- What is the Population Count?
- What is the Land Area?
- What is the Percent who did not finish the 9th grade?
- What is the Median Earnings?
- What is the Number of Employees?
- What is the Crime incident count?
- What is the Population Rate of Change?
- What is the Water Area?
- What is the High School Graduation Rate?
- What is the Median Female Earnings?
The population density of Philadelphia, PA was 11,749 in 2018.
Geographic and Population Datasets Involving Philadelphia, PA
Emergency Department (ED) Visits for Overdose Identified Through Syndromic Surveillance Quarter 3 2016 - Current Quarterly County Healthdata.pa.gov | Last Updated 2019-10-31T19:13:58.000Z
View quarterly trends in overdose rates for Any Drug Overdoses, Any Opioid Overdoses and Heroin Overdoses at the state and county level. Please see Overdose Data Technical Notes for additional details: : https://www.health.pa.gov/topics/programs/PDMP/Pages/Data.aspx
- API data.pa.gov | Last Updated 2020-01-07T16:10:41.000Z
PennDOT Official Park and Ride information that is currently available. This is not all inclusive.
- API bronx.lehman.cuny.edu | Last Updated 2012-10-21T14:06:17.000Z
2010 Census Data on population, pop density, age and ethnicity per zip code
- API data.pa.gov | Last Updated 2018-11-05T16:26:18.000Z
County level educational attainment data on the adult working aged population (25-64) by age range and gender. Data is sourced from the US Census Bureau’s American Community Survey (ACS) 5-year estimates allowing for increased statistical reliability of the data for less populated areas and small population subgroups. More information here - https://www.census.gov/data/developers/data-sets/acs-5year.html
Counts and Rates of New HIV Diagnoses Among Individuals Using Injection Drugs January 2016 - Current Monthly County & Statewide Healthdata.pa.gov | Last Updated 2019-10-31T15:58:11.000Z
This indicator includes the count and rate of new HIV diagnoses among individuals using injection drugs per 100,000 individuals estimated to have Drug Use Disorder.
Individuals under Medical Assistance (Newly Eligible) Diagnosed with Opioid Use Disorder CY 2015-2018 Annual County Human Servicesdata.pa.gov | Last Updated 2020-01-07T15:42:29.000Z
This dataset contains the total counts of PA Department of Human Services (DHS) Medical Assistance (MA) individuals diagnosed with Opioid Use Disorder (OUD) or OUD Poisoning. Also included are individuals receiving MAT (Medication assisted treatment - the use of medications in combination with counseling and behavioral therapies for the treatment of substance use disorders.) NOT diagnosed in the same period. Limited to the Newly Eligible (Under the Medical Assistance Expansion Program. Find more information here: http://www.dhs.pa.gov/cs/groups/webcontent/documents/document/c_257436.pdf) segment of DHS population. Internally defined as DHS Category of Assistance = MG (Modified Adjusted Gross Income - MAGI) MG and Program Status = 91 (Newly Eligible). Counts are reported by Pennsylvania case county and covers calendar years 2015 -2018.
Rate of Hospitalizations for Opioid Overdose per 100,000 Residents County Health Care Cost Containment Council (PHC4)data.pa.gov | Last Updated 2018-09-04T14:38:21.000Z
County rates of hospitalizations for opioid overdose per 100,000 residents ages 15 and older. This analysis is restricted to Pennsylvania residents age 15 and older who were hospitalized in Pennsylvania general acute care hospitals.
- API data.pa.gov | Last Updated 2019-10-31T19:09:37.000Z
View quarterly trends in opioid dispensation data for all Schedule II-V opioids. Please see PDMP Data Technical Notes for additional details: https://www.health.pa.gov/topics/programs/PDMP/Pages/Data.aspx More information from U.S. Department of Justice https://www.deadiversion.usdoj.gov/schedules/ Schedule I Controlled Substances Substances in this schedule have no currently accepted medical use in the United States, a lack of accepted safety for use under medical supervision, and a high potential for abuse. Some examples of substances listed in Schedule I are: heroin, lysergic acid diethylamide (LSD), marijuana (cannabis), peyote, methaqualone, and 3,4-methylenedioxymethamphetamine ("Ecstasy"). Schedule II/IIN Controlled Substances (2/2N) Substances in this schedule have a high potential for abuse which may lead to severe psychological or physical dependence. Examples of Schedule II narcotics include: hydromorphone (Dilaudid®), methadone (Dolophine®), meperidine (Demerol®), oxycodone (OxyContin®, Percocet®), and fentanyl (Sublimaze®, Duragesic®). Other Schedule II narcotics include: morphine, opium, codeine, and hydrocodone. Examples of Schedule IIN stimulants include: amphetamine (Dexedrine®, Adderall®), methamphetamine (Desoxyn®), and methylphenidate (Ritalin®). Other Schedule II substances include: amobarbital, glutethimide, and pentobarbital. Schedule III/IIIN Controlled Substances (3/3N) Substances in this schedule have a potential for abuse less than substances in Schedules I or II and abuse may lead to moderate or low physical dependence or high psychological dependence. Examples of Schedule III narcotics include: products containing not more than 90 milligrams of codeine per dosage unit (Tylenol with Codeine®), and buprenorphine (Suboxone®). Examples of Schedule IIIN non-narcotics include: benzphetamine (Didrex®), phendimetrazine, ketamine, and anabolic steroids such as Depo®-Testosterone. Schedule IV Controlled Substances Substances in this schedule have a low potential for abuse relative to substances in Schedule III. Examples of Schedule IV substances include: alprazolam (Xanax®), carisoprodol (Soma®), clonazepam (Klonopin®), clorazepate (Tranxene®), diazepam (Valium®), lorazepam (Ativan®), midazolam (Versed®), temazepam (Restoril®), and triazolam (Halcion®). Schedule V Controlled Substances Substances in this schedule have a low potential for abuse relative to substances listed in Schedule IV and consist primarily of preparations containing limited quantities of certain narcotics. Examples of Schedule V substances include: cough preparations containing not more than 200 milligrams of codeine per 100 milliliters or per 100 grams (Robitussin AC®, Phenergan with Codeine®), and ezogabine.
