Neurologist Video Statistics

Key takeaways

1. Neurologists and neurology practices speaking as themselves made 18.7% of the 449 on-topic videos among YouTube’s most-viewed ‘neurologist’, ‘stroke’ and ‘seizure’ results and drew 10.8% of their views. One channel, Dr K Neeraja’s in Guntur, India, drew 63.2% of that class’s views; without it the class falls to 4.3% (our read, Nov 9, 2026). (Mark Studios) See details
2. In the ‘stroke’ list, 43.6% of the videos and 81.2% of the views were off-topic; videos by or about the bands The Strokes and Stroke 9 took 76.2% of the off-topic views across all three lists (our read, Nov 9, 2026). (Mark Studios) See details
3. Neurologists drew 39.6% of the on-topic views in the ‘neurologist’ list, 1.8% in ‘stroke’ and 0.4% in ‘seizure’ (our read, Nov 9, 2026). (Mark Studios) See details
4. Of the neurologist channels in that sample, 13 were placed in India and 6 in the U.S., and U.S.-placed channels drew 1.3% of the on-topic views. 0 neurologist channels placed themselves in Florida, and 0 on-topic channels placed themselves in Palm Beach, Broward or Martin County (our read, Nov 9, 2026). (Mark Studios) See details
5. The 6 U.S.-placed neurologist channels posted 943 videos in the year to Nov 9, 2026, a median of 113; the busiest, Dr Painkiller, posted 517 (our read). (Mark Studios) See details
6. CMS lists 16,581 providers of type Neurology who billed Medicare Part B fee-for-service in 2024, up 11.3% from 14,897 in 2019. Florida had 1,241; Palm Beach County 85, Broward 89 and Martin 13 (our match of CMS’s file to ZIP-to-county records). (CMS) See details
7. Medicare paid those providers $1.67 billion ($1,665,147,402) in 2024. The median provider received $39,796, down from $55,642 in 2019, and drugs were 40.9% of payments on the rows that publish the split, up from 27.4% (our calculation from CMS’s by Provider file; before inflation). (CMS) See details
8. 127,276 Medicare beneficiaries had an awake-and-drowsy EEG (CPT 95816) on a facility-setting line in 2024, across all specialties, down 27.5% from 175,590 in 2019 (CMS; our calculation). (CMS) See details
9. BLS estimated 10,590 wage and salary neurologist jobs in May 2025, with a median annual wage of $248,560. Florida’s estimate of 520 jobs carries a 45.6% relative standard error, so it is rough. (BLS) See details
10. Published counts of U.S. neurologists run from 10,590 wage and salary jobs (BLS, May 2025) to 26,614 certificates ever issued (American Board of Psychiatry and Neurology, December 2025); ABMS recorded 21,813 active certificates as of June 30, 2026, and 16,581 Neurology providers billed Medicare Part B in 2024. Each counts something different. (ABMS and others) See details
11. HRSA-based projections implied a gap of 2,710 full-time equivalent neurologists in 2024, in a 2026 analysis by Silvestre et al. A 2025 Neurology study of a 2018-2019 Medicare sample found a median wait of 34 days from referral to a first neurologist visit, and 18% waited more than 90 days. (Silvestre et al.; Lin et al.) See details
12. In a 2020 JAMA Neurology study of 44 outpatients at 8 U.S. epilepsy centers, expert review of a smartphone video predicted a video-EEG diagnosis of epileptic seizures 89.1% of the time, and adding video to history and exam raised correct diagnoses to 95.2%. In a 2026 study of 563 short-form epilepsy videos, 18.1% contained misinformation; in a January 2025 sample of 100 stroke TikToks, 31% did. (JAMA Neurology; Epileptic Disorders; Scientific Reports) See details
13. Stroke killed 166,852 U.S. residents in 2024, the fourth leading cause of death (NCHS). CDC says more than 795,000 people in the U.S. have a stroke each year, and about 2.9 million U.S. adults reported active epilepsy in 2021 and 2022. (NCHS; CDC) See details
14. The often-quoted 1.9 million neurons lost each minute in a stroke is a 2006 calculation, not a count; a 2019 study that applied a similar calculation to 415 patients got a mean of 2.03 million and a range up to more than 27 million a minute. The American Heart Association’s 2020 page says its 795,000 strokes a year estimate, the base of the 40-second interval, is based on 1999 data. (Stroke; American Heart Association) See details
15. 905 Form 10-K filings from 2001 to 2025 used the word neurologist or neurologists, and 101 of them also contained video or videos (our EDGAR count). NeuroPace’s fiscal 2025 report says its advertising costs include physician and patient testimonial videos. (SEC EDGAR; NeuroPace) See details

Who makes the most-viewed neurologist, stroke and seizure videos on YouTube?

Neurologists and neurology practices speaking as themselves made 18.7% of the on-topic videos among YouTube's most-viewed 'neurologist', 'stroke' and 'seizure' results on November 9, 2026, and drew 10.8% of their lifetime views (our count). We read YouTube's own view-sorted search results for those three words, the first four pages of each, through the YouTube Data API with no country filter, on that one date, and classified every channel by hand from its own text and sampled videos. This is one search ranking on one date, not a census of neurology video. Credentials were not checked; a channel's class rests on what its own text says.

The three lists held 576 unique videos from 388 channels, with 3,559,897,484 lifetime views in all. 127 of them, 22.0% of the videos and 62.5% of the views, were off-topic and are left out below. That leaves 449 on-topic videos with 1,333,672,634 views, and the median one had 1,020,281 views. View counts are lifetime snapshots and include ad views.

The sample held 26 neurologist or neurology practice channels, alongside 11 channels telling a patient's own story, 12 family or caregiver channels and 10 anonymous or re-post clip channels. Patients, families and clip channels appear in our tables only as a class and counts, with no channel title, handle, link, date or per-channel view figure: 33 channels in all are published that way. The same is true of a further 23 videos in named channels that show a private person's seizure or stroke, name a private patient or show a child having a seizure. Together 65 of the on-topic videos are withheld and they drew 30.4% of the on-topic views. We read metadata and did not watch the videos, so where a title or description left any doubt the video is withheld.

How much of a YouTube search for 'stroke' is about stroke?

Little of it: in the 'stroke' list on November 9, 2026, off-topic videos made 43.6% of the videos and drew 81.2% of the views (our count, YouTube's most-viewed results for that word). Most of those views went to music: videos by or about The Strokes and Stroke 9 drew 76.2% of the off-topic views across all three lists. One-stroke painting tutorials, swim, golf and drum strokes and two-stroke engines filled most of the rest of the 'stroke' list. Heat stroke, which is not a neurological stroke, is also excluded.

The other two lists were cleaner. In 'seizure', off-topic results (police, customs and asset seizures, film titles, songs, and pets' seizures) were 17.5% of the videos and 17.3% of the views. In 'neurologist' they were 3.8% of the videos and 13.0% of the views, mostly ASMR doctor roleplay.

How much of the on-topic viewing comes from a few channels?

The ten biggest channels drew 46.7% of the on-topic views in our November 9, 2026 sample and the three biggest drew 21.3% (our count, no tie at either cut-off; withheld channels are counted in the ranking but not named). The largest was Medical Arts Official, an animation channel, with 7.9%, almost all of it from one short animation of a clot being removed from a brain artery with 103,413,526 views.

The biggest channel from a neurologist was that of Dr K Neeraja, in Guntur, India: the channel drew 63.2% of the neurologist class's views, and its most-viewed video, an explainer on whether medicines can cause parkinsonism, had 11,506,772 views. Without that channel, neurologists and neurology practices drew 4.3% of the on-topic views, compared with 10.8% with it.

How do the 'neurologist', 'stroke' and 'seizure' lists differ?

Neurologists are nearly absent from the two disease searches: they drew 39.6% of the on-topic views in the 'neurologist' list on November 9, 2026, but only 1.8% in 'stroke' and 0.4% in 'seizure' (our count). The animation channels drew 31.9% of the 'stroke' views, ahead of every other class. In 'seizure', other clinicians drew 23.6%, media and general creators 21.3%, anonymous clip channels 21.1% and family or caregiver channels 13.6%. These are lifetime views of the on-topic part of each list, so a single very large video can move a whole column.

Where are neurologists' channels, and what do they post?

Of the 26 neurologist or neurology practice channels in our November 9, 2026 sample, 13 were placed in India and 6 in the United States, and U.S.-placed neurologists drew only 1.3% of the on-topic views on 4.5% of the videos (our count, from each channel's country setting or, where that was blank, the place its own text names). Channels placed in India drew 8.8%. The rest were in the United Arab Emirates, Brazil, Germany, Indonesia and Pakistan, or named no country.

No Florida-placed neurologist appeared: 0 channels of that class. 2 named channels placed themselves in Florida, neither of them a neurologist's, with 13,109,494 views between them: Kieram Litchfield, a Tampa creator who posts survival tips, and Dr. Eric Berg, a chiropractor with a Clearwater mailing address. A further Florida-placed clinician's sample video is withheld. 0 on-topic channels placed themselves in Palm Beach, Broward or Martin County; the only Palm Beach County address our text search found in the sample belongs to Southeast Veterinary Neurology, a veterinary practice with a Boynton Beach hospital, which is off-topic here. A global view-sorted search will not surface a local practice, so this says nothing about whether Florida neurologists post video.

The class's 84 sample videos are mostly plain patient education and clinic visibility. 32.1% ran 60 seconds or less, and 49 used the word neurologist or neurology in the title. Epilepsy or a seizure type was named in 7 titles, migraine in 6 and Alzheimer's disease or dementia in 0. Several of the U.S. channels speak to one condition: Dr. Brandon Beaber and Aaron Boster on multiple sclerosis, Dr. Omar Danoun on epilepsy, and Dr Painkiller on migraine and headache.

What do on-topic titles cover, and how long are the videos?

Titles naming epilepsy or a seizure type made 16.3% of the on-topic videos in our November 9, 2026 sample and drew 9.6% of the views, and titles naming stroke symptoms, warning signs or FAST made 8.7% and drew 6.4% (our count, both shaped by the search words). The other conditions were rare: migraine appeared in 7 titles, Parkinson's disease in 7, Alzheimer's disease or dementia in 5 and multiple sclerosis in 1, in part because no search word asked for them.

Videos of 60 seconds or less made 30.5% of the on-topic videos and drew 53.8% of the views. Topic counts are regular-expression matches on titles, hashtags included; we read every matching title by hand and corrected the misses.

Do these videos carry YouTube's made-for-kids or synthetic-content fields?

4 of the on-topic videos in our November 9, 2026 sample carried YouTube's made-for-kids designation, three of them Peekaboo Kidz science cartoons and one a Children's Hospital Colorado first-aid clip (our count, from the status part of the YouTube Data API that day). The containsSyntheticMedia field was present on 0 of the 576 videos. An absent field says nothing either way about how a video was made: 6 on-topic channels used a doctor-style name or a physician's voice with no stated credentials or place, and 2 of them said in their own text that their content is AI-assisted.

How often do U.S. neurologists' channels post?

The median U.S.-placed neurologist channel in our sample posted 113 videos in the 365 days to November 9, 2026 (our count, every upload in the window read through the YouTube Data API that day). Together the 6 channels posted 943 videos in that year, and 0 of them went a year without posting. The spread is wide: Dr Painkiller alone posted 517. Across all those uploads the median video had 3,562 views by the read date, far below the sample's median. These are the channels that surfaced in a view-sorted search, so they are not a sample of American neurologists.

Who makes the neurology videos on TikTok and YouTube?

The share made by doctors or health care professionals ran from 4% to 98.8% across five peer-reviewed studies published from 2020 to 2026 (our calculation). Each study sampled top results for one topic and coded uploaders its own way, so this is a spread across samples and not a share of all neurology video.

The low end is a 2023 study of the 100 most popular TikTok videos under the hashtag dementia: family members uploaded 65% and doctors 4% (Frontiers in Public Health). The high end is a 2026 study of 176 migraine TikTok videos in China, where 98.8% were physician-uploaded, 58.5% lacked a disease definition and 36.93% received a poor DISCERN rating (Computers, Informatics, Nursing). On YouTube, a 2020 study of 351 migraine videos with at least 10,000 views counted 9% authored by health care professionals and 44% focused on complementary and alternative medicine; together they had been viewed more than 163 million times (Cephalalgia). Health care professionals made 34% of the 100 most-liked stroke videos on TikTok in a 2025 study (Scientific Reports) and 36.1% of 313 Chinese-language stroke-prevention videos in another, ahead of news agencies at 30.4% and general individual users at 12.8% (JMIR Infodemiology). In a study of YouTube videos on daith piercing for migraine, searched to January 17, 2024, one of 246 videos came from a health care professional and 69 were personal-experience videos (Health Science Reports).

The table sets the studies side by side. Scores use DISCERN, the Global Quality Scale (GQS), the JAMA benchmark or a checklist built for that study; higher is better on each. DISCERN appears on more than one scale in these abstracts, so a figure such as 43.44 of a possible 75 cannot be compared with a mean of 3.09. Dates are publication years unless the abstract gave the search date.

How often are neurology videos misleading?

Across four peer-reviewed studies published from 2017 to 2026 that coded videos as misleading or containing misinformation, the share ran from 18.1% to 47.4% (our calculation). Definitions, languages and years differ, and the top of the range comes from a sample of 19 videos, so this shows spread and not a trend. The low end is the 2026 sample of 563 short-form epilepsy videos, at 18.1% across platforms and 31.7% on TikTok. In the 2017 Korean-language sample of 138 Parkinson’s disease videos, two neurologists rated 22.5% misleading, and those videos averaged 5,075.0 views against 2,146.8 for reliable ones (Journal of Clinical Neuroscience).

Labeling is a separate problem. In the 2026 short-form sample, 115 videos presented a clinical spell, and the evaluators judged 67.8% of those likely to be functional or dissociative seizures, not epileptic seizures (Epileptic Disorders). They judged from the video alone, with no EEG or clinical confirmation. In the 2023 TikTok study, 26 of 47 event videos called a nonepileptic event an epileptic seizure (Epileptic Disorders). Neurologists themselves disagree when they see only a video: in the 2013 YouTube sample, at least three of four pediatric neurologists agreed that 35% of 162 videos showed epileptic seizures, with moderate agreement overall (Epilepsy & Behavior).

Do popular neurology videos score better?

Not in these samples: in the January 2025 sample of 100 stroke-related TikTok videos, the correlation between content quality and user engagement was -0.08, not statistically significant (Scientific Reports). In a 2026 sample of 182 Chinese-language epilepsy videos, a treatment misinformation risk score built for that study rose with likes, a correlation of 0.46 (Scientific Reports). In the 2023 dementia sample on TikTok, the videos uploaded by doctors had the highest quality scores and the lowest popularity (Frontiers in Public Health). In a 2025 study of Alzheimer’s disease videos on Douyin and Bilibili, professionals’ videos scored higher while patient-uploaded videos drew more engagement (Digital Health). These are correlations among top search results and do not show cause.

How much do quality scores vary across studies?

Scores vary widely: across eight peer-reviewed studies published from 2022 to 2026 that reported a Global Quality Scale score, the 12 published means or medians ran from 1.0 to 3.25 (our calculation). Altunisik et al. report the scale with a maximum of 5. Some studies give means and others medians, and the samples, topics, platforms and years differ, so the table shows the spread and not an average.

How accurate is a smartphone video for diagnosing seizures?

In a multicenter study published in JAMA Neurology in 2020, expert review of a smartphone video predicted a video-EEG diagnosis of epileptic seizures 89.1% of the time, with a specificity of 93.3% (JAMA Neurology). The OSmartViE study ran at 8 U.S. academic epilepsy centers from August 31, 2015 to August 31, 2018, with 44 outpatients who volunteered a video before video-EEG monitoring; 11 of them had epileptic seizures, and the reviewers were experts. Adding video to history and physical examination raised correct diagnoses from 78.6% to 95.2%, odds 5.45 times higher with a confidence interval of 1.01 to 54.3 (JAMA Neurology). In the same cohort, reviewers rated video quality suitable in 70.8% of 530 views (European Journal of Neurology).

A second study points the same way: among 50 U.S. veterans at the Houston VA Medical Center from December 2015 to June 2019, epileptologists reviewing home video alone had a diagnostic accuracy of 88.0% against video-EEG, with moderate agreement between raters (Epilepsy & Behavior). Video-EEG remained the reference standard in both studies. In a retrospective cohort of 80 infants with infantile epileptic spasms syndrome at two U.S. pediatric centers from 2015 to 2021, those whose spasms were captured on smartphone video were diagnosed and started treatment 17 days earlier than those without video (The Journal of Pediatrics). That is an association: families who filmed may also have sought care sooner.

How long does video EEG monitoring need to run?

That depends on the question and on how often events happen. In a retrospective analysis of 3,644 ambulatory in-home video-EEG recordings from a national in-home provider, March to September 2020, over 97% of first typical events in adult and geriatric patients occurred within 72 hours, and 98% of first events in children within 48 hours (Epilepsia Open). The data come from a commercial provider. A separate retrospective review of home recordings found that diagnostic and classification questions needed at least 7 days of monitoring for at least 99% of studies to be answered, and that the first event did not fully answer the question in 29.6% (Clinical Neurophysiology). The two papers ask different questions, so the figures do not contradict each other.

Capture also tracked event frequency. Of 149 ambulatory video-EEG studies ordered by adult epileptologists to capture an event between June 2021 and August 2022, 46% recorded the typical event, rising to 84% among patients who on average had daily events (Neurology Clinical Practice). For people being assessed for epilepsy surgery, a systematic review of 36 articles and 4,703 patients put the average yield of long-term video-EEG at 85%, with an averaged adverse event rate of 17% (Epileptic Disorders); the authors note that the reporting of adverse events varied.

Access is harder to measure. In a study published in Seizure in 2021 of 341 consecutive patients with dissociative seizures documented by video-EEG, the mean time from first seizure to monitoring was 8.4 years, with a median of 3 years (Seizure). The abstracts we read gave no national U.S. count of epilepsy monitoring unit beds or waiting times.

