 31.763 26,3914 22,893 37,750 28,2*40 70 323 2.1 269 32 10 12 106 ii6 3I 22 69 3*4.28 222 12.22 11.*48 3-58 7.00 2.907 53 6T2 1.7J S*a footnote* at and of table. See footnotes at end of table. 53 Table 7. The ooapoeition, bated upon existing hospital facilities,* / of primary, secondary, propoaad-aaeondary, and Isolated districts asking up broad hospital terries regions; end county, district, regional, and Stats totals for selected Iteas per- tinent to an evaluation of hospital needs in the WIST SOUTH CXRTEAL STATES - Continued Table 7. The composition, based upon existing hospital facilities,l/ of prlmmry, seoondmry, proposed-secondary, aad isolated districts making up broad hospital service regions; and county, district, regional, and State totals for selected itests per- tinent to an evaluation of hospital needs in ths WIST SOUTH CJUfTHAI STATES - Continued 7 C § w 3 3 s- vo KS » .St KS a to to rH 3 g O. i i 3333 R KSrH h3 VO KStOKS S32 it OSIO 60 VO VO VO taSSvs. hi Ki o cs S ITS OS ITS K- KSK |C&!s3S'K3 331^1 Q KSOSlfvKS OsSTtc ,5 j 3 fojt S 3| * rH rH rH rH rH KS OS VO to 5 os Ks CM KS rH KS KS | 3 rH is rH 31 to 3 3 KS KS KS KS * I *1 5-£3 33S CsSsBvO S tO VO O CM rH O KS tO 8^5K5SR tfSQsS ICSKS^^ 5S3S3 § i S usB o 5s &OsS*£ 5 3 5*o *s3 it ** H H rH KS o to rH rH 3 8? ITs KS rH KSrH rH _ § § £ 3 S' 3 8 KS VO ITS ITS S CU VO 3 3 io1 2 *f| ksv£ Kv 3 as IfX*- f\J OS ICS W rH rH 3R8^'X>^3 t83S^ | o KS SSfcs°' KS CU VO KS rH . s §1 O to f— IO VO to KS rH K- KS to i rH o o KS IO d O CU CU KS CU rH Mi aft *■ "1 8 Rtf rH loirs lOlO 3 KS ££ ~ » JvT Ju c o 338 SR KS (U rH Fl & 6»Jt» rH rH -I r-J VO VO 3 s 3§ o rH rH rH rH rH PERCENT OF TOTAL CM VO R e VD KS IO e 3 CU VO S KS KS OS c. z o H 2 S3£83 Ju SThl sews So VO R3.3RS! o o Ksr—to SSRR E 3 KS Co to 3 r^P?v R«IS < o K Kstp f-< r-lvo VfiNH rH 588 cfc-a r*^ 3 K'RKrKrS' rH 33 »3 £3S?2! i rH to KS £> irs rH ITSKVrf ICS rH O OS to rH rH rH rH rH rH 3&3»S' SSsJp fll o fSSSS S&R» "«S Os$ CM' uS os its os KS 3 VO rH KSK-VO ITS CU f-vovoit W KSS K-O H uSOSN hi KI»SS H O §33-3 •SRR KFi-a 1 HQKSHIfS K\ uS KS KS rH feRCR1 d5K?3 £ KS CU 8 rH §J|RrKr“?aK' SR?8SSS8 rH 8iSJ5>»S m « h « •? 8 ■*• g « 2 il i** | u « 1 stf «|° B 3 •§ . j 5 Jot. 1 ♦» •rH •H Li • 1 H» “ L c- m sil O t* W *H | “ii.i S t S £ ♦» * jj o ► ■ ■K O rH 0 ■H l< H M °5 l E H* « < «15 k 8 8 • c H» •rH iLl. *> n 5 3 8 £a a a g ? PS543 8 m c3 iAj» sg s II Si ■=| 115 |3lJ^ p “ 3 | t ♦> « •o r-g-sS* fe-a s .■s 6.0 mow t m •d i» £ ► iS • • CrJ HP 8 t ?«8 i •§ i a 8S;Sl o 1 •c *> ■ ■o ■ O o O M >4 M ■ «H ■<0 h J2S5 feta ° 3 S* Cf! g o m m m « w 8 I © «h cO Ksjt rH rH CU 1 O rH CU KS a (J rH CU KS4- ITS VO •0,312 i7.boj 13,128 9.781 55 2bo 2bc 3.3 85 116 61 12 12 bi.iG 560 32;£ 6.3s 2.797 26 1,05b 8 Lawton District 1. Coaanchs 2. Cotton 3. Elena b. TUlaaa 95.bb3 38,988 12,8Sb 22,817 20.75b 67,102 70 20.933 12,88b 17,6bo I5.6b5 292 3.1 223 22 b7 98 103 50 13 19 16 3b.53 365 15.59 b.78 8.12 6.3b 3,610 26 1,088 629 1,032 86l Propossd-ssoondary districts) Ada District 1. Pontotoc 2. Coal J. Gar-Tin b, Johnston 5. Murray 113,55b 88.337 78 39.792 2*i, bug 12,811 12.811 31,150 26,Ob6 15.960 15.960 13,8bl 8.871 128 1.1 75 33 20 £ 82 b 23 8 16 33-01 291 16.b0 2.50 8.9b 3a:S 3,ibb 36 9 sib 657 b28 Chsrokas District 1. Alfalfa 2. Major }. foods '•0.990 ass lb.915 33,382 81 11.576 u.gbe 9.860 88 2.1 50 38 35 85 13 7 15 W 390 3.100 13 S8b 9b5 1,271 Chlokasha District 1. Grady 2. Caddo 3. McClain 101,888 Ul.llb >•1.567 19.205 79.082 27.005 35.988 16,089 78 118 1.2 81 37 85 83 bi 3b 10 32.31 15.36 12.68 b.27 317 2.926 35 1.092 1.275 559 lhannaa District 1. Pottanatoais 2. Saalnols 115.578 54.377 61,201 71.663 32.32b 39.339 62 163 S leU 90 78 38 52 50.36 2b .9c 25.be b36 l,b28 81 799 629 Isolated dlstrlotsi Alt us District 1. Jackson 2. Grear 3. Earaon >•7.277 22,708 1>*.550 10,019 31.759 67 lb,115 10.357 7.287 32 0.7 17 15 38 80 16 12 10 16.60 351 . 8.38 5.72 2.50 i.gbg 2b 780 637 532 Woodward District 1. Woodward 2. Bearer 3- Olnarron b. Wills 5. Harper 6. Texas 53.388 *1.9*2 90 16.270 10,8Gb 8,6be s.6bs 3,65b 3.65b 8,b66 s,b66 6,b5b G.bgh 9.896 9.896 93 1.7 25 20 bs 56 a 7 3 7 7 11 105 23.12 b53 8.8b 2.02 1.55 5.38 9.172 6 1.255 1.793 1.832 1,222 1,03b 2,056 TOLU BEGIOI 1.U5.573 718,372 6b 2.056 1.8 986 88 bi6.3b 373 27.b77 bi PrliiAry district: • Tulsa District 1. Tulsa 2. Crash 3- Okfuskee U. Okanlpe* 325.2b6 193,363 55.503 26,279 50,101 S£ 27.lb5 39 sbo 723 15 10 92 2.6 586 119 285 39 20 bp 18b.50 5G7 138.12 a. 08 6.00 19.30 2,882 113 572 972 638 700 Secondary dlstricts: MoAlastsr District 1. Pittshore 2. Atoka 3. Haskell b. Hughes 5- Latlasr , S. Pushaataha 1U6.0M6 bs.985 18,702 17.32b 29.189 12,380 19,466 118,615 33.988 16.15b 17.32b 22.557 12,380 16,212 81 115 103 12 o.s ll 6k b 6 10 3b.08 233 15.06 2.8b 2.86 7.9b 2.15 3.23 5.935 25 1.359 810 1.8 Muskocss District 1# fttaskog«« 2. McIntosh 3* Wn^oasr 111,653 65.91b i'Z 75.786 33.582 2b.097 18,107 68 120 120 1.1 110 99 86 13 11 38-75 3b7 30.75 b.22 3-78 2.121 53 822 55 Sec footnotss at sad of table S»« footnote* at ond of tablo. 54 Table 7. The composition, bassd upon existing hospital of primary, secondary, proposed-secondary, and laolatad dlatrlota ankles up broad hoapital aarrlea regions; and comity, district, regional, and State totala for aelaeted Iteae par- tin act to an ewalnation of hoapital needs in tba VIST SOUTH CSSTHAL ST ATM - Cont limed Table 7. The soapoaltlon, baaed upon existing hoapital of primary, secondary, proposed-secondary, and laolatad dlatrlota making np broad hoapital aarrioe regions; aad county, diatriot, regional, and State totala for aeleoted itaaa par- t inant to an oral nation of hoapital naada in tba VIST SOUTH CKSTRAL STATES - Continued •TATE ACtlON DISTRICT populstioh •EOS IN SENERAL AND ALLIED SPECIAL HOSPITALS y physic: an# y INCOME (DOLLARS) LAND AREAS/ PERSONS PER RURAL SQUARE MILES SQUARE COUNTY DESIGNATIONS TOTAL TOTAL PERCENT OF TOTAL TOTAL PER 1,000 PERSONS TOTAL PER 100,000 PERSONS TOTAL (IN MILLIONS) PER CAPITA MILE . OKLAHOMA (Contlmitd) Tallhlna District 1. Le Tier* 2. McOortaln 3. Sequoyah 110,322 45,866 41,318 23.13* 102,613 41,846 37.629 23.138 93 255 255 2.3 6I 36 23 10 63 18.85 8.92 6.87 3.06 171 4,132 1.575 1,854 703 27 Proposed-secondary dlstrtotsi Claraaere District 1. Sopors 2. Icwata 36,852 21,078 15.774 28,814 16,944 11,870 78 84 84 2.3 28 18 10 76 10.03 5.50 4.55 272 1,290 713 577 29 Durant District 1. Bryan 2. Choctaw 3. Marshall 78,8*0 38.138 28,35* 12,384 60.350 28,111 22,449 9.790 77 66 57 9 0.8 46 28 10 8 58 17-52 9.02 5.90 2.60 222 2,111 IS 4l4 37 Pawtaska District 1. Osage 2. lay 3. Washington 119,145 41,502 47,084 30.559 65.640 32,792 18,556 14,292 55 273 108 115 50 2.3 114 31 52 31 96 60.97 15.21 26.55 19.21 512 3.662 33 Pawns* District 1. Fawns* 2. Payne 53.452 17,395 36.057 30,400 12.143 18,257 57 120 50 70 2.2 48 13 35 90 18.12 421 1,288 591 697 U2 Plohsr District 1. Ottawa 2. Craig 3. Delaware 75.524 35.849 21.083 18.592 55.646 21.656 15.398 18.592 74 111 ft 1.5 5* 37 X\ 77 19-95 11.81 5-97 2.17 264 2.025 s 778 37 Tahlequah District 1. Chare he* 2. Adair 3. “ays* 58.453 21.030 15.755 21,668 52.925 18,003 15.755 19.167 91 72 72 1.2 34 11 iZ 58 9.16 3.33 w ■ 157 2,031 782 569 680 29 TEXAS 6,414,824 3.503.455 55 14,945 2-3 6,898 108 2,858.08 446 263.644 24 DALLAS 820101 2,006,405 1.133.998 57 4,621 2.3 2,213 no 909.96 454 37.628 53 Primary district: Dallas District 1. Delias 2. Collin 3- Dsston 4. mi* 5. taufaan 6. Rockwall 572.504 398.564 47.190 33.658 47.733 38.30* 7.051 204.400 79.064 S.’S 31.991 25.173 7.051 36 2,001 1.777 65 4l 57 61 3-5 863 711 58 ft 27 6 151 355.89 301.25 12.31 13.10 15.88 11.68 1.67 622 4.637 3 942 3 147 123 Secondary districts: Port forth District 1. Tarrant 2. Johnson 3. Parker 4. flea 295.461 225.521 30.384 20,482 19.074 ?4.499 43,6y 19,826 S3 32 972 916 14 10 32 3.3 396 16 19 134 195.19 174.13 11.10 I: L5 661 3.430 & 904 909 86 Marshall District 1. Harrison 2. Crsgg 3. Marlon 4. Panola 5. Husk 6. Dpshsr 220,098 50,900 58.027 11,457 22.513 51.023 26,178 164,396 32.490 33.187 8.660 22.513 44,523 23.023 75 326 145 no 4o 31 1.5 174 8 10 4i 16 79 76.36 14.78 32.79 3a;ft 17.61 5.4o 347 3.9*9 892 284 4oo 880 944 589 55 STATE action DISTRICT AND COUNTY DESIGNATIONS POPULATION & BEOS IN SENCRAL AND ALLIED SPECIAL HOSPITALS y PHYSICIANS?