Skip to main content

Advanced Search: Build a Custom Dashboard

In the fields below, search for indicators by location, topics, population, classification, subgroup, or comparison. No fields are required, but we suggest selecting a location or two to start. In the additional search options section, select options to group and order search results. To learn more about how to customize a dashboard, see our help center.

Visit the Indicator List Page to see the full list of indicators and locations available on the site.

  • Map View
  • County : Arenac Census Tracts
  • County : Arenac Zip Codes
  • County : Bay Census Tracts
  • County : Bay Zip Codes
  • County : Clare Census Tracts
  • County : Clare Zip Codes
  • County : Gladwin Census Tracts
  • County : Gladwin Zip Codes
  • County : Gratiot Census Tracts
  • County : Gratiot Zip Codes
  • County : Huron Census Tracts
  • County : Huron Zip Codes
  • County : Iosco Census Tracts
  • County : Iosco Zip Codes
  • County : Isabella Census Tracts
  • County : Isabella Zip Codes
  • County : Midland Census Tracts
  • County : Midland Zip Codes
  • County : Ogemaw Census Tracts
  • County : Ogemaw Zip Codes
  • County : Roscommon Census Tracts
  • County : Roscommon Zip Codes
  • County : Saginaw Census Tracts
  • County : Saginaw Zip Codes
  • County : Sanilac Census Tracts
  • County : Sanilac Zip Codes
  • County : Tuscola Census Tracts
  • County : Tuscola Zip Codes
  • All Health Topics
  • All Community Topics
  • All Economy Topics
  • All Education Topics
  • All Environmental Health Topics
Search display options:

Search Results:

Indicator Gauge Icon Legend

Legend Colors

Red is bad, green is good, blue is not statistically different/neutral.

Compared to Distribution

an indicator guage with the arrow in the green the value is in the best half of communities.

an indicator guage with the arrow in the yellow the value is in the 2nd worst quarter of communities.

an indicator guage with the arrow in the red the value is in the worst quarter of communities.

Compared to Target

green circle with white tick inside it meets target; red circle with white cross inside it does not meet target.

Compared to a Single Value

green diamond with downward arrow inside it lower than the comparison value; red diamond with downward arrow inside it higher than the comparison value; blue diamond with downward arrow inside it not statistically different from comparison value.

Trend

green square outline with upward trending arrow inside it green square outline with downward trending arrow inside it non-significant change over time; green square with upward trending arrow inside it green square with downward trending arrow inside it significant change over time; blue square with equals sign no change over time.

Compared to Prior Value

green triangle with upward trending arrow inside it higher than the previous measurement period; green triangle with downward trending arrow inside it lower than the previous measurement period; blue equals sign no statistically different change  from previous measurement period.

More information about the gauges and icons

Health / Health Care Access & Quality

Health / Health Care Access & Quality

Health / Health Care Access & Quality

Non-Physician Primary Care Provider Rate

Value
Compared to:

Health / Health Care Access & Quality

Non-Physician Primary Care Provider Rate

Value
Compared to:

Non-Physician Primary Care Provider Rate County: Arenac

Current Value:

Non-Physician Primary Care Provider Rate County: Arenac

146
Providers per 100,000 population
(2023)
Compared to:
Compared to the MI Value (141), Arenac has a value of 146 which is higher and better.
MI Value
(141)
The regional value is compared to the Michigan State value.

Non-Physician Primary Care Provider Rate County: Bay

Current Value:

Non-Physician Primary Care Provider Rate County: Bay

98
Providers per 100,000 population
(2023)
Compared to:
Compared to the MI Value (141), Bay has a value of 98 which is lower and worse.
MI Value
(141)
The regional value is compared to the Michigan State value.

Non-Physician Primary Care Provider Rate County: Clare

Current Value:

Non-Physician Primary Care Provider Rate County: Clare

99
Providers per 100,000 population
(2023)
Compared to:
Compared to the MI Value (141), Clare has a value of 99 which is lower and worse.
MI Value
(141)
The regional value is compared to the Michigan State value.