Do education videos change what patients and caregivers know?

In most of these trials knowledge rose, while effects on anything beyond knowledge were mixed. In a cluster randomized trial in 22 schools with 1,144 parents, published in 2018, a 3-hour multimedia stroke program delivered to children raised the share of parents who could identify all four letters of the FAST acronym from 3% at baseline to 20% immediately afterwards and 17% at three months; controls stayed at 3% (Stroke). The program is multimedia and works through children, so it does not isolate video, and it measured knowledge and preparedness and not stroke outcomes.

Results were not uniformly favorable. In the seizure first-aid project, families shown the video recalled the first aid less often than families who had standard counseling, though the overall difference did not reach statistical significance (Journal of Child Neurology). In the migraine trial only 61.9% of those randomized completed the study (Journal of Clinical Neuroscience). Our PubMed searches on November 9, 2026 found no randomized trial of an education video specifically for deep brain stimulation, epilepsy surgery or thrombolysis consent, so this page makes no claim about them.

What does the telestroke research measure?

Results differ by design and by measure. In a matched study of 153,272 traditional Medicare beneficiaries with acute ischemic stroke from January 2008 to June 2017, patients at hospitals with telestroke capacity received reperfusion treatment at a rate of 6.8% against 6.0% at matched control hospitals (JAMA Neurology), with 30-day mortality of 13.1% against 13.6% and no difference in days spent living in the community after discharge or in spending (JAMA Neurology). This is an observational comparison of hospitals that had telestroke capacity with similar hospitals that did not.

Door-to-needle time findings point in different directions. Among 3,036 patients potentially eligible for thrombolysis at 42 Michigan hospitals in 2022 and 2023, those evaluated by telestroke had higher odds of receiving thrombolysis, with an adjusted odds ratio of 1.61, but door-to-needle times 6.55 minutes longer than patients not evaluated by telestroke (JAMA Network Open). A 2024 meta-analysis found mean door-to-needle times of 73.03 minutes with telemedicine and 65.91 minutes without, a difference that was not statistically significant (International Journal of Stroke). A 2018 meta-analysis of 26 studies and 6,605 thrombolysed patients reported a mean difference in onset-to-door time of -10.4 minutes with telestroke, and an onset-to-treatment difference of -5.90 minutes that was not significant under a random-effects model (Prehospital Emergency Care); the authors call for further randomized trials.

Two studies look beyond emergency treatment. At 15 German hospitals from October 2022 to December 2024, a nonrandomized study of 501 patients who each received both a video and an on-site ward round found complete adherence to six guideline-based quality domains in 92% of teleneurological rounds and 54% of on-site rounds (JAMA Neurology). Blinded experts rated the documentation, so this measures documented guideline adherence and not patient outcomes. At 19 regional hospitals in one stroke network, expanding telestroke to inpatient consultation between January 2018 and June 2022 was followed by a 31% decrease in transfers to the hub hospital, with no change in thrombolysis rate or door-to-needle time (Annals of Neurology); there was no control group.

What is known about video visits in neurology clinics?

In a randomized trial of 195 people with Parkinson’s disease, published in 2017, adding four virtual house calls by video from a remote specialist to usual care did not improve quality of life: scores were 0.3 points worse on a 100-point scale, and 98% of the intervention group completed at least one virtual visit (Neurology). Each virtual house call saved patients a median of 88 minutes. Participants were largely college-educated and white and had recently seen a specialist, so the result may not transfer to other groups.

Other outpatient figures come from single systems. Of 4,670 ambulatory video visits in neurology at one health care system from January 1 to May 1, 2021, 9.2% were no-shows and 90.8% were completed (Cureus); the abstract does not report an in-person comparison. In the VA National Teleneurology Program at 12 sites in fiscal year 2021, 71.3% of 1,521 consults were completed, and consults were scheduled in 10.1 days against 29.0 days for community care neurology (Journal of General Internal Medicine). That evaluation covered Veterans only, with control sites but no randomization.

How firm is this evidence?

Most of the content studies above ran one search, often on one day, and scored only the top results for a short list of terms; a search on another date or from another location could return different videos. Several cover a single language or a single country’s platforms, including the Chinese-language studies by Ge et al. and Zhang et al. and the Korean-language study by Kim et al. Reviewers score videos against instruments that use judgment, and those instruments differ from study to study. The content studies rate the videos; they do not measure what viewers did afterwards.

The smartphone seizure studies are small and selected, and they measure diagnostic accuracy against video-EEG in people already referred. Many of the education trials are small, and most measure knowledge or satisfaction and not clinical outcomes. Apart from the randomized Parkinson’s disease trial, the telestroke and teleneurology studies above are observational, nonrandomized or pooled from earlier studies. These figures describe what each study measured; they are not medical advice.

How many neurologists are there in the United States?

The American Board of Medical Specialties (ABMS) recorded 21,813 active neurology certificates at U.S. locations as of June 30, 2026 (ABMS), but published counts of U.S. neurologists run from 10,590 wage and salary jobs to 26,614 certificates ever issued. No single figure is the number of neurologists. Each source counts something different, and the gaps are large.

Certificates outnumber practicing doctors. The certifying board counts 18,357 active certificates among diplomates certified in 1991 or later, which is 88% of that group (ABPN). Its 26,614 covers every certificate since 1935, so the two figures have different bases. The ABMS count is 1.19 times the board’s active count (our calculation), though the two are six months apart and the board’s active column leaves out physicians certified before 1991. The AAMC row is from 2017, the most recent specialty table we could check line by line. Medicare billing counts appear in the Medicare section of this page.

Child neurology and the subspecialties are counted separately, and they overlap with general neurology because ABMS notes that a physician can hold more than one certificate. ABMS recorded 3,353 active child neurology certificates at U.S. locations (ABMS), 2,408 in epilepsy (ABMS), 2,233 in vascular neurology (ABMS) and 993 in neuromuscular medicine held through ABPN (ABMS). Adding these rows double counts people.

How many neurologists does Florida have?

ABMS recorded 1,344 active neurology certificates at Florida locations as of June 30, 2026 (ABMS), which is 6.2% of the U.S. total (our calculation). California held the most of any state, at 2,623 (ABMS). These are certificates by recorded address, and they include retired physicians.

Florida’s own physician workforce survey gives a larger number. In the Florida Department of Health’s 2026 annual report, 1,368 physicians who renewed a Florida licence between July 1, 2024 and June 30, 2026, answered the survey and provide direct patient care listed neurology as their specialty (Florida Department of Health). That total includes 126 physicians with an out-of-state address (Florida Department of Health) and 3 with no county listed (Florida Department of Health). The federal wage survey is far lower, at 520 Florida jobs in May 2025, and it leaves out the self-employed.

The report’s county appendix lists 93 neurology physicians in Palm Beach County (Florida Department of Health), 110 in Broward County (Florida Department of Health) and 14 in Martin County (Florida Department of Health), or 217 across the three (our calculation). The same survey found 600 physicians who provide on-call services and list neurology (Florida Department of Health). 166 neurology physicians said they planned to change their scope of practice within five years, a group that includes those planning to stop direct patient care in Florida (Florida Department of Health). That is 12.1% of the physicians listing neurology (our calculation).

Per resident, Florida sits below the national figure. Using the Census Bureau’s July 1, 2025 estimate of 23,462,518 Florida residents (Census Bureau), the state had 5.7 active neurology certificates per 100,000 residents (our calculation). The U.S. figure was 6.4, on 341,784,857 residents (Census Bureau) (our calculation). Massachusetts had the highest rate of any state, 14.3, from 1,021 certificates (ABMS) and 7,154,084 residents (Census Bureau) (our calculation). Wyoming had the lowest, 2.2, from 13 certificates (ABMS) and 588,753 residents (Census Bureau) (our calculation). These rates count certificates, retired holders included, and the ABMS national total also includes a small number of certificates in U.S. territories and at military addresses.

How many new neurologists are certified each year?

The American Board of Psychiatry and Neurology issued 899 new neurology certificates in 2025, by ABMS’s count (ABMS), up from 644 in 2016 (ABMS), a rise of 39.6% (our calculation). It issued 193 new child neurology certificates in 2025 (ABMS).

In 2025, 1,240 candidates took the board’s initial neurology certification exam (ABPN), and 73% passed (ABPN). The board is the certifying body, so these are its own exam records.

Is there a neurologist shortage?

Federal projections put neurologist supply below demand. A 2026 Journal of Clinical Neuroscience analysis (Silvestre et al.) of Health Resources and Services Administration projections put U.S. neurologist supply at 21,010 full-time equivalents in 2024 (Silvestre et al.) against demand of 23,720 (Silvestre et al.), a gap of 2,710 (our calculation). Supply covered 88.6% of demand in 2024 (Silvestre et al.) and was projected to cover 91.2% in 2037 (Silvestre et al.). Neurology ranked 29th of 35 specialties for adequacy in 2024 (Silvestre et al.). These are model projections in full-time equivalents, not counts of doctors.

The gap is uneven in that analysis. Projected adequacy in 2037 was 77.5% in the South (Silvestre et al.) and 21.4% in non-metropolitan areas (Silvestre et al.).

An earlier model reached a similar conclusion from a different starting point. A 2013 Neurology study (Dall et al.) estimated 16,366 active neurologists in 2012 and projected demand of about 18,180 that year (Dall et al.), a shortfall it put at 11% (Dall et al.). It projected demand of 21,440 by 2025 (Dall et al.), a 19% shortfall (Dall et al.). These are modelled figures from 2013.

Local access varies more than state totals show. In a 2021 Neurology study (Lin et al.) of 2015 Medicare data, the lowest-density fifth of hospital referral regions averaged 9.7 neurologists per 100,000 Medicare beneficiaries (Lin et al.), and the highest-density fifth averaged 43.1 (Lin et al.). In the same data, 23.5% of Medicare patients with a neurologic condition were seen by a neurologist (Lin et al.). A 2026 Headache study (Ong et al.), using the National Provider Identifier registry, found that 66.3% of U.S. counties had no neurologists as of January 7, 2026 (Ong et al.).

How long do patients wait to see a neurologist?

The median wait from referral to a first neurologist visit was 34 days in a 2025 Neurology study (Lin et al.) of a 2018-2019 Medicare sample (Lin et al.), and 18% of patients waited more than 90 days (Lin et al.). The study covered 163,313 Medicare beneficiaries who had a new-patient neurologist visit after a referral (Lin et al.). It measures Medicare patients who did reach a neurologist, so it says nothing about younger patients or people who never got an appointment.

How common is burnout among neurologists?

About 60% of U.S. neurologists who answered a 2016 survey had at least one symptom of burnout, in a study published in Neurology in 2017 (Busis et al.) (Busis et al.). The survey went to American Academy of Neurology members who had finished training, between January 19 and March 21, 2016. It had 1,671 respondents (Busis et al.), a 40.5% response rate (Busis et al.). The academy is an association of neurologists, and the respondents are its members.

A 2018 secondary analysis of the same survey (LaFaver et al., Neurology) found that 64.6% of women (LaFaver et al.) and 57.8% of men met burnout criteria (LaFaver et al.). A 2025 systematic review (Guo et al., Neurology: Clinical Practice) found that 65.9% of 7,816 neurologists assessed with the Maslach Burnout Inventory reported burnout (Guo et al.), though the studies it pooled used different tools and cutoffs (Guo et al.).

In a survey of U.S. epilepsy attending physicians distributed from October 2024 to February 2025 (Freund et al., Epilepsy & Behavior, 2026), there were 176 respondents (Freund et al.), and 54.0% reported burnout (Freund et al.). These surveys rely on self-report and on the physicians who chose to answer.

How much do neurologists use telehealth?

In the American Medical Association’s 2024 Physician Practice Benchmark Survey, 21.8% of neurologists provided more than 20% of their weekly visits by videoconferencing, the highest share among the medical subspecialties the report breaks out (AMA). Another 32.6% gave no video visits that week (AMA). The AMA is a physician association and this is its own survey. The neurology sample was small, at 86 physicians (AMA).

Claims data measure something else. In the AMA’s analysis of 2024 Medicare Part B claims, 7.3% of neurologists’ telehealth-eligible allowed charges were billed as telehealth (AMA). The survey asks whether a physician used video in a week, while the claims measure a share of Medicare billing, so the two numbers answer different questions.

How many neurologists bill Medicare?

CMS’s Medicare Physician & Other Practitioners file lists 16,581 providers of type Neurology who billed Medicare Part B fee-for-service in 2024 (CMS), up 11.3% from 14,897 in 2019 (CMS) (our calculation). The file is built from original Medicare claims only. It leaves out Medicare Advantage, and it cannot see patients outside Medicare, including people under 65 who are not on Medicare. It also does not list providers with fewer than 11 beneficiaries. So it counts people billing one payer. It is not a head count of neurologists, and every count in this section understates the work as Medicare Advantage grows.

CMS gives each provider one type a year, assigned from the claims. A search of the 2019 and 2024 files for any type containing “neuro” returns three: Neurology, Neuropsychiatry and Neurosurgery. No type called Interventional Neuroradiology exists in either file. The 2024 file also has a type called Epileptologists, with 25 providers (CMS), and the 2019 file lists 0 of that type (CMS). This page reports them separately and merges none of them into Neurology. Neurosurgery is a surgical specialty, listed here only so the three can be told apart: 5,149 providers in 2024 (CMS) and 4,887 in 2019 (CMS).

Florida’s Neurology count rose 21.2% from 2019 to 2024, and Florida holds 7.5% of the U.S. total (our calculation). Only California and New York have more.

How many neurologists bill Medicare in Palm Beach, Broward and Martin counties?

85 providers of type Neurology with a Palm Beach County practice address billed Medicare Part B fee-for-service in 2024, 89 in Broward County and 13 in Martin County, by our match of CMS’s by Provider file to the Census Bureau’s ZIP-to-county relationship file. The three counties hold 15.1% of Florida’s 1,241 Neurology providers (our calculation).

These are not head counts of every neurologist in those counties. A neurologist who saw only Medicare Advantage or commercial patients, or 10 or fewer Medicare Part B fee-for-service beneficiaries, is not in the file. Medicare is one payer: patients under 65 who are not on Medicare do not appear at all. A ZIP code split across counties goes to the county holding most of its land, so a practice in a border ZIP can count in the neighboring county.

The county payment totals do not measure how much neurology each county does, because a county whose patients are more often in Medicare Advantage shows less in this file. Palm Beach County’s total is more than three times Broward’s on a similar count of providers. Drugs explain part of that: on the rows that publish CMS’s drug and medical split, drugs were 53.2% of payments in Palm Beach County, against 29.9% in Broward County (our calculation). The file does not say why the rest of the gap exists, and a few providers’ totals can move a county figure this size. The county counts and payment sums are in this page’s aggregate CSV, which holds no provider names or NPIs.

How much does Medicare pay neurologists?

Medicare paid providers of type Neurology $1.67 billion (1,665,147,402) for Part B fee-for-service services in 2024, by our sum of CMS’s by Provider file. That is 5.0% more than the $1.59 billion (1,585,144,359) it paid them in 2019, before inflation (our calculation). Florida’s Neurology providers received $170.5 million (170,529,746) in 2024, and providers of the separate type Neuropsychiatry received $10.9 million (10,877,480) nationally (our calculation). The file cannot tell a change in care or in Medicare’s prices apart from patients moving to Medicare Advantage, whose claims it leaves out. A payment total is what Medicare paid for services. It is not a physician’s income. CMS’s methodology also warns that some providers bill under both an individual and an organizational NPI, so a provider’s full total cannot be seen in the file.

The typical neurologist’s Medicare total went the other way. A median provider is the one in the middle of the list: half received more and half received less. The median provider of type Neurology received $39,796 from Medicare Part B fee-for-service in 2024, down 28.5% from $55,642 in 2019, before inflation (our calculation). The median Florida provider of that type received $49,491 in 2024 (our calculation). The total rose while the median fell. The file does not say why, and more providers with small Medicare billings would pull the median down as well.

Drug payments are part of the picture. On the rows where CMS publishes the split between drug payments and other payments, drugs made up 40.9% of Medicare Part B payments to providers of type Neurology in 2024, up from 27.4% in 2019 (our calculation). Those rows show at least $592.1 million (592,109,371) in drug payments in 2024 and $368.4 million (368,399,064) in 2019. Drug payments rose 60.7% over the period, while payments for other medical services fell 12.4%, both before inflation (our calculation). CMS withholds the split where fewer than 11 beneficiaries had a drug service, so the drug figures are floors. Drug payments are for the drugs themselves, so they do not show what a provider earns.

183 providers of type Neurology received $1 million or more from Medicare Part B fee-for-service in 2024, against 108 in 2019 (our calculation). 156 of those in 2024 received more than half of it for drugs (our calculation). The top 10% of providers by payment received 56.8% of the Medicare Part B payments to the type in 2024 (our calculation).

How many Medicare patients have an EEG or a video EEG?

127,276 Medicare beneficiaries had an EEG while awake and drowsy (CPT 95816) on a facility-setting line in 2024, across all specialties, in CMS’s by Geography and Service file (CMS), down 27.5% from 175,590 in 2019 (CMS; our calculation). CMS describes the code as “Measurement of brain wave activity (eeg), awake and drowsy”. 81,826 beneficiaries had the same test on an office-setting line (CMS), down 2.0% from 83,484 (CMS; our calculation). The file counts Medicare Part B fee-for-service patients only, so a fall can reflect patients moving to Medicare Advantage as well as fewer tests.

Each row counts people for one code in one setting, so a patient with both kinds of EEG, or tested in both settings, counts on each row and the rows cannot be added. CMS’s file also has rows for 95812, 95813, 95822 and 95829 in 2024. Codes 95827 and 95830 have rows in the 2019 file and none in the 2024 file. CMS’s methodology says facility-setting lines generally represent the physician’s professional fee, so a facility-setting line does not show what a whole test cost Medicare.

