The Burrow
Apr 2, 2026
The healthcare workforce shortage is becoming an increasingly urgent issue across the world as healthcare demand continues to rise. Ageing populations, growing rates of chronic illness, clinician burnout and regional access challenges are placing greater pressure on healthcare systems. Meanwhile, the need for skilled doctors, nurses and specialists continues to intensify. As a result, many regions are struggling to maintain the staffing levels required to meet patient demand.
Even within a single country, workforce availability can vary significantly by location. Differences in staffing levels, recruitment pipelines and healthcare infrastructure can all influence how well healthcare systems cope with demand. Understanding where staff shortages are most pronounced, as well as where systems appear better resourced, can provide valuable insight into how healthcare capacity is distributed.
To explore these differences, the health insurance comparison experts at Compare the Market mapped the healthcare workforce shortage across Australia and the United States – two different nations with wildly different healthcare systems. How are they handling healthcare workforce shortages?
By analysing workforce availability, growth trends and pressure indicators, the index also provides insight into patterns such as doctor shortage by state and how staffing levels relate to hospital wait times.
To create the map, we developed an index using six key metrics that reflect staffing availability, system pressure and workforce competitiveness. Each metric was normalised between 0 and 1 and then averaged to create a final score out of 100, with higher scores indicating regions where healthcare systems appear better staffed. Separate datasets were used for Australia and the United States, using comparable indicators and country-specific data sources.
Now, let’s find out which areas in Australia and the US have the best staffed healthcare systems.
Our index ranks Australian states and territories based on practitioner availability, workforce growth, vacancy signals, hospital capacity, pay competitiveness and pressure indicators such as hospital wait times.
Queensland leads Australia’s healthcare workforce index with the highest overall score, bolstered by a strong number of healthcare practitioners (2,723 per 100k people) and a substantial number of hospitals (4.82 per 100k). The state also excels in salary competitiveness, offering an average annual healthcare salary of $104,652 AUD, positioning it as a well-resourced healthcare system.
Victoria ranks second, with a robust workforce growth rate of 22.78% and strong healthcare job ads (0.94 per 100,000 people). Though it slightly trails Queensland in hospital availability (2.85 per 100k), the state’s balanced performance across various indicators ensures high staffing levels and competitiveness in comparison to other states and territories.
New South Wales ranks third, performing solidly across workforce demand and hospital capacity. The state achieves a high score of 0.91 in health sector job ads per 100,000 people, alongside an efficient hospital network (3.92 per 100k population), although it lags slightly in practitioner density.
Despite being Australia’s smallest territory, the Australian Capital Territory (ACT) excels with strong practitioner growth (23.12%) and solid practitioner density (2,901 per 100k). While hospital capacity is relatively modest at 2.20 per 100k, its strong performance in practitioner availability ensures its position in the top four.
South Australia ranks fifth with a solid practitioner growth rate of 19.15%. Although hospital capacity is fairly high at 5.67 per 100k, other metrics such as practitioner density (3,074 per 100k) and ER wait times (160 minutes) suggest a system under some strain, placing it just inside the higher-performing Australian regions.
The index also highlights regions where healthcare workforce shortage pressures appear more pronounced based on the combined workforce indicators.
The Northern Territory ranks the lowest in Australia’s healthcare workforce index. While it boasts the highest practitioner density per 100,000 (3,459), it struggles with low practitioner growth (4.33%) and an underwhelming healthcare job ad rate, along with weaker ER wait time performance (176 minutes).
Western Australia ranks near the bottom of the list, despite strong salary competitiveness (0.96) and health sector job ads. The state suffers from relatively low practitioner density (2,557 per 100k), contributing to its healthcare workforce challenges, despite its high growth rate of 27.27%.
Tasmania’s healthcare system shows relatively strong hospital availability (0.88 per 100k), but other indicators such as practitioner density and ER wait times perform moderately, placing it in the lower half of the rankings. The state could benefit from bolstered workforce recruitment efforts.
The same index methodology was applied to US state-level data to identify where healthcare systems appear best staffed. The index combines practitioner availability and workforce growth, vacancy indicators, hospital supply, pay competitiveness and pressure metrics such as hospital wait times.