/ INCOME (DOLLARS) LAND AREA 3/ IN SQUARE MILES PERSONS PER SQUARE MILE TOTAL RURAL TOTAL PER 1,000 PERSONS TOTAL PER 100,000 PERSONS TOTAL (IN MILLIONS) PER CAPITA TOTAL PERCENT OF TOTAL nus (Continued) Paris District 131,704 99.652 76 270 2.1 100 76 33.02 251 3.301 1. Limit 50.425 31.747 208 52 15.30 906 2. Delta 12,858 10.321 12 2.4’ 276 t. franklin 8.378 8.378 10 1 1.52 291 4. Hopkins 50,274 23.532 15 14 8.02 791 5. Had Blear 29.769 25.674 37 19 5-75 1.033 Shaman Dlatrlot 110,563 71.477 65 278 2.5 112 101 35-99 326 1,890 58 1. Grayson 36.762 23s 74 27.28 984 2. Tannin 41,064 34.715 40 38 8.71 906 Proposed-seeondary dlatrlctu Coriloana Dlatrlot 104,268 81,114 78 115 1.1 73 70 28.17 270 2.886 36 1. Hit arm 51.30* 36.076 95 4l 15.78 1,084 2. fraaatoae 21.138 17,981 20 11 5.0s 862 3* Henderson 31,822 27.057 19 7.31 940 Gainesville District 45.351 29.625 65 75 1-7 43 95 14.69 324 1,846 25 1. Cooke 24,909 15.258 6! 22 8.59 909 2. Montague 20,41*2 14,367 12 21 6.10 937 Jacksenrllle District 148,655 106,494 72 257 1.7 127 85 41.73 281 3,942 38 1. Cherokee 43,970 31.058 77 42 11.35 1.054 2. Anderson 37.092 24,948 ?« 30 11.09 1,068 3• Angelina 32,201 22,634 40 28 9-51 857 4. Nacogdoches 35.392 27.854 42 27 9-76 963 Texarkana District 93.514 76.495 82 72 0.8 63 67 26.68 285 2.149 44 1. Bovle 50,208 33.189 60 4c 17.02 921 2. Casa 33.496 33.496 12 18 7.64 965 3. Morris 9,810 9,810 5 2.02 263 Tylar District 124,605 93.103 75 77 0.6 111 89 46.31 372 2.517 50 1. Smith 69,090 40,811 71 67 32-56 939 2. Van Zandt 31.155 31.155 21 7.34 855 3. Wood 24,360 21.137 23 6.41 723 Isolated districts: Greenville District 56,127 37.433 67 66 1.2 60 107 18.98 338 1.145 49 la Hunt 48,793 30.095 66 5* 18.37 910 2. Bains 7.334 7.334 2 .61 235 Mineral Wells District 74,042 53.241 72 42 1.2 71 96 29.08 393 5,288 14 !• Palo Pinto 18.456 12.153 40 21 6.99 982 2a Hood 6.674 6.674 7 1.56 426 3. Jack 10,206 10,206 12 7 3.26 944 4, Somervell 3.071 3.071 1 .67 197 5. Stephens 12.356 6.530 S 5-79 927 6. Throokaorton 4.275 4.275 » 1.07 911 7* Young 19,004 10.332 Uo 16 9.74 899 Haunt Pleasant District 29.513 22,069 75 20 0.7 20 68 7.87 267 608 49 1. Titus 19,228 14,700 14 5-59 418 2. Camp 10,285 7.369 20 6 2.28 190 XL PASO EMIOI 224,701 84,023 37 654 2.9 292 130 127.60 568 37.816 6 Pri-Mry district: XI Paso District 134,216 37,406 28 553 4.1 209 156 70.73 527 5.587 pu 1. XI Paso 131.067 34.257 551 206 69.96 1.054 2# Hudspeth 3.149 3.149 3 • 77 4.533 See footnotes at and of table. See footnotes at end of table. 55 Table 7-— Th® competition, bated txpon existing hospital of primary, tecondary, propoted-tecondary, and liolated dlttrlots making up broad hospital service regions; and county, dletrlct, regional, and State totals for selected Items per- tinent to an evaluation of hospital needs in the WEST SOUTH CENTRAL STATES - Continued Table 7*— The composition, based upon existing hospital of primary, secondary, proposed-seoondary, and isolated districts making up broad hospital service regions; and county, district, regional, and State totals for selected Items per- tinent to an evaluation of hospital needs In the WEST SOUTH CENTRAL STATES - Continued BEOS IN GENERAL STATE POPULATION & AND PHYSICIANS 5/ INCOME REGION Allied special (DOLLARS) AREA 57 IN SQUARE PERSONS HOSPITALS y PER AND RURAL SQUARE MILE COUNTY TOTAL PER PER TOTAL PER CAPITA MILES DESIGNATIONS TOTAL TOTAL OF TOTAL 1.000 PERSONS 100,000 PERSONS (IN MILLIONS) TEXAS (Continued) Isolated districts: Alpine District Ho,57b 6.478 2b,75b 61 30 0.7 36 89 19.12 b7i 25.915 2 1. Brewster 2,612 10 6 2.77 6,20? 2. Culberson 1.653 1.653 1 1.05 3,8b8 3. Jeff Davie 2.375 2.375 ] • 36 2,258 4# Pecos 8,185 b.sgi 5 b.32 b.736 5. Presidio 10.925 7.120 1 3.66 3,871 o. Reeves 8,006 3.151 20 11 5.b8 2,600 7. Terrell 2.952 2.952 2 i.bs 2,388 Odessa Dletrlct 1*9,911 a.863 bb 71 i.b b7 9b 37.75 756 6,31b 8 1. Ector 15.051 5.b78 36 1C 13.94 907 2. Crane 2,841 2, sbi ] 1.45 s 3. Loving 285 285 .06 4. Midland 11.721 2.36s 15 lb 8.79 938 5. Upton H.297 1.702 8 2 3.67 1.312 6. Ward 9.575 5.631 10 5.50 827 7. Winkler 6,lHl 3.557 12 8 4.3b 887 HOUSTON ESOIOH 1.178,338 53b,8b6 b5 3.6a 3.1 1,281 109 571.b3 b85 21,858 5b Primary district: Houston District 700.732 209,bgi 30 2,708 3-9 889 127 387-78 553 6.193 113 1. Barrie 528,961 118,077 1.870 6g5 306.11 1.747 2. Braeoria 27.06; a,1*03 18 16 10.1b i.bbi 3. Chambers 7,511 7.511 6 3-35 618 4. Port Bend 32.96] 29.506 66 lb 10.76 . 867 5. Galveston 81.17] 15,563 18,431 701 lbs bg-39 b30 6. Montgomery 23.055 53 • 11 8.03 1,090 Secondary districts: Beauuont District 178,586 63.388 35 bso 2-5 185 10b 98.03 5b9 2.196 945 81 1. Jefferson i^.32S bo,128 bio 166 87.01 2. Hardin 15.875 13.350 ♦; 5.07 895 J. Orange 17.382 9.910 bo 10 5.95 356 Proposed-secondary districts: XI Campo District 7U.036 59.150 80 172 2-3 5? 72 29.73 b02 3.170 23 1* Wharton 36.158 27,866 120 24 lb.52 1.079 950 2. Colorado 17,812 17,812 ; 1] 7.22 3* Matagorda 20,066 I3.b72 b3 16 7.99 1,141 Heapstead District 75.011 62,b38 83 Ib6 1.9 61 81 19.86 265 2,581 29 1. Waller 10,280 10.28C 52 I 3.16 HOT 2. Austin 17.38b 17.38b IS 16 b.36 662 3. Crimea 21.960 15.822 22 15 5.a 801 4. Washington 25.587 18,952 5b 22 7.13 6ll Liberty District 1. Liberty 5b.232 2b, 541 51.1*5 a,*54 9b 71 55 1.3 36 IS 66 15.55 9.36 287 2,886 i:g 19 2. Polk 20.635 20,635 16 17 J. San Jaointo 9.056 9,056 1 •9b 619 leolated districts! Jasper District 95./bl 89,23b 93 7b 0.8 57 60 20.b8 ab b,S32 20 1, Jasper I7.bgi 13,99b bl 5 b.59 969 2, Hewton 13.700 13.700 7 2.04 9bi 3. Sabine 10.896 10.896 8 1.92 56U 4. San Auguetlne I2.b7i I2.b7i 5 2.52 6l? 5. Shelby 29.235 26,225 30 19 6.76 819 6. Tyler 11,948 n.9b8 9 2.65 927 SAW AHTOHIO EXOIOB I,i92,b9b 589.651 bg 2.059 1.7 1,288 108 bg2.98 bi3 5b.27b 22 Primary dietriet: San Antonio District b37.85b 16b.318 38 1.061 2.U 632 ibb ag.6i 502 7.325 60 1. Bexar 338.176 78,522 99b 563 192.59 l,2b7 2. Atascosa 3. Bandera 9 11 5 3.8* .96 1,206 765 4, Comal 12.3a 5.355 15 ii 6.0b 5* Guadalupe 25.596 18,590 21 16 7.08 715 670 1.353 802 6. Kendall 5,080 5,080 7 2.25 7. Medina 16.106 16,106 10 8. Wilson 17,066 17.066 22 9 3.18 BEOS IN GENERAL STATE POPULATION AND PHYSICIANS 3/ INCOME & REGION ALLIED SPECIAL (DOLLARS) AKA*/ PERSONS DISTRICT HOSPITALS V PER AND RURAL SQUARE MILE COUNTY TOTAL PER PER TOTAL PER CAPITA MILES DESIGNATIONS TOTAL TOTAL OF TOTAL 1,000 PERSONS TOTAL 100,000 PERSONS (IN MILLIONS) ims (Continued) a Ssoondary 41«trlot«: Corpus Christl District 155.115 65.257 >12 259 1.7 151 97 83-3** 537 3.22*1 48 1. Nueces 92.661 28,580 191 107 55.23 $ 2. Jl> Well. S8 12,4*17 32 13 9.81 3- Ileber* 5.562 36 11 6.11 851 U, San Patricio 28,871 18,668 20 12.19 689 Proposed-secondary districts: Cuoro District 104,541 86.7a 83 178 1.7 61 58 28.91 277 *1.572 23 1. De Vltt 2*1.935 17,517 65 1*1 9.42 910 2. Goliad 8.798 8.798 ’ 2.02 871 3. Gonial** 26.075 19.2*18 a. 553 25 14 6-59 1.058 4. Kama* 16.357 28 12 5.46 75* 5* Laraca 25.^5 22,696 60 18 5.42 975 Laredo District 103.S36 **8.715 >17 87 0.8 79 76 31.70 305 12,608 8 1. Webb *♦5,916 6,6*12 75 36 16.86 3.295 1,341 2. Dimmit 8,5*12 8,5*12 8 1.68 3. Dural h, Jla Hogg 20.865 5.—19 i4. bio 5, *1*19 12 16 5 5.50 2.41 1,814 1.139 5- La Salle 8,003 4.370 t 1.84 1.501 6. Mar-rlok 10,071 3.612 7 3.00 1.279 7. Wcilullen l.37>* 1.37*1 .24 1,159 8* Zapata 3.916 3.916 3 •17 1,080 McAllen District 222,865 123.3*15 55,479 55 2*18 1.1 193 87 61.21 275 6.5*11 3>* 1. Hidalgo 106,059 133 7f 28.08 1,5*11 2* Brooks 6.362 6.362 4 1.62 908 3. Caaeron 83,202 38,312 115 95 25-7*1 883 h, Kenedy 700 700 .03 1.407 5* Starr 13.312 13.312 7 1-97 1.207 6. Willacy 13.230 9.I8O 8 3-77 595 Victoria District 55.22*1 36,509 66 103 1-9 39 71 24.24 439 3.331 17 1. Victoria 23.7*11 12.175 58 19 - 12.65 % 2. Aransas 3.U69 3.1a 1 rOfi 3* Calhoun 5.911 5.9H 6 1.62 537 U. Jackson 11,720 8.996 5 3-51 85*1 5* Refugio 10,383 6,306 *15 8 5.50 771 Isolated districts: Basrlll* District 26,280 19.*>9l 7*1 35 1-3 20 76 10.29 392 l,91*i 14 1. Be* 16,481 9.692 35 l4 7.90 842 2. Lire Oak 9.799 9.799 6 2.39 1,072 lerrrllle District 32.737 23.6a 72 H5 1.4 58 177 15.55 *175 6,130 5 1, Kerr 11,650 6,078 20 uc 8.0*1 1,101 2a Edwards 3* Gillespie 2.933 10,670 2.933 7.126 25 2 .82 4.18 2.075 1,055 1.274 4. liable 5,064 5,06*1 i 2.00 5. Beal 2, *120 2. >120 1 •51 625 Ural4* District 5*1,042 a,67*i *10 **3 0.8 55 102 18.13 335 8,629 6 1* Uralde 13,2*16 6.567 12 15 5-92 1.588 2. Trio 9.207 6,0*13 20 11 2.15 1.116 3. Kinney 4.533 1,880 *■ 1.10 1.391 4. Val Verde 15.453 2,110 17 6.84 1 3,242 1.292 5. Zavala 11,603 5.07*1 11 8 2.12 T8UPL1 HXGIOH 1,032,717 687,6*13 67 2.223 2.2 1,0*18 101 369.97 358 >•7.676 22 Prinary district: Tssqple District 1. Bell 126,725 *1*1,863 89,6*19 25.9*17 71 S *1.5 16)1 90 129 42.12 16.83 332 *1.977 1.079 25 2a Burnet 10.771 10,771 18 9 2.84 1,003 3* Coryell 20,226 17,0*19 20 4.33 1.043 h. Laapasas 9.167 5,7*11 a 14 3.66 72b 5. Villlaason >11,698 30.1*11 75 31 14.52 1,126 See footnotes at end of table* See footnotes at end of table, Tall* 7-— The composition, based upon exist lag hospital of priaaxy, secondary, proposed-secondary, and isolate, districts —up hroad hospital service regions; and county, district, regional, aad State totals for seleoted itssis per- tinent to an evaluation of hospital needs in the WIST SOUTH CWHTHAL STARS - Continued Table J.