Long-term EEG has its own series of codes, 95700 to 95726, split by hours of recording and by whether video was used. None of them has a row in the 2019 file, and they first appear in the 2020 file. The largest row in the series, CPT 95720, is a health care professional’s review and report of a 12-26 hour video EEG (CMS’s words: “Measurement of brain wave activity with video (veeg), 12-26 hours with review and report by health care professional”). 54,863 beneficiaries had it on a facility-setting line in 2024 (CMS), up 13.3% from 48,402 in 2020 (CMS; our calculation), the code’s first year in the file and a pandemic year. 2,896 had it on an office-setting line in 2020 (CMS).

CMS’s descriptions for 95717 to 95726 name a health care professional’s review and report, while those for 95700 to 95716 do not, so the recording and the reading of one study can sit on different lines. For example, 7,176 beneficiaries had 12-26 hours of video EEG recording with intermittent monitoring on an office-setting line in 2024 under CPT 95715 (CMS). The rows are not patient totals: a study billed under more than one code counts on each.

Providers of type Neurology hold 89.6% of the beneficiary counts on published lines for CPT 95816 in CMS’s 2024 provider-and-service file, both settings, and 95.8% for CPT 95720 (our calculation). These shares sum beneficiary counts across lines, so a patient billed by two providers counts on both lines, and CMS hides any line with fewer than 11 beneficiaries.

The 2019 file carries older codes for long seizure monitoring. 58,149 beneficiaries had CPT 95951 on a facility-setting line in 2019 (CMS) and 15,448 on an office-setting line (CMS). CMS describes it as “Monitoring and localization of seizure activity over 24-hour period using 16-channel electroencephalograph (EEG)”. The code has no row in the 2020 file or the 2024 file. This page gives no change between the older code and the newer series, because they are different codes that count the work differently.

How many Medicare patients have EMG and nerve conduction tests?

409,256 Medicare beneficiaries had a complete needle electromyography study of arm or leg muscles (CPT 95886) on an office-setting line in 2024, across all specialties, in CMS’s by Geography and Service file (CMS), down 13.1% from 471,206 in 2019 (CMS; our calculation). CMS describes the code as “Needle measurement of electrical activity in arm or leg muscles, complete study”. On facility-setting lines the count was 73,288 in 2024 (CMS), down 9.6% from 81,071 (CMS; our calculation). The limited study, CPT 95885, had 58,765 beneficiaries on office-setting lines in 2024 (CMS) and 69,854 in 2019 (CMS). CMS also has smaller rows for CPT 95887, “Needle measurement of electrical activity in trunk or head muscles”.

Neurologists share this work with another specialty. Lines of providers of type Neurology hold 59.7% of the beneficiary counts on published lines for CPT 95886 in CMS’s 2024 provider-and-service file, both settings, and lines of physical medicine and rehabilitation providers hold 32.4% (our calculation, summed across lines as above).

Nerve conduction tests are billed by how many studies were done. Office-setting beneficiaries billed under CPT 95911, nine to ten studies, went from 148,148 in 2019 (CMS) to 136,804 in 2024. Beneficiaries under CPT 95910, seven to eight studies, went from 127,406 in 2019 (CMS) to 101,351 in 2024 on the same lines.

How many Medicare patients have botulinum injections billed under the migraine code?

57,747 Medicare beneficiaries had injections under CPT 64615 on an office-setting line in 2024, across all specialties, in CMS’s by Geography and Service file (CMS), up 28.4% from 44,990 in 2019 (CMS; our calculation). On facility-setting lines the count was 9,819 in 2024 (CMS), down 0.3% from 9,853 (CMS; our calculation). CMS’s claims file describes code 64615 as “Injection of chemical for paralysis of facial and neck nerve muscles on both sides of face”, and its Physician Fee Schedule gives code 64615 the short label “Chemodenerv musc migraine” (CMS fee schedule). The claims file has no diagnosis field, so these are counts of people billed under the code. They are not counts of people with migraine. The toxin itself has its own drug code, J0585 (“Injection, onabotulinumtoxina, 1 unit”), used for any condition: 123,638 beneficiaries had it on an office-setting line in 2024, across all specialties (CMS).

Providers of type Neurology hold 61.2% of the beneficiary counts on published lines for CPT 64615 in CMS’s 2024 provider-and-service file, both settings (our calculation). Nurse practitioners’ and other specialties’ lines hold the rest.

How many Medicare patients are billed for Alzheimer’s and multiple sclerosis infusions?

4,734 Medicare beneficiaries received lecanemab-irmb (HCPCS J0174, which CMS describes as “Injection, lecanemab-irmb, 1 mg”) on an office-setting line in 2024, across all specialties, in CMS’s by Geography and Service file (CMS). 1,142 received donanemab-azbt (HCPCS J0175, “Injection, donanemab-azbt, 2 mg”) (CMS). Neither code has a row in the 2019 file. Both counts are beneficiaries, because the service count for a drug code is billing units (1 mg for lecanemab, 2 mg for donanemab), not people or doses. The file holds claims from physicians and other practitioners, so a drug billed by a hospital outpatient department is not in these counts.

5,160 beneficiaries received ocrelizumab, an infused multiple sclerosis drug (HCPCS J2350, “Injection, ocrelizumab, 1 mg”), on an office-setting line in 2024 (CMS), up 19.1% from 4,334 in 2019 (CMS; our calculation). 1,501 received natalizumab (HCPCS J2323, “Injection, natalizumab, 1 mg”) in 2024 (CMS), down 36.7% from 2,370 in 2019 (CMS; our calculation). Medicare Advantage patients are not in either year, and a shift of infusions to hospital billing would look like a fall here.

Lecanemab is billed more often on nurse practitioners’ lines than on neurologists’ lines. Nurse practitioners’ lines hold 57.4% of the beneficiary counts on published lecanemab lines in CMS’s 2024 provider-and-service file, and lines of providers of type Neurology hold 29.9% (our calculation). For ocrelizumab, Neurology lines hold 61.5% (our calculation). These shares sum beneficiary counts across lines, so a patient billed by two providers counts on both lines, and CMS hides any line with fewer than 11 beneficiaries. The file does not say who supervised an infusion or who ordered it.

Among all drugs on published Neurology lines, botulinum toxin is the largest by Medicare payment. Onabotulinumtoxina (J0585) made up 40.8% of the drug payments on those lines in 2024, and ocrelizumab 15.2%, ahead of an immune globulin product (HCPCS J1561) (our calculation). Published lines hold only part of the drug payments, because CMS hides lines with fewer than 11 beneficiaries, and low-volume infused drugs are the likeliest to be hidden.

What can Medicare’s neurology data show about telehealth?

The public files can identify telehealth only by code. Three codes name telehealth in CMS’s own description: G0425, G0426 and G0427, each a “Telehealth consultation, emergency department or initial inpatient”, typically 30, 50 or 70 or more minutes. On office-setting lines, all specialties, beneficiaries under G0426 went from 10,459 in 2019 (CMS) to 27,765 in 2024 (CMS), up 165.5% (our calculation).

Providers of type Neurology hold 59.0% of the beneficiary counts on published lines for G0425, G0426 and G0427 in CMS’s 2024 provider-and-service file, both settings (our calculation). Nurse practitioners and other specialties also bill these codes. The file does not say which consultations were for stroke.

CMS’s 2024 provider-and-service file shows 27,518 audio-only telephone evaluation and management services (CPT 99441-99443) on the published lines of providers of type Neurology, and the 2019 file has no published line of that type for those codes (our calculation). Lines with fewer than 11 beneficiaries are hidden, so this is a floor, and it covers only telephone codes billed by that one provider type.

The files cannot measure telehealth directly. The place-of-service field in CMS’s by Geography and Service file holds only two values, facility and office, and we confirmed that the two account for every row in the 2024 file. Video visits billed under ordinary office-visit codes therefore cannot be separated from in-person visits in these public files, and the file carries no billing modifiers, so stroke consultations cannot be separated from other telehealth consultations.

How many neurologists does BLS count?

The Bureau of Labor Statistics estimated 10,590 wage and salary jobs for neurologists (SOC 29-1217) in the U.S. in May 2025, in its Occupational Employment and Wage Statistics (OEWS) survey of employers (BLS). The estimate has a relative standard error of 9.9% (BLS). Neurologists have their own occupation code, so this count is the specialty itself and not a wider group.

The Occupational Outlook Handbook, which also counts the self-employed, puts the occupation at about 11,400 U.S. jobs in 2025 (BLS). BLS’s Employment Projections put the self-employed share of those jobs at 3.7% in 2025 (BLS). The OEWS survey leaves out owners of unincorporated practices who pay themselves from profits, which is one reason its count is lower.

Neurologists made up 1.4% of the 754,760 U.S. wage and salary jobs in BLS’s broad Physicians group (SOC 29-1210, which does not include surgeons) in May 2025 (BLS) (our calculation).

How much do neurologists earn?

The median annual wage for U.S. wage and salary neurologists was $248,560 in May 2025, per BLS OEWS (BLS). That was 4.9 times the $50,980 median for all U.S. occupations (BLS) and 8.3% below the $271,090 median for the broad Physicians group (BLS) (our calculations). These figures cover wages and salaries only, not practice owners’ profits.

The mean annual wage was $267,630 (BLS), above the median. One in ten of these jobs paid less than $83,370 a year in May 2025 (BLS), and one in ten paid more than $450,780 (BLS). OEWS has no codes for neurology subspecialties, so these figures cannot separate epilepsy, stroke or movement disorder specialists.

In the Occupational Outlook Handbook’s May 2025 list of 17 detailed physician and surgeon occupations, the neurologist median sits between general internal medicine physicians at $256,560 (BLS) and family medicine physicians at $244,180 (BLS).

BLS tables could not show the middle of that range two years earlier. For May 2023, BLS printed no median, 75th or 90th percentile annual wage for neurologists: those cells carried its top-code footnote, meaning the wage was at least $239,200 a year (BLS). The May 2025 estimates print those percentiles as values. BLS advises against comparing OEWS estimates across years, so we do not set the two tables side by side.

Where do neurologists work?

Offices of physicians employed 61.8% of U.S. wage and salary neurologists in May 2025, per BLS OEWS, and general medical and surgical hospitals employed 26.7% (our calculations).

The median wage in general medical and surgical hospitals was 9.1% above the median in offices of physicians (our calculation). OEWS does not say why. BLS returned the same median for offices of physicians as for all industries combined, so the office median in the table and the national median above are the same number. BLS printed no median for outpatient care centers: that cell carries its top-code footnote, meaning at least $239,200 a year. BLS has no separate industry for neurology practices: they sit inside offices of physicians, the shared industry in the next section.

How many neurologists work in Florida, the Miami area and the Port St. Lucie area?

BLS OEWS estimated 520 wage and salary neurologist jobs in Florida in May 2025 (BLS), 4.9% of the U.S. count (our calculation). The estimate is rough: its relative standard error is 45.6% (BLS). Florida’s median annual wage for neurologists was $322,750 (BLS), 29.8% above the U.S. median (our calculation). Its mean was $241,970 (BLS), with a wage relative standard error of 16.8% (BLS). BLS published the same figure, $322,750, for the Florida 75th percentile as for the median (BLS). With estimates this imprecise, the gap against the national median is a weak signal.

BLS publishes no OEWS estimates for counties or for metropolitan divisions, so nothing here reaches the West Palm Beach or Fort Lauderdale divisions on their own. Palm Beach and Broward counties sit inside the Miami-Fort Lauderdale-West Palm Beach metro area, and Martin County sits inside the Port St. Lucie metro area. For the Miami metro area, BLS suppressed the May 2025 neurologist count, its relative standard error, the jobs per 1,000 and the location quotient, marking each “Estimate not released.” It did publish wages: a mean of $254,260 (BLS) and a median of $131,220 (BLS), with a wage relative standard error of 28.0% (BLS). A median that far below the mean, on an estimate with no released job count, should be read as rough. BLS published no May 2025 neurologist estimate of any kind for the Port St. Lucie metro area. OEWS therefore gives no neurologist count for Palm Beach, Broward or Martin counties. The Medicare billing data on this page is the place to look for those counties.

How fast are neurologist jobs expected to grow?

BLS projects neurologist jobs to grow 6.4% from 2025 to 2035, per its Employment Projections (BLS), compared with 3.6% for the broad Physicians group (BLS) and 3.5% for all occupations (BLS). The Occupational Outlook Handbook puts that at 12,100 U.S. jobs in 2035, up from 11,400 in 2025 (BLS). BLS expects about 0.3 thousand openings a year from 2025 to 2035, from growth and from replacing workers who leave the occupation (BLS). These projections count all neurologist jobs, including the self-employed. The occupation is small, so a percentage projection here rests on a change of a few hundred jobs and can shift when BLS revises its estimates.

How many physician offices of all specialties are there in the U.S.?

Neurology practices are counted inside offices of physicians (NAICS 621111), an industry shared with every physician specialty except mental health specialists, so every figure in this section covers all physician offices, not neurology practices alone. Other specialty pages, such as our cardiology video statistics and allergist video statistics, carry the same shared figures.

BLS’s Quarterly Census of Employment and Wages (QCEW), which counts employers covered by unemployment insurance, averaged 226,698 private physician offices of all specialties in the U.S. in 2025 (BLS), up from 204,988 in 2019 (BLS): a rise of 10.6% (our calculation).

The Census Bureau’s County Business Patterns counted 204,617 U.S. employer physician offices of all specialties in 2023, the newest year available when we checked (Census). Census’s Nonemployer Statistics counted 190,427 U.S. physician-office businesses with no paid staff in 2024 (Census). Those two counts cover different years and different kinds of business, so we do not add them. A nonemployer is any business with no paid employees, which can include part-time or side income, so that count is not a count of full-time practices.

How many physician-office businesses of all specialties had no paid staff in 2023?

Nonemployer businesses made up 47.7% of U.S. physician-office businesses of all specialties in 2023 (our calculation). That share sets Census’s 2023 Nonemployer Statistics beside its 2023 County Business Patterns, so both inputs come from one year. A nonemployer can be side or consulting income, so this is a share of businesses on paper, not of full-time practices. The table covers all physician offices, not neurology practices.

How many physician offices of all specialties are there in Florida and in Palm Beach, Broward and Martin counties?

Florida averaged 21,918 private physician offices of all specialties (NAICS 621111) in 2025, per BLS’s QCEW (BLS): 9.7% of the 2025 U.S. total (our calculation). Census’s newest Nonemployer Statistics, for 2024, counted 19,222 Florida physician-office businesses with no paid staff (Census).

Together Palm Beach, Broward and Martin counties averaged 4,556 private physician offices of all specialties in 2025, 20.8% of Florida’s total (our calculation from QCEW annual averages). Neither BLS nor Census publishes a county count of neurology practices.

How much physician-office revenue comes from nervous system diagnoses?

U.S. employer offices of physicians of all specialties (NAICS 621111) reported $19,290,783 thousand (about $19.3 billion) in 2022 receipts for patient care whose primary diagnosis fell in the ICD-10 chapter Diseases of the nervous system (G00-G99), per the 2022 Economic Census, the Census Bureau’s full count of businesses every five years (Census). That line was 3.1% of the receipts of all physician offices (Census).

That chapter holds conditions such as epilepsy, migraine, Parkinson’s disease, multiple sclerosis and Alzheimer’s disease, whichever kind of physician treated them. It does not hold stroke, which falls in the circulatory chapter, so this line is no measure of neurology’s own revenue: it counts receipts from non-neurologists and leaves stroke out. No line in the Economic Census names neurology.

How many physician offices of all specialties earn money from telemedicine?

86,466 U.S. employer offices of physicians of all specialties (NAICS 621111) reported some revenue from telemedicine services in 2022, per the 2022 Economic Census (Census): 42.9% of such offices (our calculation). The 2022 table counts offices with any telemedicine revenue. It does not say how much of their revenue came from it, and it does not break out neurology.

How much do physician offices of all specialties spend on advertising?

U.S. offices of physicians of all specialties (NAICS 6211) spent $1,815,721 thousand, about $1.8 billion, on advertising and promotion in 2024, per the Census Bureau’s Annual Integrated Economic Survey (Census). That was 0.28% of their total 2024 operating expenses (our calculation). It is a sample estimate. Census does not publish advertising spending for neurology practices or for NAICS 621111 on its own.

What can’t these federal sources say about neurology practices alone?

BLS and Census do not publish a count of neurology practices, in the U.S. or in any state or county. NAICS 621111 lumps every physician specialty together, so the office, business and advertising figures on this page are shared figures. OEWS counts neurologists as workers, not practices, and leaves out owners who take profits rather than a wage. OEWS has no county estimates and released no neurologist job count for the Miami metro area, so these sources give no count of neurologists in Palm Beach, Broward or Martin counties. None of them measures how much neurologists spend on video or how many practices use it.

How many Americans die of stroke, Alzheimer’s and Parkinson’s each year?

Stroke killed 166,852 U.S. residents in 2024, the fourth leading cause of death, according to final death certificate counts published by CDC’s National Center for Health Statistics (NCHS) (NCHS, Deaths: Leading Causes for 2024). Spread evenly over the leap year, that is about 456 deaths a day (our calculation). Alzheimer disease ranked sixth, with 116,022 deaths (NCHS). Both counts are by underlying cause of death, and the Alzheimer figure covers only ICD-10 code G30, not other dementias.

Parkinson disease sits lower on the list. The latest all-ages count we could read is for 2022: 39,915 deaths, the 15th leading cause (NCHS, Deaths: Final Data for 2022). The 2024 report ranks only the top 10 causes in each group. Among people 65 and older, Parkinson disease was ninth in 2024, with 39,935 deaths (NCHS).

Have stroke, Alzheimer’s and Parkinson’s death rates changed?

