ZIP code
15238
in Fox Chapel, PennsylvaniaPopulation 12,868
67.53/ 100
Ranked #1,129 of 32,066 US ZIPs (top 3.6%)
Ranked #47 of 1,748 Pennsylvania ZIPs (top 2.7%)
Ranked #11 of 376 Pittsburgh, PA ZIPs (top 3.0%)
Ranks are modeled estimates — ZIPs a few hundred places apart are effectively tied.
Some domains have limited local data — read this Score as directional
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.
Dental provider access
2 per 1,000 residents
in the top 1.2% nationally
Higher is healthier
ST98thUS99thDefinition & source ›
The number of dental offices located inside this ZIP’s boundary, per 1,000 residents.
Counted from establishments located inside this ZIP’s boundary, so one just across the line is not counted. Where a ZIP has too few residents for the density to be reliable, no value is published rather than an unreliable one.
Full methodology ›Grocery access
0.45 per 1,000 residents
in the top 1.9% nationally
Higher is healthier
ST98thUS98thDefinition & source ›
The number of full supermarkets inside this ZIP’s boundary, per 1,000 residents.
Counted from establishments located inside this ZIP’s boundary, so one just across the line is not counted. Where a ZIP has too few residents for the density to be reliable, no value is published rather than an unreliable one. ZipVitals’s food-access signal is derived from these in-ZIP densities — it is not USDA’s food-desert designation, which measures distance to the nearest supermarket. Where a leg is missing, a ZIP reads “not determinable,” never “not a food desert.”
Full methodology ›Mental-health provider access
0.3 per 1,000 residents
in the top 2.1% nationally
Higher is healthier
ST98thUS98thDefinition & source ›
The number of mental-health clinics located inside this ZIP’s boundary, per 1,000 residents.
Counted from establishments located inside this ZIP’s boundary, so one just across the line is not counted. Where a ZIP has too few residents for the density to be reliable, no value is published rather than an unreliable one.
Full methodology ›Physician access
3.4 per 1,000 residents
in the top 2.8% nationally
Higher is healthier
ST97thUS97thDefinition & source ›
The number of physicians’ offices located inside this ZIP’s boundary, per 1,000 residents.
Counted from establishments located inside this ZIP’s boundary, so one just across the line is not counted. Where a ZIP has too few residents for the density to be reliable, no value is published rather than an unreliable one.
Full methodology ›Transit access
6 per 1,000 residents
in the top 3.6% nationally
Higher is healthier
ST94thUS96thDefinition & source ›
The number of public-transit stops inside this ZIP’s boundary, per 1,000 residents.
Counted from establishments located inside this ZIP’s boundary, so one just across the line is not counted. Where a ZIP has too few residents for the density to be reliable, no value is published rather than an unreliable one.
Full methodology ›Elder-services access
0.23 per 1,000 residents
in the top 6.2% nationally
Higher is healthier
ST95thUS94thDefinition & source ›
The number of services for older adults and people with disabilities inside this ZIP’s boundary, per 1,000 residents.
Counted from establishments located inside this ZIP’s boundary, so one just across the line is not counted. Where a ZIP has too few residents for the density to be reliable, no value is published rather than an unreliable one.
Full methodology ›Lithium in drinking water
10 µg/L
in the bottom 7.2% nationally
Lower is healthier
ST7thUS7thDefinition & source ›
The average detected level of lithium — a natural trace metal with no federal drinking-water limit yet — across the public water systems serving this ZIP, in micrograms per liter.
Measured from EPA records for the public water systems that serve this ZIP. Households on private wells — roughly 30% of the US population — are not covered by this measure, and this figure says nothing about their water.
Full methodology ›Recreation access
1.1 per 1,000 residents
in the top 7.9% nationally
Higher is healthier
ST91stUS92ndDefinition & source ›
The number of places for physical recreation — gyms, sports, and fitness venues — inside this ZIP’s boundary, per 1,000 residents.