— The coaposition, based upon existing hospital of prlaary, secondary, proposed-secondary, and isolated districts asking up broad hospital service regions; aad county, district, regional, and State totals for seleoted iteas per- tinent to an evaluation of hospital needs in the VIST SOUTH CJUTRAL STARS - Continued BEOS IN GENERAL STATE POPULATION^ AND PHYSICIANS 5/ INCOME y SCSI ON ALLIED SPECIAL (DOLLARS) AKA*/ PERSONS HOSPITALS 4/ PER AND RURAL SQUARE COUNTY PER PER TOTAL PER CAPITA MILES DESIGNATIONS TOTAL TOTAL OF TOTAL TOTAL 1.000 PERSONS TOTAL 100,000 PERSONS (IN MILLIONS) TTCCAS (Continued) Secondary dl«triots: Austin District 219,166 110,144 50 515 2.3 242 110 91.46 417 5.413 4o 1. Trawls lii.053 23.123 ■5 16$ 60.ll 1.015 2. Bastrop 21,610 18.510 14 4.80 885 3. Blanco 4,264 4,264 1C 1.35 3Z 4. Callsell as 15.438 32 16 9.42 5. Payette 26.715 45 17 8.06 936 6. Hays 15.3**5 9.343 25 16 5.04 670 7. Lea 12.751 12.751 6 2.68 644 San Angelo District 81.955 51,681 63 189 2.3 id 123 42.79 522 9.887 8 1. Tea Green 39.302 13.500 165 61 26.69 1.543 2. Coke 4.590 4.590 3 .96 1.S J. Conoho 6,192 6.192 14 5 1.96 1 4. Irion 1.963 1.963 .V 1.073 9l4 5. Menard 4,53 4,5a 4 2.06 6. Heagan 1.997 10 •98 1.133 7* Runnels I8.903 19 7.86 1,060 8. Schleicher 9. Sterling i3:2S 3 ■92 .87 Waco District 225.779 146,190 43,060 65 413 1.8 242 107 81.23 360 4,759 47 1. McLennan 101,89* 265 144 50.oi 1.035 2. Bosque 15.761 15.761 n 15 3.72 1.003 3. Tails 35.984 29,442 80 39 8.84 761 4. Hill 38.355 30.556 23 27 10.39 1,028 9. Liaestone 33.781 27.371 28 17 8.27 932 Proposed-secondary districts: Brosnsood District 128,256 84.396 66 % 2-3 133 lo4 43.24 337 7.O8O 18 1. Brown 25.924 12.526 41 11.19 949 2. Coleaan 20.571 19.245 14,517 79 18 6.42 1,282 3. Comanche 16,036 14 3.74 972 U, Eastland 30.345 17.075 110 31 11.42 955 5. McCulloch 13,208 8,206 4o 13 5.61 1.066 6. Mills 7.951 7.951 1 2.02 734 7- San Saha 11,012 8,085 9 2.78 1,122 Cameron District 104,l4l 83.748 80 99 1.0 60 58 28.J7 276 3.163 33 1. Milam 33.12c 28,080 50 19 7.4c 1.027 2. Braios 26.977 15.135 4$ 20 12.04 583 3. Burlsson 18.334 18.334 a 3-57 h, Roberteon 25.710 22.199 13 5.76 Crockett District 94,472 84,828 90 84 0.9 67 71 22.34 236 4,299 22 1. Houston 31.137 26,601 84 a 6.09 1.232 2. Leon 17.733 17.733 13 3-70 l.p9? J. Uadieon 12.02$ 12.02$ 3.65 478 4. Trinity 13.705 13.705 3.12 704 5* Walker 19,868 14,760 20 5-78 786 Isolated districts: Llano District 11.374 8.716 77 10 88 4.27 375 1,882 6 1. Llano 5.996 3.338 ! 2.r 947 2. Mason 5.378 5.378 ! 2.14 935 Sonora District 6.786 4.258 1.449 63 7 103 3.87 570 4,287 2 1. Sutton 3.977 2.12 1.493 2.794 2. Crockett 2.809 2,809 3 1.75 Stephenrllle District 34.063 aa 71 51 1.5 22 65 9.88 290 1.929 18 1. Irath 20,760 51 l4 5-7$ I.O85 844 2. Hamilton 13.303 10.587 a 4.09 WICHITA PALLS BWCIOW 780,169 473.274 61 1.767 2.3 776 99 386.14 495 64.392 12 Primary district: Wichita Palls District 101,482 44,64o 44 304 3.0 117 115 55-38 546 3.487 29 1. Wichita 73.604 20.090 289 99 47.13 612 2. Archer 7.59S 4 2.1 917 3. Baylor 7.755 15 5 2.76 857 4. Olay 12.524 12,524 s 3.36 1,101 BEOS IN SENERAL STATE POPULATION V AND PHYSICIANS 5/ INCOME5' REGION ALLIED SPECIAL (DOLLARS) AREA 1/ PERSONS mospitalsI/ PER AND RURAL SQUARE SQUARE MILE COUNTY TOTAL PER PER TOTAL PER CAPITA MILES DESIGNATIONS TOTAL TOTAL OF TOTAL 1,000 PERSONS 100,000 PERSONS (IN MILLIONS) TKXAS (Continued) Secondary districts! Abilene District 92.167 55.188 60 190 2.1 108 117 40.66 44l 4.484 21 1. Taylor UU.1U7 17.535 114 63 24.19 913 2. Callahan 11,565 11.568 21 11 2.98 857 3. fisher 12,932 12.932 30 9 2.7s 906 4. lolan 17.309 6,942 25 22 8.40 921 5* Shackelford 6,ai 6.211 3 2.31 887 Amarillo District 103,U13 36.262 35 284 2.7 112 108 67.84 656 9.883 10 1. Potter 5U.265 l*,2l*2 215 77 43.2* 901 2. Armstrong 3. Carton IS IS 2 .68 2.98 909 899 4. Deaf Smith 6,056 3.472 22 3 3.81 1.507 1,489 5. Hartley 1.873 1.632 47 •33 6. Hutchinaon 7. Moore 19.069 4.461 £8S 12 4 11.52 2.11 884 912 8. Oldham 1.385 1.385 5 .66 1,466 9. Randall 7.185 2.900 4 2.47 916 Luhhock District 131.555 82,1*72 63 310 2.4 127 97 64.54 489 7.448 18 1. Luhhock 5!.782 !6.3>*2 225 70 34.56 892 2. Croshy 10,046 10,01*6 6 2.84 911 3. Ployd 10.659 7.933 8 8 4.07 3 4. Oarsa 5.678 5.678 4 2.85 5. Hockley 12,693 9.602 10 8 4.12 903 6. Lamb 17,606 13.789 45 16 6.74 1,022 7. Lynn 11.931 11,160 11.931 8 4.60 % 915 8. Tarry 7.151 22 7 4.56 898 Propoeed-eeeondary districts! Big Spring District 6«,524 1*0,85** 60 !J4 2.0 47 69 31.49 460 6.331 11 1. Howard 20,990 8,386 61 19 l4.5jj 912 2. Borden 15! 3$ 1.396 6I50 914 3. Dawson 9.329 35 9 89? 4. Glasscock 1.193 1.193 .17 864 5. Martin 5.556 5.556 2 1.87 911 6. Hltohall 12,477 7.26U 14 7 4.29 922 7. Scurry 11.5>*5 7.730 24 10 4.07 909 Plainriew District 34,028 25.765 76 62 1.8 34 100 16.73 492 3.630 9 1. Hale 18,813 10,550 62 25 11.02 979 2. Briscoe 4.056 >*,056 3 1.29 887 3. Castro 4,631 >*.631 2 1-39 876 4. Swisher 6,528 6,528 4 3.03 888 Stanford District >*3,872 36.011 82 75 1.7 39 89 14.16 323 2,774 16 1. Jonas 2?.378 18,568 50 26 9-38 959 2. Haskell 15.905 11,851* 25 11 3.85 888 3* Stonewall 5.589 5,589 2 •93 927 Ternon District 36,781* 23,71*0 65 114 3.1 38 103 16.54 450 2.315 954 16 1. Wilbarger 20,l*7>* 11.197 58 21 10.20 2. Toard 5.237 5.237 16 S 1.82 676 J. Hardeman 11.073 7.306 40 11 4.52 685 Isolated districts: • Dalhart District 19,280 ll*,839 77 40 2.1 16 83 11.88 616 5.154 4 !• Dallam 6,1*91* 2.053 4o 6 4.45 1.494 2. Hansford 3 • Lipsconh 2.783 3.761* 2.783 3.764 2 4 1.87 1.53 907 934 4. Ochiltree 4,213 4,213 3 3-11 3 5. Sherman 2,026 2,026 1 .92 Paducah District 3l*,l*89 31.812 92 60 1.7 31 90 12.51 363 5.541 6 1. Cottle 7.079 4,1*02 20 5 2.96 901 2. Dickens 7.81*7 7,847 20 6 3.36 930 3. Kent 3.>*13 3.>*13 4 •70 .35 901 King 1,066 1.066 944 5. Inox 10,090 10,090 20 11 3.41 854 6. Kotlay **.99** 4,994 5 1.73 1.011 See footnote* at end of table. See footnotes at cad of table. 57 Table. 7.— The conposltlon, based upon existing hospital of prlnary, secondary, proposed-seeondary, and Isolated districts naklng up broad hospital serrlcs regions: and county, district, regional, and State totals for selected Iteas per- tinent to an evaluation of hospital needs In the VIST SOUTH CKNTHAL STATtS - Continued Table B, The conpoeition, baaed upon existing hospital of primary, secondary, propoaed-aeoondary, and isolated districts mJriwg up broad hospital service regions; and county, district, regional, and State totals for selected iteas per- tinent to an evaluation of hospital needs in the MOUHTAIH STARS (Part I) STATE RESIGN DISTRICT AND COUNTY DESIGNATIONS POPULATION BEOS IN GENERAL AND ALLIED SPECIAL HOSPITALS^ PHYSICIANS?/ INCOME (DOLLARS) LAND AREAS/ IN SQUARE MILES PERSONS PER SQUARE MILE TOTAL RURAL TOTAL PER 1,000 PERSONS TOTAL PER 100,000 PERSONS TOTAL (IN MILLIONS) PER CAPITA TOTAL PERCENT OF TOTAL TEXAS (Cent limed) Pazipa Dletrlct 83.865 54,206 65 179 2.1 83 99 43.37 517 7,059 12 X. Gray 23.911 11,016 45 25 17.45 937 2. Childress la.iV 5.685 20 12 6^53 701 3. Collingsworth 10.331 7,02: 20 1 3.54 899 4. Donley 7.4s7 7,481 2.72 909 5. Hall 12.11| 8,298 29 13 4.3c 896 6. Hemphill 4.170 4,170 10 ( 2.4c 909 7. Robert* 1,28< 1.289 .71 892 8, Vheeler 12,411 9.288 55 10 5.72 916 Seacraree District 30.710 27.485 89 15 0.5 24 78 11.24 366 6,286 5 1. Oainoa 8,136 4,911 15 10 4.65 1.479 2. Andrews 1.271 1.277 ! .57 i.5o4 3. Bailey 6,318 6,318 1.66 832 4. Cochran 3.735 3.735 •95 782 5. Parmer 5.890 5.890 2.11 859 0. Toakna 5.35** 5.354 1.27 830 fs SQUARE MILE VO VO ITv H in In Nifv «PsII8 8jS« o mm crAost cncA VO mrH SRSi.S&E' st cu mvo crvw cu -h t-Immcu t-W rH CU w&m mrH rH fAst (A r—o rH vo rH rH m mt*- m 0 vo to mst rH STATE RESIGN o ar •» s 35 ii o I Ml O § B § ♦» -a •H fc *H ** 1 £ *• o ■H O • h • h • Idlll • rH CU K\St IfN *H S o - h ■ 4» • ** • H 0 O «H rH O t 0tS2§ a •ail*!