Together, these measures highlight where staffing capacity appears strongest, and where healthcare workforce shortage signals may be more pronounced.
North Dakota tops the US ranking, driven by high practitioner availability (248 per 100k) and solid hospital infrastructure (5.30 per 100k). The state also exhibits strong practitioner growth (22.63%) and a manageable health sector job shortage rate, ensuring it remains well-resourced.
South Dakota ranks second, standing out for its hospital availability (5.97 per 100k) and high practitioner growth (25.43%). The state also leads in health sector job ads, making it one of the best-staffed states for healthcare provision in the US.
Nebraska follows closely behind, thanks to its solid hospital capacity (4.51 per 100k) and practitioner growth rate (22.94%). With a low health sector job shortage rate, the state benefits from an efficient healthcare system that is well-positioned to meet patient demands.
Hawaii ranks fourth with strong salary competitiveness (122,130 USD) and balanced performance across the metrics. The state’s relatively stable healthcare workforce, coupled with a well-distributed practitioner base, keeps healthcare access accessible despite pressure from demand.
Wyoming rounds out the top five, excelling in practitioner growth (27.39%) and hospital availability (4.89 per 100k). Despite its relatively low population, the state benefits from a favorable healthcare workforce, which supports its position as one of the top US healthcare systems.
Across the top-performing states, a noticeable geographic pattern emerges. Several of the highest-ranking regions are smaller states with lower populations and more rural health systems, yet they perform strongly on the combined capacity and pressure signals measured in the index.
At the other end of the ranking, several US states record lower index scores, suggesting greater workforce pressure within their healthcare systems based on the combined indicators.
The District of Columbia places last in the US index, despite its high practitioner density (1 per 100k). Its low hospital availability (0.10 per 100k) and high health sector job shortage rate contribute to a severely strained healthcare system, requiring significant investment in infrastructure and workforce retention.
However, it’s worth noting that in dense urban regions such as DC, per-capita hospital supply and pressure metrics can produce different patterns compared with larger states. This can have an influence on index outcomes, so the results should be viewed as indicators of system pressure rather than definitive measures of healthcare access.
Rhode Island ranks just above Maryland, with lower practitioner growth (0.27%) and middling performance across the workforce availability metrics. Though the state has strong hospital availability, these gaps contribute to greater pressure on the healthcare system.
Maryland’s healthcare system faces workforce challenges, reflected by a high health sector job shortage (0.58 per 100k) and relatively lower practitioner density (0.28 per 100k). This puts additional strain on the state’s healthcare infrastructure.
North Carolina ranks poorly in healthcare workforce availability, with low hospital availability (0.04 per 100k) despite solid practitioner growth (0.70%). The state’s healthcare system faces significant pressure due to these imbalances.
Delaware’s healthcare system suffers from lower hospital availability (0.06 per 100k), despite good practitioner growth (0.82%). This, combined with a higher health sector job shortage rate (0.58 per 100k), places pressure on the state’s healthcare workforce.
Workforce capacity is a critical part of how well healthcare systems function, but staffing pressures can vary widely between regions. Factors such as population size, geography, service demand and recruitment trends can all influence how severe a healthcare workforce shortage may appear in different areas. Understanding these differences can help individuals and policymakers to better recognise where pressures may exist and where systems appear to have stronger staffing coverage.
Steven Spicer, Executive General Manager of Health, Life and Energy at Compare the Market, says: “The pressures facing healthcare systems can make life stressful. The more services and staffing there is available, the more choice people have in choosing their care, and this can also help reduce waiting list times, though that isn’t the only factor.”
“Individuals and families with health insurance can have greater peace of mind when it comes to accessing treatment and managing unexpected healthcare needs as they have more options and choice than those going through the public system, but a strong health workforce benefits both private and public patients.”
This dataset includes data on healthcare workforce, vacancies and hospital wait times to create an index to rank states by shortage severity, for the USA and Australia
This includes 6 metrics, each normalised between 0 and 1, and an average or weighted average will be used to create the index, which will be out of 100.
Metrics:
Indexing Rules:
All data is correct as of 19/2/2026. All currencies converted to AUD using the XE Currency Converter.
Sources: