Dermatology Access and Practice Density Report 2026 — Indexed Practice Coverage Across the United States

Dermatology access is uneven across the United States. Health-policy literature has long flagged dermatologist shortage zones, particularly in rural counties. Federal datasets (HRSA Health Resources and Services Administration, AAMC workforce reports) publish board-certified dermatologist counts by state but not granular per-city practice presence. Health-insurance directories list in-network practices but do not aggregate cross-payer.

This study reports what the Ownlisted indexed directory dataset shows: 3,339 active dermatology practice listings, distributed across 44 states and 197 cities, carrying 1,590,827 aggregated Google reviews. It is a directory snapshot, not a clinical-access study, and it does not measure dermatologist headcount, panel size, wait times, or insurance acceptance.

The 15 states with the most indexed dermatology practices carry 78% of the dataset. The pattern shows substantial Sun Belt concentration (CA, TX, FL, AZ, NC, TN, GA, AL) plus the Northeast / Midwest core (OH, NY, IL).

Per-100k figures use US Census Bureau 2024 vintage state populations.

Among the top-15 states by indexed count, dermatology-practice supply per 100k residents falls into three tiers:

• High (≥ 1.5 per 100k): Arizona (1.75), Tennessee (1.72), California (1.63), Alabama (1.55), Colorado (1.43).
• Mid (1.0–1.5 per 100k): Washington (1.16), North Carolina (1.14), Texas (1.09), Virginia (1.03).
• Lower (< 1.0 per 100k): Florida (0.96), Georgia (0.93), Ohio (0.84), Illinois (0.71), New York (0.40).

The high-supply tier overlaps with states cited in dermatology-workforce reports for board-certified practice density. The lower-supply tier — particularly New York's 0.40 — is partly a directory-coverage artifact: large NYC academic medical centers operate under hospital-affiliated listings that don't map to consumer-facing private-practice directories.

Per-capita figures are an indicator of consumer-facing practice presence in the indexed dataset, not active dermatologist headcount in the state. AAMC and HRSA practitioner counts will be higher in absolute terms because they include hospital-employed dermatologists, residents, and academic faculty that don't run consumer-facing private listings.

The U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) Occupational Employment and Wage Statistics program publishes a dedicated occupation code for dermatologists — SOC 29-1213 (Dermatologists), May 2024 release. BLS counts approximately 9,520 employed dermatologists nationally with a median annual wage exceeding the $239,200 BLS top-coding threshold (i.e., the dataset's reported median is censored at the top of the wage scale). SOC 29-1213 is the cleanest occupation match for the vertical; it counts wage- and salary-employed dermatologists and does not include residents, fellows, or self-employed solo practitioners outside payroll.

Aggregate national employment figures from BLS describe the wage- and salary-employed population in this occupation; they are not a count of the practices listed in the Ownlisted directory and are not used to validate any individual indexed practice. The 3,339 indexed practices above are practice-locations (a single dermatologist may operate at multiple indexed locations; multiple dermatologists may share one indexed practice), so the indexed count and the BLS practitioner count are different units. The NAICS-level establishment count (NAICS 621111, Offices of Physicians except Mental Health) is composite — it covers all physician specialties — and is not cited here.

The dataset carries 1,590,827 Google reviews across 3,311 rated practices — second-deepest review accumulation of the §90 Sprint 1 verticals after HVAC's 4.27M. Weighted average rating is 4.76.

Review depth (average review count per rated practice) varies sharply across the top-15 states. Arizona (905), Texas (677), and Alabama (644) lead; California (259) and New York (473) trail. The depth gap reflects practice-tenure differences and whether the practice's primary intake funnel runs through Google search or insurance directories — practices that lean on payor referrals accumulate fewer Google reviews even when their patient volume is high.

99.6% of indexed practices carry a phone number; 96.6% carry a website. The website gap is the smallest of any §90 Sprint 1 vertical, reflecting that dermatology practices have fully digitized appointment scheduling and patient intake by 2026.

This is a profile-completeness signal, not a clinical-quality signal. Practices missing a public website are typically older single-physician practices with established patient panels that don't actively market online — they remain reachable by phone and through insurance directories.

For city- or state-specific dermatology research, the underlying directory pages provide the granular comparison surface:

• Dermatology home: dermprolist.com — full network roll-up.
• Top-traction city pages:
  • New York, NY — best dermatologists
  • Los Angeles, CA — best dermatologists
  • Houston, TX — best dermatologists

This is a directory, not a clinical referral. Patients should look up board certification through the ABMS / AOA registries before booking.

Suggested citation:

Ownlisted Research. (2026). Dermatology Access and Practice Density Report 2026 — Indexed Practice Coverage Across the United States. Ownlisted. Retrieved from https://ownlisted.com/research/dermatology-access-density-2026

Reuse and attribution. Charts, tables, and downloadable CSV may be cited or reproduced with attribution to Ownlisted Research and a link to the study URL above. Carry the snapshot date (2026-05-01) so readers know the dataset version.

The methodology, limitations, and "not medical advice" framing must travel with the figures. Per-state listing counts published without the "indexed practices, not dermatologist-headcount" disclaimer risk being misread as a clinical-access measurement, which the dataset does not support.

Press / media inquiries. Reach the Ownlisted Research team via the brand-hub contact page. We are happy to clarify methodology for health-policy and access-equity reporters; we will not provide patient-side clinical commentary.

• Not a clinical-access study. The indexed dataset does not measure dermatologist headcount, panel size, new-patient availability, wait times, or insurance acceptance. It measures consumer-facing practice listing presence and review accumulation.
• Rating + review counts are Google-derived. Ownlisted does not collect first-party reviews on dermatology profiles. The rating column reports what Google publishes on the underlying business profile.
• Per-capita figures cover 25 states. Same constraint as the §90 sister studies.
• No procedure-mix breakout. The dataset does not distinguish medical dermatology from cosmetic / aesthetic. A practice that performs both is counted once.
• Hospital-affiliated practices are underrepresented. Large academic medical centers and hospital-system dermatology departments operate under parent-hospital listings that don't map to dermatology-specific directories. New York's lower-tier per-capita figure is partly an artifact of this.
• No outcomes / quality-of-care claims. This study reports listing presence and aggregate review counts. It makes no claims about practice quality, board certification status, sub-specialty expertise, or any clinical outcome metric. This is not medical advice. Patients should look up board certification through the ABMS or AOA registries, confirm insurance acceptance with the practice, and consult their primary care physician for referrals.
• Snapshot in time. Counts reflect the May 2026 snapshot.