* m « m ►» x n J rH CJ mst in O H o • to ■*» Hi s'-S|3j 0 • rH -tJ « 5 OHO ■*» jh'n mst in ►* o • t|S 3 3 1 BOP, |.rH CU iS I^J.a ilislil g »h cu rAst mvo £ B ♦» 0 wl h « H0 1 ■ £ « u « **3 M s • O • H3 P JHH fl rH CU fAst 2 ill ill “.lllll fH rH cu »Ast m •a s> 1 H* ---, 4* U H HO •O c c r-l 8 t. hj| 1S55 55 8S S5|9555 m « oo at P rH rH CU mst mvO 3 m | o t .9 3 §3 P Jw llllls rH cu mst *» «o 0 ♦» O |J.» sg M rH CU fA •H • ► ±1 Hospital bed totals used for eelecting hospital centers and defining service districts and regions within each State were obtained by tabulating data published for individual general and allied special hospitals in the Journal of the American Medical Association, Yol. 121, No* 13, March 27, lncluded in the general and allied epecial category are all general hospitals plus those rendering specialised services commonly provided by general hospitals, i.e. maternity, industrial, isolation, eye-ear- noss-throat, orthopsdie, childrens, convalescent and rest, chronic, and others offering similar limited types of care. Osneral hospitals opsratsd by the Bureau of Indian Affairs ars counted on the assumption that they represent facilities operated on a local area basis, but othsr federal hospitals are excluded. Also in the excluded group are all mental and tuberculosis hospitals and infirmary unite of correctional and custodial institutions. i/ County population totals from: Population, first Series, U, S. Summary, Table 17» Sixteenth Census of the United States: I9UO. J[f Physician totals represent counts of all physicians listed in the I9UO American Medical Directory. ±I Estimates of effective buying income in I9UO, made by Sales Management on the basis of money actually paid for goods and services, federal allotments, money paid out of savings and surpluses by business and financial institutions, plus the nonmoney Income of farm and village residents, were obtained for counties and States from: Sales management survey of buying power. Sales Management, Yol. Ug, Wo. g, April 10, I9HI. These data have been reproduced with permission of Sal., Management, Inc. 5/ Land area In equals nllee front Population. Tiret Series, D. S. Summary, Table 17, Sixteenth Cantus of the United States! 19**0. 58 See footnotes at end of table. Table g.— Tba oonpooltlon, baaed upon existing hospital of prlaary. isoondary, proposal-secondary. and laolatad districts Baking ttp broad hospital sarrlca regions; and oonnty, district, rational, and Stata totals for aalaetad Iteaa par- tlnant to an evaluation of boapital aaada in tha MOOSTdIB STl7*B (Part I) - Continued table B. The composition, based npon existing hospital of primary, secondary, proposed-secondary, and isolated districts asking np broad hospital service regions: and county, district, regional, and State totals for selected itens per- tinent to an evaluation of hospital needs in the MOUNTAIN STATES (Part I) - Continued % • •TATE RESIGN DISTRICT POPULATION & •EOS IN SENCRAL AND ALLIED SPECIAL HOSPITAL •*/ PHYSICIANS INCOME (DOLLARS) LAND AREA 5/ PERSONS PER AND RURAL COUNTY DESIGNATIONS total TOTAL PERCENT OF TOTAL TOTAL PER 1,000 PERSONS TOTAL PEP 100,000 PERSONS TOTAL (IN MILLIONS) PER CAPITA MILES MILE mo arm 559.456 347.921 62 3.097 5.5 534 95 345.36 617 146,516 4 BILLIHG8 HXOIOI 138,596 92.172 67 716 5.2 109 79 70.71 510 48,927 3 Prlaary district: Billings District 1. Yellowstone 2. Big Hors 3. Carbon 4. Golden Talley 5- Massalshell 6. Stillwater 7. Sweet Oraae 8. Treasure 81,702 41.182 lO.Uig 11,865 1,607 5.717 5.69U 3.719 1.499 50.093 15.167 10,419 8.915 1.607 £82 3.719 1.499 61 374 1i5 20 4.6 43 7 6 1 6 2 4 3 88 3:S 4.47 4.59 .33 3.07 ts .64 537 17.429 2.635 5.033 2.070 1.178 1,886 1.797 1,846 984 5 Secondary districts) Miles City District 1. Coster 2. Carter 3. Ballon 4. Garfield 5. Powder Blear 6. Prairie 7- Hossbod 32,108 10.U22 3,280 3.719 2,61*1 3.159 2,1*10 6.U77 24.795 3.109 3.280 3.719 2,641 3.159 2,410 6.477 77 222 110 20 15 77 6.9 22 9 1 4 1 1 1 5 69 14.80 6.81 ,62 1.88 •55 • 70 .94 3.30 461 23.548 3.765 1:8 4.793 3.2«5 1.727 5,032 1 Proposed-secondary districts) Glendiws District 1. Dawson 2. McCone 3. Bicbland 4. Tibaoz 2l*,786 8,618 3.798 10,209 2,161 17,284 4,094 3.798 7.231 2,161 70 120 91 29 4.8 li 2 7 2 61 12.06 5.18 •79 5-50 •59 487 7.950 2.358 2.638 2.065 889 3 BUTTI BSGIOI 201,042 114,860 57 943 4.7 223 111 127.01 632 38,658 5 Prlaary district; Batts District 1. Silver Bow 2. Beaverhead 3- Deer Lodge 4. Jefferson 5« Madison 85.735 52:P 7,294 *.636 16,126 3,929 2.623 4,664 7,294 4o 462 360 22 80 5.4 87 55 ll 101 60.57 41.53 5-52 8.60 1.97 2.95 706 12.191 716 5.556 738 1.651 3.530 7 Secondary dietriots; Mlesoola District 1. Missoula 2. Granite 3. Lake 4. Mineral 5. Powell 6. Hawaiii 7. Sanders 74,120 29.038 3,4oi 13.1*90 2.135 6,152 12.978 6.926 52.393 10.589 3.4oi 13,490 2.135 2,874 12,978 6.926 71 369 229 68 4o 32 5-0 14 4 8 15 7 128 42.16 22.15 2.09 5.00 .89 3.63 5-78 2.62 569 l4,6oi 2,629 1.717 1,500 1.223 2.337 2.384 2,811 5 Isolated dlstricts: Eallspell District 1. 11 at head 2. Glacier 3. Lincoln 41.187 24,271 9.034 7,882 27.831 13,424 6.525 7.882 68 112 43 i 2.7 4l 28 7 6 100 24.28 14.85 6.02 3.41 590 11,866 5.177 2.974 3.715 3 GBUT PILLS HIOIOB 219,818 140,889 64 1,43s 6.5 202 92 147.64 672 . 58.731 4 Prlaary district: Great Palls District 1. Cascade 2. Chouteau 3. Judith Basin 4. Meagher 5. Teton 62,129 41.999 7,316 3.655 2.237 6,922 32,201 12,071 7.316 3.655 2,237 6,922 52 494 17 8.0 8 5 2 3 95 42.33 31.54 3.76 1.68 1.53 3.82 681 13.106 2.658 3.920 1,880 2.354 2.294 5 STATE union DISTRICT POPULATION \f ■COS IN SCNCRAL AND ALLIED SPECIAL HOSPITALS*/ 1 1 INCOME (DOLLARS) LAND AREAS/ PERSONS PER RURAL IN COUNTY DESI8NATIONS TOTAL TOTAL PERCENT or TOTAL TOTAL PER 1,000 PERSONS TOTAL PER 100,000 PERSONS TOTAL (IN MILLIONS) PER CAPITA MILES MILE MOW AHA (Cont limed) Secondary district•; Barr* District X. BUI 2. Blaine J. Liberty 25.07? 13.30U 9,566 2.809 18,652 2)209 78 205 'S 8.2 23 13 9 1 92 16.15 9.6* 5-55 .92 688 8,670 2,988 8,267 1.859 3 Helena District 1. Lewis sad Clark 2. Broadwater 25.5*2 22.1J1 3.’♦Si 10,526 7.075 3.851 81 306 2*2 28 12.0 38 31 3 133 19.87 17.69 1.78 761 8,721 • 3.87* 1.283 5 Lewiston District 1. Fergus 2. Petroleun J. Phillips h, Wheatland 26,301 18,080 1.0*3 7.892 3.2*6 20,827 8,166 1,083 7,892 3,2*6 78 137 137 5-2 20 13 1 3 3 76 16.78 9.S6 •38 8.26 2.2* 638 12,603 8.250 1,668 5,268 1,825 2 Propcsed-secondary districts: Boseaan District 1. Gallatin 2. Park 3- Tellosstone latlonal Park (part) £/ 29.87* 18.269 11,566 *3 18.571 9,608 8,928 83 89 77 55 22 2.6 27 19 8 90 21.88 18.50 7.38 731 5,813 2.517 2,627 269 6 Conrad District 1. Pondera 2. Toole 13,8*5 6.716 6,769 10,987 6.716 8,231 *1 78 58 20 5-8 11 8 7 82 9.12 8.20 8.92 676 3,608 1.683 1.965 8 Glasgow District 1. Valley 2. Daniels 3. Eooserelt 8. Sheridan 37.368 15.1*1 8.563 9,806 7.*18 33.565 11.382 8.563 9,806 7,0.8 90 181 60 15 50 16 3.8 2* 18 3 E 3 75 21-95 9.89 2.88 6.60 3-38 5*7 10,610 5.0*2 1.883 2.3*5 1,700 8 rroiinro 250.782 157.165 63 90* 3.6 278 109 157.91 630 97.506 3 CASFSR RSOIOS 250,782 157.165 63 908 3.6 278 109 157.91 630 97.506 3 Primary district: Casper District 1. Vatrona 2. Carbon 3. Conrerse h. Johnson 5* Washakie 53.971 «:S5 6.631 8,9*0 5.*5* 27.766 5,898 7.113 6.631 8,9*0 3.188 51 $ 12 19 20 3-2 52 28 13 8 8 3 96 39-51 18.73 10.07 8.22 2.81 3.68 732 23.911 5.382 7.9f5 8,167 8.175 2,262 2 Secondary districts: Cheyenne District 1. Laraaie 2. Albany 3* Goshen U. Platte 67.817 &8 12.207 8,013 38.716 11,177 3.319 12.207 8.013 51 239 133 65 8l 3-5 91 57 is S s 138 82.68 22.10 10.55 629 11,887 2.7°3 8,800 2.230 2,118 6 Book Springs District 1. Sweetwater 8. Lincoln 3. Snblette 8. Uinta 39.698 19.807 10,2*6 2.77* 7.223 23,622 6,980 10,2*6 2.778 3,618 60 155 130 25 3-9 80 19 9 3 9 101 28.53 13.08 5.81 1.85 8.23 618 21,539 10,892 8,101 8. *76 2.070 2 Proposed-secondary districts: Tort Washakie District 1. Present 2. Bot Springs Park 8. Teton 5. Yellowstone latlonal Park (part) £/ 38.637 16.095 8.607 10.976 2.583 816 26.967 10.961 8,607 *,880 2.583 816 78 166 70 10 23 28 35 8,* 81 17 6 18 2 2 11* 19.60 8.12 2.76 6.82 1.75 .15 566 22,229 9,288 2,022 5.217 2,815 2.931 2 Saa footnotes at and of table. 59 See footnotes at end of table. Table B. The composition, based upon existing hospital facilities, 1/ of primary, secondary, proposed-secondary, and isolated districts making up broad hospital service regions; and county, district, regional, and State totals for selected items per- tinent to an evaluation of hospital needs in the MOUIfPAIN STATES (Part I) - Continued Table 9.— The composition, baaed upon existing hospital facilities,_/ of primary, secondary, proposed-secondary, and isolated districts Baking up broad hospital Berries regions; and county, district, regional, and State totals for selected iteas per- tinent to an evaluation of hospital needs in the MOUNTAIN STATES (Part II) STATE REGION POPULATION BEOS IN GENERAL AND ALLIED SPECIAL HOSPITALS PHYSICIAN# 3/ INCOME (DOLLARS) LAND AREA 8/ IN SQUARE MILES PERSONS PER RURAL SQUARE COUNTY DESIGNATIONS TOTAL TOTAL PERCENT OF TOTAL TOTAL PER 1,000 PERSONS TOTAL PER 100,000 PERSONS TOTAL (IN MILLIONS) PER CAPITA MILE WYOMING (Continued) Sheridan District 1. Sheridan 2. Big Horn 3. Campbell jg.ait 19.255 12,911 e,o>*g 27.685 8.726 12.911 6,0ltg 72 131 78 38 15 3.U 39 28 10 1 102 23-50 1*.23 6.18 3.09 615 10.U62 2.531 3.176 *.755 it Isolated dlatrlots: Newcastle District 1. Weston 2. Crook 3* Niobrara l6,U09 5.988 16.U09 5:2S 5.988 100 k2 h2 2.6 11 5 3 3 67 8.09 2.99 1.65 3.