Non-Physician Primary Care Provider Rate County: Gladwin

Current Value:

Non-Physician Primary Care Provider Rate County: Gladwin

35
Providers per 100,000 population
(2023)
Compared to:
Compared to the MI Value (141), Gladwin has a value of 35 which is lower and worse.
MI Value
(141)
The regional value is compared to the Michigan State value.

Non-Physician Primary Care Provider Rate County: Gratiot

Current Value:

Non-Physician Primary Care Provider Rate County: Gratiot

141
Providers per 100,000 population
(2023)
Compared to:
Compared to the MI Value (141), Gratiot has a value of 141.
MI Value
(141)
The regional value is compared to the Michigan State value.

Non-Physician Primary Care Provider Rate County: Huron

Current Value:

Non-Physician Primary Care Provider Rate County: Huron

118
Providers per 100,000 population
(2023)
Compared to:
Compared to the MI Value (141), Huron has a value of 118 which is lower and worse.
MI Value
(141)
The regional value is compared to the Michigan State value.

Non-Physician Primary Care Provider Rate County: Iosco

Current Value:

Non-Physician Primary Care Provider Rate County: Iosco

137
Providers per 100,000 population
(2023)
Compared to:
Compared to the MI Value (141), Iosco has a value of 137 which is lower and worse.
MI Value
(141)
The regional value is compared to the Michigan State value.

Non-Physician Primary Care Provider Rate County: Isabella

Current Value:

Non-Physician Primary Care Provider Rate County: Isabella

120
Providers per 100,000 population
(2023)
Compared to:
Compared to the MI Value (141), Isabella has a value of 120 which is lower and worse.
MI Value
(141)
The regional value is compared to the Michigan State value.

Non-Physician Primary Care Provider Rate County: Midland

Current Value:

Non-Physician Primary Care Provider Rate County: Midland

186
Providers per 100,000 population
(2023)
Compared to:
Compared to the MI Value (141), Midland has a value of 186 which is higher and better.
MI Value
(141)
The regional value is compared to the Michigan State value.

Non-Physician Primary Care Provider Rate County: Ogemaw

Current Value:

Non-Physician Primary Care Provider Rate County: Ogemaw

167
Providers per 100,000 population
(2023)
Compared to:
Compared to the MI Value (141), Ogemaw has a value of 167 which is higher and better.
MI Value
(141)
The regional value is compared to the Michigan State value.

Non-Physician Primary Care Provider Rate County: Roscommon

Current Value:

Non-Physician Primary Care Provider Rate County: Roscommon

122
Providers per 100,000 population
(2023)
Compared to:
Compared to the MI Value (141), Roscommon has a value of 122 which is lower and worse.
MI Value
(141)
The regional value is compared to the Michigan State value.

Non-Physician Primary Care Provider Rate County: Saginaw

Current Value:

Non-Physician Primary Care Provider Rate County: Saginaw

182
Providers per 100,000 population
(2023)
Compared to:
Compared to the MI Value (141), Saginaw has a value of 182 which is higher and better.
MI Value
(141)
The regional value is compared to the Michigan State value.

Non-Physician Primary Care Provider Rate County: Sanilac

Current Value:

Non-Physician Primary Care Provider Rate County: Sanilac

71
Providers per 100,000 population
(2023)
Compared to:
Compared to the MI Value (141), Sanilac has a value of 71 which is lower and worse.
MI Value
(141)
The regional value is compared to the Michigan State value.

Non-Physician Primary Care Provider Rate County: Tuscola

Current Value:

Non-Physician Primary Care Provider Rate County: Tuscola

85
Providers per 100,000 population
(2023)
Compared to:
Compared to the MI Value (141), Tuscola has a value of 85 which is lower and worse.
MI Value
(141)
The regional value is compared to the Michigan State value.

Health / Health Care Access & Quality

Primary Care Provider Rate

Value
Compared to:

Health / Health Care Access & Quality

Primary Care Provider Rate

Value
Compared to:

Primary Care Provider Rate Region: MiHIA

Current Value:

Primary Care Provider Rate Region: MiHIA

58
Providers per 100,000 population
(2021)
Compared to:
Compared to the MI Value (78), MiHIA has a value of 58 which is lower and worse.
MI Value
(78)
The regional value is compared to the Michigan State value.