- API data.pa.gov | Last Updated 2019-10-31T18:48:33.000Z
View quarterly trends in Risky Prescribing Measures, including: o Number/Rate of Individuals Seeing 5+ Prescribers and 5+ Dispensers: Number of individuals who received prescriptions from 5 or more prescribers AND 5 or more dispensers for any Schedule II-V substance in a 3-month period. This measure is also referred to as Multiple Provider Episodes. County rates are calculated based on the patient’s county of residence. o Number/Rate of Individuals Seeing 4+ Prescribers and 4+ Dispensers: Number of individuals who received prescriptions from 5 or more prescribers AND 5 or more dispensers for any Schedule II-V substance in a 3-month period. This measure is also referred to as Multiple Provider Episodes. County rates are calculated based on the patient’s county of residence. o Number/Rate of Individuals Seeing 3+ Prescribers and 3+ Dispensers: Number of individuals who received prescriptions from 5 or more prescribers AND 5 or more dispensers for any Schedule II-V substance in a 3-month period. This measure is also referred to as Multiple Provider Episodes. County rates are calculated based on the patient’s county of residence. o Number/Rate of Individuals with an Average Daily MME >50, >90 or >120: Average Daily MME is calculated as the sum of the total MME on each day in a time period based on all prescriptions an individual has filled divided by the number of days in the prescription(s). Measures include the number and rate of individuals prescribed greater than 50 MME per day, greater than 90 MME per day, or greater than 120 MME per day and is based on the patient’s county of residence. o Number/Rate of Individuals with Overlapping Opioid/Benzodiazepine Prescriptions: Number of individuals receiving overlapping opioid and benzodiazepine prescriptions during a given quarter. This measure is based on the patients’ county of residence. o Number/Rate of Individuals with > 30 Days of Overlapping Opioid/Benzodiazepine Prescriptions: Number and rate of individuals receiving overlapping opioid and benzodiazepine prescriptions for 30 days or more during a given quarter using state/county populations as denominators. This measure is based on the patients’ county of residence. Please see PDMP Data Technical Notes for additional details: https://www.health.pa.gov/topics/programs/PDMP/Pages/Data.aspx
- API data.pa.gov | Last Updated 2018-09-20T14:30:44.000Z
This data set provides an estimate of the number of people aged 15-34 years with newly identified confirmed chronic (or past/present) hepatitis C infection, by county and by year. The dataset is limited to persons aged 15 to 34 because hepatitis C infection is usually asymptomatic for decades after infection occurs. Cases are usually identified because they have finally become symptomatic, or they were screened. Until very recently, screening for hepatitis C was not routinely performed. This makes it very challenging to identify persons with recent infection. Limiting the age of newly identified patients to 15-34 years makes it more likely that the cases included in the dashboard were infected fairly recently. It is not meant to imply that the opioid crisis’ effect on hepatitis C transmission is limited to younger people. The process by which case counts are determined is as follows: Case reports, which include lab test results and address data, are sent to Pennsylvania’s electronic disease surveillance system (PA-NEDSS). Confirmation status is determined by public health investigators who evaluate test results against the CDC case definition for hepatitis C in place for the year in which the patient was first reported (https://wwwn.cdc.gov/nndss/conditions/hepatitis-c-chronic/). Reportable disease data, including hepatitis C, is extracted from PA-NEDSS, combined with similar data sent by the Philadelphia Department of Public Health (PDPH, which uses a separate surveillance system), and sent to CDC. Case data sent to CDC (from PA-NEDSS and PDPH combined) are used to create a statewide reportable disease dataset. This statewide file was used to generate the dashboard dataset. Note that the term that CDC has used to denote persons with hepatitis C infection that is not known to be acute has switched back and forth between “Hepatitis C, past or present” and “Hepatitis C, chronic” over the past several years. The CDC case definition for hepatitis C, chronic (or past or present) changed in 2005, 2010, 2011, 2012, and 2016. Persons reported as confirmed in one year may not have been considered confirmed in another year. For example, patients with a positive radioimmunoblot assay (RIBA) or elevated enzyme immunoassay (EIA) signal-to-cutoff level were counted as confirmed in 2012, but not counted as confirmed in 2016. Data sent to CDC’s National Notifiable Disease Surveillance System use a measure for aggregating cases by year called the MMWR year. The MMWR, or the Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report, is an official publication by CDC and the means by which CDC has historically presented aggregated case count data. Since data in the MMWR are presented by week, the MMWR year always starts on the Sunday closest to Jan 1 and ends on the Saturday closest to Dec 31. The most recent year for which case counts are finalized is 2016. Annual case counts are finalized in May of the following year. The patient zip code, as submitted to PA-NEDSS, is used to determine the case’s county of residence at the time of initial case report. In some instances, the patient zip code is unavailable. In those circumstances, the zip code of the provider that ordered the lab test is used as a proxy for patient zip code. Users should note that the state prison system routinely screens all incoming inmates for hepatitis C. If these inmates are determined to be confirmed cases, they are assigned to the county in which they were incarcerated when their confirmed hepatitis C was first identified. Hepatitis C case counts in counties with state prisons should be interpreted cautiously in light of this enhanced screening activity.