^ H93 7.918 2, *08 2.897 2.61J 2 s NO o Jt O KN ; x 3 rH rH “ § i ' UN ON CM O VO* * * KN* tO VO f-* ON O CM KNrH O' rH s l§ I5 w o 3 KMnr-to fow h-n ON* * rH ir» h- r- rH ONrH to ON KN rH NO O NO KNOI K?NO ?M * rH KNO O'n S' UN^ NO ON ON H tO * CM KN-O KN UN NO NO ON UN S-H W UN UN UN tO K— UN CM CM tO VO CM U> ON On NO NO KNO O O KN O rH UN KN K- KN rH CM ■n' H H KN rH Oj> rH KNO tO K-VO o O on no Q on* WHO UN rH 35! Rf? * a ON KN S- rH KN UN rH O NO ON UNO on KNO CM S O UNO CM UN KN KN - < z o VO VO * vo on to on *KNKNtO iOv on r—j* un rH NO tO NO ON s- ON UN rH NO CM KN rH VO KN On VO VO VO UN* KN* rH rH k-g CM CM *"* UN rH \ ON rH ON S' rH s KN UN ON R VO s g | B}| rH rH rH rH rH rH rH rH rH | f. un on UN rH KNCM to to rH ONVOVD rH rH NO f— f— KNON O * KN rH NO KN rH rH KN NO ON rH ON KN tO KN CM rH rH KN CM rH tO* CM rH KNrH oi o o to ON UN r- VO rH to UN B S-i s ti UN un kn ON UN * -* UN ON KN rH ■I j r O O UN VO* UN to O CM VO * UN CM S O ON5 ONj» O UN SS 3 | iji o H CM* un CM* *> • ■rH 1 ♦» a ♦> « U ♦* • I- i I c tl i r & • 4» « • s e t? •rH 3 9 4* & .9 13 Si'S s3 si O O H S fl fl •§ o m * « Q a • H UP • s fc * c s si 3 § | s a 5 1 HXOfliH 1 O ® rH O 33 87 U m q s iil| •5 a 5 f 0 t S3 1 % h «■ U • ♦* fl rH h P. 05 >4 O O O to cu • a o h •d H* « S O 4 ■** ♦» fl • rH C li«5S ♦* Vi -HP “ a il-S- 1 e •d •d £• • < CJ x Q Ph o <5 « © WSO X ■d ■ g o o oh & ia & g rH CM KN* A ♦* rH CM KN • rH CM KN* • ■ • rH CM KN | & O rH CM KVd- UN • 3 rH CM KN* UN VO g rH CM KN rH CM KN* UN VO a a* a N J & o 0* ° a O PH 1 d> £ to o< £ 0. J,/ Hospital bed totals used for selecting hospital centers and defining service districts and regions within each State were obtained by tabulating data published for individual general and allied special hospitals in the Journal of the American Medical Association, Vol. 121, No. 13* March 27* lncluded in the general and allied special category are all general hospitals plus those rendering specialised services commonly provided by general hospitals, l.e. maternity, industrial, isolation, eye-ear- nose-throat, orthopedic, children*s, convalescent and rest, chronic, and others offering similar limited types of care. General hospitals operated by the Bureau of Indian Affairs are counted on the assumption that they represent facilities operated on a local area basis, but other Tederal hospitals are excluded. Also in the excluded group are all mental and tuberculosis hospitals and infirmary units of correctional and custodial institutions. 2/ County population totals from; Population. Tlrst Series, U. S. Summary, Table 1?, Sixteenth Census of the United States: 19*10. 2/ Physician totals represent counts of all physicians listed in the 19*K) American Medical Directory. 4/ Estimates of effective buying income in 19**0, made by Sales Management on the basis of money actually paid for goods and services, Tederal allotments, money paid out of savings and surpluses by business and financial institutions, plus the nonaoney income of fan and village residents, were obtained for counties and States from: Sales management survey of buying power. Sales Management, Vol. US, No. 8, April 10, 19*11 • These data have been reproduced with permission of Sales Management, Inc. 9/ Land area in square miles from: Population. Tirst Series, U. 8. Summary, Table 17, Sixteenth Census of the United States: 1956. 2/ Yellowstone National Park is located within the limits of Idaho, Montana, and Wyoming. Ses footnotes at end of table. 60 Table 9. The composition, based upon existing hospital of primary, secondary, proposed-secondary. and laolated districts making up broad hospital service regions; and county, district, regional, and State totals for selected Itess per- tinent to an evaluation of hospital needs In the MCUVTAH 3TATXB (Part II) - Continued Table 9.— The composition, based upon existing hospital facilities,of primary, secondary, proposed-secondary, and Isolated districts making up broad hospital service regions; and county, district, regional, and State totals for selected Items per- tinent to an evaluation of hospital needs In the MCXJUTAM STATES (Part II) - Continued •TATE RESIGN POSULATIOM^ •COS IN SEMERAL AND ALLIED SPECIAL HOSPITAL •*/ phtucumV INCOME^ (DOLLARS) LAND AREAS/ PERSONS PER RURAL SQUARE MILES SQUARE OOUNTY OCtlONATIONt TOTAL TOTAL PERCENT OF TOTAL TOTAL FCR 1,000 TOTAL FCR 100,000 TOTAL (IN feNLUONS) PER CAPITA MILE COLORADO (Continued) Isolated districts: Alamo** District 1. Alamo** 2. Con*jo* J. Costill* U. Mineral 3. Rio Grande bj.Obb 3b,223 80 10,b8b H.871 ll,6b8 ll,5b8 7.533 7.533 975 975 12,bob 9.196 88 2.0 *13 b5 39 91 l| 3 1 12 15.68 36b 6.51 2.31 .85 .bi 5.60 5.obj 720 1.271 1.215 921 916 9 Burlington District 1. Kit Carson 3. Cheyenne 10,1*76 10,1*76 100 7.512 7.512 2,961* 2,961* IS 31 5.3 10 95 8 2 3.83 2-75 1.08 366 3.9b3 2.171 1.772 3 Ouray District 1. Ouray 2. San Miguel 5.753 2,089 3.66b 5.753 2.089 3.66b 100 16 2.8 16 6 2 b 10U 2.32 1.06 1.26 1*03 1.823 5bo 1.283 3 DKH7XR RKGIOH 661.275 251.1*92 58 3.062 b.6 1.369 207 367-59 556 bo,052 17 Primary district: Denver District 1. Denver 2. Adana 3- Arapahoe b. Douglas 5- Jefferson 1*11.261* 68.531 17 322.U12 22,Ugl 16,187 32.150 21,298 3.>*96 3 .**96 30.725 27.550 2,1*1*1 2.1*1*1 5.9 1.058 257 987 10 31 3 27 257-53 228.76 7.06 10.9s 2.01 8.72 626 3.761 1,2^7 827 8b3 786 109 Secondary district*: Bouldsr District 1. Bouldsr 2. Gilpin 3. Grand 1*2,650 22,286 52 37.1*38 17.071* 1,625 1,625 3.587 3.587 258 6.0 258 76 178 70 1 5 23-25 20.76 .63 1.86 5**5 2.769 $ 1,867 15 Oreeley District 1. Weld 2. Morgan 80,961 63.7*17 17.21*1 60,082 7*1 *17.752 12.330 157 1-9 108 **9 90 111 76 lb 31.b2 2b.08 7.3b 388 5.286 b.oob 1,282 15 Proposed-secondary districts: Port Collins District 1. Larimer 2. Jackson 37.337 35,539 1.798 18,9*11 51 17.1*13 1.798 62 62 1.7 56 150 5b 2 18.71 17.88 •83 501 b.aba 2.619 1.623 9 Sterling District 1. Logan 2. Phillip* 3. Sedgwick U. Washington 5. Yuma *19.050 18.370 U,9l*8 5.29*1 8.336 12,102 *♦1,639 85 10,959 1*,9**8 5.29*t 8.336 12,102 93 1-9 60 8 10 15 bb 90 is 7 5 5 9 19.55 8.66 2.11 2.36 1.9b b.b8 399 7.959 1.827 680 5bb 2.525 2.383 6 Isolated districts: Glenvood Springs District 1. Garfield 2. Clear Crsek 3. lagl* U. Moffat 3. Bio Blanco 6. Houtt 7* Summit 1*0,013 10,560 3.78b 5.361 5.O86 2.9*13 10.525 1,75b Uo.013 100 IO.56O 3.78*1 5.361 5.086 2.9*13 10,525 1.75*1 51 1.3 20 31 a 3 ib 112 17.13 b-5? 2.0b 1.98 2.36 1.32 b28 16,035 2.99b 39b 1.685 b.75b 3,263 2.330 615 2 PUEBLO REGION Primary district: 179.523 90.072 50 679 3-8 200 111 7b. 23 bl3 19.096 9 Pueblo District 1. Pueblo 2. Crowley 3. Custer b. Huerfano 92.626 68,870 5.39s 2,270 16.088 3*1.609 16,708 5.398 2.270 10.233 37 *187 5.3 >167 20 119 128 100 b b 11 bo.bg 32.bi 1.79 • 58 5-71 b37 5.519 2,boi 803 737 1.578 17 STATE REGION POPULATION?'' •EOS IN GENERAL AND ALLIED SPECIAL HOSPITALS*/ PHYSICIANS 3/ INCOME^ (DOLLARS) LAND AREA 5/ PERSONS PER RURAL SQUARE COUNTY DESIGNATIONS TOTAL TOTAL PERCENT or TOTAL TOTAL PER 1,000 PERSONS TOTAL PER 100,000 PERSONS TOTAL (IN MILLIONS) PER CAPITA MILES MILE COLORADO (Continued) Secondary district*: La Junta District 1. Otero 2. Bent Kiowa H. Prover« Ug,J21 23.571 9.653 2.793 12,304 30.110 13.037 6.421 2.795 7.859 62 117 117 2.4 3 15 1 11 110 20.88 12.29 2.86 •75 4.98 432 6,218 1,267 1.533 1.792 1,626 8 Proposed-secondary districts: Trinidad District 1. Las Aniaas 2. Baca 38.576 32.369 6,207 25.353 19.146 6.207 66 75 75 1.9 28 23 5 73 12.86 10.41 2.45 333 7.359 4,794 2.565 5 HETADA 110,21*7 66,956 61 756 6.9 167 151 90.65 822 109,802 1 SSVO REGION 110,247 66.956 61 756 6-9 167 151 90.65 822 109,802 1 Primary district: Beno District 1. Washoe 2. Churchill Douglas U. Lyon 5. Ormsby 6. Storey 48.150 32.476 5.317 2.056 4,076 3.209 1,216 21.715 5.841 5.317 2.056 4.076 3.209 1,216 45 358 300 24 34 7-4 90 69 6 3 3 7 2 186 40.03 28.84 4.02 1.86 2.02 2.64 •65 828 14,327 6,281 4,907 724 2.012 l4l 262 3 Proposed-secondary districts: Elko District 1. Elko 2. Baraka 3. Lander 14,018 10,912 1.361 1.745 9.924 6,818 1.361 1.745 71 75 73 5-2 20 15 1 4 143 12-37 10.26 .56 1.55 882 26.943 17.140 4,182 5.621 1 Ely District 1. White Pine 2. Lincoln 16.507 12.377 4.130 12.367 8,237 4,130 75 106 90 16 6.4 21 16 5 127 12.00 9.68 2.32 727 19.542 8,893 10,649 1 Las Vegas District 1. Clark 2. lye 20.020 16,4l4 3,606 11.598 7.992 3.606 58 80 60 20 U.O 19 14 5 95 16.80 13.12 3.68 839 25.991 7.927 18,064 1 Winnemucca District 1. Humboldt 2. Pershing 7.456 4.743 2.713 7.456 4.743 2.713 100 75 75 10.1 11 5 ' 6 148 6.12 3-89 2.23 821 15.695 9.702 5.993 n Isolated districts: / Hawthorne District 1. Mineral 2. Esmeralda 3.896 2.342 1.554 3.896 2.342 1.554 100 64 64 16.4 6 3 3 154 3-33 1.68 1.65 855 7.304 3.734 3.570 1 HEW MEXICO 531,818 355.417 67 2.007 3.8 439 83 184.20 346 121,511 4 ALBDQDEBCJJE HEOIOB 531.818 355.417 67 2,007 3.8 439 83 184.20 346 121,511 4 Primary district: Albuquerque District 1. Bernalillo 2. Sandoval Torrance 4. Valencia 114,560 69,391 13,89s 11,026 20.245 76.073 33,942 13.898 11.026 17.207 66 509 509 4.4 109 94 2 4 9 95 41.72 34.63 1.65 1.76 3.68 364 13,951 1.163 3.811 3.340 5.637 8 See footnotes at end of tablo. See footnotes at end of table. Table 9.