Primary Care Provider Rate County: Arenac

Current Value:

Primary Care Provider Rate County: Arenac

40
Providers per 100,000 population
(2021)
Compared to:
Compared to the MI Value (78), Arenac has a value of 40 which is lower and worse.
MI Value
(78)
The regional value is compared to the Michigan State value.

Primary Care Provider Rate County: Bay

Current Value:

Primary Care Provider Rate County: Bay

45
Providers per 100,000 population
(2021)
Compared to:
Compared to the MI Value (78), Bay has a value of 45 which is lower and worse.
MI Value
(78)
The regional value is compared to the Michigan State value.

Primary Care Provider Rate County: Clare

Current Value:

Primary Care Provider Rate County: Clare

29
Providers per 100,000 population
(2021)
Compared to:
Compared to the MI Value (78), Clare has a value of 29 which is lower and worse.
MI Value
(78)
The regional value is compared to the Michigan State value.

Primary Care Provider Rate County: Gladwin

Current Value:

Primary Care Provider Rate County: Gladwin

16
Providers per 100,000 population
(2021)
Compared to:
Compared to the MI Value (78), Gladwin has a value of 16 which is lower and worse.
MI Value
(78)
The regional value is compared to the Michigan State value.

Primary Care Provider Rate County: Gratiot

Current Value:

Primary Care Provider Rate County: Gratiot

48
Providers per 100,000 population
(2021)
Compared to:
Compared to the MI Value (78), Gratiot has a value of 48 which is lower and worse.
MI Value
(78)
The regional value is compared to the Michigan State value.

Primary Care Provider Rate County: Huron

Current Value:

Primary Care Provider Rate County: Huron

58
Providers per 100,000 population
(2021)
Compared to:
Compared to the MI Value (78), Huron has a value of 58 which is lower and worse.
MI Value
(78)
The regional value is compared to the Michigan State value.

Primary Care Provider Rate County: Iosco

Current Value:

Primary Care Provider Rate County: Iosco

32
Providers per 100,000 population
(2021)
Compared to:
Compared to the MI Value (78), Iosco has a value of 32 which is lower and worse.
MI Value
(78)
The regional value is compared to the Michigan State value.

Primary Care Provider Rate County: Isabella

Current Value:

Primary Care Provider Rate County: Isabella

49
Providers per 100,000 population
(2021)
Compared to:
Compared to the MI Value (78), Isabella has a value of 49 which is lower and worse.
MI Value
(78)
The regional value is compared to the Michigan State value.

Primary Care Provider Rate County: Midland

Current Value:

Primary Care Provider Rate County: Midland

101
Providers per 100,000 population
(2021)
Compared to:
Compared to the MI Value (78), Midland has a value of 101 which is higher and better.
MI Value
(78)
The regional value is compared to the Michigan State value.

Primary Care Provider Rate County: Ogemaw

Current Value:

Primary Care Provider Rate County: Ogemaw

15
Providers per 100,000 population
(2021)
Compared to:
Compared to the MI Value (78), Ogemaw has a value of 15 which is lower and worse.
MI Value
(78)
The regional value is compared to the Michigan State value.

Primary Care Provider Rate County: Roscommon

Current Value:

Primary Care Provider Rate County: Roscommon

47
Providers per 100,000 population
(2021)
Compared to:
Compared to the MI Value (78), Roscommon has a value of 47 which is lower and worse.
MI Value
(78)
The regional value is compared to the Michigan State value.

Primary Care Provider Rate County: Saginaw

Current Value:

Primary Care Provider Rate County: Saginaw

87
Providers per 100,000 population
(2021)
Compared to:
Compared to the MI Value (78), Saginaw has a value of 87 which is higher and better.
MI Value
(78)
The regional value is compared to the Michigan State value.

