Skip directly to searchSkip directly to the site navigationSkip directly to the page's main content

Health Indicator Report of Personal Doctor or Health Care Provider

As each new health care need arises, an individual's first point of contact with the health care system is typically his or her personal doctor. In most cases a personal doctor can effectively and efficiently manage a patient's medical care because they understand that person's medical history and social background. Having a regular source of health care is also an indicator of overall access to care.
Year20072008200920102011201220132014201520162017201820192020202120220.0%10.0%20.0%30.0%40.0%50.0%60.0%70.0%80.0%Age-adjusted percentage of adultsAt least one primary provider, Utah and U.S., 2007-2022UT Old MethodologyUS Old MethodologyUT New MethodologyUS New Methodology
 BRFSS Utah vs. U.S.YearAge-adjusted percentage of adultsLower 95% CIUpper 95% CI

UT Old Methodology

 1UT Old Methodology200779.2%77.7%80.7%
 1UT Old Methodology200878.1%76.5%79.5%
 1UT Old Methodology200978.1%76.9%79.2%
 1UT Old Methodology201079.2%78.0%80.3%
 1UT Old Methodology2011n/an/a
 1UT Old Methodology2012n/an/a
 1UT Old Methodology2013n/an/a
 1UT Old Methodology2014n/an/a
 1UT Old Methodology2015n/an/a
 1UT Old Methodology2016n/an/a
 1UT Old Methodology2017n/an/a
 1UT Old Methodology2018n/an/a
 1UT Old Methodology2019n/an/a
 1UT Old Methodology2020n/an/a
 1UT Old Methodology2021n/an/a
 1UT Old Methodology2022n/an/a

US Old Methodology

 2US Old Methodology200779.5%79.2%79.8%
 2US Old Methodology200880.1%79.8%80.4%
 2US Old Methodology200980.3%80.0%80.6%
 2US Old Methodology201080.5%80.2%80.8%
 2US Old Methodology2011n/an/a
 2US Old Methodology2012n/an/a
 2US Old Methodology2013n/an/a
 2US Old Methodology2014n/an/a
 2US Old Methodology2015n/an/a
 2US Old Methodology2016n/an/a
 2US Old Methodology2017n/an/a
 2US Old Methodology2018n/an/a
 2US Old Methodology2019n/an/a
 2US Old Methodology2020n/an/a
 2US Old Methodology2021n/an/a
 2US Old Methodology2022n/an/a

UT New Methodology

 3UT New Methodology2007n/an/a
 3UT New Methodology2008n/an/a
 3UT New Methodology200975.1%74.0%76.2%
 3UT New Methodology201075.3%74.2%76.2%
 3UT New Methodology201174.6%73.6%75.6%
 3UT New Methodology201275.6%74.5%76.6%
 3UT New Methodology201373.4%72.4%74.4%
 3UT New Methodology201472.4%71.5%73.3%
 3UT New Methodology201575.1%74.1%76.1%
 3UT New Methodology201673.8%72.7%75.0%
 3UT New Methodology201772.2%71.0%73.2%
 3UT New Methodology201873.5%72.5%74.6%
 3UT New Methodology201973.7%72.7%74.7%
 3UT New Methodology202074.6%73.5%75.7%
 3UT New Methodology202180.8%79.8%81.8%
 3UT New Methodology202280.5%79.5%81.5%

US New Methodology

 4US New Methodology2007n/an/a
 4US New Methodology2008n/an/a
 4US New Methodology2009n/an/a
 4US New Methodology2010n/an/a
 4US New Methodology201177.9%77.7%78.2%
 4US New Methodology201276.8%76.5%77.0%
 4US New Methodology201375.1%74.8%75.4%
 4US New Methodology201475.9%75.6%76.2%
 4US New Methodology201577.2%71.9%82.5%
 4US New Methodology201676.9%76.6%77.1%
 4US New Methodology201776.1%75.8%76.4%
 4US New Methodology201875.7%75.4%76.0%
 4US New Methodology201975.1%74.8%75.4%
 4US New Methodology202075.3%75.0%75.7%
 4US New Methodology202182.0%81.7%82.3%
 4US New Methodology202280.7%80.4%81.0%

Notes

Age-adjusted to the 2000 standard population.