— The composition, based upon existing hospital of primary, secondary, proposed-seoondary. and Isolated Aiatricte asking up broad hospital service regions; and county, district, regional, and State totals for selected Iteas per- tinent to an evaluation of hospital needs in the HOUHTAIN STATES (Part II) - Continued Table 9.— The composition, baaed upon existing hospital ef primary, secondary, proposed-secondary, aad isolated districts making up broad hospital service regions; aad county, district, regional, aad State totals for selected items per- tinent to an evaluation or hospital needs in the MOUITAIM STATES (Part II) - Continued ■COS IN •CNCRAL •TATI! POPULATION S' AND PHYSICIAN* INCOME land REGION ALLIED SPECIAL (DOLLARS) DISTRICT HOSPITAL*J/ PER AND SQUARE SOU AWE COUNTY PER PER TOTAL DESIGNATIONS TOTAL TOTAL OF TOTAL 1,000 TOTAL 100.000 (IN PER TOTAL PINSONS PERSONS fc»LU0NS) UTAH (Continual) Proposed-secondary districts: Prlca Dlotrlct 47,021 3*.964 *3 103 2.2 42 89 15.18 323 18,052 3 1. Carbon 18.459 10,402 56 18 8.36 1.474 2. Dsggstt 564 564 1 .16 764 3. Duchesne 8.95* *.95* 5 2.15 3.260 4. Ksery 7.072 7.072 6 1.01 4,442 5. Grand 2,070 2,070 17 5 .68 3.692 6. Uintah 9.89* 9.*9* 30 7 2.82 4,420 Proro District 80,837 38.397 47 127 1.6 70 87 29-99 371 7.007 12 1. Utah 57.3*2 17.777 127 54 22.66 1.998 2. Junb 7.392 4.557 5 3-37 3,412 }. danpets 16,063 16,063 11 3-96 1.597 loolntad district*: Csdar City District 30,126 21,840 72 76 2-5 22 73 9-91 329 22.931 1 1. Iron 8.331 3.636 40 10 5.44 3.300 2. Barfield 5.253 5.253 1 .65 5.217 3. Kane 2.561 2,561 9 3 • 57 4.105 H, San Juan 4,712 4,712 2 • 52 T,8«h 5. Washington 9.269 5.67* 27 6 2-73 2,425 Richfield District 31.336 27.752 *9 37 1.2 20 64 11.13 355 14,409 2 1. Serler 12,112 8.52* 37 10 5.38 1.932 2. Bearer 5.014 5.014 3 1-75 2.587 J. Millard 9.613 9,613 4 3-33 6,64s 4. Pluto 2.203 2.203 2 .41 753 5. Weyne 2.394 2,394 1 .26 2,489 STATE REGION DISTRICT AND OOUNTY DESIGNATIONS POPULATION BEOS IN GENERAL AND ALLIED SPECIAL HOSPITALS •*/ PHYSICIANS y INCOME (DOLLARS) LAND AREA 8/ IN SQUARE MILES PERSONS PER SQUARE MILE TOTAL RURAL TOTAL PER 1,000 PERSONS TOTAL PER 100,000 PERSONS TOTAL (IN MILLIONS) PER CAPITA TOTAL PERCENT OF TOTAL HBV MEXICO (Continued) Secondary districts: Hot Springe District 85,00b 58,219 68 257 3.0 84 99 25.52 300 31,882 3 1. Sierra 6.962 9,022 125 1 1.99 3.039 2. Catron 9,881 9,881 5 .60 6,898 Dona Ana 30.U11 22,026 18 7.79 3.809 4. Grant 20,050 15.006 87 39 7.10 3.970 5. Hidalgo U.S21 1,720 20 5 2.95 3.997 6. Luna 6.1*57 2,849 25 1 3-27 2.957 7- Socorro 11.922 7,710 8 2.92 7.772 Las Vegas District 98,66? 30.111 62 129 2-5 32 66 19.55 299 10,630 5 I, San Miguel 27,910 15.598 103 16 6.78 9.799 2, Guadalupe 8,696 8,696 5 2-35 2.998 3. Quay 12,111 5.917 21 11 5.92 2.883 Santa Pe District 56.178 35.853 69 269 9.7 9U 78 15.98 289 7.798 7 1. Santa Pe 30,826 10,501 165 35 13.16 1.99’ 2. file Arriba 25,352 25.352 99 9 2.82 5.855 Proposed-eecondary districts: Carlsbad District 55.987 30.231 59 199 2.6 48 86 26.10 966 15.199 9 1. Sddy 29.311 13.129 87 20 10.69 9.163 2. Lea 21.159 10,535 25 18 11.86 9.393 3. Otero 10,522 6.572 32 10 3-55 6,63s Clovis District 32,708 17.539 59 84 2.6 25 76 16.20 995 3.858 8 1. Curry 18.15S 8,099 84 19 11.85 1.903 2. Roosevelt 19.599 9.995 6 9.31 2.955 Gallup District 90.756 33.715 83 357 8.8 28 69 11.97 299 10,971 9 1. McKinley 23.691 16,600 276 19 8.57 5.956 2. San Juan 17.U5 17.U5 81 9 3.40 5.515 Raton District 61.696 50,901 83 193 3-1 36 58 15.79 255 13.916 9 1. Colfax 18,718 11,111 121 17 7-27 3.765 2. larding 9.371* 9.379 2 ■92 2.136 J. Mora 10,981 10,981 1 1.87 1,942 4. Taos 18,528 18,528 9| 5 2.62 2.256 5. Union 9.095 5.907 25 8 3.06 3.817 Roswell District 36,262 22,780 63 75 2.1 33 91 16.92 953 13.3U 3 1. Chaves 23.98O 10,99s 75 20 12.80 6.099 2. Do Baca 3.725 3.725 3 .90 2.358 3. Lincoln 8.557 8,557 10 2.72 9,859 UTAH 550.310 299,817 99 1.837 3-3 575 109 289.81 518 82,396 7 SALT LATE CITY BSSIOS 550,310 299,817 99 1.837 3-3 575 109 289.81 518 82,396 7 Primary district: Salt Lake City District 253.619 71,690 28 1.118 9.9 329 130 161.79 638 11.607 22 X. Salt Lara 211,62’ 99.539 1.05S 303 199.26 769 2. Darla 15.789 12,927 s 3-57 268 3. Morgan 2,611 2,611 2 • 77 610 4. Sum it 8,719 9.975 95 7 2-53 1,860 5. Tooele 9.133 9,132 5 3-93 6,911 6. Wasatch 5.759 3,006 19 3 2.18 1,199 Secondary districts: Ogdan District 107.371 96,179 93 376 3-5 92 86 56.86 530 8,390 13 1. Haber 56.719 13.026 201 59 39.88 599 2. Box Ildar 18,832 13.191 55 13 7.56 5.599 3. Cache 29.797 17.929 120 23 19.15 1.175 9. Hich 2,028 2,028 2 .27 1,022 tj Hospital tot totals used for selecting hospital cantors and defining asrrlee districts and raglons vlthla each Stats vara obtained by tabulating data published for IndlTidoal ganaral and allied spaolal hospitals in tbs Journal of the Aaarlcan Madleal Association, Tol. 121, Mo. I}, March 27, 19U3. Inelndad la tha ganaral and allied special category are all general hospitals pins those rendering specialised services commonly provided by general hospitals, i.s. aatsrnity, Industrial, Isolation, sys-ear- noss-throat, orthopedic, children's, convalescent and rest, chronic, and others offering slnllar Halted types of oare. Oeneral hospitals operated by the Bureau of Indian Affairs are counted on the assuaptlon that they represent facilities operated on a local area basis, but other federal hospitals are excluded. Also In the excluded group are all aental and tuberculosis hospitals and Infirmary units of correctional sad custodial Institutions. 4/ County population totals from! Population, first Series, U. S. Summary, Table 17, Sixteenth Census of tha Unltad Statas: l°ho, 2/ Physician totals represent counts of all physlclaae listed In the 19*10 American Medical Directory. 4/ estimates of effective buying Incoes la 19*K), mads by Salas Management on the basis of money actually paid for goods and services, federal allotments, money paid out of savings and surpluses by business and financial Institutions, plus tbs noamonsy Income of farm and village rssldants, van obtained for counties and States from Sales management survey of buying poser. Salas Management, Tol. Ug, 10. 8, April 10, 19*11. These data have been reproduced with permission of Salsa Management, Inc. $/ Land ana In squan miles from: Population, first Series, U. S. Summary, Table 17, Sixteenth Census of the United States; s/ Leas than 0.5. See footaotee at end of table. 62 Table 10.- The composition, baaed upon existing hospital facilities,*/ of primary, secondary, proposed-seoondary, and isolated districts Baking up broad hospital serrioe regions; and county, district, regional, and State totals for selected items per- tinent to an evaluation of hospital needs in the PACITIC STARS Table 10.- The composition, based upon existing hospital facilities,*/ of primary, secondary, proposed-secondary, and isolated districts up broad hospital service regions; and county, district, regional, and State totals for selected items per- tinent to an evaluation of hospital needs in the PACITIC STARS - Continued •TAT E REGION POPULATION V •EOS IN SENCRAL AND ALLIED SPECIAL HOSPITALS*/ PHYSICIANt V INCOME (DOLLARS) LAND AREA A/ PERSONS PER RURAL SQUARE MILES SQUARE COUNTY DESIGNATIONS TOTAL TOTAL PERCENT OF TOTAL TOTAL PER 1,000 PERSONS TOTAL PER IOO.OCO PERSONS TOTAL (IN MILLIONS) PER CAPITA MILE / CALiromru 6.907.3*7 2,005,122 29 30,835 >*-5 11.910 172 5.316.37 770 156,803 1*1* mSRO HSOIOB 627.595 397,o**2 63 3.090 *8-9 562 90 381.72 608 27.798 23 Primary dlatrlot: Preano Dlatrlot 1. Praano 2. Klnga 3- Madera h. Mono 5. Tulare jUfi.Ugs 178,565 35.168 23.31* 2,299 107,152 219.739 102,000 26.93** 16.857 71: 63 1.536 S31* 278 190 231* l*.l* 299 178 2U 18 2 77 86 196.78 112.51* 16.1*6 10.62 1.36 55.80 568 17,1*18 5.985 1.395 2,1-8 20 Secondary dlatrlota: Trench Caap District 1. San Joaquin 2. Alpine 3» Calareraa ll*2.75l 323 8,221 72,902 6**. 