Primary Care Provider Rate County: Sanilac

Current Value:

Primary Care Provider Rate County: Sanilac

32
Providers per 100,000 population
(2021)
Compared to:
Compared to the MI Value (78), Sanilac has a value of 32 which is lower and worse.
MI Value
(78)
The regional value is compared to the Michigan State value.

Primary Care Provider Rate County: Tuscola

Current Value:

Primary Care Provider Rate County: Tuscola

30
Providers per 100,000 population
(2021)
Compared to:
Compared to the MI Value (78), Tuscola has a value of 30 which is lower and worse.
MI Value
(78)
The regional value is compared to the Michigan State value.

Health / Health Information Technology

Health / Health Information Technology

Health / Health Information Technology

Households with an Internet Subscription

Value
Compared to:

Health / Health Information Technology

Households with an Internet Subscription

Value
Compared to:

Households with an Internet Subscription Region: MiHIA

Current Value:

Households with an Internet Subscription Region: MiHIA

84.4%
(2018-2022)
Compared to:
Compared to the MI Value (88.0%), MiHIA has a value of 84.4% which is lower and worse.
MI Value
(88.0%)
The regional value is compared to the Michigan State value.

Households with an Internet Subscription County: Arenac

Current Value:

Households with an Internet Subscription County: Arenac

83.8%
(2018-2022)
Compared to:
Compared to the MI Value (88.0%), Arenac has a value of 83.8% which is lower and worse.
MI Value
(88.0%)
The regional value is compared to the Michigan State value.

Households with an Internet Subscription County: Bay

Current Value:

Households with an Internet Subscription County: Bay

87.8%
(2018-2022)
Compared to:
Compared to the MI Value (88.0%), Bay has a value of 87.8% which is lower and worse.
MI Value
(88.0%)
The regional value is compared to the Michigan State value.

Households with an Internet Subscription County: Clare

Current Value:

Households with an Internet Subscription County: Clare

79.4%
(2018-2022)
Compared to:
Compared to the MI Value (88.0%), Clare has a value of 79.4% which is lower and worse.
MI Value
(88.0%)
The regional value is compared to the Michigan State value.

Households with an Internet Subscription County: Gladwin

Current Value:

Households with an Internet Subscription County: Gladwin

82.5%
(2018-2022)
Compared to:
Compared to the MI Value (88.0%), Gladwin has a value of 82.5% which is lower and worse.
MI Value
(88.0%)
The regional value is compared to the Michigan State value.

Households with an Internet Subscription County: Gratiot

Current Value:

Households with an Internet Subscription County: Gratiot

83.2%
(2018-2022)
Compared to:
Compared to the MI Value (88.0%), Gratiot has a value of 83.2% which is lower and worse.
MI Value
(88.0%)
The regional value is compared to the Michigan State value.

Households with an Internet Subscription County: Huron

Current Value:

Households with an Internet Subscription County: Huron

78.9%
(2018-2022)
Compared to:
Compared to the MI Value (88.0%), Huron has a value of 78.9% which is lower and worse.
MI Value
(88.0%)
The regional value is compared to the Michigan State value.

Households with an Internet Subscription County: Iosco

Current Value:

Households with an Internet Subscription County: Iosco

82.1%
(2018-2022)
Compared to:
Compared to the MI Value (88.0%), Iosco has a value of 82.1% which is lower and worse.
MI Value
(88.0%)
The regional value is compared to the Michigan State value.

Households with an Internet Subscription County: Isabella

Current Value:

Households with an Internet Subscription County: Isabella

81.8%
(2018-2022)
Compared to:
Compared to the MI Value (88.0%), Isabella has a value of 81.8% which is lower and worse.
MI Value
(88.0%)
The regional value is compared to the Michigan State value.

Households with an Internet Subscription County: Midland

Current Value:

Households with an Internet Subscription County: Midland

87.2%
(2018-2022)
Compared to:
Compared to the MI Value (88.0%), Midland has a value of 87.2% which is lower and worse.
MI Value
(88.0%)
The regional value is compared to the Michigan State value.

Households with an Internet Subscription County: Ogemaw

Current Value:

Households with an Internet Subscription County: Ogemaw

82.7%
(2018-2022)
Compared to:
Compared to the MI Value (88.0%), Ogemaw has a value of 82.7% which is lower and worse.
MI Value
(88.0%)
The regional value is compared to the Michigan State value.

