ZIP code
04463
in Milo, MainePopulation 2,582
42.94/ 100
Ranked #24,432 of 32,066 US ZIPs (bottom 24%)
Ranked #325 of 408 Maine ZIPs (bottom 20%)
Ranks are modeled estimates — ZIPs a few hundred places apart are effectively tied.
What defines this ZIP
Metrics where this ZIP sits in the tails of the national distribution — the ones that most set it apart. Select any tile for its definition and methodology.
Energy-cost burden
5.9%
in the top 3.1% nationally
Lower is healthier
ST84thUS97thDefinition & source ›
The modeled share of household income spent on home energy bills — electricity, gas, and heating fuels.
A modeled share of household income spent on home energy. Estimates that hit the model’s 100% ceiling are suppressed rather than published, because at that point the figure reflects the model’s limit rather than a measured burden.
Full methodology ›Walkability
1.7 intersections/sq mi
in the bottom 5.6% nationally
Higher is healthier
ST9thUS6thDefinition & source ›
The number of street intersections per square mile — a standard street-connectivity measure; denser networks correlate with more walkable neighborhoods.
Full methodology ›Air-toxics cancer risk
19.8 per million
in the bottom 7.7% nationally
Lower is healthier
ST36thUS8thDefinition & source ›
The EPA’s modeled estimate of added lifetime cancer risk from breathing outdoor air toxics, in cases per million people exposed over a lifetime.
Full methodology ›Industrial-pollution burden
in the bottom 7.9% nationally
Lower is healthier
ST11thUS8thDefinition & source ›
The EPA’s modeled screening score for industrial chemical releases, weighting the amounts released by their toxicity and how many people live nearby — a relative comparison score, not a measured exposure.
Full methodology ›Expected annual disaster loss
$0
in the top 19% nationally
Lower is healthier
ST99thUS81stDefinition & source ›
FEMA’s modeled estimate, in dollars per year, of the average harm to people expected from natural hazards — an annualized average, not a forecast for any single year.
Full methodology ›Utility shut-off threat
10.0%
in the top 23% nationally
Lower is healthier
ST91stUS77thDefinition & source ›
The estimated share of adults whose household was threatened with a utility shut-off in the past 12 months.
Full methodology ›Natural-disaster risk
in the top 24% nationally
Lower is healthier
ST90thUS76thDefinition & source ›
This area’s national rank on its single highest non-flood natural hazard — such as wildfire, tornado, or earthquake — in FEMA’s modeled National Risk Index; flooding is shown separately.
Full methodology ›The read
Milo, Maine (ZIP 04463), on the composite measure, lands in the bottom 24% nationally (24,432nd) and the bottom 20% of Maine (325th), based on limited data; treat as directional.
Where the data leans one way, another reading answers it: modeled air-toxics cancer risk rests in the bottom 7.7% nationally, and industrial-pollution burden sits in the bottom 7.9% nationally. Modeled extreme heat registers at the national minimum, shared with about 19% of ZIPs. Modeled humid heat lands in the bottom 10.3% nationally. Distance to a community health center resides at the national minimum, shared with about 23% of ZIPs. Modeled tree cover lies in the top 11.4% nationally, and distance to a hazardous-chemical facility settles in the top 12.8% nationally. On the other hand, modeled energy burden stands in the top 3.1% nationally, and walkability is in the bottom 5.6% nationally. Modeled coronary heart disease rests in the top 13.3% nationally.
In everyday language, air-toxics cancer risk is a modeled EPA estimate of added lifetime cancer risk from breathing outdoor air, per million people. Industrial-pollution burden is the EPA's modeled screening score weighting industrial chemical releases by their toxicity and how many people live nearby. Distance to a hazardous-chemical facility is a plant handling large amounts of hazardous chemicals that must file an EPA risk-management plan for accidental releases. A healthier neighbor overall sits at ZIP 04410, just across the boundary.
What’s driving this score
Nine domains make up the ZipVitals Score — here is how this ZIP does on each, and how much each one counts.
Compared with the ZIP codes measured across all nine scoring domains — not with all US ZIP codes.
