According to a survey conducted in 2022, ** percent of respondents from healthcare organizations at a mature stage of AI adoption stated that natural language text was used in their AI applications. Structured data was the most common data type on which AI models were applied by healthcare organizations in early-stage AI adoption.

Abstract (en): The purpose of the Health Interview Survey is to obtain information about the amount and distribution of illness, its effects in terms of disability and chronic impairments, and the kinds of health services people receive. There are five types of records in this core survey, each in a separate data file. The variables in the Household file (Part 1) include type of living quarters, size of family, number of families in the household, presence of a telephone, number of unrelated individuals, and region. The Person file (Part 2) includes information on sex, age, race, marital status, Hispanic origin, education, veteran status, family income, family size, major activities, health status, activity limits, employment status, and industry and occupation. These variables are found in the Condition, Doctor Visit, and Hospital Episode files as well. The Person file also supplies data on height, weight, bed days, doctor visits, hospital stays, years at residence, and region variables. The Condition file (Part 3) contains information for each reported health condition, with specifics on injury and accident reports. The Hospital Episode file (Part 4) provides information on medical conditions, hospital episodes, type of service, type of hospital ownership, date of admission and discharge, number of nights in hospital, and operations performed. The Doctor Visit file (Part 5) documents doctor visits within the time period and identifies acute or chronic conditions. The Health Insurance file (Part 6) includes information on education level, family income, hospital visits and length of stay, and also data on medical coverage, hospital coverage, medicare coverage, and doctor visit coverage. The Medical Care Cost file (Part 7) includes information on hospital bill expenses, doctor and dental bill expenses, optical bill expenses, and total personal and family expenses. The X-Ray file (Part 8) includes information on x-ray records, doctor visits, height, weight, and total medical x-ray visits. These data contain multiple weight variables for each part. Users should refer to the User Guide for further information regarding the weights and their derivation. Additionally, users may need to weight the data prior to analysis. Civilian noninstitutional population of the United States. A multistage probability sample was used in selecting housing units. 2010-09-21 Frequencies and variable labels that were previously incorrect have been corrected.2010-08-25 Updated bookmarks have been added to the Field Representative Manual and the Record Layout Documentation.2010-06-28 SAS, SPSS, and Stata setup files have been added. Some corresponding documentation has been updated and pre-existing data files have been replaced.2006-01-18 File CB7838.ALL.PDF was removed from any previous datasets and flagged as a study-level file, so that it will accompany all downloads. face-to-face interviewThese data files contain weights, which must be used in any analysis.Per agreement with the National Center for Health Statistics (NCHS), ICPSR distributes the data files and text of the technical documentation for this collection as prepared by NCHS.

This dataset presents statistics on the healthcare workforce in the State of Qatar for the year 2024. It categorizes health professionals by type (physicians, dentists, nurses) and sector (government and private), and provides metrics such as rate per 1,000 population, total number of professionals, and population per professional.These statistics are vital for assessing the availability, distribution, and adequacy of human resources in the healthcare sector. They support health system planning, workforce allocation, and policy development to ensure equitable access to medical services.

This statistic depicts the percentage of U.S. federal health center behavioral health staff that worked in select areas, as of 2020. According to the data, 29 percent of behavioral health staff worked as licensed clinical social workers.