358 323 8,221 51 769 757 12 5-1* 1**1 132 9 99 91.15 86.56 *5 639 3,i6i 1,1*10 723 1,028 1*5 Merced Dlatrlot 1. Merced 2. Marlpcaa 52.593 1*6,988 5.605 1*2,1*58 36.853 5.605 81 3**5 331 lU 6.6 1*6 38 8 87 31.39 28.59 2.80 597 3.1*38 l.?83 1,1*55 15 Modeato Dlatrlot 1. Standalone 2. Tuolumne 10,887 6l,9**3 51.056 10,887 72 1*1*0 1*15 25 5-1 ll 10 89 62.1*0 5**.32 8.08 728 3.781 1,506 2.275 23 LOS AKQHJES HXGIOH 3,8^8,358 853.075 22 lU.glto 3-9 6,762 176 2.91**-25 757 66,891* 58 Primary dlatrlot! Loa Angel a a Dlatrlot 1. Loa Angelea 2. Kara 3. Orange U. Ventura 3,121,212 2.785.6U3 135.129 130,760 59,685 600,115 **12.095 98,090 5*1.262 35.661* 19 U. 566 9.91** 753 508 391 3.7 5.515 5.11** 117 m 72 177 2,1*15.1*7 2,200.26 92.01 80.1*3 1*2.77 77** 1**, 880 1»,071 8.170 782 1.857 ao Secondary dlatrlotai San Bernardino District 1. San Bernardino 2. Inyo 3. HirersIda 27^,257 161,108 7.625 105.52** 12**, 897 65,111 7.625 52.161 1*6 1.295 713 582 *♦.7 $ 10 136 135 167.23 IOI.69 6.38 59.16 610 37.1*01 20,131 10.091 7.179 7 San Diego Dlatrlot 1. San Diego 2. Imperial 31*9,088 2S9,3**8 59,7**0 83.0**7 50.**57 32.590 2** 1,31*1* 1.229 115 3-9 677 9 I9U 21*7.82 210.32 37.50 710 8,5>*2 **.258 U.2SU 1*1 Santa Barbara Dlatrlot 1. Santa Barbara 2. Sam Lula Oblapo 103,801 1*5,016 23.696 21.320 1*3 m 120 7.1 200 T3 193 83.73 59.9* 23-79 807 6.071 2.71*5 3.326 17 SACHAMSBTO HMICU ****8,587 276.253 62 1.51*5 3.1* 1*8** 108 332.19 7**l 31.118 ll* Primary dlatrlot: Sacramento Dletrlot 1. Sacramento 2. Amador 3. XI Dorado M. Placer 5. Sutter 6. Tale 266,566 170.333 8,973 13.229 28,108 18,680 27,2**3 132.220 Sl,322 8.973 10.165 17,1*1*2 ss 50 1,120 97** 30 26 |5 65 1*.2 290 207 5 i 10 27 109 203.26 11*7,65 19*63 6.93 16.28 763 6.376 3 1.725 1,1*31 1.3 1*2 •TATE REGION POPULATION & BEOS IN GENERAL AND ALLIED SPECIAL HOSPITALS y PHYSICIANS V INCOME (DOLLARS) LAND AREA 8/ PERSONS PER RURAL SOU ARE COUNTY DESIGNATIONS TOTAL TOTAL PERCENT OF TOTAL TOTAL PER 1,000 PERSONS TOTAL PER 100,000 PERSONS TOTAL (IN MILLIONS) PER CAPITA MILES MILE CALITOEHUL (Continued) * Propossd-escondary distrlotB: Chico District 1. Butt* 2. Colusa 3. Olann 9. Tuba 81,837 92,89o 9.788 12.195 17.039 61.503 29.132 9.788 12.195 10,388 75 82 50 32 1.0 9? d 19 109 62.62 29-53 6.SO 7.91 18.38 765 9.773 1,665 1.153 1,317 63s 17 Red Bluff District 1. Tshaaa 2. Pltwaa 3* Shasta 59.669 1U.316 11,598 28,800 92.731 10,1*92 11.59s 20,691 78 182 99 65 25 3.3 53 18 8 27 97 37.36 9-58 6.28 21.50 683 9.390 2.979 2.570 3.896 6 Isolated districts: Grass Valley District 1. Vsrada 2. Sisrra 22.308 19.283 3.025 16,607 13.582 3,025 79 79 79 3-5 25 20 5 112 15.66 19.06 1.60 702 1.937 979 95* 12 Westwood District 1. Lasssn 2. Modoc 23,192 19,1*79 8.713 23.192 19,979 8,713 100 82 82 3-5 27 19 8 116 13-29 8.85 9.99 573 8,692 9.598 9,099 3 SIS TfLtaCISOO BXOIOS 1,982,897 978,752 29 11,260 5-7 9.102 207 1,688.21 851 30,993 69 Primary district: 8aa Pruneisco District 1. San Francisco 2. Alans da J. Contra Costa U. Marin 5* San Matso 1,912,686 639,536 513.011 100.950 52.907 111,782 151.952 1*0,993 98,669 30,157 31.688 11 8.297 9,891 2,509 378 151 373 5-9 3.13! 1.965 898 78 72 118 222 1,287-36 688.78 928.11 60.08 32.60 77.79 911 2,987 95 $ & 568 Secondary districts; Buraka District 1. Humboldt 2. Dsl Sorts 3. Siskiyou 9. Trinity 83.125 93,812 9,795 28,598 3,970 66,070 28.598 3.970 79 929 329 29 76 5-1 «7 98 5 3°9 105 52.96 30.79 2.99 17-21 1.97 631 19,080 3.573 1.003 6.313 3.191 6 Salinas District 1. Montaray 2. San Benito 89,929 73.032 11.392 99.787 92,276 7.511 59 917 395 22 9.9 ill 13 153 62.11 59.95 7.16 736 9,720 3.329 1,396 18 San Joss District 1. Santa Clara 2. Santa Crus 220,006 179,999 95.057 86,761 67.537 19,229 39 1.319 ‘•SB 6.0 399 328 71 181 159.83 126.53 33.30 726 1,799 1.305 939 126 Santa Sosa District 1. Sonoaa 2. Lake 3- Mendocino 4. Vapa 3# Solano 182,606 69.052 8,069 27.869 28.503 1*9,118 129,682 95,906 8.069 20,898 6s 80S 983 52 198 75 9,9 356 103 13 ii l9s 195 126.95 56.17 5-o9 i9.a 16.30 39.73 692 7.962 1.579 1,256 3.510 790 827 23 OBSOOS 1,089,689 558.009 51 9.697 9.3 1,962 139 691.75 5*9 96.350 11 FOBTUSD HBOIOS 1,089,689 558,009 51 9,697 9.3 1,962 139 691.75 589 96,350 11 Primary district: Portland District 1. Multnomah 2. Clackamas 3. Columbia 9, Hood Hirer 5- Washington 983.979 355.099 57.130 20.971 11,580 39.199 161,125 99.705 51,006 16.667 8.300 35.997 33 2.576 19 38 I5'3 736 ll 11 20 168 325.99 280.91 17.60 8.90 6.55 12.03 673 9,205 929 I.89O 696 529 716 115 See footaotee at and of table. See footnotes at and of table. 63 Table 10,- The composition, based upon existing hospital of primary, secondary, proposed-secondary, and Isolated districts naklng up broad hospital serrloe regions; and county, district, regional, and State totals for selected items per- tinent to an evaluation of hospital needs In the PACIFIC STARS - Continued Table 10.- The oonpoaltioa, baaed upon exlatlng hoapltel faollltlea,*/ of prlaarr, aecondair, propoeed-aeoondary, and laolatad dlatrlota Baking np broad boapltal aarrlca regional and oonntjr, dialriot, regional, and State total a for aeleotod Itaaa per- tinent to an evaluation of boapltal needa in the PiOITIC STUBS - Continued STATE RESIGN DISTRICT POPULATION S' BEOS IN SENERAL AND ALLIED SPECIAL HOSPITALS i/ PHTSICIANt S' INCOME (DOLLARS) LAND AREA 8/ PERSONS PER RURAL SQUARE MILES SQUARE COUNTY DESIGNATIONS TOTAL TOTAL PERCENT OP TOTAL TOTAL PER 1,000 PERSONS TOTAL PER 100,000 PERSONS TOTAL (IN MILLIONS) PER CAPITA MILE WASHIHOTOI (Continued) * Saoondary dlatrietai BallIngham Dlatrlot 1. Thatcom 2. San Juan 3- Skagit 101.162 60.355 3.157 37.650 5*.7**l 3l,oUi £3 5* 1*07 278 129 U.o i03 61 1* 3* 102 52.29 3i2:S 18.51 517 *♦.05* 2.151 172 1.735 25 Olympia Dlatrlot 1. Thnraton 2. Oroya Harbor 3. Uaaon U. Pacific 117.9*2 37.2*5 53,166 11,603 15,92* 67.295 2**,031 23,1*85 7.896 11,883 57 263 100 97 5** 12 2.2 93 11 8 12 79 69.62 22.2** 3|.99 6.16 8.23 590 **,516 719 1.905 967 925 26 Fort Angalaa Dlatrlot 1. Clallam 2. Jafferaon 30.766 a.sUs 8,918 16,671* 12. **39 **.235 5>* 2*3 200 *3 9.2 29 20 9 9** l**-57 10.55 *♦.02 1*71* 3.565 1.753 1,812 9 Taaoosrar Dlatrlot , 1. Clark 2. CowlIt« 3. Skamania Ha VahkiekoB 98.926 1*9,852 **0.155 56.571 26,631 a,oa *3 57 1*23 2*3 ll*0 **.3 3 32 3 2 9** 1*8,1*8 22.1*7 23.10 » 1*90 3.72** 1.S8 x‘fg 27 Vanatohaa Dlatrlot 1. Ohalan 2. Donglao 3. Okanogan 67.609 3**.**12 8,651 2**,546 53.071 22.792 8,651 a,628 78 186 150 36 2.8 68 38 2 28 101 3**.57 23.10 2.06 9.U1 511 10,067 2.931 1.841 5.295 T Taklaa Dlatrlot 1. Taklaa 2. Banton 3. Grant **. Ulokltat 5* Lawla 178,1*90 99.019 12.053 1U.66* 11.357 *♦1.393 131.656 68,115 12.053 11.009 11.357 29,122 7** 1*06 35** 17 35 2.3 150 7* 7 12 15 3* 8** 90.27 53**7 5.03 7.58 1*.89 18.90 506 13.1>*7 **.273 1.73* 2,777 1.912 2, W*7 ll* SPOtAHB HO 105 29**.726 137.291 **7 1,205 l*.l 3*6 131 195.95 665 19.061 15 Primary dlatrlot1 Spokana Dlatrlot 1. Spokana 2. Parry 3- Lincoln 4. Pand Orallla 3- Stawana 207,l**5 16*1,652 **,701 11,361 7.156 19.275 *5.1**** *♦2.651 **.701 U,36l 7.156 19.275 1*1 gs 30 52 **•5 2a 2>*7 2 ll 13 136 11*1.65 122.99 1.27 8.03 2.83 6.53 6SU 10,21*8 1.763 2,2l*l 2.317 1,1*06 2.5a 20 Secondary dlatrlota1 Talla Valla Dlatrlot 1. Valla Valla 2. Colombia 3- Franklin **2,1(03 30.5**7 5.5**9 6,307 17.355 12.1*3* 2.523 2.39** Ul as 135 20 60 5.1 60 5 1>*2 28.62 20.90 3-78 3.9** 675 3.**io 1,288 860 1,262 12 Propoaad-aaoondaxy dlatrlot.: Colfax Dlatrlot 1. Vhltaan 2. Adana 3. A act In *». Oarflaid **5.17* 27,2a 6,209 *,365 3.3*3 3*»,792 19.951 6.209 5.2**9 3.383 77 60 60 1-3 **5 2 1* 100 25.68 16.57 1*.32 2.27 2.52 568 5.**03 2.167 1.895 627 7li* 8 STATE REGION DISTRICT POPULATION & BEOS IN GENERAL AND ALLIED SPECIAL HOSPITALS y PHYSICIANS 3/ INCOME 4/ (DOLLARS) LAND AREA 5/ PERSONS PER RURAL SQUARE MILES SQUARE COUNTY DESIGNATIONS TOTAL TOTAL PERCENT, OF TOTAL TOTAL PER 1,000 PERSONS TOTAL PER 100,000 PERSONS TOTAL (IN MILLIONS) PER CAPITA MILE ORZQOH (Continued) Secondary districts: Astoria District 1. Clatsop 2. Tillamook 36.960 *2*1.697 12,263 20,918 ii.*to6 9.512 57 22*1 176 U8 6.1 1*6 3>* 12 12*1 20.88 1*1.9*1 5-9*1 565 1.935 820 1,115 19 Bugene District I. Lane 2* Banton 1. Deschutes 4. Lincoln 5. Linn 151.390 69,096 18,629 13,631 1U.549 30.U85 97.325 *11.827 10.237 8,610 1*1,5*19 22,102 6*1 l*3*l 207 1 35 91 2.9 151 80 21 18 lU 18 100 7*1.9? 35.76 10.