The stroke rate is above its 2019 level and below its 2021 level. An age-adjusted rate removes the effect of an aging population, which lets years be compared. NCHS put the stroke rate at 38.6 deaths per 100,000 in 2024 (NCHS Data Brief 548), against 37.0 in 2019 (NCHS) and 41.1 in 2021 (NCHS). The 2024 rate was 4.3% above the 2019 rate and 6.1% below the 2021 rate (our calculation).

The Alzheimer disease rate was 27.1 per 100,000 in 2024 (NCHS Data Brief 548), 9.1% below the 29.8 of 2019 (NCHS) (our calculation). The Parkinson disease rate moved the other way, from 7.7 in 2015 (NCHS) to 9.5 in 2022 (NCHS), a rise of 23.4% (our calculation). These are death rates, not rates of new illness, and a death certificate records one underlying cause.

How many strokes happen in the United States each year?

CDC’s Stroke Facts page, dated October 24, 2024, says more than 795,000 people in the United States have a stroke every year (CDC) and that about 610,000 of those are first or new strokes (CDC). CDC credits both to the American Heart Association’s annual statistics compilation, an association’s estimate, which we did not re-check. We read the page on November 9, 2026, through a capture from October 19, 2026.

The same page says stroke-related costs came to nearly $56.2 billion between 2019 and 2020 (CDC). A June 2023 capture of the older page gave nearly $56.5 billion, for 2018 to 2019 (CDC, 2023 capture). The figures cover different years, so they are not a measured drop.

Survey data show how many adults report having had a stroke. In CDC’s Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System, a telephone survey, age-standardized self-reported stroke prevalence rose 7.8% from 2011-2013 to 2020-2022 (CDC, MMWR), reaching 2.9% of adults in 2020-2022 (CDC, MMWR). Respondents were asked whether a doctor or other health professional had ever told them they had a stroke.

How many Americans have epilepsy?

CDC’s epilepsy page says about 2.9 million U.S. adults reported active epilepsy during 2021 and 2022 (CDC), meaning a diagnosis plus current medicine or at least one seizure in the past 12 months. It says about 456,000 children 17 and younger have active epilepsy, as reported by a parent or guardian (CDC). The page is dated May 15, 2024. We read it through a capture from October 3, 2026.

The number on that page has changed. A December 2023 capture of CDC’s older page gave about 3.4 million people with active epilepsy in 2015, adults and children together (CDC, 2023 capture), a figure first published by Zack and Kobau in CDC’s MMWR in 2017. The two come from different survey years and count different groups, so the change is not a measured fall in epilepsy.

How common is migraine or severe headache?

Women report it nearly twice as often as men. In the 2018 National Health Interview Survey, run by NCHS, 20.1% of U.S. women (NCHS, MMWR QuickStats) and 10.6% of U.S. men (NCHS, MMWR QuickStats) said they had a severe headache or migraine in the past 3 months. The question covers severe headache as well as migraine and is not a diagnosis. Burch and colleagues, writing in Headache in 2021 from the same government surveys, put the age-adjusted prevalence at 15.9% of adults in 2018 (Burch et al., Headache 2021).

How many Americans have Parkinson’s, multiple sclerosis or dementia?

The published counts differ, mostly because each study counts a different group in a different year. The table sets them side by side.

The Parkinson’s figures differ largely by method and year. Marras and colleagues applied rates from cohorts in California, Minnesota and Ontario to the U.S. population and called the results minimum estimates (Marras et al.). The Parkinson’s Foundation says its state map applies those rates to 2023 Census data for people 45 and older, then averages them with a second published estimate, because one study may undercount and the other may overcount (Parkinson’s Foundation). The page does not say outright that its national figure comes from that map. The American Migraine Foundation gives no method for 39 million on the page we read, and another sentence on the same page says 40 million (American Migraine Foundation).

New cases are counted less often than existing ones. Willis and colleagues, writing in npj Parkinson’s Disease in 2022, estimated incidence of 108 to 212 new Parkinson’s cases per 100,000 adults 65 and older across five North American data sources in 2012 (Willis et al.). The Parkinson’s Foundation says nearly an estimated 90,000 people in the U.S. are diagnosed each year (Parkinson’s Foundation). For dementia, Fang and colleagues, writing in Nature Medicine in 2025, estimated a lifetime risk of 42% after age 55, from a U.S. community cohort of 15,043 people (Fang et al.). That is the risk of developing dementia between 55 and 95, treating death as a competing event, and it is a modeled estimate for a population, not a prediction for any one person.

What does the Global Burden of Disease study show?

The Global Burden of Disease study ranks disorders by disability-adjusted life years (DALYs), which combine years lost to early death and years lived with disability. In its U.S. analysis for 2017, stroke was the most burdensome neurological disorder, at 3.58 million DALYs (Feigin et al., JAMA Neurology 2021). Worldwide, the 2021 round estimated that conditions affecting the nervous system touched 43.1% of the global population (GBD 2021 collaborators, Lancet Neurology). These are modeled estimates, read through their PubMed abstracts.

How many people die of stroke, Alzheimer’s and Parkinson’s in Florida and in Palm Beach, Broward and Martin counties?

The Florida Department of Health counted 17,718 resident stroke deaths in 2025, an age-adjusted rate of 46.4 per 100,000 (FLHealthCHARTS). It counted 5,953 Alzheimer’s disease deaths, a rate of 15.2 (FLHealthCHARTS), and 3,507 Parkinson’s disease deaths, a rate of 8.9 (FLHealthCHARTS). Counts are by county of residence and underlying cause. We read the reports on November 9, 2026, and 2025 was the latest year shown.

The three counties held 19.1% of Florida’s 2025 stroke deaths (our calculation). Statewide, resident stroke deaths rose 49.6% from 2016 to 2025, and the age-adjusted rate rose 20.5% over the same years (our calculation). The count reflects a larger and older population as well as risk. The rate adjusts for age.

NCHS publishes its own state rates, and they differ from the Florida Department of Health’s for the same year, so we do not mix the two series. On NCHS’s figures for 2022, Florida’s age-adjusted stroke rate was 45.1 per 100,000 (NCHS) against 39.5 nationally (NCHS), which is 14.2% higher (our calculation).

Groups are as the state publishes them. The stroke rate among non-Hispanic Black residents was 1.4 times the rate among non-Hispanic White residents (our calculation). The Alzheimer’s rate was highest among Hispanic residents, and the Parkinson’s rate was lowest among non-Hispanic Black residents.

These deaths are concentrated at older ages. The state counted 16,223 stroke deaths at age 65 or older in 2025 (FLHealthCHARTS), 91.6% of the total (our calculation). The same measure was 5,875 for Alzheimer’s disease (FLHealthCHARTS), or 98.7%, and 3,416 for Parkinson’s disease (FLHealthCHARTS), or 97.4% (our calculation).

What do neurology drug and device makers report selling?

Biogen reported $4,038.9 million in 2025 worldwide multiple sclerosis product revenue, the largest neurology line in the table below (Biogen fiscal 2025 10-K). Every figure is the company’s own reported sales for the line named, from its annual report on EDGAR. Lines are not built the same way: Medtronic’s fiscal years end in April, Medtronic’s and Abbott’s Neuromodulation lines include spinal cord stimulators as well as brain implants, LivaNova reports in thousands of dollars, and Lilly’s neuroscience line is U.S. only and does not separate Kisunla.

Biogen attributes the decline in Tysabri, from $1,715.0 million to $1,665.4 million, mainly to competition outside the U.S., including a biosimilar in Europe (Biogen fiscal 2025 10-K). AbbVie reported $3,769 million in 2025 worldwide sales of Botox Therapeutic, for all its approved uses, of which chronic migraine is one; its report gives no migraine share of that figure (AbbVie fiscal 2025 10-K). AbbVie also reported $1,271 million for Ubrelvy (AbbVie 10-K) and $1,036 million for Qulipta (AbbVie 10-K), its two migraine drugs, and $482 million for Vyalev, a 24-hour infusion for advanced Parkinson’s disease (AbbVie 10-K).

What do Biogen and Lilly disclose about Alzheimer’s drugs and neurologists?

Neither Biogen’s fiscal 2025 report nor Lilly’s fiscal 2025 report uses the word “neurologist” or “infusion,” and neither discusses neurologist supply or infusion-site capacity, by our search of both documents. Eisai, Biogen’s partner on Leqembi, is not an SEC registrant, so its own reports are outside EDGAR and this page relies on Biogen’s disclosure of the collaboration.

Biogen’s fiscal 2025 report says its Alzheimer’s collaboration revenue is its 50.0% share of Leqembi product revenue, net of cost of sales including royalties (Biogen fiscal 2025 10-K), and that Eisai has final decision-making authority on matters relating to the collaboration and leads development and regulatory submissions globally (Biogen fiscal 2025 10-K). Biogen’s share rose from $59.9 million in 2024 to $177.7 million in 2025.

Lilly’s fiscal 2025 report lists Kisunla for adults with early symptomatic Alzheimer’s disease with confirmed amyloid pathology, at the mild cognitive impairment or mild dementia stage (Lilly fiscal 2025 10-K). It describes LillyDirect as its direct-to-patient digital health care platform for delivering select Lilly medicines (Lilly fiscal 2025 10-K), and it does not say whether Kisunla is sold through that channel.

What do brain implant makers say about patients, sales forces and neurologists?

NeuroPace is the only one of the four implant makers here to give a patient count: over 8,000 patients had received its RNS System, an implant for adults with drug-resistant focal epilepsy, as of December 31, 2025 (NeuroPace fiscal 2025 10-K). Medtronic’s fiscal 2026 report, Abbott’s fiscal 2025 report and LivaNova’s fiscal 2025 report give no count of patients implanted with deep brain or vagus nerve stimulators, by our search of each.

Medtronic’s fiscal 2026 report names neurologists among the primary medical specialists who use the products of its Neuroscience Portfolio (Medtronic fiscal 2026 10-K), and it cites continued growth of its Percept deep brain stimulation devices for Parkinson’s disease, epilepsy and other movement disorders (Medtronic fiscal 2026 10-K). Abbott’s fiscal 2025 report lists its Infinity and Liberta RC deep brain stimulation systems for movement disorders (Abbott fiscal 2025 10-K). LivaNova’s fiscal 2025 report names neurologists and neurosurgeons among the customers its marketing and sales strategy is aimed at (LivaNova fiscal 2025 10-K).

NeuroPace gives the most detail on who it sells to. Its fiscal 2025 report estimates approximately 1,200 epileptologists at more than 230 Level 4 comprehensive epilepsy centers in the U.S. (NeuroPace fiscal 2025 10-K). It says its sales team has targeted epileptologists and functional neurosurgeons outside those centers since 2023 (NeuroPace fiscal 2025 10-K), and that its commercial success will depend on continued referrals from primary care physicians, neurologists and other providers (NeuroPace fiscal 2025 10-K). It describes national guidelines as recommending referral to a comprehensive epilepsy center after 12 months of seeing a general neurologist without seizure control; that is the company’s summary, not the guideline’s text (NeuroPace fiscal 2025 10-K).

Ceribell, which sells a point-of-care EEG system to hospitals, says in its fiscal 2025 report that demand for neurologists is estimated to exceed supply by almost 20%; the passage does not name a source (Ceribell fiscal 2025 10-K).

What do these companies disclose about advertising and video?

NeuroPace is the one company among the ten annual reports we read whose report ties video to its marketing. Its fiscal 2025 report says advertising costs include physician and patient testimonial videos, website development and written media (NeuroPace fiscal 2025 10-K). It expensed $0.5 million in advertising in 2025 and $0.7 million in 2024 (NeuroPace fiscal 2025 10-K), up from $0.1 million in 2021 (NeuroPace fiscal 2021 10-K). The 2025 figure is 0.5% of that year’s revenue (our calculation).

NeuroPace’s fiscal 2025 report also describes direct-to-patient marketing, including targeted online advertising and social media aimed at potential patients and their caregivers (NeuroPace fiscal 2025 10-K). For clinicians it lists webinars, clinical briefs and conferences as ways of keeping them informed (NeuroPace fiscal 2025 10-K). The filing does not say how much of its advertising went to video or how many videos it made.

Silk Road Medical, which sold carotid artery stents and named neurologists among the referring physicians it wanted to educate, used the same advertising language in its fiscal 2023 report and expensed $461,000 on advertising in 2023 (Silk Road fiscal 2023 10-K). Biogen reported about $71.9 million in advertising company-wide in 2025, with no neurology breakdown (Biogen fiscal 2025 10-K).

The clearest case of video drawing a regulator’s attention is older. Supernus Pharmaceuticals’ fiscal 2017 report says the FDA sent an untitled letter on October 31, 2016 alleging that a promotional video for its epilepsy drug Oxtellar XR suggested uses outside its approved label, and that the company removed the video (Supernus fiscal 2017 10-K). The same report describes a sales force of over 200 representatives targeting healthcare providers, primarily neurologists (Supernus fiscal 2017 10-K).

Across the ten newest annual reports we read, 4 use “video” or “videos” (Medtronic, NeuroPace, Teladoc and Amwell) and 0 names YouTube or TikTok (our calculation). Medtronic’s uses are product names for surgical video software and video laryngoscopes. 4 of the ten use “neurologist” or “neurologists” at all (Medtronic, LivaNova, NeuroPace and Ceribell) (our calculation). These counts measure words in annual reports, so a missing word does not mean a company makes no videos.

Do Teladoc and Amwell report neurology?

No. Teladoc’s and Amwell’s fiscal 2025 annual reports contain 0 uses of the words “neurologist” or “neurology” (our calculation). Teladoc Health says it completed 17.1 million telehealth visits in 2025 across all conditions (Teladoc fiscal 2025 10-K). Amwell’s fiscal 2025 report lists stroke first among the provider-to-provider virtual care uses it offers health systems, but gives no stroke volume (Amwell fiscal 2025 10-K).

How often do annual reports name neurologists, and what does “video” mean there?

44 Form 10-K annual reports filed in 2025 contained “neurologist” or “neurologists,” by our count with SEC EDGAR full-text search (our calculation; one count per filing), and they came from 44 filers. From 2001 to 2025, 905 such filings came from 210 distinct registrants. The count was 18 in 2001, reached a high of 55 in 2024, and another 41 were filed in 2026 through November 9 (our calculation). 41 of the 44 from 2025 came from drug, device, lab or health-services filers (our calculation). The yearly counts, filer names and query URLs are in our EDGAR counts file.

Full-text search has limits. It covers filings from 2001 on and counts Form 10-Ks only, so Form 20-F filers are outside it, as are private practices and hospitals. It leaves out 10-K/A amendments and the older 10-K405 form, and it does no stemming, so “neurology” and “neurological” are separate terms and a query for “video” does not find “videos.” We searched both forms of the word and merged the results. Filing year 2025 mostly means fiscal 2024 reports. The count measures a word, not a business.

7 of the 44 filings from 2025 also contained “video” or “videos,” and 101 of the 905 did from 2001 to 2025, or 11.2% (our calculation). Counting the singular word alone gives 5 in 2025 and 82 over the whole period (our calculation). We read every mention in all 33 filings from 2022 through November 9, 2026 that contain a neurologist word and a video word, and assigned each filing one category (our calculation; see the contexts file).

• 8 list testimonial videos in their advertising costs: five NeuroPace reports and three Silk Road Medical reports (our calculation). These are the only marketing or direct-to-patient uses in the set.
• 0 describe physician education or training by video (our calculation). The closest are employee security-training videos at other companies, which we counted under “other.”
• 6 use the word for clinical equipment (our calculation): Natus Medical’s fiscal 2021 report describes EEG workstations that capture synchronized video and EEG data (Natus fiscal 2021 10-K), and five Medtronic reports use it for surgical video software and video laryngoscopes.
• 4 use it for telehealth or video visits (our calculation). SOC Telemed’s fiscal 2021 report describes a teleneurologist evaluating the patient over an automated video connection (SOC Telemed fiscal 2021 10-K). VSee Health’s fiscal 2025 report also lists educational videos shown as patients wait among its platform features (VSee fiscal 2025 10-K).
• 15 use the word for something else, such as board meetings by video conference, employee communications, cell-culture video in a laboratory study or cybersecurity training (our calculation).

None of the 33 comes from a neurology practice, because private practices do not file with the SEC, and none describes video made by neurologists for patients. Across all years from 2001, 0 filings pair a neurologist word with the exact phrases “marketing video,” “training video” or “instructional video” (our calculation). 3 pair it with “promotional video”: Supernus’s fiscal 2017 report and two reports from Puramed Bioscience, a small migraine-remedy company, on in-store video (our calculation). 1 pairs it with “educational video,” and that is a former company’s name in an officer biography (our calculation). 5 pair it with “video EEG” (our calculation). 10 pair it with “YouTube,” all of them lists of social or investor channels or a press-release footer (our calculation), and 6 pair it with “webinar,” mostly research webinars at BrainStorm Cell Therapeutics and employee events at Mallinckrodt; one, Xeris Biopharma’s fiscal 2021 report, describes reaching healthcare professionals remotely by webinar during the COVID-19 pandemic (our calculation).

What does FDA require of a broadcast drug ad, and is that changing?

FDA’s rule at 21 CFR 202.1 requires the major statement of side effects and contraindications in a TV-format prescription drug ad to run in audio and text at the same time, which the rule calls “dual modality” (eCFR, 21 CFR 202.1). The final rule adding that standard took effect on May 20, 2024 (Federal Register). The same regulation says an ad does not present a true statement if it lacks a “fair balance” between risk information and effectiveness information (eCFR, 21 CFR 202.1). It excuses a broadcast ad from carrying a brief summary when “adequate provision is made for dissemination of the approved or permitted product labeling” in connection with the broadcast (eCFR, 21 CFR 202.1). Its misbranding paragraph refers to an ad issued or caused to be issued by the “manufacturer, packer, or distributor” of the drug (eCFR, 21 CFR 202.1). Read alone, that paragraph does not decide whether a neurologist’s own video is covered in a given case. HHS’s penalty table sets the maximum civil penalty for a false or misleading direct-to-consumer drug ad at $377,701 for a first violation in any 3-year period (eCFR, 45 CFR 102.3). We read every rule in this section on November 9, 2026, and each one links to the text we read. This section reports what the rules say. It is not legal advice, and it does not tell a neurologist what to do.