Update — December 7, 2014. – Evidence-based medicine (EBM) is not working for many reasons, for example: 1. Incorrect in their foundations (paradox): hierarchical levels of evidence are supported by opinions (i.e., lowest strength of evidence according to EBM) instead of real data collected from different types of study designs (i.e., evidence). http://dx.doi.org/10.6084/m9.figshare.1122534 2. The effect of criminal practices by pharmaceutical companies is only possible because of the complicity of others: healthcare systems, professional associations, governmental and academic institutions. Pharmaceutical companies also corrupt at the personal level, politicians and political parties are on their payroll, medical professionals seduced by different types of gifts in exchange of prescriptions (i.e., bribery) which very likely results in patients not receiving the proper treatment for their disease, many times there is no such thing: healthy persons not needing pharmacological treatments of any kind are constantly misdiagnosed and treated with unnecessary drugs. Some medical professionals are converted in K.O.L. which is only a puppet appearing on stage to spread lies to their peers, a person supposedly trained to improve the well-being of others, now deceits on behalf of pharmaceutical companies. Probably the saddest thing is that many honest doctors are being misled by these lies created by the rules of pharmaceutical marketing instead of scientific, medical, and ethical principles. Interpretation of EBM in this context was not anticipated by their creators. “The main reason we take so many drugs is that drug companies don’t sell drugs, they sell lies about drugs.” ―Peter C. Gøtzsche “doctors and their organisations should recognise that it is unethical to receive money that has been earned in part through crimes that have harmed those people whose interests doctors are expected to take care of. Many crimes would be impossible to carry out if doctors weren’t willing to participate in them.” —Peter C Gøtzsche, The BMJ, 2012, Big pharma often commits corporate crime, and this must be stopped. Pending (Colombia): Health Promoter Entities (In Spanish: EPS ―Empresas Promotoras de Salud).

1. Misinterpretations New technologies or concepts are difficult to understand in the beginning, it doesn’t matter their simplicity, we need to get used to new tools aimed to improve our professional practice. Probably the best explanation is here in these videos (credits to Antonio Villafaina for sharing these videos with me). English https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pQHX-SjgQvQ&w=420&h=315 Spanish https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DApozQBrlhU&w=420&h=315 ----------------------- Hypothesis: hierarchical levels of evidence based medicine are wrong Dear Editor, I have data to support the hypothesis described in the title of this letter. Before rejecting the null hypothesis I would like to ask the following open question:Could you support with data that hierarchical levels of evidence based medicine are correct? (1,2) Additional explanation to this question: – Only respond to this question attaching publicly available raw data.– Be aware that more than a question this is a challenge: I have data (i.e., evidence) which is contrary to classic (i.e., McMaster) or current (i.e., Oxford) hierarchical levels of evidence based medicine. An important part of this data (but not all) is publicly available. References
2. Ramirez, Jorge H (2014): The EBM challenge. figshare. http://dx.doi.org/10.6084/m9.figshare.1135873
3. The EBM Challenge Day 1: No Answers. Competing interests: I endorse the principles of open data in human biomedical research Read this letter on The BMJ – August 13, 2014.http://www.bmj.com/content/348/bmj.g3725/rr/762595Re: Greenhalgh T, et al. Evidence based medicine: a movement in crisis? BMJ 2014; 348: g3725. _ Fileset contents Raw data: Excel archive: Raw data, interactive figures, and PubMed search terms. Google Spreadsheet is also available (URL below the article description). Figure 1. Unadjusted (Fig 1A) and adjusted (Fig 1B) PubMed publication trends (01/01/1992 to 30/06/2014). Figure 2. Adjusted PubMed publication trends (07/01/2008 to 29/06/2014) Figure 3. Google search trends: Jan 2004 to Jun 2014 / 1-week periods. Figure 4. PubMed publication trends (1962-2013) systematic reviews and meta-analysis, clinical trials, and observational studies.
   Figure 5. Ramirez, Jorge H (2014): Infographics: Unpublished US phase 3 clinical trials (2002-2014) completed before Jan 2011 = 50.8%. figshare.http://dx.doi.org/10.6084/m9.figshare.1121675 Raw data: "13377 studies found for: Completed | Interventional Studies | Phase 3 | received from 01/01/2002 to 01/01/2014 | Worldwide". This database complies with the terms and conditions of ClinicalTrials.gov: http://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/about-site/terms-conditions Supplementary Figures (S1-S6). PubMed publication delay in the indexation processes does not explain the descending trends in the scientific output of evidence-based medicine. Acknowledgments I would like to acknowledge the following persons for providing valuable concepts in data visualization and infographics:
4. Maria Fernanda Ramírez. Professor of graphic design. Universidad del Valle. Cali, Colombia.
5. Lorena Franco. Graphic design student. Universidad del Valle. Cali, Colombia. Related articles by this author (Jorge H. Ramírez)
6. Ramirez JH. Lack of transparency in clinical trials: a call for action. Colomb Med (Cali) 2013;44(4):243-6. URL: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24892242
7. Ramirez JH. Re: Evidence based medicine is broken (17 June 2014). http://www.bmj.com/node/759181
8. Ramirez JH. Re: Global rules for global health: why we need an independent, impartial WHO (19 June 2014). http://www.bmj.com/node/759151
9. Ramirez JH. PubMed publication trends (1992 to 2014): evidence based medicine and clinical practice guidelines (04 July 2014). http://www.bmj.com/content/348/bmj.g3725/rr/759895 Recommended articles
10. Greenhalgh Trisha, Howick Jeremy,Maskrey Neal. Evidence based medicine: a movement in crisis? BMJ 2014;348:g3725
11. Spence Des. Evidence based medicine is broken BMJ 2014; 348:g22
12. Schünemann Holger J, Oxman Andrew D,Brozek Jan, Glasziou Paul, JaeschkeRoman, Vist Gunn E et al. Grading quality of evidence and strength of recommendations for diagnostic tests and strategies BMJ 2008; 336:1106
13. Lau Joseph, Ioannidis John P A, TerrinNorma, Schmid Christopher H, OlkinIngram. The case of the misleading funnel plot BMJ 2006; 333:597
14. Moynihan R, Henry D, Moons KGM (2014) Using Evidence to Combat Overdiagnosis and Overtreatment: Evaluating Treatments, Tests, and Disease Definitions in the Time of Too Much. PLoS Med 11(7): e1001655. doi:10.1371/journal.pmed.1001655
15. Katz D. A-holistic view of evidence based medicinehttp://thehealthcareblog.com/blog/2014/05/02/a-holistic-view-of-evidence-based-medicine/ ---