Households with an Internet Subscription County: Roscommon

Current Value:

Households with an Internet Subscription County: Roscommon

86.7%
(2018-2022)
Compared to:
Compared to the MI Value (88.0%), Roscommon has a value of 86.7% which is lower and worse.
MI Value
(88.0%)
The regional value is compared to the Michigan State value.

Households with an Internet Subscription County: Saginaw

Current Value:

Households with an Internet Subscription County: Saginaw

86.4%
(2018-2022)
Compared to:
Compared to the MI Value (88.0%), Saginaw has a value of 86.4% which is lower and worse.
MI Value
(88.0%)
The regional value is compared to the Michigan State value.

Households with an Internet Subscription County: Sanilac

Current Value:

Households with an Internet Subscription County: Sanilac

81.5%
(2018-2022)
Compared to:
Compared to the MI Value (88.0%), Sanilac has a value of 81.5% which is lower and worse.
MI Value
(88.0%)
The regional value is compared to the Michigan State value.

Households with an Internet Subscription County: Tuscola

Current Value:

Households with an Internet Subscription County: Tuscola

80.4%
(2018-2022)
Compared to:
Compared to the MI Value (88.0%), Tuscola has a value of 80.4% which is lower and worse.
MI Value
(88.0%)
The regional value is compared to the Michigan State value.

Health / Health Information Technology

Households with One or More Types of Computing Devices

Value
Compared to:

Health / Health Information Technology

Households with One or More Types of Computing Devices

Value
Compared to:

Households with One or More Types of Computing Devices Region: MiHIA

Current Value:

Households with One or More Types of Computing Devices Region: MiHIA

91.1%
(2018-2022)
Compared to:
Compared to the MI Value (93.4%), MiHIA has a value of 91.1% which is lower and worse.
MI Value
(93.4%)
The regional value is compared to the Michigan State value.

Households with One or More Types of Computing Devices County: Arenac

Current Value:

Households with One or More Types of Computing Devices County: Arenac

88.0%
(2018-2022)
Compared to:
Compared to the MI Value (93.4%), Arenac has a value of 88.0% which is lower and worse.
MI Value
(93.4%)
The regional value is compared to the Michigan State value.

Households with One or More Types of Computing Devices County: Bay

Current Value:

Households with One or More Types of Computing Devices County: Bay

91.8%
(2018-2022)
Compared to:
Compared to the MI Value (93.4%), Bay has a value of 91.8% which is lower and worse.
MI Value
(93.4%)
The regional value is compared to the Michigan State value.

Households with One or More Types of Computing Devices County: Clare

Current Value:

Households with One or More Types of Computing Devices County: Clare

87.7%
(2018-2022)
Compared to:
Compared to the MI Value (93.4%), Clare has a value of 87.7% which is lower and worse.
MI Value
(93.4%)
The regional value is compared to the Michigan State value.

Households with One or More Types of Computing Devices County: Gladwin

Current Value:

Households with One or More Types of Computing Devices County: Gladwin

87.5%
(2018-2022)
Compared to:
Compared to the MI Value (93.4%), Gladwin has a value of 87.5% which is lower and worse.
MI Value
(93.4%)
The regional value is compared to the Michigan State value.

Households with One or More Types of Computing Devices County: Gratiot

Current Value:

Households with One or More Types of Computing Devices County: Gratiot

91.2%
(2018-2022)
Compared to:
Compared to the MI Value (93.4%), Gratiot has a value of 91.2% which is lower and worse.
MI Value
(93.4%)
The regional value is compared to the Michigan State value.

Households with One or More Types of Computing Devices County: Huron

Current Value:

Households with One or More Types of Computing Devices County: Huron

87.8%
(2018-2022)
Compared to:
Compared to the MI Value (93.4%), Huron has a value of 87.8% which is lower and worse.
MI Value
(93.4%)
The regional value is compared to the Michigan State value.