Starting in 2009, the BRFSS included both landline and cell phone respondent interviews along with a new weighting methodology called iterative proportional fitting, or raking. More details about these changes can be found at: https://ibis.utah.gov/ibisph-view/pdf/opha/resource/brfss/RakingImpact2011.pdf.

Note: At the time of this update, the BRFSS U.S. dataset did not include an age variable but did include five age categories up to age 80+ (vs. the typical weighting scheme that includes 85+). Comparisons with both weighting schemes were compared using Utah data, and the difference was about 1/100 of a percentage point.

Data Sources

Data Interpretation Issues

Question Text: "Do you have one person you think of as your personal doctor or health care provider?" Respondents can answer "Yes, only one", "Yes, more than one" or "No." For this indicator, the two "Yes" responses have been combined.

Beginning in 2011, BRFSS data include both landline and cell phone respondent data along with a new weighting methodology called iterative proportional fitting, or raking. This methodology utilizes additional demographic information (such as education, race, and marital status) in the weighting procedure. Both of these methodology changes were implemented to account for an increased number of U.S. households without landline phones and an under-representation of certain demographic groups that were not well-represented in the sample. More details about these changes can be found at: https://ibis.utah.gov/ibisph-view/pdf/opha/resource/brfss/RakingImpact2011.pdf.

As with all surveys, some error results from nonresponse (e.g., refusal to participate in the survey or to answer specific questions) and measurement (e.g., social desirability or recall bias). Error was minimized by use of strict calling protocols (up to 15 calls were made to reach each household), good questionnaire design, standardization of interviewer behavior, interviewer training, and frequent, on-site interviewer monitoring and supervision.

Definition

Percentage of adults who reported having one or more persons they think of as their personal doctor or health care provider.

Numerator

Number of adults who reported having at least one person they think of as their personal doctor or health care provider.

Denominator

Total number of adults interviewed during the same survey period.

How Are We Doing?

In 2022, 79.8% (crude rate) of Utah adults reported having at least one person they think of as their personal doctor or health care provider. However, 20.2% of Utahns did not have a personal doctor or health care provider. Lack of a primary care provider was more common among young adults, especially men ages 18 to 34 (only 59.7% reported having a personal doctor) in 2022.

In 2020-2022, Salt Lake City (Glendale) V2 (65.9%), West Valley (East) V2 (67.5%), and Salt Lake City (Rose Park) (67.8%) small areas had the lowest age-adjusted rates of people who reported having a primary care provider among all of the 99 Utah Small Areas.

How Do We Compare With the U.S.?

In 2022, Utah (80.5%) had a similar age-adjusted rate of persons reporting a primary care provider when compared with the U.S. (80.7%).

What Is Being Done?

The Utah Department of Health and Human Services has programs such as Medicaid, Children's Health Insurance Program (CHIP), and Utah's Premium Partnership for Health Insurance (UPP) to pay health care costs for low-income children and adults and those with disabilities.

Available Services

MEDICAID: In the Salt Lake City area, call (801) 538-6155
In Utah, Idaho, Wyoming, Colorado, New Mexico, Arizona, and Nevada, call toll-free (800) 662-9651
From other states, call (801) 538-6155
Medicaid Customer Service staff are available to take inquiries.

CHIP: Children's Health Insurance Program (for children 0-18)
Call the Health Resource Line: (888) 222-2542 for information on CHIP.
Or visit the CHIP website at http://chip.health.utah.gov/

Page Content Updated On 03/08/2024, Published on 07/26/2024
The information provided above is from the Utah Department of Health's Center for Health Data IBIS-PH web site (http://epht.health.utah.gov). The information published on this website may be reproduced without permission. Please use the following citation: " Retrieved Thu, 23 January 2025 5:00:23 from Utah Department of Health, Center for Health Data, Indicator-Based Information System for Public Health Web site: http://epht.health.utah.gov ".

Content updated: Fri, 26 Jul 2024 17:57:36 MDT