No of Mid-Wives data was reported at 896.000 Person in 2014. This records a decrease from the previous number of 940.000 Person for 2013. No of Mid-Wives data is updated yearly, averaging 1,123.000 Person from Dec 2001 (Median) to 2014, with 14 observations. The data reached an all-time high of 1,231.000 Person in 2004 and a record low of 896.000 Person in 2014. No of Mid-Wives data remains active status in CEIC and is reported by Statistics Korea. The data is categorized under Global Database’s Korea – Table KR.G072: Health Statistics: Number of Medical Staffs: By Types of Health Care Centre (Annual).

Big Data Analytics In Healthcare Market size is estimated at USD 37.22 Billion in 2024 and is projected to reach USD 74.82 Billion by 2032, growing at a CAGR of 9.12% from 2026 to 2032.

Big Data Analytics In Healthcare Market: Definition/ Overview

Big Data Analytics in Healthcare, often referred to as health analytics, is the process of collecting, analyzing, and interpreting large volumes of complex health-related data to derive meaningful insights that can enhance healthcare delivery and decision-making. This field encompasses various data types, including electronic health records (EHRs), genomic data, and real-time patient information, allowing healthcare providers to identify patterns, predict outcomes, and improve patient care.

Technical notes and documentation on the common data model of the project CONCEPT-DM2.

This publication corresponds to the Common Data Model (CDM) specification of the CONCEPT-DM2 project for the implementation of a federated network analysis of the healthcare pathway of type 2 diabetes.

Aims of the CONCEPT-DM2 project:

General aim: To analyse chronic care effectiveness and efficiency of care pathways in diabetes, assuming the relevance of care pathways as independent factors of health outcomes using data from real life world (RWD) from five Spanish Regional Health Systems.

Main specific aims:

• To characterize the care pathways in patients with diabetes through the whole care system in terms of process indicators and pharmacologic recommendations
• To compare these observed care pathways with the theoretical clinical pathways derived from the clinical practice guidelines
• To assess if the adherence to clinical guidelines influence on important health outcomes, such as cardiovascular hospitalizations.
• To compare the traditional analytical methods with process mining methods in terms of modeling quality, prediction performance and information provided.