Lifting this score
Environmental Hazard
healthier than 91%
14%
Climate / Disaster RiskPartial
in the top 0.7%
5%
About typical
Preventive Care
healthier than 48%
13%
Healthcare Access
healthier than 55%
5%
Holding it back
Chronic Disease Burden
healthier than 16%
21%
Social Need / SDOH
healthier than 10%
16%
Risk Behavior
healthier than 32%
11%
Mental Health
healthier than 13%
8%
Disability
healthier than 23%
7%
Lifting this score
Environmental Hazard
healthier than 85%
14%
Climate / Disaster RiskPartial
in the top 0.04%
5%
Healthcare Access
healthier than 78%
5%
Holding it back
Chronic Disease Burden
healthier than 18%
21%
Social Need / SDOH
healthier than 15%
16%
Preventive Care
healthier than 9%
13%
Risk Behavior
healthier than 11%
11%
Mental Health
healthier than 26%
8%
Disability
healthier than 8%
7%
“Share” is how much of this ZIP’s score the domain accounts for. Percentages are rounded; higher is healthier in every domain. How the score works, and who it compares you with ›
Nearby & similar ZIPs
Editorially selected — see how this ZIP compares to nearby and similar places.
Nearby
04410
Maineshares a border
Score 44.44
Closest healthier
04414
Maineshares a border
Score 44.69
Similar health profile
49665
Michigan99% similar profile
Score 41.96
How these were chosen: only ZIPs with a published Score appear — a nearby ZIP with too little data to score won’t. Nearby means closest by distance between ZIP boundaries, which can cross state lines. A similar health profile is a close match across the nine Score domains, not similar demographics. Distances are measured between ZIP boundaries — ZIPs that touch share a border. How distance is measured
Evidence
Every measure this page draws on, by source. Collapsed by default — the full data stays in the page for search engines either way.
Health OutcomesCDC PLACES 2022 / 2023 · BRFSS
| Measure | Crude prevalence | 95% CI |
|---|---|---|
| Arthritis among adults | 36.4% | 33.1–39.5 |
| High blood pressure among adults | 39.5% | 36.0–42.9 |
| Cancer (non-skin) or melanoma among adults | 10.0% | 9.0–11.1 |
| Current asthma among adults | 13.1% | 11.6–14.6 |
| Coronary heart disease among adults | 9.6% | 8.5–10.7 |
| Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease among adults | 11.2% | 9.7–12.8 |
| Depression among adults | 27.2% | 23.8–30.5 |
| Diagnosed diabetes among adults | 13.5% | 11.8–15.3 |
| High cholesterol among adults who have ever been screened | 40.1% | 36.4–43.6 |
| Obesity among adults | 35.7% | 30.6–40.7 |
| Stroke among adults | 4.6% | 4.2–5.2 |
| All teeth lost among adults aged >=65 years | 20.1% | 16.9–23.5 |
PreventionCDC PLACES 2022 / 2023 · BRFSS
| Measure | Crude prevalence | 95% CI |
|---|---|---|
| Current lack of health insurance among adults aged 18-64 years | 9.6% | 7.8–11.7 |
| Taking medicine to control high blood pressure among adults with high blood pressure | 77.3% | 74.4–80.1 |
| Visits to doctor for routine checkup within the past year among adults | 81.6% | 78.8–84.2 |
| Cholesterol screening among adults | 86.3% | 84.5–88.1 |
| Colorectal cancer screening among adults aged 45–75 years | 66.0% | 61.8–70.1 |
| Visited dentist or dental clinic in the past year among adults | 56.1% | 52.5–59.5 |
| Mammography use among women aged 50-74 years | 74.5% | 68.2–80.3 |
Health Risk BehaviorsCDC PLACES 2022 / 2023 · BRFSS
| Measure | Crude prevalence | 95% CI |
|---|---|---|
| Binge drinking among adults | 14.5% | 12.2–16.9 |
| Current cigarette smoking among adults | 19.5% | 16.6–22.5 |
| No leisure-time physical activity among adults | 28.8% | 24.7–32.9 |
| Short sleep duration among adults | 36.9% | 32.4–41.9 |
Health StatusCDC PLACES 2023 · BRFSS
| Measure | Crude prevalence | 95% CI |
|---|---|---|
| Fair or poor self-rated health status among adults | 23.8% | 20.7–26.9 |
| Frequent mental distress among adults | 19.1% | 16.9–21.2 |
| Frequent physical distress among adults | 17.7% | 15.6–19.8 |