FDA said on 9/9/2025 that it was issuing approximately 100 cease-and-desist letters to companies with deceptive ads and starting rulemaking on what it called an “adequate provision” loophole (FDA). HHS’s Regulatory Plan says the coming rule will revise 21 CFR 202.1 to “eliminate the option” of meeting the brief summary requirement by disclosing safety information in another source (Federal Register). Its timetable lists the proposed rule for 12/00/26, the agenda’s notation for December of that year (Federal Register). A Federal Register search on November 9, 2026, found no FDA proposed rule on the point yet.

What has FDA told makers of epilepsy, migraine and multiple sclerosis drugs about their TV ads?

FDA’s Office of Prescription Drug Promotion told makers of drugs for these conditions that their TV ads were misleading, in untitled letters dated 9/30/2025 (FDA list of untitled letters) and 9/9/2025 (FDA list of untitled letters). An untitled letter is a regulator’s notice to one company, not a court finding, and these letters went to drug makers, not physician practices. FDA’s list links a close-out letter for each of the three products below.

What has FDA said about the Alzheimer’s antibody drugs Leqembi and Kisunla?

FDA’s list of novel drug approvals dates Leqembi (lecanemab-irmb) 1/6/2023 (FDA). FDA announced on July 06, 2023 that it had converted Leqembi to traditional approval after determining that a confirmatory trial verified clinical benefit, and said the January approval had been under the Accelerated Approval pathway (FDA). The same announcement says a “boxed warning” in the prescribing information alerts patients and caregivers to the potential risks of amyloid-related imaging abnormalities, or ARIA (FDA). FDA’s list dates Kisunla (donanemab-azbt) 7/2/2024 (FDA). FDA’s approval notice and the label we read do not use the word “accelerated.” The label FDA posted with that approval carries a boxed warning headed “WARNING: AMYLOID RELATED IMAGING ABNORMALITIES” (FDA), and later revisions may word it differently. We report FDA’s words here and give no view on either drug for any patient.

What do FDA’s device rules say about promoting stimulators such as DBS and VNS?

FDA reads a device’s intended uses from the objective intent of the people responsible for its labeling, which it says may be shown by “labeling claims, advertising matter, or oral or written statements” (eCFR, 21 CFR 801.4). A device approved through premarket approval may not be advertised “inconsistent with any conditions to approval” in its approval order (eCFR, 21 CFR 814.80). FDA’s neurological device part classifies an external vagal nerve stimulator for headache as “Class II (special controls)” (eCFR, 21 CFR 882.5892). In that part, as we read it on November 9, 2026, the phrase “deep brain” does not appear and the word “vagus” appears only in that one section. These rules address the people and firms responsible for labeling and promotion. We make no claim about whether a given clinician’s video falls within them.

What does Florida’s Board of Medicine rule say about a neurologist’s advertising?

Florida’s advertising rule, 64B8-11.001, deems an ad false, deceptive or misleading if it creates false or “unjustified expectations of beneficial assistance” (Florida Administrative Code 64B8-11.001), or if it conveys that the physician has qualifications or skills “superior to other physicians” beyond a simple listing of earned achievements recognized by the Board (Florida Administrative Code 64B8-11.001). The text of the rule, as we read it on November 9, 2026, does not contain the word “testimonial” or the word “guarantee.” A physician who advertises on electronic media must keep an exact copy of each audio or video ad for at least six months after it airs (Florida Administrative Code 64B8-11.001). Florida law allows an administrative fine of up to $10,000 for each count or separate offense (Florida Statutes 456.072).

A physician may refer in an ad to specialty recognition from an agency the Board has not approved only if the ad also says, in the same print size or volume, that the recognition came from a “private organization not affiliated with or recognized by the Florida Board of Medicine” (Florida Administrative Code 64B8-11.001). The rule’s list of approved agencies includes the United Council for Neurologic Subspecialties, approved in April 2017 (Florida Administrative Code 64B8-11.001).

What does Florida law say about telehealth video and how long records are kept?

Florida’s telehealth statute covers “synchronous or asynchronous” telecommunications technology and excludes e-mail messages and facsimile transmissions (Florida Statutes 456.47). Medical records of those services, including “video, audio, electronic, or other records”, are confidential under the same statute (Florida Statutes 456.47). A health care professional not licensed in Florida may treat a patient located in Florida by telehealth if the professional “registers with the applicable board” (Florida Statutes 456.47). The same subsection says a registrant may not open an office in the state or provide in-person services to patients there. Separately, the Board’s rule on physicians relocating or terminating practice says a physician records owner keeps responsibility for and control of patient records for at least five years from the last patient contact (Florida Administrative Code 64B8-10.002). That rule does not mention video, and it says its times may be less than the time needed to protect the physician.

When does a patient video from a neurology practice need HIPAA authorization?

A covered entity such as a neurology practice “must obtain an authorization” from the patient before using protected health information for marketing, with exceptions only for face-to-face communications and promotional gifts of nominal value (eCFR, 45 CFR 164.508). HIPAA defines marketing as a communication about a product or service that encourages people to “purchase or use the product or service” (eCFR, 45 CFR 164.501). HIPAA’s de-identification rule lists “Full face photographic images” and comparable images among patient identifiers (eCFR, 45 CFR 164.514), along with biometric identifiers such as “finger and voice prints” (eCFR, 45 CFR 164.514).

HHS’s penalty table, in an adjustment published 01/28/2026 and applying to penalties assessed from that date (Federal Register), sets a minimum of $145 per violation for the tier where the entity did not know and could not have known of the violation (eCFR, 45 CFR 102.3). The maximum per violation at that tier is $73,011, which is also the minimum for willful neglect not corrected within 30 days (eCFR, 45 CFR 102.3).

HHS’s Office for Civil Rights has enforced these rules against filming and testimonial marketing. New York Presbyterian Hospital agreed in 2016 to pay $2.2 million and accept two years of monitoring after a film crew recorded patients for the series “NY Med” without their authorization (HHS OCR). Complete P.T., Pool & Land Physical Therapy, a Los Angeles-area practice and not a neurology practice, agreed in 2016 to pay $25,000 after posting patient testimonials with full names and full-face photos on its website without valid authorizations (HHS OCR). These are settlements with individual providers, not court rulings.

What do FTC rules say about patient testimonials and doctors in ads?

Under the FTC’s Endorsement Guides, if an advertiser does not have substantiation that an endorser’s experience is representative of what consumers will generally achieve, the ad should disclose the generally expected performance in the depicted circumstances (eCFR, 16 CFR 255.2). When an endorsement uses both pictures and sound, the Guides say the disclosure should appear in both the visual and audible portions (eCFR, 16 CFR 255.0). One example covers a doctor who claims in an ad that a drug will safely lower cholesterol, relying only on letters from satisfied consumers or a rodent study, and says “both the advertiser and the doctor would be liable” for the misleading claim (eCFR, 16 CFR 255.3). The FTC’s rule on consumer reviews and testimonials took effect on October 21, 2024 (Federal Register). It makes it an unfair or deceptive practice for a business to write, create or sell a review or testimonial that “materially misrepresents” that the reviewer exists, used the service, or what that experience was (eCFR, 16 CFR 465.2).

What does Medicare’s telestroke rule say, and how long do the wider telehealth rules last?

Section 50325 of the Bipartisan Budget Act of 2018 says Medicare’s originating-site requirements do not apply to telehealth services furnished on or after January 1, 2019, for diagnosis, evaluation or treatment of symptoms of an acute stroke, as determined by the Secretary (Public Law 115-123). The paragraph gives a start date and no end date. CMS’s regulation lists a “mobile stroke unit” as an originating site for those services only (eCFR, 42 CFR 410.78).

For telehealth more broadly, CMS’s Telehealth FAQ says Medicare patients can receive telehealth anywhere in the United States through December 31, 2027; after that, outside behavioral health, patients will generally need to be in a medical facility in a rural area (CMS). The list of covered telehealth services CMS posts is for Calendar Year 2026 (CMS). We did not read that file, so we make no claim about whether a given neurology service is on it. In its CY 2027 Physician Fee Schedule final rule, published on the day we read it, CMS says it “did not receive any requests” to add or remove services from that list for CY 2027 (Federal Register). The rule does not use the words “telestroke” or “acute stroke.”

What do YouTube’s health pages say about doctors, stroke and seizures?

YouTube’s health-source program lists a “Licensed Doctor” eligible to practice medicine in the relevant country among the professions that can apply, and it names no medical specialty (YouTube Help). A channel must have more than 1,500 valid public watch hours in the last 12 months, or 1.5 million valid public Shorts views in the past 90 days (YouTube Help). YouTube’s medical misinformation policy bars content that poses a serious risk of egregious harm by contradicting “local health authority (LHA) guidance” about specific health conditions and substances (YouTube Help). The examples on that page name cancer treatments, vaccines and harmful substances. The page does not mention stroke, seizures, epilepsy, migraine, Parkinson’s disease or dementia. YouTube says its First Aid from Health Sources shelf, which may be pinned to the top of search results, shows up for topics including heart attacks, “strokes, and seizures” (YouTube Help). We read these Help pages on November 9, 2026, and they may change.

This section summarizes published rules, letters, settlements and platform policies. It is not legal or medical advice.

What do the popular neurology numbers really say?

The number quoted most in stroke care, 1.9 million neurons lost each minute, is a calculation published in 2006, not a count taken from any patient (Stroke, PubMed record, archived). Six others travel the same way through hospital pages, foundations and news stories: a stroke every 40 seconds, a video that lifts conversions by 80%, “One in 26” for epilepsy, “1 in 4” for stroke, about one million Americans with Parkinson’s, and 39 million with migraine. We read each at its source, or at the earliest source we could reach, and say below what that source measured. Pages that repeat a number are linked only as dated evidence of how it spread.

“You lose 1.9 million neurons every minute in a stroke”

The figure is Jeffrey Saver’s estimate for one kind of stroke, published in the journal Stroke in January 2006. He took a typical large vessel, supratentorial ischemic stroke with a final volume of 54 mL (Stroke, PubMed record, archived), an evolution time of 10 hours (Stroke, PubMed record, archived) and a forebrain of 22 billion neurons (Stroke, PubMed record, archived). Those inputs were consensus estimates from a systematic literature review (Stroke, PubMed record, archived). Dividing them gave 1.9 million neurons per minute. It is a modelled estimate for an average case, and the abstract says sensitivity analyses changed the point values but not the order of magnitude. We read the abstract; the full text is not open to us.

The phrase is older than the number. The earliest use we found is a 1993 editorial by Camilo Gomez titled “Time is brain!” (Journal of Stroke and Cerebrovascular Diseases, PubMed record, archived). PubMed lists no abstract for it, so we have only the title. PubMed title and abstract searches for the phrase from 1990 onward found nothing earlier. Gomez returned to it in 2018, in a computational modeling paper that begins from the premise that “Time=Brain” is mathematically false, because collateral circulation changes how fast tissue is lost (Journal of Stroke and Cerebrovascular Diseases, PubMed record, archived).

A later study found a similar average and a wide spread. In a 2019 study of 415 patients with internal carotid or middle cerebral artery occlusion (Stroke, PubMed record, archived), Desai and colleagues applied a previously published brain-loss calculation to imaging measured in those patients. The mean was 2.03 million neurons per minute (Stroke, PubMed record, archived), and the rate reached more than 27 million cells per minute at the high end (Stroke, PubMed record, archived). That is a calculation from imaging, not a count of neurons.

Repeats change the wording. HealthDay’s story on the day the paper went online headlined it as 2 Million brain cells each minute (HealthDay). A 2013 Advocate Health article quoting a neurologist wrote “Two million brain cells die every minute” (Advocate Health). A 2014 Intermountain release placed the loss in the “first minute” of a stroke (Intermountain Health), though Saver’s figure applies to each untreated minute. In May 2023 Memorial Healthcare System, a hospital system in Broward County, Florida, restated it as around 32,000 neurons per second (Memorial Healthcare System). Use instead: “Saver’s 2006 calculation put neuron loss at 1.9 million per minute in a typical untreated large vessel ischemic stroke; Desai’s 2019 study of 415 patients found a mean of 2.03 million and wide variation between patients.”

“Someone has a stroke every 40 seconds”

CDC’s page still says someone in the United States has a stroke every 40 seconds, in a capture from October 2026 (CDC, archived), and that more than 795,000 people have one each year (CDC, archived). The interval is that yearly estimate divided into the seconds of a year: 39.7 (our calculation). It is not a count of strokes. The American Heart Association (AHA), an association that compiles these statistics, says on its page for the 2020 update that the 795,000 estimate is based on 1999 data (AHA, archived). CDC’s page cites the AHA statistics update for both figures (CDC, archived).

The interval changed when the estimate did. The AHA’s 2003 statistics update said every 45 seconds (AHA, archived), on about 700,000 strokes a year (AHA, archived), and its 2007 update still said 45 seconds (AHA, archived). Its 2009 update said every 40 seconds (AHA, archived) on about 795,000 a year (AHA, archived), the earliest AHA printing of that interval we found. We could not read the text of the 2008 edition, so 2008 may have printed it first. CDC’s page had 40 seconds in the earliest capture we found, from January 2010 (CDC, archived), and the AHA’s 2020 page printed 40 seconds too (AHA, archived). Hospital pages multiply the interval out: a 2018 MemorialCare blog wrote 2,160 strokes a day (MemorialCare), which is the 40-second interval applied to a day, not a daily count.

The deaths half of the claim does rest on counted deaths. The AHA’s January 2026 release counted 162,639 U.S. deaths with stroke as the underlying cause in 2023 (AHA release), and a year’s seconds divided by that count is about 3 minutes and 14 seconds (our calculation). Older interval wording survives on local pages: a 2012 notice for a Florida Hospital Flagler seminar featuring a neurologist still said every four minutes (FlaglerLive). Use instead: “The AHA estimated about 795,000 new or recurrent U.S. strokes a year, based on 1999 data; CDC words that as one about every 40 seconds. U.S. stroke deaths numbered 162,639 in 2023.”

“Video lifts conversions 80%”

The figure is a best case from one video vendor, EyeView, about a client website, not neurology. In February 2009 EyeView’s blog said viewers of its videos for one client, UMOO, were 80% more likely to become depositing users, comparing viewers with non-viewers (EyeView, archived). By August 2010 Unbounce, a landing-page software seller, wrote that a study by eyeviewdigital.com showed video on landing pages can increase conversion by 80% (Unbounce, archived).

The larger later evidence points the other way. Unbounce’s own 2021 analysis of about 35,000 customer landing pages in each of three periods (Unbounce) concluded that video appears to have a minimal or negative impact on landing-page performance (Unbounce). Its April 2025 article of landing-page examples still says landing pages with video can increase conversions by 80% (Unbounce). A web search for the figure among neurology practice pages found no test by a neurology practice and no practice page repeating it. Use instead: “Unbounce’s 2021 study of about 35,000 landing pages per period found video had a minimal or negative effect; we found no conversion test by a neurology practice.”

“One in 26 people will develop epilepsy”

The sentence is the conclusion of a study of one community. Hesdorffer and colleagues, writing in Neurology in January 2011, concluded that “One in 26 people will develop epilepsy during their lifetime” (Neurology, PubMed record, archived). They identified 412 people with newly diagnosed epilepsy in Rochester, Minnesota, from 1960 through 1979 (Neurology, PubMed record, archived), and calculated lifetime risk accounting for the competing risk of death. Lifetime risk was 3.0% to age 80 (Neurology, PubMed record, archived) and, through age 87, rose to 4.2% in the 1970-1979 period (Neurology, PubMed record, archived). That conclusion is the earliest statement of the figure we found.

The Epilepsy Foundation, an association, now says 1 in 26 and names no source in that passage (Epilepsy Foundation, archived). An April 2012 news story attributed “one in 26” to an Institute of Medicine report (News-Medical.Net). We did not read that report: its publisher bars AI agents and NCBI’s copy was not readable to us. Use instead: “In a study of Rochester, Minnesota, residents diagnosed from 1960 to 1979, Hesdorffer and colleagues put lifetime risk of epilepsy at 3.0% to age 80.”

“1 in 4 adults will have a stroke in their lifetime”

This is a global estimate for a first stroke from age 25, and it is modelled. The GBD 2016 Lifetime Risk of Stroke Collaborators, in the New England Journal of Medicine in December 2018, estimated 24.9% from age 25 onward (NEJM, PubMed record, archived), up from 22.8% in 1990 (NEJM, PubMed record, archived). They used Global Burden of Disease estimates of incidence and competing risks of death, so it is not a count of strokes. Risk varied by country; in the group of countries with the highest sociodemographic index it was 23.5% (NEJM, PubMed record, archived).

The World Stroke Organization, an association, states the scope in one place, “Globally, 1 in 4 adults over the age of 25” (World Stroke Organization), and drops the age limit in the page’s headline, “1 in 4 of us” (World Stroke Organization). Use instead: “The GBD 2016 study estimated the global lifetime risk of a first stroke from age 25 at 24.9%.”

“About one million Americans have Parkinson’s”

The older wording was “as many as.” The Parkinson’s Disease Foundation’s statistics page, in the earliest capture we found, from October 2009, said as many as one million Americans live with Parkinson’s and gave no source (Parkinson’s Disease Foundation, archived). A 2018 paper from the Parkinson’s Foundation’s prevalence project, by Marras and colleagues, estimated about 930,000 people aged 45 or older with Parkinson’s in the U.S. in 2020 (npj Parkinson’s Disease, PubMed record, archived) and 1,238,000 by 2030 (npj Parkinson’s Disease, PubMed record, archived). The authors call these minimum estimates (npj Parkinson’s Disease, PubMed record, archived).

Current association pages disagree. The Parkinson’s Foundation says 1.1 million (Parkinson’s Foundation) and prints 1,112,643 (Parkinson’s Foundation), with no method on that page. The Michael J. Fox Foundation says nearly 1 million (Michael J. Fox Foundation). For new cases, Willis and colleagues in 2022 put total incident diagnoses in North America at 60,000 to 95,000 among adults 45 and older, using 2012 data (npj Parkinson’s Disease, PMC, archived), and Medicare data alone suggested nearly 90,000 a year among people 65 and older (npj Parkinson’s Disease, PMC, archived). Use instead: “Marras and colleagues estimated about 930,000 people aged 45 and older with Parkinson’s in the U.S. in 2020, and called that a minimum estimate.”

“39 million Americans have migraine”

The figure has risen on one foundation’s pages without a stated source. The Migraine Research Foundation, a nonprofit research funder, said 30 million men, women and children in a February 2009 capture, the earliest we found (Migraine Research Foundation, archived); 36 million by November 2010 (Migraine Research Foundation, archived); 38 million in June 2016 (Migraine Research Foundation, archived); and 39 million by May 2018 (Migraine Research Foundation, archived), the figure in its October 2026 capture. None of those pages cite a source, and the count includes children.

Government survey data measures something narrower. Burch and colleagues’ 2021 review of U.S. government surveys reported that the age-adjusted prevalence of migraine and severe headache was 15.9% of all adults in 2018 (Headache, PubMed record, archived). That measure combines migraine with severe headache and covers adults only, so it cannot confirm a count of migraine alone. Use instead: “In 2018, 15.9% of U.S. adults reported migraine or severe headache in a government survey, age-adjusted.”

Every popular claim our research pages trace, 875 in all, is on one page: popular video statistics, fact-checked.

How we built this page

We started from the questions people search for about neurologist video statistics and looked for the organization that actually produced each answer. Every figure on this page sits in an evidence ledger with its source, the exact table or paragraph it came from, the measurement period, the population measured, and the date we checked it. This edition holds 730 figures from 84 publishers.

On November 9, 2026, each sourced figure on this page was re-fetched with the fetch cache cleared and matched against the recorded wording: BLS occupation wage estimates and the Quarterly Census of Employment and Wages (through the BLS data API and data files) and Employment Projections and Occupational Outlook pages (through Internet Archive copies, because bls.gov refuses automated requests); Census County Business Patterns, Nonemployer Statistics, the 2022 Economic Census and the Annual Integrated Economic Survey (through the Census data API); Medicare Part B figures through data.cms.gov, within its stated crawl delay; Florida death counts from FLHealthCHARTS; CDC, American Heart Association and other pages through Internet Archive copies where the live page refuses scripts and its archived robots file names no AI agent; the Florida Statutes, Florida Administrative Code, eCFR, the Federal Register and govinfo.gov; FDA pages; SEC filings on EDGAR; and journal abstracts (PubMed abstracts re-read through NCBI’s E-utilities, because the pages answer scripts with a bot check). Our YouTube figures come from the YouTube Data API, our Medicare totals from CMS’s public files, and our filing counts from EDGAR full-text search. We left out sources whose robots rules bar AI agents, among them the American Academy of Neurology’s site (aan.com), neurology.org, ahajournals.org, nejm.org, thelancet.com, jamanetwork.com, CDC WONDER, nap.edu and several news sites, using journal papers only through their PubMed abstracts. We left out sources whose own terms bar reproduction or use with AI tools: NRMP’s Match reports, ACGME’s Data Resource Book and the Alzheimer’s Association’s Facts and Figures. We could not read ninds.nih.gov and bhw.hrsa.gov (403), nia.nih.gov (a bot check) or the National MS Society’s data pages (JavaScript only), and we did not read EyeView’s white paper because its site’s last archived robots file disallows all crawling. Medical subject matter is reported as each source states it. Nothing here is medical advice.

We only cite the producer: government agencies, regulators, company filings and official posts, and the survey owner's own report. We do not cite statistics roundups, Statista-style aggregators, or salary sites without a public method. We did not bypass paywalls or sign-up forms; where a full report was gated, we used only the figures its publisher states publicly.

Figures marked "our calculation" are arithmetic on the cited numbers, and anyone can reproduce them:

This edition contains no Mark Studios customer data.

Limitations

• No single count of neurologists exists. Boards count certificates, BLS counts wage and salary jobs, and CMS counts providers who billed original Medicare. They differ by more than two to one, and we print them side by side rather than choose one.
• Medicare is one payer. The Part B file covers original Medicare only: no Medicare Advantage, no private insurance, no patients under 65 who are not on Medicare. Payment and code counts are for that population. Year-to-year comparisons are before inflation, and the file has no telehealth place of service; telehealth appears only through three consult codes.
• BLS estimates for neurologists in Florida are rough. The Florida employment estimate has a 45.6% relative standard error, Miami-area employment was not released, and BLS publishes no neurologist series for the Port St. Lucie area, metro divisions or counties. NAICS 621111 covers all physician offices; every such figure is labelled as shared.
• Most video studies are one search on one day. YouTube and TikTok content studies score top results for a short list of terms, often in one language or country. Their quality and misinformation shares are spreads across samples, not a rate for all neurology video.
• Treatment and access evidence is mostly observational. Telestroke results depend on the measure and design, and a small trial of video visits in Parkinson’s disease did not improve quality of life. We report what each study measured and promise nothing about any treatment, program or practice.
• Burden figures come from different methods. Death counts are from certificates; the 795,000 strokes a year and several prevalence figures are modelled or survey estimates, and association figures carry the association’s interest. County death counts are by residence and small counts are unstable.
• Our YouTube read follows YouTube’s ranking. The 576 videos are what YouTube’s search returned for three terms (the top 200 results of each, sorted by views, with no country filter) on November 9, 2026. It is not a census of neurology video. View counts are lifetime snapshots, and we sorted 388 channels by hand from their public text; credentials were not checked. Patients, caregivers, children and clip channels showing a real person’s seizure or stroke are published only as a class and counts, so 30.4% of on-topic views cannot be recomputed from the public CSV.
• Filings count words. EDGAR full-text search finds a word, not a topic. We read the filings from 2022 on by hand; earlier years are counts only.
• Rules are dated. Statutes and rules are reported as we read them on November 9, 2026. This is not legal advice. Every “earliest we found” in the origins section rests on web pages, PubMed and the Internet Archive; newspaper databases were not searched, and one AHA edition (2008) gave us no text.

How to cite this page

For a single figure, cite the original publisher named next to it, and link here if the verification trail is useful to your readers. Each figure has its own anchor, so you can link straight to it, for example https://www.markstudios.com/research/neurologist-video-statistics#DRV-218. To cite the page as a whole:

Mark Studios. "Neurologist Video Statistics." Last verified Nov 9, 2026. https://www.markstudios.com/research/neurologist-video-statistics

@misc{markstudios_neurologist_video_statistics_2026,
  author = {{Mark Studios}},
  title = {{Neurologist Video Statistics}},
  year = {2026},
  month = nov,
  url = {https://www.markstudios.com/research/neurologist-video-statistics},
  note = {Last verified 2026-11-09}
}

Our calculations and the evidence table are free to reuse with attribution and a link to this page. Each underlying figure remains the claim of its original publisher, and some publishers ask for a link when their figures are reused.

Sources

Download the evidence table (CSV)