Study Design: It is a population-based retrospective observational study centered on all T2D patients diagnosed in five Regional Health Services within the Spanish National Health Service. We will include all the contacts of these patients with the health services using the electronic medical record systems including Primary Care data, Specialized Care data, Hospitalizations, Urgent Care data, Pharmacy Claims, and also other registers such as the mortality and the population register.

Cohort definition: All patients with code of Type 2 Diabetes in the clinical health records

• Inclusion criteria: patients that, at 01/01/2017 or during the follow-up from 01/01/2017 to 31/12/2022 had active health card (active TIS - tarjeta sanitaria activa) and code of type 2 diabetes (T2D, DM2 in spanish) in the clinical records of primary care (CIAP2 T90 in case of using CIAP code system)
• Exclusion criteria:
  • patients with no contact with the health system from 01/01/2017 to 31/12/2022
  • patients that had a T1D (DM1) code opened after the T2D code during the follow-up.
• Study period. From 01/01/2017 to 31/12/2022

Files included in this publication:

• Datamodel_CONCEPT_DM2_diagram.png
• Common data model specification (Datamodel_CONCEPT_DM2_v.0.1.0.xlsx)
• Synthetic datasets (Datamodel_CONCEPT_DM2_sample_data)
  • sample_data1_dm_patient.csv
  • sample_data2_dm_param.csv
  • sample_data3_dm_patient.csv
  • sample_data4_dm_param.csv
  • sample_data5_dm_patient.csv
  • sample_data6_dm_param.csv
  • sample_data7_dm_param.csv
  • sample_data8_dm_param.csv
• Datamodel_CONCEPT_DM2_explanation.pptx

This statistic shows the top funded digital health categories worldwide during the first half of 2021. In this period, 4.2 billion U.S. dollars of funding was provided for telemedicine which made it by far the most funded category.

The dataset includes CHHA and LTHHCP information at the county level for the number of patients and services provided for the reporting year.

CHHAs/LTHHCPs provide part time, intermittent, skilled services which are of a preventative, therapeutic, rehabilitative, health guidance and/or supportive nature to persons at home. Home health services include nursing services; home health aide services; medical supplies, equipment and appliances suitable for use in the home; and at least one additional service that may include physical therapy; occupational therapy; speech pathology; nutritional services; and medical social services.

The purpose of collecting data from service providers is to obtain their demographic information as well as past operational statistics like volume, patient census, types of services provided, or workload information. This data is self-reported annually.

The Medicare Home Health Agency tables provide use and payment data for home health agencies. The tables include use and expenditure data from home health Part A (Hospital Insurance) and Part B (Medical Insurance) claims. For additional information on enrollment, providers, and Medicare use and payment, visit the CMS Program Statistics page. These data do not exist in a machine-readable format, so the view data and API options are not available. Please use the download function to access the data. Below is the list of tables: MDCR HHA 1. Medicare Home Health Agencies: Utilization and Program Payments for Original Medicare Beneficiaries, by Type of Entitlement, Yearly Trend MDCR HHA 2. Medicare Home Health Agencies: Utilization and Program Payments for Original Medicare Beneficiaries, by Demographic Characteristics and Medicare-Medicaid Enrollment Status MDCR HHA 3. Medicare Home Health Agencies: Utilization and Program Payments for Original Medicare Beneficiaries, by Area of Residence MDCR HHA 4. Medicare Home Health Agencies: Persons with Utilization and Total Service Visits for Original Medicare Beneficiaries, Type of Agency and Type of Service Visit MDCR HHA 5. Medicare Home Health Agencies: Persons with Utilization and Total Service Visits for Original Medicare Beneficiaries, by Type of Control and Type of Service Visit MDCR HHA 6. Medicare Home Health Agencies: Persons with Utilization, Total Service Visits, and Program Payments for Original Medicare Beneficiaries, by Number of Service Visits and Number of Episodes