**5 11.1*1 6.11s 11.16 *•95 11.582 -■is; 3.0*11 1,006 2.29*1 13 Klamath Tails District 1. Klamath 2. Laka 1*6.790 **0,1*97 6.293 30.293 2*1,000 6.293 65 182 162 20 3.9 *18 39 9 103 35.27 31.US 3-79 75** 1*1,2**3 5.973 8,270 3 Medford District 1. Jackson 2. Denial a a 3. Joaaphlne 78,2*12 36.213 25.728 16,301 51,265 20,188 20,80*1 10.273 66 251 *8 56 3.2 89 >*5 29 15 11*1 38.9*1 19.2*1 11.38 8.32 >*98 9.50*1 2,817 5.062 1,625 8 Pendleton District 1. Umatilla 2. Morrow 3. Union U. Wallowa 55.389 26,030 >*.337 17.399 7.623 38.795 17.183 *1.337 9.652 7.623 70 162 100 >17 15 2.9 55 26 2 16 11 99 29-67 15-07 2.27 8.81 3-52 536 10,500 3.231 2.059 2.032 3.178 5 Salon District 1. Marion 2. Polk 3. Tanhlll 121.571 75.2U6 19.989 26,336 77.1*93 **i, *113 16,>110 19,670 6*1 37° 2*17 32 91 3.0 136 101 10 25 112 55.7*t 38.5>* 5.68 11.52 1*58 2,621 1,173 739 709 U6 Proposed-secondary districts! Baker District. 1. Baker 2. Orant 3. Malheur I***,****** 18,297 6,380 19.767 31.551 8.955 6,380 16.216 71 115 70 **5 2.6 hi 22 g 11 92 21.10 10.12 2.96 8,02 **75 17,1*86 3.08*1 *♦.532 9.870 3 Worth Bend District 1. Coos 2. Curry 36.767 32.H66 **,301 23.919 19,618 *1,301 65 178 178 *1.8 32 29 3 87 19.16 17-70 1.U6 521 3.233 1,611 1,622 11 The Dalles District 1. Wasco 2. 0111lam 3. Jefferson 4. Sherman 5. Wheeler 23.250 2,0*12 2.321 2.97*1 16,98*1 6,803 2,8*1** 2,0*12 2.321 2,97** 73 112 89 23 U.g 36 2*1 u 3 2 3 155 15.08 9.71 2.11 .82 1.31 1.13 6*19 7.929 2,387 i.m 1.79>* 830 1,707 3 Isolated districts: Burns District 1. Harney 2. Crook 10,907 5.37*1 5.533 8,3*11 2,808 5.533 76 *♦3 18 25 3.9 15 10 5 138 3.>10 2.03 1*98 13.112 10,132 2,980 1 WASHIWOTOH 1.736.191 8lU,222 >*7 6,571 3.8 2.199 127 1.098.5*1 633 66.977 26 sum BXGIOW Primary district: l,*t**l,lt65 676.931 **7 5.366 3.7 1.813 126 902.59 626 >♦7.916 30 Seattle District 1. King 2. Island 3. Kitsap U. Kittitas 5. Pierce 6. Snohomish 8*16,530 50U.98O 6,098 ***1,387 20,230 182,081 88,75*1 292.923 122,766 6,098 29.253 1*1,286 6U.78U 55.736 35 3.398 2,068 16 107 885 322 U.O 1.277 828 io€ IE 2*17 75 151 592-79 *?:g 25.30 11.22 UO.56 *♦*1.71 700 8.839 2.136 206 >102 2.315 1,680 2,100 96 See footnotes at end of table. 1/ Hospital bed totals used for selecting hospital centers and daflnlng service dletriots and regions within each State were obtained by tabulating data published for individual general and allied special hospitals in the Journal of the American Medical Association, Tol. 121, Ho. 13, March 27, 1963. Included in tha general and allied special category are all general hospitals pins those rendering specialises services commonly provided hy general hospitals,!l.e. maternity, indnstrlal, Isolation, eye-ear- nose-throat, orthopedic, children'*, convalescent and rest, chronic, and others offering elnller limited type* of care. General hospitals operated by the Bureau of Indian Affair* are counted on the assumption that they represent facilities operated on e local area baele, but other Federal hospital* are excluded. Also in th* excluded group ar* all mental and tuberculosis hospital* and Infirmary unite of correctional and custodial Institution*. V, population total* from: Population. First Saris*. U. S. Summary, Table 17, Sixteenth Ctnsu. of th* United State*: 1960 8/ Physician total* represent counts of all phyelolane lilted In the 1940 American Medical Directory. 4/ Wetimatee of effective buying inooae in made by Sales Management on the baaie of money actually paid for goods and services. Federal allotments, money paid out of savings and surpluses by business and financial institutions, plus th# nonmoney incose of farm and village residents, were obtained for counties and States frost Sales management survey of buying power. Sales Management, Fol. 48, Wo. 8, April 10, I9UI, These data have been reproduced with permission of Salts Management, Inc. 19% Land **** ****** "il#B tTfm: p°lrala 31 Plohar 191 Seagram a 62 Colorado Springs 0 Tahlequah 152 ✓ Durango Ul Grand Junction 152 SalIda 0 Alaaosa 20 - 1 '■ ■ Burlington 0 1 Ouray 0 State and district designations 1st in* ted number of new bads needed Stats and district designations Estimated nuaber of new beds needed State and district designations Estimated number of new beds needed COLOBiDO (Continued) UTAH 639 OBXOOIT 1*90 Denver 0 Salt Lake City 171 Portland 0 Boulder 0 Ogden 53 Astoria 0 Oreeley 167 Price 1$ Eugene 176 Tort Collins 107 Provo 220 Xlaaath Tails 9 Sterling 103 Cedar City 0 Medford 62 Clenwood Springs Blohfleld Ul Pendleton 60 Sales 116 Pueblo 0 Baker 67 La Junta 76 Pacific States! North Bend 0 Trinidad 79 The Dalles 0 Burns 0 CALITOHNIA 3.580 NITADA 3 Tresno 16U WASHINGTON 1.U77 Bano 0 Trench Camp 0 Him 0 Merced 0 Seattle 709 *17 0 Modesto 0 Bellingham 0 Las Tsgas 3 Olympia 209 T inneaucca 0 Los Angeles 2,gl*3 Port Angelas 0 Hart home 0 San Bernardino 0 Vancouver 0 San Diego 52 Wenatchee gU Santa Barbara 0 Taklma 30s NEW MEXICO 620 Sacramento Igl Spokane 1*6 Albuquerque 215 Chico 27U Walla Walla 0 Hot Springs 83 Bed Bluff 66 Colfax 121 Las Tegas 71 Crass Talley 0 Santa Te 0 Westwood 0 Carlsbad go Clovis U7 San Tranolsco 0 Callup 0 Eureka 0 Baton 51* Salinas 0 Boswell 70 San Jose 0 Santa Bosa 0 i/ Xstimatcs of nrw general hospital beds needed represent deficits in the existing tranter as compared with those which would he required to meat certain selected standards in each hospital service district. The number of existing hospital beds was obtained by tabulating data published for individual general and allied special hospitals in the Journal of the American Medical Association, Tol. 121, 10. IJ, March 27, 19*+3- federal hospitals other than those operated by the Bureau of Indian Affairs were excluded. The estimates of beds needed were based upon the assumption of a minimum of U. 5 beds per 1,000 persons for all districts. It was assumed, moreover, that 0.5 beds per 1,000 residents of a broad region would be looated at the primary center; that in primary, secondary, and proposed-secon- dary districts, the remaining U beds per 1,000 would be distributed over the respective districts; and that in iso- lated districts, only 2.5 beds per 1,000 residents would normally be located within the district itself, while the remaining 1.5 beds per 1,000 would be distributed among the adjacent primary, secondary, and proposed-secondary districts. The sequence of States and districts in this table conforms with that followed in tables 1 - 10. See footnote at end of table. 67 Appendix 0 - Cable showing aetlaatea of health centers needed Table 12— Xstlaated number of health center* needed for each State and for the United State*, and their distribution by type 'fable 12. Katlaated number of health centers needed for each State and for the Halted State*, and their distribution by type - Continued State Humber of health centers All types Administrative i/ Neighborhood service £/ Combination administrative and service 3/ Small cities and towns Rural areas UNITED STABS lb.279 bl2 777 6.257 6.833 Hew England States: Connecticut 10U lb 16 25 b9 Maine 113 3 3 23 sb Massachusetts 166 32 bb 90 0 Hew Hampshire bg 3 3 15 27 Rhode Island 29 8 10 11 0 Vermont 68 1 1 33 33 Middle Atlantic States: Hew Jersey 300 29 38 233 0 Hew fork 4?8 23 127 328 0 Pennsylvania 88b 28 60 557 239 Bast Horth Central States: Illinois 532 23 6b b03 b2 Indiana 396 18 22 184 172 Michigan 42b 18 39 225 lb2 Ohio 570 26 51 329 16b Wisconsin 381 16 22 172 171 Vest Horth Central States: Iowa bl6 11 11 205 189 Kansas 287 U b / 138 ibi Minnesota 37b b 12 193 165 Missouri bbi 6 19 194 222 Nebraska 216 2 3 103 108 Horth Dakota 132 1 l *7 83 South Dakota 133 1 X 55 76 South Atlantic States: Delaware 33 1 1 17 lb District of Columbia 9 1 8 0 0 Florida 23b 8 , 10 121 95 Georgia 500 6 8 166 320 Maryland ibg 3 12 50 83 Horth Carolina 6lb 9 • 9 163 b?3 South Carolina 350 b b 99 243 Virginia 390 10 12 85 283 Vest Virginia 335 5 5 10b 221 last South Central States; Alabama b58 6 8 n6 328 Kentucky U71 7 9 131 32b Mississippi bi5 2 2 10b 307 Tennessee b2j 5 * 9 100 309 Vest South Central States: Arkansas 373 2 2 109 260 Louisiana 327 5 10 107 205 Oklahoma 381 b 6 158 213 Texas 896 18 27 37U U77 Mountain States (Fso’t I): Idaho 10b 1 1 5° 52 Montana 99 2 2 46 49 Wyoming bg 0 0 30 19 State Boaher of health center* All type* Administrative Beighhorhood service ?J Combination adalnl* tratlre and serrlce U Snail eitie* and town* Boral areas Mountain State* (Part II)> Ar icons 81 2 2 zk 53 Colorado 139 3 6 71 59 lerada 18 0 0 9 9 lew Mexico 93 1 1 3& 57 Utah 8k 2 2 61 19 Pacific State*! California U27 26 56 222 123 Oregon lU2 2 k (M 72 Washington 19U 6 10 79 99 1/ Administrative center* for cltiee of 23,000 or nore person*. Zj neighborhood service center* for oltle* of 25,000 or More person*. Coablnatlon administrative end service canters for Incorporated place* of froa 1,000 to person* and for rural areas. U. S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE; 1945—649782 See footnotes at end of table.