1. Frontiers in Public Health (Lukić et al.), The quality of information provided by the most popular dementia videos on TikTok. (2023-11-28). Accessed 2026-11-09.
2. Computers, Informatics, Nursing (Guo et al.), Evaluating the Content, Quality, and Reliability of Migraine-related Videos on TikTok in China: Opportunities and Challenges for Health Information Dissemination. (2026-02-01). Accessed 2026-11-09.
3. Cephalalgia (Saffi et al.), The migraine landscape on YouTube: A review of YouTube as a source of information on migraine. (2020-07-23). Accessed 2026-11-09.
4. Scientific Reports (Wang et al.), Quality evaluation of stroke-related information on TikTok: a cross-sectional study. (2025-12-12). Accessed 2026-11-09.
5. JMIR Infodemiology (Ge et al.), The Quality and Reliability of Online Videos as an Information Source of Public Health Education for Stroke Prevention in Mainland China: Electronic Media-Based Cross-Sectional Study. (2025-07-21). Accessed 2026-11-09.
6. Health Science Reports (Pradhan et al.), Daith Piercing, a Social Media Hype on Youtube for the Treatment of Migraine? A Systematic Video Analysis. (2025-06-11). Accessed 2026-11-09.
7. Digital Health (Shu et al.), YouTube, Bilibili, and TikTok serve as important stroke-relevant information sources: A cross-sectional study. (2026-01-21). Accessed 2026-11-09.
8. Journal of Stroke and Cerebrovascular Diseases (Yasin et al.), Quality analysis of YouTube videos on mechanical thrombectomy for acute ischemic stroke. (2022-11-30). Accessed 2026-11-09.
9. BMC Public Health (Özdemir et al.), YouTube as a source of recognizing acute stroke; progress in 2 years. (2024-08-13). Accessed 2026-11-09.
10. Epileptic Disorders (St-Pierre et al.), Disinformation and misinformation in epilepsy: An analysis of multiplatform short-form social media video content. (2026-06-15). Accessed 2026-11-09.
11. Epileptic Disorders (Jiang et al.), The devil is in the details: Understanding how misinformation regarding epilepsy manifests in TikTok videos. (2023-04-17). Accessed 2026-11-09.
12. Epilepsy & Behavior (Birkun et al.), Misinformation on first aid for seizures communicated through the fastest growing social media platform: A cross-sectional study of TikTok content. (2024-11-06). Accessed 2026-11-09.
13. Journal of Child Neurology (De Faria Sousa et al.), Pediatric Seizure First-Aid Content on Social Media: Accuracy, Educational Quality, and Engagement Across Platforms. (2026-08-07). Accessed 2026-11-09.
14. Scientific Reports (Zhang et al.), Quality, reliability, and treatment misinformation risk of epilepsy content on Chinese short-video platforms TikTok (Douyin) and Bilibili: a cross-sectional analysis. (2026-05-08). Accessed 2026-11-09.
15. Epilepsy & Behavior (Brna et al.), Are YouTube seizure videos misleading? Neurologists do not always agree. (2013-09-12). Accessed 2026-11-09.
16. JMIR Infodemiology (Elliott et al.), YouTube Videos as Educational Resources for Seizure Clusters and Treatment Options: Cross-Sectional Observational Study. (2026-09-30). Accessed 2026-11-09.
17. Headache (Chaudhry et al.), Cluster headache - The worst possible pain on YouTube. (2022-09-03). Accessed 2026-11-09.
18. Medicine (Karacan Gölen et al.), Quality and reliability analysis of migraine Botox treatment information on YouTube. (2024-09-23). Accessed 2026-11-09.
19. Journal of Clinical Neuroscience (Kim et al.), Dry facts are not always inviting: a content analysis of Korean videos regarding Parkinson's disease on YouTube. (2017-10-04). Accessed 2026-11-09.
20. Journal of Clinical Neuroscience (Tripathi et al.), The reliability of Deep Brain Stimulation YouTube videos. (2020-02-21). Accessed 2026-11-09.
21. British Journal of Neurosurgery (Richardson et al.), YouTube videos for describing Deep Brain Stimulation: a comprehensive and quantitative review. (2025-07-26). Accessed 2026-11-09.
22. BMC Medical Education (Demirtaş et al.), YouTube as a resource for Parkinson's disease exercise education: an evaluation of video quality and reliability. (2026-02-16). Accessed 2026-11-09.
23. Journal of Alzheimer's Disease Reports (Alba et al.), YouTube as an educational resource: Evaluating the quality and reliability of videos for family caregivers of persons living with Alzheimer's disease dementia. (2025-10-08). Accessed 2026-11-09.
24. Digital Health (Li et al.), Quality and reliability of Alzheimer's disease videos on Douyin and Bilibili: A cross-sectional content analysis study. (2025-11-19). Accessed 2026-11-09.
25. Multiple Sclerosis and Related Disorders (Altunisik et al.), Content and quality analysis of videos about multiple sclerosis on social media: The case of YouTube. (2022-07-06). Accessed 2026-11-09.
26. Multiple Sclerosis and Related Disorders (Kiloatar et al.), Content quality and reliability of YouTube exercise videos for multiple sclerosis. (2025-09-18). Accessed 2026-11-09.
27. JAMA Neurology (Tatum et al.), Assessment of the Predictive Value of Outpatient Smartphone Videos for Diagnosis of Epileptic Seizures. (2020-01-22). Accessed 2026-11-09.
28. European Journal of Neurology (Tatum et al.), Video quality using outpatient smartphone videos in epilepsy: Results from the OSmartViE study. (2021-02-11). Accessed 2026-11-09.
29. Epilepsy & Behavior (Karakas et al.), Home video prediction of epileptic vs. nonepileptic seizures in US veterans. (2021-02-18). Accessed 2026-11-09.
30. The Journal of Pediatrics (Rao et al.), The Effect of Smartphone Video on Lead Time to Diagnosis of Infantile Spasms. (2023-03-15). Accessed 2026-11-09.
31. Epilepsia Open (Klein et al.), How much time is enough? Establishing an optimal duration of recording for ambulatory video EEG. (2021-07-16). Accessed 2026-11-09.
32. Clinical Neurophysiology (Wong et al.), Ambulatory video EEG extended to 10 days: A retrospective review of a large database of ictal events. (2023-06-17). Accessed 2026-11-09.
33. Neurology Clinical Practice (Li et al.), The Yield of Ambulatory Video-EEG: Predictors of Successful Event Capture. (2023-09-14). Accessed 2026-11-09.
34. Epileptic Disorders (van Griethuysen et al.), Yield and risk associated with prolonged presurgical video-EEG monitoring: a systematic review. (2022-08-31). Accessed 2026-11-09.
35. Seizure (Kerr et al.), Factors associated with delay to video-EEG in dissociative seizures. (2021-02-15). Accessed 2026-11-09.
36. Stroke (Williams et al.), Improving Community Stroke Preparedness in the HHS (Hip-Hop Stroke) Randomized Clinical Trial. (2018-03-24). Accessed 2026-11-09.
37. Journal of the American Heart Association (Favilla et al.), Personalized Video-Based Educational Platform to Improve Stroke Knowledge: A Randomized Clinical Trial. (2024-07-31). Accessed 2026-11-09.
38. Clinical Neurology and Neurosurgery (Saengow et al.), Epilepsy video animation: Impact on knowledge and drug adherence in pediatric epilepsy patients and caregivers. (2018-06-30). Accessed 2026-11-09.
39. Journal of Child Neurology (Xiang et al.), Effects of Simulation Video on Parental Recall of Seizure First Aid: A Quality Improvement Project. (2020-07-17). Accessed 2026-11-09.
40. Revista de Neurología (Puertas-Porrino et al.), [EPICAP: educational intervention using instructional clips in patients with epilepsy. A randomised clinical trial]. (2023-10-27). Accessed 2026-11-09.
41. Journal of Clinical Neuroscience (Gomes et al.), Impact of promoting physical exercise on migraine - A video-based randomized clinical trial. (2025-06-16). Accessed 2026-11-09.
42. Alzheimer's & Dementia: Translational Research & Clinical Interventions (Babapour Mofrad et al.), Lumbar puncture patient video increases knowledge and reduces uncertainty: An RCT. (2021-02-14). Accessed 2026-11-09.
43. Innovation in Aging (Williams et al.), Supporting Family Caregivers With Technology for Dementia Home Care: A Randomized Controlled Trial. (2019-10-16). Accessed 2026-11-09.
44. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews (González-Fraile et al.), Remotely delivered information, training and support for informal caregivers of people with dementia. (2021-01-04). Accessed 2026-11-09.
45. JAMA Neurology (Wilcock et al.), Reperfusion Treatment and Stroke Outcomes in Hospitals With Telestroke Capacity. (2021-03-02). Accessed 2026-11-09.
46. JAMA Network Open (Stamm et al.), Telestroke and Timely Treatment and Outcomes in Patients With Acute Ischemic Stroke. (2025-09-02). Accessed 2026-11-09.
47. International Journal of Stroke (Mohamed et al.), Is telestroke more effective than conventional treatment for acute ischemic stroke? A systematic review and meta-analysis of patient outcomes and thrombolysis rates. (2023-10-27). Accessed 2026-11-09.
48. Prehospital Emergency Care (Baratloo et al.), Effects of Telestroke on Thrombolysis Times and Outcomes: A Meta-analysis. (2018-01-18). Accessed 2026-11-09.
49. JAMA Neurology (Behrens et al.), Teleneurology vs On-Site Neurology Consultation for Postadmission Hospital Care of Stroke. (2026-04-06). Accessed 2026-11-09.
50. Annals of Neurology (Alhajala et al.), Expansion of Telestroke Coverage in Community Hospitals: Unifying Stroke Care and Reducing Transfer Rate. (2023-12-16). Accessed 2026-11-09.
51. Neurology (Beck et al.), National randomized controlled trial of virtual house calls for Parkinson disease. (2017-08-16). Accessed 2026-11-09.
52. Cureus (Gudlavalleti et al.), Factors Associated With No-Show to Ambulatory Tele-Video Neurology Visits. (2023-05-12). Accessed 2026-11-09.
53. Journal of General Internal Medicine (Wilkinson et al.), The VA National Teleneurology Program (NTNP): Implementing Teleneurology to Improve Equitable Access to Outpatient Neurology Care. (2023-06-20). Accessed 2026-11-09.
54. American Board of Medical Specialties, 2025-2026 ABMS Board Certification Report (2026-09). Accessed 2026-11-09.
55. American Board of Psychiatry and Neurology, Certifications - Total and Active (as of December 31, 2025) (2026). Accessed 2026-11-09.
56. Journal of Clinical Neuroscience (Silvestre et al.), Geographic disparities in the supply, demand, and adequacy of the United States neurologist workforce (2026-04). Accessed 2026-11-09.
57. Neurology: Clinical Practice (Walker et al.), The Neurology Workforce in American Medicine: Physicians, Physician Associates, and Nurse Practitioners (2026-12). Accessed 2026-11-09.
58. Neurology (Dall et al.), Supply and demand analysis of the current and future US neurology workforce (2013-07-30). Accessed 2026-11-09.
59. Association of American Medical Colleges, 2018 Physician Specialty Data Report (2018). Accessed 2026-11-09.
60. Florida Department of Health, Florida Physician Workforce 2026 Annual Report (2026-11-01). Accessed 2026-11-09.
61. U.S. Census Bureau, Vintage 2025 State Population Totals: NST-EST2025-ALLDATA (2026-01-27). Accessed 2026-11-09.
62. American Board of Psychiatry and Neurology, Facts and Statistics (2026). Accessed 2026-11-09.
63. Neurology (Lin et al.), Geographic Variation in Neurologist Density and Neurologic Care in the United States (2021-01-19). Accessed 2026-11-09.
64. Headache (Ong et al.), Geographic variation in certified headache subspecialty availability in the United States (2026-10). Accessed 2026-11-09.
65. Neurology (Lin et al.), Wait Time to See a Neurologist After Referral Among Medicare Participants (2025-02-11). Accessed 2026-11-09.
66. Neurology (Busis et al.), Burnout, career satisfaction, and well-being among US neurologists in 2016 (2017-02-21). Accessed 2026-11-09.
67. Neurology (LaFaver et al.), Age and sex differences in burnout, career satisfaction, and well-being in US neurologists (2018-11-13). Accessed 2026-11-09.
68. Neurology: Clinical Practice (Guo et al.), Burnout in Practicing Neurologists: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis (2025-02). Accessed 2026-11-09.
69. Epilepsy & Behavior (Freund et al.), Survey of burnout in U.S. Epilepsy physicians (2026-03). Accessed 2026-11-09.
70. American Medical Association, Patient-Facing Telehealth: Use Is Higher Than Pre-Pandemic But With Great Variation Across Physician Specialties (Policy Research Perspectives) (2025-11). Accessed 2026-11-09.
71. Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, Medicare Physician & Other Practitioners - by Provider (2024 data) (2026-05-21). Accessed 2026-11-09.
72. Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, Medicare Physician & Other Practitioners - by Provider (2019 data) (2025-03-26). Accessed 2026-11-09.
73. Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, Medicare Physician & Other Practitioners - by Provider (2024 data) (2026-05-21). Accessed 2026-11-09.
74. Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, Medicare Physician & Other Practitioners - by Provider (2019 data) (2025-03-26). Accessed 2026-11-09.
75. Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, Medicare Physician & Other Practitioners - by Provider (2024 data) (2026-05-21). Accessed 2026-11-09.
76. Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, Medicare Physician & Other Practitioners - by Provider (2019 data) (2025-03-26). Accessed 2026-11-09.
77. Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, Medicare Physician & Other Practitioners - by Provider (2019 data) (2025-03-26). Accessed 2026-11-09.
78. Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, Medicare Physician & Other Practitioners - by Provider (2024 data) (2026-05-21). Accessed 2026-11-09.
79. Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, Medicare Physician & Other Practitioners - by Provider (2019 data) (2025-03-26). Accessed 2026-11-09.
80. Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, Medicare Physician & Other Practitioners - by Provider (2024 data) (2026-05-21). Accessed 2026-11-09.
81. Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, Medicare Physician & Other Practitioners - by Provider (2019 data) (2025-03-26). Accessed 2026-11-09.
82. Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, Medicare Physician & Other Practitioners - by Provider (2024 data) (2026-05-21). Accessed 2026-11-09.
83. Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, Medicare Physician & Other Practitioners - by Provider (2024 data) (2026-05-21). Accessed 2026-11-09.
84. Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, Medicare Physician & Other Practitioners - by Provider (2024 data) (2026-05-21). Accessed 2026-11-09.
85. Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, Medicare Physician & Other Practitioners - by Provider (2024 data) (2026-05-21). Accessed 2026-11-09.
86. Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, Medicare Physician & Other Practitioners - by Provider (2024 data) (2026-05-21). Accessed 2026-11-09.
87. Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, Medicare Physician & Other Practitioners - by Geography and Service (2024 data) (2026-05-21). Accessed 2026-11-09.
88. Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, Medicare Physician & Other Practitioners - by Geography and Service (2019 data) (2023-05-10). Accessed 2026-11-09.
89. Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, Medicare Physician & Other Practitioners - by Geography and Service (2019 data) (2023-05-10). Accessed 2026-11-09.
90. Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, Medicare Physician & Other Practitioners - by Geography and Service (2024 data) (2026-05-21). Accessed 2026-11-09.
91. Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, Medicare Physician & Other Practitioners - by Geography and Service (2024 data) (2026-05-21). Accessed 2026-11-09.
92. Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, Medicare Physician & Other Practitioners - by Geography and Service (2020 data) (2023-05-10). Accessed 2026-11-09.
93. Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, Medicare Physician & Other Practitioners - by Geography and Service (2024 data) (2026-05-21). Accessed 2026-11-09.
94. Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, Medicare Physician & Other Practitioners - by Geography and Service (2024 data) (2026-05-21). Accessed 2026-11-09.
95. Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, Medicare Physician & Other Practitioners - by Geography and Service (2024 data) (2026-05-21). Accessed 2026-11-09.
96. Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, Medicare Physician & Other Practitioners - by Geography and Service (2024 data) (2026-05-21). Accessed 2026-11-09.
97. Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, Medicare Physician & Other Practitioners - by Geography and Service (2024 data) (2026-05-21). Accessed 2026-11-09.
98. Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, Medicare Physician & Other Practitioners - by Geography and Service (2019 data) (2023-05-10). Accessed 2026-11-09.
99. Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, Medicare Physician & Other Practitioners - by Geography and Service (2024 data) (2026-05-21). Accessed 2026-11-09.
100. Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, Medicare Physician & Other Practitioners - by Geography and Service (2019 data) (2023-05-10). Accessed 2026-11-09.
101. Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, Medicare Physician & Other Practitioners - by Geography and Service (2024 data) (2026-05-21). Accessed 2026-11-09.
102. Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, Medicare Physician & Other Practitioners - by Geography and Service (2019 data) (2023-05-10). Accessed 2026-11-09.
103. Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, Medicare Physician & Other Practitioners - by Geography and Service (2019 data) (2023-05-10). Accessed 2026-11-09.
104. Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, Medicare Physician & Other Practitioners - by Geography and Service (2019 data) (2023-05-10). Accessed 2026-11-09.
105. Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, Medicare Physician & Other Practitioners - by Geography and Service (2024 data) (2026-05-21). Accessed 2026-11-09.
106. Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, Medicare Physician & Other Practitioners - by Geography and Service (2024 data) (2026-05-21). Accessed 2026-11-09.
107. Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, Medicare Physician & Other Practitioners - by Geography and Service (2024 data) (2026-05-21). Accessed 2026-11-09.
108. Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, Medicare Physician & Other Practitioners - by Geography and Service (2024 data) (2026-05-21). Accessed 2026-11-09.
109. Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, Medicare Physician & Other Practitioners - by Geography and Service (2024 data) (2026-05-21). Accessed 2026-11-09.
110. Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, Medicare Physician & Other Practitioners - by Geography and Service (2024 data) (2026-05-21). Accessed 2026-11-09.
111. Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, Medicare Physician & Other Practitioners - by Geography and Service (2024 data) (2026-05-21). Accessed 2026-11-09.
112. Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, Medicare Physician & Other Practitioners - by Geography and Service (2024 data) (2026-05-21). Accessed 2026-11-09.
113. Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, Medicare Physician & Other Practitioners - by Geography and Service (2019 data) (2023-05-10). Accessed 2026-11-09.
114. Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, Medicare Physician Fee Schedule - Indicators for 2024B (2024-10-01). Accessed 2026-11-09.
115. Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, Medicare Physician & Other Practitioners - by Geography and Service (2024 data) (2026-05-21). Accessed 2026-11-09.
116. Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, Medicare Physician & Other Practitioners - by Geography and Service (2024 data) (2026-05-21). Accessed 2026-11-09.
117. Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, Medicare Physician & Other Practitioners - by Geography and Service (2024 data) (2026-05-21). Accessed 2026-11-09.
118. Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, Medicare Physician & Other Practitioners - by Geography and Service (2024 data) (2026-05-21). Accessed 2026-11-09.
119. Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, Medicare Physician & Other Practitioners - by Geography and Service (2019 data) (2023-05-10). Accessed 2026-11-09.
120. Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, Medicare Physician & Other Practitioners - by Geography and Service (2024 data) (2026-05-21). Accessed 2026-11-09.
121. Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, Medicare Physician & Other Practitioners - by Geography and Service (2019 data) (2023-05-10). Accessed 2026-11-09.
122. Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, Medicare Physician & Other Practitioners - by Geography and Service (2019 data) (2023-05-10). Accessed 2026-11-09.
123. Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, Medicare Physician & Other Practitioners - by Geography and Service (2024 data) (2026-05-21). Accessed 2026-11-09.
124. Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, Medicare Physician & Other Practitioners - by Geography and Service (2019 data) (2023-05-10). Accessed 2026-11-09.
125. Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, Medicare Physician & Other Practitioners - by Geography and Service (2024 data) (2026-05-21). Accessed 2026-11-09.
126. Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, Medicare Physician & Other Practitioners - by Geography and Service (2019 data) (2023-05-10). Accessed 2026-11-09.
127. Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, Medicare Physician & Other Practitioners - by Geography and Service (2024 data) (2026-05-21). Accessed 2026-11-09.
128. U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, Occupational Employment and Wage Statistics (OEWS), May 2025 estimates (2026-05-15). Accessed 2026-11-09.
129. U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, Occupational Employment and Wage Statistics (OEWS), May 2025 estimates (2026-05-15). Accessed 2026-11-09.
130. U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, Occupational Outlook Handbook: Physicians and Surgeons (2026-08-27). Accessed 2026-11-09.
131. U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, Employment Projections Table 1.2: Occupational projections, 2025-35, and worker characteristics, 2025 (2026-08-27). Accessed 2026-11-09.
132. U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, Occupational Employment and Wage Statistics (OEWS), May 2025 estimates (2026-05-15). Accessed 2026-11-09.
133. U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, Occupational Employment and Wage Statistics (OEWS), May 2025 estimates (2026-05-15). Accessed 2026-11-09.
134. U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, Occupational Employment and Wage Statistics (OEWS), May 2025 estimates (2026-05-15). Accessed 2026-11-09.
135. U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, Occupational Employment and Wage Statistics (OEWS), May 2025 estimates (2026-05-15). Accessed 2026-11-09.
136. U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, Occupational Employment and Wage Statistics (OEWS), May 2025 estimates (2026-05-15). Accessed 2026-11-09.
137. U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, Occupational Employment and Wage Statistics (OEWS), May 2025 estimates (2026-05-15). Accessed 2026-11-09.
138. U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, Occupational Employment and Wage Statistics (OEWS), May 2025 estimates (2026-05-15). Accessed 2026-11-09.
139. U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, Occupational Employment and Wages, May 2023: 29-1217 Neurologists (2024-04-03). Accessed 2026-11-09.
140. U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, Occupational Employment and Wage Statistics (OEWS), May 2025 estimates (2026-05-15). Accessed 2026-11-09.