Households with One or More Types of Computing Devices County: Iosco

Current Value:

Households with One or More Types of Computing Devices County: Iosco

89.2%
(2018-2022)
Compared to:
Compared to the MI Value (93.4%), Iosco has a value of 89.2% which is lower and worse.
MI Value
(93.4%)
The regional value is compared to the Michigan State value.

Households with One or More Types of Computing Devices County: Isabella

Current Value:

Households with One or More Types of Computing Devices County: Isabella

94.6%
(2018-2022)
Compared to:
Compared to the MI Value (93.4%), Isabella has a value of 94.6% which is higher and better.
MI Value
(93.4%)
The regional value is compared to the Michigan State value.

Households with One or More Types of Computing Devices County: Midland

Current Value:

Households with One or More Types of Computing Devices County: Midland

92.0%
(2018-2022)
Compared to:
Compared to the MI Value (93.4%), Midland has a value of 92.0% which is lower and worse.
MI Value
(93.4%)
The regional value is compared to the Michigan State value.

Households with One or More Types of Computing Devices County: Ogemaw

Current Value:

Households with One or More Types of Computing Devices County: Ogemaw

90.4%
(2018-2022)
Compared to:
Compared to the MI Value (93.4%), Ogemaw has a value of 90.4% which is lower and worse.
MI Value
(93.4%)
The regional value is compared to the Michigan State value.

Households with One or More Types of Computing Devices County: Roscommon

Current Value:

Households with One or More Types of Computing Devices County: Roscommon

90.8%
(2018-2022)
Compared to:
Compared to the MI Value (93.4%), Roscommon has a value of 90.8% which is lower and worse.
MI Value
(93.4%)
The regional value is compared to the Michigan State value.

Households with One or More Types of Computing Devices County: Saginaw

Current Value:

Households with One or More Types of Computing Devices County: Saginaw

91.8%
(2018-2022)
Compared to:
Compared to the MI Value (93.4%), Saginaw has a value of 91.8% which is lower and worse.
MI Value
(93.4%)
The regional value is compared to the Michigan State value.

Households with One or More Types of Computing Devices County: Sanilac

Current Value:

Households with One or More Types of Computing Devices County: Sanilac

90.4%
(2018-2022)
Compared to:
Compared to the MI Value (93.4%), Sanilac has a value of 90.4% which is lower and worse.
MI Value
(93.4%)
The regional value is compared to the Michigan State value.

Households with One or More Types of Computing Devices County: Tuscola

Current Value:

Households with One or More Types of Computing Devices County: Tuscola

89.6%
(2018-2022)
Compared to:
Compared to the MI Value (93.4%), Tuscola has a value of 89.6% which is lower and worse.
MI Value
(93.4%)
The regional value is compared to the Michigan State value.

Health / Oral Health

Health / Oral Health

Health / Oral Health

Dentist Rate

Value
Compared to:

Health / Oral Health

Dentist Rate

Value
Compared to:

Dentist Rate Region: MiHIA

Current Value:

Dentist Rate Region: MiHIA

61
Dentists per 100,000 population
(2022)
Compared to:
Compared to the MI Value (80), MiHIA has a value of 61 which is lower and worse.
MI Value
(80)
The regional value is compared to the Michigan State value.

Dentist Rate County: Arenac

Current Value:

Dentist Rate County: Arenac

53
Dentists per 100,000 population
(2022)
Compared to:
Compared to the MI Value (80), Arenac has a value of 53 which is lower and worse.
MI Value
(80)
The regional value is compared to the Michigan State value.

Dentist Rate County: Bay

Current Value:

Dentist Rate County: Bay

70
Dentists per 100,000 population
(2022)
Compared to:
Compared to the MI Value (80), Bay has a value of 70 which is lower and worse.
MI Value
(80)
The regional value is compared to the Michigan State value.

Dentist Rate County: Clare

Current Value:

Dentist Rate County: Clare

29
Dentists per 100,000 population
(2022)
Compared to:
Compared to the MI Value (80), Clare has a value of 29 which is lower and worse.
MI Value
(80)
The regional value is compared to the Michigan State value.