This is a monthly report on publicly funded community services for people of all ages using data from the Community Services Data Set (CSDS) reported in England for July 2024. It has been developed to help achieve better outcomes and provide data that will be used to commission services in a way that improves health, reduces inequalities, and supports service improvement and clinical quality. These statistics are classified as experimental and should be used with caution. Experimental statistics are new official statistics undergoing evaluation. More information about experimental statistics can be found on the UK Statistics Authority website (linked at the bottom of this page). A provisional data file for August 2024 is now included in this publication. Please note this is intended as an early view until providers submit a refresh of their data, which will be published next month.

Users can access data related to quality of health care for each state and the District of Columbia. Background 2010 State Snapshots is a database maintained by the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ). Data is based on information collected from the National Healthcare Quality Report (NHQR). 2010 State Snapshots database offers an in-depth analysis of the quality of care – by type of condition, level of care, treatment setting, race and income, and insurance status. User functionality Users can search for state data by using the interactive map and cl icking on the state. Users are given data for the most recent year (2010) and baseline data year which varies by state. Each state has information on the state dashboard which includes information on types of care, settings of care, and care by clinical area. Users also have the option to focus on diabetes care, asthma care, healthy people 2010 goals, clinical preventative services, disparities in care, payer, and variation in overtime. Data is presented in tables or visual charts. Data is available for download using excel and XML format. Data Notes Detailed information about the data is available under the “Methods” section. The website does not indicate when new data will become available.

According to a survey carried out in 2023, most people in Mexico were public health insured. Close to half of the Mexican population were covered by public health programs and were not affiliated to the country's social security institutions or private insurances, while around 43 percent were insured with the Mexican Social Security Institute (IMSS). In that year, three to four in ten respondents who had no health insurance and sought out medical services attended a private health care facility for medical attention.

Contains data on Community Services Statistics for February 2025 and a provisional data file for March 2025 (note this is intended as an early view until providers submit a refresh of their data).

Background: In Brazil, studies that map electronic healthcare databases in order to assess their suitability for use in pharmacoepidemiologic research are lacking. We aimed to identify, catalogue, and characterize Brazilian data sources for Drug Utilization Research (DUR).Methods: The present study is part of the project entitled, “Publicly Available Data Sources for Drug Utilization Research in Latin American (LatAm) Countries.” A network of Brazilian health experts was assembled to map secondary administrative data from healthcare organizations that might provide information related to medication use. A multi-phase approach including internet search of institutional government websites, traditional bibliographic databases, and experts’ input was used for mapping the data sources. The reviewers searched, screened and selected the data sources independently; disagreements were resolved by consensus. Data sources were grouped into the following categories: 1) automated databases; 2) Electronic Medical Records (EMR); 3) national surveys or datasets; 4) adverse event reporting systems; and 5) others. Each data source was characterized by accessibility, geographic granularity, setting, type of data (aggregate or individual-level), and years of coverage. We also searched for publications related to each data source.Results: A total of 62 data sources were identified and screened; 38 met the eligibility criteria for inclusion and were fully characterized. We grouped 23 (60%) as automated databases, four (11%) as adverse event reporting systems, four (11%) as EMRs, three (8%) as national surveys or datasets, and four (11%) as other types. Eighteen (47%) were classified as publicly and conveniently accessible online; providing information at national level. Most of them offered more than 5 years of comprehensive data coverage, and presented data at both the individual and aggregated levels. No information about population coverage was found. Drug coding is not uniform; each data source has its own coding system, depending on the purpose of the data. At least one scientific publication was found for each publicly available data source.Conclusions: There are several types of data sources for DUR in Brazil, but a uniform system for drug classification and data quality evaluation does not exist. The extent of population covered by year is unknown. Our comprehensive and structured inventory reveals a need for full characterization of these data sources.

US Healthcare NPI Data is a comprehensive resource offering detailed information on health providers registered in the United States.