141. U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, Occupational Employment and Wage Statistics (OEWS), May 2025 estimates (2026-05-15). Accessed 2026-11-09.
142. U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, Occupational Employment and Wage Statistics (OEWS), May 2025 estimates (2026-05-15). Accessed 2026-11-09.
143. U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, Occupational Employment and Wage Statistics (OEWS), May 2025 estimates (2026-05-15). Accessed 2026-11-09.
144. U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, Occupational Employment and Wage Statistics (OEWS), May 2025 estimates (2026-05-15). Accessed 2026-11-09.
145. U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, Occupational Employment and Wage Statistics (OEWS), May 2025 estimates (2026-05-15). Accessed 2026-11-09.
146. U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, Occupational Employment and Wage Statistics (OEWS), May 2025 estimates (2026-05-15). Accessed 2026-11-09.
147. U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, Occupational Employment and Wage Statistics (OEWS), May 2025 estimates (2026-05-15). Accessed 2026-11-09.
148. U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, Occupational Employment and Wage Statistics (OEWS), May 2025 estimates (2026-05-15). Accessed 2026-11-09.
149. U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, Occupational Employment and Wage Statistics (OEWS), May 2025 estimates (2026-05-15). Accessed 2026-11-09.
150. U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, Occupational Employment and Wage Statistics (OEWS), May 2025 estimates (2026-05-15). Accessed 2026-11-09.
151. U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, Occupational Employment and Wage Statistics (OEWS), May 2025 estimates (2026-05-15). Accessed 2026-11-09.
152. U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, Occupational Employment and Wage Statistics (OEWS), May 2025 estimates (2026-05-15). Accessed 2026-11-09.
153. U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, Occupational Employment and Wage Statistics (OEWS), May 2025 estimates (2026-05-15). Accessed 2026-11-09.
154. U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, Occupational Employment and Wage Statistics (OEWS), May 2025 estimates (2026-05-15). Accessed 2026-11-09.
155. U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, Occupational Employment and Wage Statistics (OEWS), May 2025 estimates (2026-05-15). Accessed 2026-11-09.
156. U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, QCEW open data, 2025 annual averages, industry 621111 (2026-09-03). Accessed 2026-11-09.
157. U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, QCEW open data, 2019 annual averages, industry 621111 (2020-09-02). Accessed 2026-11-09.
158. U.S. Census Bureau, County Business Patterns 2023 (Census Data API, cbp) (2025-06-26). Accessed 2026-11-09.
159. U.S. Census Bureau, Nonemployer Statistics 2024 (Census Data API, nonemp) (2026-06-25). Accessed 2026-11-09.
160. U.S. Census Bureau, Nonemployer Statistics 2023 (Census Data API, nonemp) (2025-06-26). Accessed 2026-11-09.
161. U.S. Census Bureau, County Business Patterns 2023 (Census Data API, cbp) (2025-06-26). Accessed 2026-11-09.
162. U.S. Census Bureau, County Business Patterns 2023 (Census Data API, cbp) (2025-06-26). Accessed 2026-11-09.
163. U.S. Census Bureau, 2022 Economic Census: Industry by Products (ecnnapcsind) (2024-12-12). Accessed 2026-11-09.
164. U.S. Census Bureau, 2022 Economic Census: Telemedicine Services by Industry (ecntelemeds) (2025-01-23). Accessed 2026-11-09.
165. U.S. Census Bureau, Annual Integrated Economic Survey: Detailed Operating Expenses: 2024 (aiesexp02) (2026-05-28). Accessed 2026-11-09.
166. National Center for Health Statistics, CDC, Deaths: Leading Causes for 2024 (National Vital Statistics Reports, Vol. 75, No. 7) (2026-09-22). Accessed 2026-11-09.
167. National Center for Health Statistics, CDC, Deaths: Final Data for 2022 (National Vital Statistics Reports, Vol. 74, No. 4) (2025-06-10). Accessed 2026-11-09.
168. National Center for Health Statistics, CDC, Mortality in the United States, 2024 (NCHS Data Brief No. 548) (2026-01). Accessed 2026-11-09.
169. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Stroke Facts (2024-10-24). Accessed 2026-11-09.
170. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Stroke Facts (older page) (2023-05-04). Accessed 2026-11-09.
171. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Prevalence of Stroke - Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System, United States, 2011-2022 (MMWR 73(20)) (2024-05-23). Accessed 2026-11-09.
172. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Epilepsy Facts and Stats (2024-05-15). Accessed 2026-11-09.
173. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Epilepsy Data and Statistics (older page) (2023). Accessed 2026-11-09.
174. National Center for Health Statistics, CDC, QuickStats: Percentage of Adults Who Had a Severe Headache or Migraine in the Past 3 Months, by Sex and Age Group - National Health Interview Survey, United States, 2018 (MMWR 69(12)) (2020-03-27). Accessed 2026-11-09.
175. Headache (Burch et al.), The prevalence and impact of migraine and severe headache in the United States: Updated age, sex, and socioeconomic-specific estimates from government health surveys (2021-01). Accessed 2026-11-09.
176. npj Parkinson's Disease (Marras et al.), Prevalence of Parkinson's disease across North America (2018-07-10). Accessed 2026-11-09.
177. Parkinson's Foundation (association), Statistics | Parkinson's Foundation (undated). Accessed 2026-11-09.
178. Neurology (Wallin et al.), The prevalence of MS in the United States: A population-based estimate using health claims data (2019-03-05). Accessed 2026-11-09.
179. JAMA Neurology (Hittle et al.), Population-Based Estimates for the Prevalence of Multiple Sclerosis in the United States by Race, Ethnicity, Age, Sex, and Geographic Region (2023-07-01). Accessed 2026-11-09.
180. Alzheimer's & Dementia (Rajan et al.), Population estimate of people with clinical Alzheimer's disease and mild cognitive impairment in the United States (2020-2060) (2021-12). Accessed 2026-11-09.
181. JAMA Neurology (Manly et al.), Estimating the Prevalence of Dementia and Mild Cognitive Impairment in the US: The 2016 Health and Retirement Study Harmonized Cognitive Assessment Protocol Project (2022-12-01). Accessed 2026-11-09.
182. American Migraine Foundation (association), Resources Library | American Migraine Foundation (undated). Accessed 2026-11-09.
183. npj Parkinson's Disease (Willis et al.), Incidence of Parkinson disease in North America (2022-12-15). Accessed 2026-11-09.
184. Nature Medicine (Fang et al.), Lifetime risk and projected burden of dementia (2025-03). Accessed 2026-11-09.
185. JAMA Neurology (Feigin et al., Global Burden of Disease Study), Burden of Neurological Disorders Across the US From 1990-2017: A Global Burden of Disease Study (2021-02-01). Accessed 2026-11-09.
186. Lancet Neurology (GBD 2021 Nervous System Disorders Collaborators), Global, regional, and national burden of disorders affecting the nervous system, 1990-2021 (2024-04). Accessed 2026-11-09.
187. Florida Department of Health (FLHealthCHARTS), FLHealthCHARTS, 'Deaths From Stroke: Ten Year Report' (2026-11-09). Accessed 2026-11-09.
188. Florida Department of Health (FLHealthCHARTS), FLHealthCHARTS, 'Deaths From Alzheimer's Disease: Ten Year Report' (2026-11-09). Accessed 2026-11-09.
189. Florida Department of Health (FLHealthCHARTS), FLHealthCHARTS, 'Deaths From Parkinson's Disease: Ten Year Report' (2026-11-09). Accessed 2026-11-09.
190. Florida Department of Health (FLHealthCHARTS), FLHealthCHARTS, 'Deaths From Stroke: Ten Year Report' (2026-11-09). Accessed 2026-11-09.
191. Florida Department of Health (FLHealthCHARTS), FLHealthCHARTS, 'Deaths From Alzheimer's Disease: Ten Year Report' (2026-11-09). Accessed 2026-11-09.
192. Florida Department of Health (FLHealthCHARTS), FLHealthCHARTS, 'Deaths From Parkinson's Disease: Ten Year Report' (2026-11-09). Accessed 2026-11-09.
193. Florida Department of Health (FLHealthCHARTS), FLHealthCHARTS, 'Deaths From Stroke: Ten Year Report' (2026-11-09). Accessed 2026-11-09.
194. Florida Department of Health (FLHealthCHARTS), FLHealthCHARTS, 'Deaths From Alzheimer's Disease: Ten Year Report' (2026-11-09). Accessed 2026-11-09.
195. Florida Department of Health (FLHealthCHARTS), FLHealthCHARTS, 'Deaths From Parkinson's Disease: Ten Year Report' (2026-11-09). Accessed 2026-11-09.
196. Florida Department of Health (FLHealthCHARTS), FLHealthCHARTS, 'Deaths From Stroke: Ten Year Report' (2026-11-09). Accessed 2026-11-09.
197. Florida Department of Health (FLHealthCHARTS), FLHealthCHARTS, 'Deaths From Alzheimer's Disease: Ten Year Report' (2026-11-09). Accessed 2026-11-09.
198. Florida Department of Health (FLHealthCHARTS), FLHealthCHARTS, 'Deaths From Parkinson's Disease: Ten Year Report' (2026-11-09). Accessed 2026-11-09.
199. Florida Department of Health (FLHealthCHARTS), FLHealthCHARTS, 'Deaths From Stroke, Age 65-120, Single Year' (2026-11-09). Accessed 2026-11-09.
200. Florida Department of Health (FLHealthCHARTS), FLHealthCHARTS, 'Deaths From Alzheimer's Disease, Age 65-120, Single Year' (2026-11-09). Accessed 2026-11-09.
201. Florida Department of Health (FLHealthCHARTS), FLHealthCHARTS, 'Deaths From Parkinson's Disease, Age 65-120, Single Year' (2026-11-09). Accessed 2026-11-09.
202. Biogen Inc., Biogen Inc. Form 10-K for fiscal year 2025 (2026-02-06). Accessed 2026-11-09.
203. Eli Lilly and Company, Eli Lilly and Company Form 10-K for fiscal year 2025 (2026-02-12). Accessed 2026-11-09.
204. Medtronic plc, Medtronic plc Form 10-K for fiscal year 2026 (ended April 24, 2026) (2026-06-18). Accessed 2026-11-09.
205. Abbott Laboratories, Abbott Laboratories Form 10-K for fiscal year 2025 (2026-02-20). Accessed 2026-11-09.
206. LivaNova PLC, LivaNova PLC Form 10-K for fiscal year 2025 (2026-02-25). Accessed 2026-11-09.
207. NeuroPace, Inc., NeuroPace, Inc. Form 10-K for fiscal year 2025 (2026-03-03). Accessed 2026-11-09.
208. Ceribell, Inc., Ceribell, Inc. Form 10-K for fiscal year 2025 (2026-02-24). Accessed 2026-11-09.
209. AbbVie Inc., AbbVie Inc. Form 10-K for fiscal year 2025 (2026-02-20). Accessed 2026-11-09.
210. NeuroPace, Inc., NeuroPace, Inc. Form 10-K for fiscal year 2021 (2022-03-10). Accessed 2026-11-09.
211. Silk Road Medical, Inc., Silk Road Medical, Inc. Form 10-K for fiscal year 2023 (2024-02-28). Accessed 2026-11-09.
212. Supernus Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Supernus Pharmaceuticals, Inc. Form 10-K for fiscal year 2017 (2018-03-01). Accessed 2026-11-09.
213. Teladoc Health, Inc., Teladoc Health, Inc. Form 10-K for fiscal year 2025 (2026-02-26). Accessed 2026-11-09.
214. American Well Corporation, American Well Corporation (Amwell) Form 10-K for fiscal year 2025 (2026-02-12). Accessed 2026-11-09.
215. Natus Medical Incorporated, Natus Medical Incorporated Form 10-K for fiscal year 2021 (2022-02-25). Accessed 2026-11-09.
216. SOC Telemed, Inc., SOC Telemed, Inc. Form 10-K for fiscal year 2021 (2022-03-31). Accessed 2026-11-09.
217. VSee Health, Inc., VSee Health, Inc. Form 10-K for fiscal year 2025 (2026-03-31). Accessed 2026-11-09.
218. U.S. Food and Drug Administration (rule text via eCFR, Office of the Federal Register), 21 CFR 202.1 -- Prescription-drug advertisements (2026-11-05). Accessed 2026-11-09.
219. U.S. Food and Drug Administration (Federal Register), Direct-to-Consumer Prescription Drug Advertisements: Presentation of the Major Statement in a Clear, Conspicuous, and Neutral Manner in Advertisements in Television and Radio Format (2023-11-21). Accessed 2026-11-09.
220. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (rule text via eCFR, Office of the Federal Register), 45 CFR 102.3 -- Penalty adjustment and table (2026-11-05). Accessed 2026-11-09.
221. U.S. Food and Drug Administration, FDA Launches Crackdown on Deceptive Drug Advertising (2025-09-09). Accessed 2026-11-09.
222. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (Unified Agenda, Federal Register), Introduction to the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory Actions-2026 (2026-08-14). Accessed 2026-11-09.
223. U.S. Food and Drug Administration, Untitled Letters (FDA, CDER Office of Prescription Drug Promotion) (2026-11-09). Accessed 2026-11-09.
224. U.S. Food and Drug Administration, Untitled Letter, XCOPRI (cenobamate tablets), TV ad 'Road to Reduction XCOPRI DTC Commercial' (2025-09-30). Accessed 2026-11-09.
225. U.S. Food and Drug Administration, Untitled Letter, NDA 215206, QULIPTA (atogepant) tablets, MA 903 (2025-09-09). Accessed 2026-11-09.
226. U.S. Food and Drug Administration, Untitled Letter, KESIMPTA (ofatumumab) injection, TV ad 'KSM DTC My Time My Way' (2025-09-09). Accessed 2026-11-09.
227. U.S. Food and Drug Administration, Novel Drug Approvals for 2023 (2023-12-31). Accessed 2026-11-09.
228. U.S. Food and Drug Administration, FDA Converts Novel Alzheimer's Disease Treatment to Traditional Approval (2023-07-06). Accessed 2026-11-09.
229. U.S. Food and Drug Administration, Novel Drug Approvals for 2024 (2024-12-31). Accessed 2026-11-09.
230. U.S. Food and Drug Administration (prescribing information, submitted by the maker), KISUNLA (donanemab-azbt) prescribing information, revised 7/2024 (2024-07). Accessed 2026-11-09.
231. U.S. Food and Drug Administration (rule text via eCFR, Office of the Federal Register), 21 CFR 801.4 -- Meaning of intended uses (2026-11-05). Accessed 2026-11-09.
232. U.S. Food and Drug Administration (rule text via eCFR, Office of the Federal Register), 21 CFR 814.80 -- General (2026-11-05). Accessed 2026-11-09.
233. U.S. Food and Drug Administration (rule text via eCFR, Office of the Federal Register), 21 CFR Part 882 -- Neurological Devices (2026-11-05). Accessed 2026-11-09.
234. Florida Department of State (Florida Administrative Code), Board of Medicine rule, 64B8-11.001 Advertising (rule text) (2026-03-19). Accessed 2026-11-09.
235. The Florida Legislature, The 2026 Florida Statutes, 456.072 Grounds for discipline; penalties; enforcement (2026). Accessed 2026-11-09.
236. The Florida Legislature, The 2026 Florida Statutes, 456.47 Use of telehealth to provide services (2026). Accessed 2026-11-09.
237. Florida Department of State (Florida Administrative Code), Board of Medicine rule, 64B8-10.002 Medical Records of Physicians Relocating or Terminating Practice; Retention, Disposition, Time Limitations (rule text) (2018-08-28). Accessed 2026-11-09.
238. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (rule text via eCFR, Office of the Federal Register), 45 CFR 164.508 -- Uses and disclosures for which an authorization is required (2026-11-05). Accessed 2026-11-09.
239. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (rule text via eCFR, Office of the Federal Register), 45 CFR 164.501 -- Definitions (2026-11-05). Accessed 2026-11-09.
240. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (rule text via eCFR, Office of the Federal Register), 45 CFR 164.514 -- Other requirements relating to uses and disclosures of protected health information (2026-11-05). Accessed 2026-11-09.
241. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (Federal Register), Annual Civil Monetary Penalties Inflation Adjustment (91 FR 3665) (2026-01-28). Accessed 2026-11-09.
242. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Office for Civil Rights, Unauthorized Filming for "NY Med" Results in $2.2 Million Settlement with New York Presbyterian Hospital (2016-04-21). Accessed 2026-11-09.
243. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Office for Civil Rights, Physical therapy provider settles violations that it impermissibly disclosed patient information (2016-02-12). Accessed 2026-11-09.
244. Federal Trade Commission (rule text via eCFR, Office of the Federal Register), 16 CFR Part 255 -- Guides Concerning Use of Endorsements and Testimonials in Advertising (2023-07-26). Accessed 2026-11-09.
245. Federal Trade Commission (Federal Register), Trade Regulation Rule on the Use of Consumer Reviews and Testimonials (Federal Register, 2024-08-22) (2024-08-22). Accessed 2026-11-09.
246. Federal Trade Commission (rule text via eCFR, Office of the Federal Register), 16 CFR Part 465 -- Rule on the Use of Consumer Reviews and Testimonials (2026-11-05). Accessed 2026-11-09.
247. U.S. Government Publishing Office (Public Law 115-123, Congress), Public Law 115-123, Bipartisan Budget Act of 2018 (2018-02-09). Accessed 2026-11-09.
248. Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (rule text via eCFR, Office of the Federal Register), 42 CFR 410.78 -- Telehealth services (2026-11-05). Accessed 2026-11-09.
249. Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, Telehealth FAQ (updated 10/8/26) (2026-10-08). Accessed 2026-11-09.
250. Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, List of Telehealth Services (2026-11-09). Accessed 2026-11-09.
251. Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (Federal Register), Medicare and Medicaid Programs; CY 2027 Payment Policies Under the Physician Fee Schedule and Other Changes to Part B Payment and Coverage Policies (final rule, Federal Register, 2026-11-09) (2026-11-09). Accessed 2026-11-09.
252. YouTube (Google), Apply to be a source in YouTube health features - YouTube Help (2026-11-09). Accessed 2026-11-09.
253. YouTube (Google), Medical misinformation policy - YouTube Help (2026-11-09). Accessed 2026-11-09.
254. YouTube (Google), Get health info on YouTube - YouTube Help (2026-11-09). Accessed 2026-11-09.
255. Stroke (Saver, 2006), PubMed record, Time is brain--quantified (2006-01). Accessed 2026-11-09.
256. Journal of Stroke and Cerebrovascular Diseases (Gomez, 1993), PubMed record, Editorial: Time is brain! (1993). Accessed 2026-11-09.
257. Journal of Stroke and Cerebrovascular Diseases (Gomez, 2018), PubMed record, Time Is Brain: The Stroke Theory of Relativity (2018-08). Accessed 2026-11-09.
258. Stroke (Desai et al., 2019), PubMed record, High Variability in Neuronal Loss (2019-01). Accessed 2026-11-09.
259. HealthDay News (repeater), Stroke's Deadly Toll: 2 Million Brain Cells Each Minute (2005-12-08). Accessed 2026-11-09.
260. Advocate Health health enews, hospital system (repeater), Attack of the brain (2013-02-18). Accessed 2026-11-09.
261. Intermountain Health, hospital system (repeater), 1.9 Million Brain Cells Die in First Minute of a Stroke, Knowing Signs and Symptoms is Key to Survival (2014-05-21). Accessed 2026-11-09.
262. Memorial Healthcare System, hospital system (repeater), With a Stroke Time Is Brain (2023-05-07). Accessed 2026-11-09.
263. U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Stroke Facts (2026-10-08). Accessed 2026-11-09.
264. American Heart Association (association; its statistics are a compilation), Heart Disease and Stroke Statistics - 2020 Update (2020). Accessed 2026-11-09.
265. American Heart Association (association; its statistics are a compilation), Heart Disease and Stroke Statistics - 2003 Update (2003). Accessed 2026-11-09.
266. American Heart Association (association; its statistics are a compilation), Heart Disease and Stroke Statistics 2007 Update At-a-Glance (2007). Accessed 2026-11-09.
267. American Heart Association (association; its statistics are a compilation), Heart Disease & Stroke Statistics 2009 Update At-A-Glance (2009). Accessed 2026-11-09.
268. U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Stroke Facts (2010-01-22). Accessed 2026-11-09.
269. MemorialCare, hospital system (repeater), Every 4 Minutes Someone Dies from A Stroke (2018-11-01). Accessed 2026-11-09.
270. U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Stroke Facts (2013-05-15). Accessed 2026-11-09.
271. U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Stroke Facts (2022-10-04). Accessed 2026-11-09.
272. U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Stroke Facts (2024-05-05). Accessed 2026-11-09.
273. U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Stroke Facts (2024-10-03). Accessed 2026-11-09.
274. American Heart Association (association; its statistics are a compilation), Heart disease, stroke deaths down, yet still kill more in U.S. than any other cause (2026-01-21). Accessed 2026-11-09.
275. FlaglerLive, local news site (repeater; notice for a hospital seminar), "Explaining Stroke," a Free Seminar at Florida Hospital Flagler May 16 (2012-05-04). Accessed 2026-11-09.
276. EyeView Digital (video production and testing vendor; sold the videos it tested), UMOO - a prime beef example of EyeView's success (2009-02-10). Accessed 2026-11-09.
277. Unbounce (landing-page software seller), The benefits of using video on landing pages (2010-08). Accessed 2026-11-09.
278. Unbounce (landing-page software seller; analysis of its own customers' pages), Video on landing pages means more conversions, right? Wrong. Here's why (2021-08-26). Accessed 2026-11-09.
279. Unbounce (landing-page software seller; repeater), 15 high-converting landing page examples (+ why they work) (2025-04-06). Accessed 2026-11-09.
280. Neurology (Hesdorffer et al., 2011), PubMed record, Estimating risk for developing epilepsy: a population-based study in Rochester, Minnesota (2011-01-04). Accessed 2026-11-09.
281. Epilepsy Foundation (association), Facts About Seizures and Epilepsy (2026-10-12). Accessed 2026-11-09.
282. News-Medical.Net (repeater), Study: 1 in 26 may develop epilepsy at some point in life (2012-04-17). Accessed 2026-11-09.
283. New England Journal of Medicine (GBD 2016 Lifetime Risk of Stroke Collaborators, 2018), PubMed record, Global, Regional, and Country-Specific Lifetime Risks of Stroke, 1990 and 2016 (2018-12-20). Accessed 2026-11-09.
284. World Stroke Organization (association), About Stroke (2026-11-09). Accessed 2026-11-09.
285. Parkinson's Disease Foundation (association), Statistics on Parkinson's (2009-10-27). Accessed 2026-11-09.
286. npj Parkinson's Disease (Marras et al., 2018), PubMed record, Prevalence of Parkinson's disease across North America (2018-07-10). Accessed 2026-11-09.
287. Michael J. Fox Foundation for Parkinson's Research (association; funds research), What is Parkinson's Disease? Everything You Need to Know (2026-11-09). Accessed 2026-11-09.
288. npj Parkinson's Disease (Willis et al., 2022), PMC, Incidence of Parkinson disease in North America (2022-12-15). Accessed 2026-11-09.
289. Migraine Research Foundation (nonprofit research funder), Fact Sheet (2009-02-25). Accessed 2026-11-09.
290. Migraine Research Foundation (nonprofit research funder), Migraine Facts (2010-11-26). Accessed 2026-11-09.
291. Migraine Research Foundation (nonprofit research funder), Migraine Facts (2016-06-21). Accessed 2026-11-09.
292. Migraine Research Foundation (nonprofit research funder), Migraine Facts (2018-05-04). Accessed 2026-11-09.
293. Headache (Burch et al., 2021), PubMed record, The prevalence and impact of migraine and severe headache in the United States: Updated age, sex, and socioeconomic-specific estimates from government health surveys (2021-01). Accessed 2026-11-09.

Update policy and change log

We re-verify every figure quarterly and when a major source publishes a new edition. The next scheduled review is February 2027. Corrections go to contact@markstudios.com.

• Nov 9, 2026: First published with 730 figures from 84 publishers, each checked against its original source. Florida's physician workforce figures now come from the Department of Health's 2026 annual report (renewals July 2024 to June 2026): 1,368 neurology physicians in direct patient care, 217 in Palm Beach, Broward and Martin counties. They replace the 2025 report's figures, which we had read through an archived copy.