Dentist Rate County: Gladwin

Current Value:

Dentist Rate County: Gladwin

23
Dentists per 100,000 population
(2022)
Compared to:
Compared to the MI Value (80), Gladwin has a value of 23 which is lower and worse.
MI Value
(80)
The regional value is compared to the Michigan State value.

Dentist Rate County: Gratiot

Current Value:

Dentist Rate County: Gratiot

41
Dentists per 100,000 population
(2022)
Compared to:
Compared to the MI Value (80), Gratiot has a value of 41 which is lower and worse.
MI Value
(80)
The regional value is compared to the Michigan State value.

Dentist Rate County: Huron

Current Value:

Dentist Rate County: Huron

54
Dentists per 100,000 population
(2022)
Compared to:
Compared to the MI Value (80), Huron has a value of 54 which is lower and worse.
MI Value
(80)
The regional value is compared to the Michigan State value.

Dentist Rate County: Iosco

Current Value:

Dentist Rate County: Iosco

63
Dentists per 100,000 population
(2022)
Compared to:
Compared to the MI Value (80), Iosco has a value of 63 which is lower and worse.
MI Value
(80)
The regional value is compared to the Michigan State value.

Dentist Rate County: Isabella

Current Value:

Dentist Rate County: Isabella

73
Dentists per 100,000 population
(2022)
Compared to:
Compared to the MI Value (80), Isabella has a value of 73 which is lower and worse.
MI Value
(80)
The regional value is compared to the Michigan State value.

Dentist Rate County: Midland

Current Value:

Dentist Rate County: Midland

75
Dentists per 100,000 population
(2022)
Compared to:
Compared to the MI Value (80), Midland has a value of 75 which is lower and worse.
MI Value
(80)
The regional value is compared to the Michigan State value.

Dentist Rate County: Ogemaw

Current Value:

Dentist Rate County: Ogemaw

43
Dentists per 100,000 population
(2022)
Compared to:
Compared to the MI Value (80), Ogemaw has a value of 43 which is lower and worse.
MI Value
(80)
The regional value is compared to the Michigan State value.

Dentist Rate County: Roscommon

Current Value:

Dentist Rate County: Roscommon

42
Dentists per 100,000 population
(2022)
Compared to:
Compared to the MI Value (80), Roscommon has a value of 42 which is lower and worse.
MI Value
(80)
The regional value is compared to the Michigan State value.

Dentist Rate County: Saginaw

Current Value:

Dentist Rate County: Saginaw

81
Dentists per 100,000 population
(2022)
Compared to:
Compared to the MI Value (80), Saginaw has a value of 81 which is higher and better.
MI Value
(80)
The regional value is compared to the Michigan State value.

Dentist Rate County: Sanilac

Current Value:

Dentist Rate County: Sanilac

34
Dentists per 100,000 population
(2022)
Compared to:
Compared to the MI Value (80), Sanilac has a value of 34 which is lower and worse.
MI Value
(80)
The regional value is compared to the Michigan State value.

Dentist Rate County: Tuscola

Current Value:

Dentist Rate County: Tuscola

36
Dentists per 100,000 population
(2022)
Compared to:
Compared to the MI Value (80), Tuscola has a value of 36 which is lower and worse.
MI Value
(80)
The regional value is compared to the Michigan State value.

Community / Transportation

Community / Transportation

Community / Transportation

Households without a Vehicle

Value
Compared to:

Community / Transportation

Households without a Vehicle

Value
Compared to:

Households without a Vehicle Region: MiHIA

Current Value:

Households without a Vehicle Region: MiHIA

6.8%
(2018-2022)
Compared to:
Compared to the MI Value (7.2%), MiHIA has a value of 6.8% which is lower and better.
MI Value
(7.2%)
The regional value is compared to the Michigan State value.

Households without a Vehicle County: Arenac

Current Value:

Households without a Vehicle County: Arenac

7.3%
(2018-2022)
Compared to:
Compared to the MI Value (7.2%), Arenac has a value of 7.3% which is higher and worse.
MI Value
(7.2%)
The regional value is compared to the Michigan State value.