Dataset Highlights:

• NPI Numbers: Unique identification numbers for health providers.
• Contact Details: Includes addresses and phone numbers.
• State License Numbers: State-specific licensing information.
• Additional Identifiers: Other identifiers related to the providers.
• Business Names: Names of the provider’s business entities.
• Taxonomies: Classification of provider types and specialties.

Taxonomy Data:

• Includes codes, groupings, and classifications.
• Facilitates detailed analysis and categorization of providers.

Data Updates:

• Weekly Delta Changes: Ensures the dataset is current with the latest changes.
• Monthly Full Refresh: Comprehensive update to maintain accuracy.

Use Cases:

• Market Analysis: Understand the distribution and types of healthcare providers across the US. Analyze market trends and identify potential gaps in healthcare services.
• Outreach: Create targeted marketing campaigns to reach specific types of healthcare providers. Use contact details for direct outreach and engagement with providers.
• Research: Conduct in-depth research on healthcare providers and their specialties. Analyze provider attributes to support academic or commercial research projects.
• Compliance and Verification: Verify provider credentials and compliance with state licensing requirements. Ensure accurate provider information for regulatory and compliance purposes.

Data Quality and Reliability:

• The dataset is meticulously curated to ensure high quality and reliability. Regular updates, both weekly and monthly, ensure that users have access to the most current information. The comprehensive nature of the data, combined with its regular updates, makes it a valuable tool for a wide range of applications in the healthcare sector.

Access and Integration: - CSV Format: The dataset is provided in CSV format, making it easy to integrate with various data analysis tools and platforms. - Ease of Use: The structured format of the data ensures that it can be easily imported, analyzed, and utilized for various applications without extensive preprocessing.

Ideal for:

• Healthcare Professionals: Physicians, nurses, and other healthcare providers who need to verify information about their peers.
• Analysts: Data analysts and business analysts who require detailed and accurate healthcare provider data for their projects.
• Businesses: Companies in the healthcare sector looking to understand market dynamics and reach out to providers.
• Researchers: Academic and commercial researchers conducting studies on healthcare providers and services.

Why Choose This Dataset?

• Comprehensive Coverage: Detailed information on millions of healthcare providers across the US.
• Regular Updates: Weekly and monthly updates ensure that the data remains current and reliable.
• Ease of Integration: Provided in a user-friendly CSV format for easy integration with your existing systems.
• Versatility: Suitable for a wide range of applications, from market analysis to compliance and research.

By leveraging the US Healthcare NPI & Taxonomy Data, users can gain valuable insights into the healthcare landscape, enhance their outreach efforts, and conduct detailed research with confidence in the accuracy and comprehensiveness of the data.

Summary:

• This dataset is an invaluable resource for anyone needing detailed and up-to-date information on US healthcare providers. Whether for market analysis, research, outreach, or compliance, the US Healthcare NPI & Taxonomy Data offers the detailed, reliable information needed to achieve your goals.

These data are being released in BETA version to facilitate early access to the study for research purposes. This collection has not been fully processed by NACDA or ICPSR at this time; the original materials provided by the principal investigator were minimally processed and converted to other file types for ease of use. As the study is further processed and given enhanced features by ICPSR, users will be able to access the updated versions of the study. Please report any data errors or problems to user support and we will work with you to resolve any data related issues. The National Health Interview Survey (NHIS) is conducted annually and sponsored by the National Center for Health Statistics (NCHS), which is part of the U.S. Public Health Service. The purpose of the NHIS is to obtain information about the amount and distribution of illness, its effects in terms of disability and chronic impairments, and the kinds of health services people receive across the United States population through the collection and analysis of data on a broad range of health topics. The redesigned NHIS questionnaire introduced in 1997 (see National Health Interview Survey, 1997 [ICPSR 2954]) consists of a core that remains largely unchanged from year to year, plus an assortment of supplements varying from year to year. The 2010 NHIS Core consists of three modules: Family, Sample Adult, and Sample Child. The datasets derived from these modules include Household Level, Family Level, Person Level, Injury/Poison Episode Level, Injury/Poison Verbatim Level, Sample Adult Level, and Sample Child level. The 2010 NHIS supplements consist of stand alone datasets for Cancer Level and Quality of Life data derived from the Sample Adult core and Disability Questions Tests 2010 Level derived from the Family core questionnaire. Additional supplementary questions can be found in the Sample Child dataset on the topics of cancer, immunization, mental health, and mental health services and in the Sample Adult dataset on the topics of epilepsy, immunization, and occupational health. Part 1, Household Level, contains data on type of living quarters, number of families in the household responding and not responding, and the month and year of the interview for each sampling unit. Parts 2-5 are based on the Family Core questionnaire. Part 2, Family Level, provides information on all family members with respect to family size, family structure, health status, limitation of daily activities, cognitive impairment, health conditions, doctor visits, hospital stays, health care access and utilization, employment, income, participation in government assistance programs, and basic demographic information. Part 3, Person Level, includes information on sex, age, race, marital status, education, family income, major activities, health status, health care costs, activity limits, and employment status. Parts 4 and 5, Injury/Poisoning Episode Level and Injury/Poisoning Verbatim Level, consist of questions about injuries and poisonings that resulted in medical consultations for any family members and contains information about the external cause and nature of the injury or poisoning episode and what the person was doing at the time of the injury or poisoning episode, in addition to the date and place of occurrence. A randomly-selected adult in each family was interviewed for Part 6, Sample Adult Level, regarding specific health issues, the relation between employment and health, health status, health care and doctor visits, limitation of daily activities, immunizations, and behaviors such as smoking, alcohol consumption, and physical activity. Demographic information, including occupation and industry, also was collected. The respondents to Part 6 also completed Part 7, Cancer Level, which consists of a set of supplemental questions about diet and nutrition, physical activity, tobacco, cancer screening, genetic testing, family history, and survivorship. Part 8, Sample Child Level, provides information from an adult in the household on medical conditions of one child in the household, such as developmental or intellectual disabilities, respiratory problems, seizures, allergies, and use of special equipment like hearing aids, braces, or wheelchairs. Parts 9 through 13 comprise the additional Supplements and Paradata for the 2010 NHIS. Part 9, Disability Questions Tests 2010 Level

This dataset contains data for the Healthcare Payments Data (HPD): Medical Out-of-Pocket Costs and Chronic Conditions report. The data covers three measurement categories: annual member count, annual median out-of-pocket count, annual median claim count. The annual member count quantify the number of unique individuals who received at least one medical service in the reporting year. Annual median out-of-pocket measurements quantifies the sum of copay, coinsurance, and deductible incurred by members. Annual median claim count measurements quantifies the number of distinct claims or encounters associated with members. Both 25th and 75th percentiles for out-of-pocket cost and claim count are also included. Measures are grouped by payer types, chronic conditions flag, chronic condition types, and chronic condition numbers.

Note: This web page provides data on health facilities only. To file a complaint against a facility, please see: https://www.cdph.ca.gov/Programs/CHCQ/LCP/Pages/FileAComplaint.aspx

The California Department of Public Health (CDPH), Center for Health Care Quality, Licensing and Certification (L&C) Program licenses more than 30 types of healthcare facilities. The Electronic Licensing Management System (ELMS) is a California Department of Public Health data system created to manage state licensing-related data. This file lists the bed types and bed type capacities that are associated with California healthcare facilities that are operational and have a current license issued by the CDPH and/or a current U.S. Department of Health and Human Services’ Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) certification. This file can be linked by FACID to the Healthcare Facility Locations (Detailed) Open Data file for facility-related attributes, including geo-coding. The L&C Open Data facility beds file is updated monthly. To link the CDPH facility IDs with those from other Departments, like HCAI, please reference the "Licensed Facility Cross-Walk" Open Data table at https://data.chhs.ca.gov/dataset/licensed-facility-crosswalk. A list of healthcare facilities with addresses can be found at: https://data.chhs.ca.gov/dataset/healthcare-facility-locations.