DisabilityCDC PLACES 2023 · BRFSS
| Measure | Crude prevalence | 95% CI |
|---|---|---|
| Cognitive disability among adults | 18.2% | 15.9–20.5 |
| Any disability among adults | 36.6% | 32.5–40.5 |
| Hearing disability among adults | 10.0% | 8.8–11.1 |
| Independent living disability among adults | 10.5% | 9.2–11.9 |
| Mobility disability among adults | 18.2% | 15.6–20.6 |
| Self-care disability among adults | 4.9% | 4.3–5.6 |
| Vision disability among adults | 6.0% | 5.3–6.8 |
Health-Related Social NeedsCDC PLACES 2023 · BRFSS
| Measure | Crude prevalence | 95% CI |
|---|---|---|
| Lack of social and emotional support among adults | 24.4% | 21.1–27.8 |
| Food insecurity in the past 12 months among adults | 15.4% | 12.8–18.3 |
| Received food stamps in the past 12 months among adults | 20.9% | 17.8–24.5 |
| Housing insecurity in the past 12 months among adults | 12.6% | 10.7–14.8 |
| Lack of reliable transportation in the past 12 months among adults | 9.8% | 8.5–11.3 |
| Loneliness among adults | 32.9% | 29.0–37.1 |
| Utility services shut-off threat in the past 12 months among adults | 10.0% | 8.6–11.5 |
Community & economyCensus ACS 5-Year · 2024 release · observed
| Measure | Value | US median (p10–p90) | ME median (p10–p90) |
|---|---|---|---|
| Poverty rate | 15.8% | 10.6% (3.1–25.8%) n=32,364 | 10.3% (3.2–19.5%) n=416 |
| Uninsured 18–64 | 9.4% | 9.0% (1.5–24.3%) n=32,286 | 9.8% (3.0–20.9%) n=413 |
| No HS diploma (25+) | 5.6% | 7.9% (1.8–20.7%) n=32,505 | 5.2% (0.8–11.7%) n=417 |
| Bachelor's or higher (25+) | 19.1% | 23.3% (9.2–53.6%) n=32,505 | 29.4% (14.9–57.3%) n=417 |
| Unemployment rate (16+) | 2.1% | 3.9% (0.0–9.8%) n=32,274 | 3.1% (0.0–8.3%) n=415 |
| Households without a vehicle | 5.1% | 3.9% (0.0–12.5%) n=32,322 | 3.7% (0.0–11.5%) n=416 |
| Broadband subscription | 86.5% | 89.3% (75.1–97.1%) n=32,322 | 89.9% (79.7–97.2%) n=416 |
| Housing cost burden (≥30% income) | 25.0% | 23.7% (10.6–40.0%) n=32,322 | 23.4% (13.9–35.0%) n=416 |
| Homeownership rate | 72.2% | 78.7% (51.7–94.0%) n=32,322 | 84.7% (68.7–95.5%) n=416 |
| Crowded housing (>1 per room) | 0.2% | 1.3% (0.0–6.3%) n=32,322 | 0.8% (0.0–3.4%) n=416 |
| Foreign-born population | 1.4% | 2.6% (0.0–18.6%) n=32,553 | 2.1% (0.1–5.9%) n=417 |
| Single-parent households | 60.7% | 53.6% (37.3–74.1%) n=32,087 | 61.5% (48.8–80.6%) n=414 |
| Population 65+ | 19.9% | 19.4% (10.8–33.6%) n=32,553 | 24.6% (16.3–42.1%) n=417 |
| Median age | 46.0 yr | 42.2 yr (33.0–56.3) n=32,292 | 49.0 yr (39.3–60.7) n=413 |
| Median household income | $58,810 | $72,070 ($46,039–$118,707) n=30,318 | $68,485 ($50,225–$100,018) n=396 |
| Median home value | $98,000 | $222,200 ($100,300–$579,820) n=30,049 | $246,500 ($130,660–$484,830) n=402 |
| Median gross rent | $855 | $1,021 ($677–$1,912) n=25,670 | $1,014 ($618–$1,501) n=320 |
Life expectancyNCHS / RWJF USALEEP · model-based
| Measure | Value | US median (p10–p90) | ME median (p10–p90) |
|---|---|---|---|
| Life expectancy unavailable for this ZIP — fewer than 80% of the census tracts that make it up could be matched across the 2010→2020 tract-boundary revision, so no value is published rather than an unreliable one. See how coverage gaps are handled. | |||
More ZIPs to explore ▾More ZIPs to explore ▴
How these lists were built: they draw only from ZIPs that have a published Score, so ZIPs with too little data to score are not listed. Distance-based lists use distance between ZIP boundaries with no state filter, so an out-of-state ZIP can appear. Statistically similar means a close match across the nine Score domains, not a demographic match: the measure is the cosine similarity between two ZIPs’ domain scores, taken over the domains both ZIPs have data for and only where that overlap covers at least six of the nine — and where no ZIP clears that minimum-overlap floor, that list is left out rather than filled with a weak match. How distance is measured