Households without a Vehicle County: Bay

Current Value:

Households without a Vehicle County: Bay

6.9%
(2018-2022)
Compared to:
Compared to the MI Value (7.2%), Bay has a value of 6.9% which is lower and better.
MI Value
(7.2%)
The regional value is compared to the Michigan State value.

Households without a Vehicle County: Clare

Current Value:

Households without a Vehicle County: Clare

7.8%
(2018-2022)
Compared to:
Compared to the MI Value (7.2%), Clare has a value of 7.8% which is higher and worse.
MI Value
(7.2%)
The regional value is compared to the Michigan State value.

Households without a Vehicle County: Gladwin

Current Value:

Households without a Vehicle County: Gladwin

6.8%
(2018-2022)
Compared to:
Compared to the MI Value (7.2%), Gladwin has a value of 6.8% which is lower and better.
MI Value
(7.2%)
The regional value is compared to the Michigan State value.

Households without a Vehicle County: Gratiot

Current Value:

Households without a Vehicle County: Gratiot

5.2%
(2018-2022)
Compared to:
Compared to the MI Value (7.2%), Gratiot has a value of 5.2% which is lower and better.
MI Value
(7.2%)
The regional value is compared to the Michigan State value.

Households without a Vehicle County: Huron

Current Value:

Households without a Vehicle County: Huron

6.2%
(2018-2022)
Compared to:
Compared to the MI Value (7.2%), Huron has a value of 6.2% which is lower and better.
MI Value
(7.2%)
The regional value is compared to the Michigan State value.

Households without a Vehicle County: Iosco

Current Value:

Households without a Vehicle County: Iosco

7.5%
(2018-2022)
Compared to:
Compared to the MI Value (7.2%), Iosco has a value of 7.5% which is higher and worse.
MI Value
(7.2%)
The regional value is compared to the Michigan State value.

Households without a Vehicle County: Isabella

Current Value:

Households without a Vehicle County: Isabella

7.0%
(2018-2022)
Compared to:
Compared to the MI Value (7.2%), Isabella has a value of 7.0% which is lower and better.
MI Value
(7.2%)
The regional value is compared to the Michigan State value.

Households without a Vehicle County: Midland

Current Value:

Households without a Vehicle County: Midland

5.8%
(2018-2022)
Compared to:
Compared to the MI Value (7.2%), Midland has a value of 5.8% which is lower and better.
MI Value
(7.2%)
The regional value is compared to the Michigan State value.

Households without a Vehicle County: Ogemaw

Current Value:

Households without a Vehicle County: Ogemaw

5.7%
(2018-2022)
Compared to:
Compared to the MI Value (7.2%), Ogemaw has a value of 5.7% which is lower and better.
MI Value
(7.2%)
The regional value is compared to the Michigan State value.

Households without a Vehicle County: Roscommon

Current Value:

Households without a Vehicle County: Roscommon

7.9%
(2018-2022)
Compared to:
Compared to the MI Value (7.2%), Roscommon has a value of 7.9% which is higher and worse.
MI Value
(7.2%)
The regional value is compared to the Michigan State value.

Households without a Vehicle County: Saginaw

Current Value:

Households without a Vehicle County: Saginaw

8.0%
(2018-2022)
Compared to:
Compared to the MI Value (7.2%), Saginaw has a value of 8.0% which is higher and worse.
MI Value
(7.2%)
The regional value is compared to the Michigan State value.

Households without a Vehicle County: Sanilac

Current Value:

Households without a Vehicle County: Sanilac

6.0%
(2018-2022)
Compared to:
Compared to the MI Value (7.2%), Sanilac has a value of 6.0% which is lower and better.
MI Value
(7.2%)
The regional value is compared to the Michigan State value.

Households without a Vehicle County: Tuscola

Current Value:

Households without a Vehicle County: Tuscola

5.2%
(2018-2022)
Compared to:
Compared to the MI Value (7.2%), Tuscola has a value of 5.2% which is lower and better.
MI Value
(7.2%)
The regional value is compared to the Michigan State value.
Michigan Health Improvement Alliance