Counted from establishments located inside this ZIP’s boundary, so one just across the line is not counted. Where a ZIP has too few residents for the density to be reliable, no value is published rather than an unreliable one.
Full methodology ›Loud transportation noise
1.9%
in the top 7.9% nationally
Lower is healthier
ST92ndUS92ndDefinition & source ›
The modeled share of residents exposed to average road, rail, and aviation noise at or above 65 decibels — around the volume of normal conversation.
Full methodology ›Mammography
81.3%
in the top 5.8% nationally
Higher is healthier
ST95thUS94thDefinition & source ›
The estimated share of women aged 50–74 who had a mammogram within the past two years.
Full methodology ›The read
With only part of the picture in hand, ZIP 15238, one of several in Fox Chapel, Pennsylvania lands in the top 3.6% healthiest ZIPs nationally (1,129th) and the top 2.7% of Pennsylvania (47th), based on limited data; treat as directional.
With coverage still limited, the data points to what it can here: dental providers resides in the top 1.2% nationally, grocery lies in the top 1.9% nationally, and mental-health providers settles in the top 2.1% nationally. Physicians stands in the top 2.8% nationally, transit is in the top 3.6% nationally, and elder services rests in the top 6.2% nationally. Lithium in drinking water sits in the bottom 7.2% nationally, and recreation registers in the top 7.9% nationally. Modeled mammography lands in the top 5.8% nationally. Working the other way, modeled loud transportation noise resides in the top 7.9% nationally.
Compared with the ZIPs that surround it, park land runs far higher than the surrounding ZIPs on this measure. In plain language, lithium in drinking water is a natural metal that dissolves into some groundwater and has no federal drinking-water limit yet. Loud transportation noise is the modeled share of an area exposed to road, rail, and air noise at or above 65 decibels, near conversation volume. ZIP 15101, just across the boundary, ranks healthier overall. This ZIP also sits on the healthier half of the national range on at least seven of the ten good-life measures tracked here, from quiet and green space to nearby care, a combination reached by about one in twenty-five US ZIP codes.
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
Social Need / SDOH
healthier than 96%
19%
Preventive CarePartial
healthier than 98%
15%
Climate / Disaster Risk
healthier than 66%
6%
Healthcare Access
healthier than 77%
6%
Holding it back
Environmental Hazard
healthier than 9%
16%
Not placed: Chronic Disease Burden and Risk Behavior — too little of each is measured here to compare reliably. They still count toward the score (together 38% of it); we just will not publish a standing we cannot stand behind.
No data: Mental Health and Disability — not measured in this ZIP, so it is left out of the score entirely rather than estimated.
“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 ›
Findings that name this ZIP
One of our published findings lists this ZIP code. Each finding compares one published measure against a stated benchmark, and names only the ZIP codes whose estimates are reliable enough to rank. See all surprising findings.
Above its nearby ZIPs
The ZIP codes that outlive their neighbors
Estimated life expectancy is 81.1 ± 1.6 years. The 45 nearest ZIP codes with estimates average 77.5 years — 3.6 years above them.
Ranked #497 of the 3,687 ZIP codes this finding names, ordered by years above the nearby-ZIP average, highest first.
Nearby & similar ZIPs
Editorially selected — see how this ZIP compares to nearby and similar places.
Nearby
15024
Pennsylvaniashares a border
Score 61.62
Closest healthier
15101
Pennsylvaniashares a border
Score 67.94
Similar health profile
01803
Massachusetts100% similar profile
Score 65.65
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 · BRFSS
| Measure | Crude prevalence | 95% CI |
|---|---|---|
| All teeth lost among adults aged >=65 years | 7.5% | 6.0–9.1 |
PreventionCDC PLACES 2022 · BRFSS
| Measure | Crude prevalence | 95% CI |
|---|---|---|
| Colorectal cancer screening among adults aged 45–75 years | 71.2% | 67.3–74.8 |
| Visited dentist or dental clinic in the past year among adults | 74.1% | 71.4–76.6 |
| Mammography use among women aged 50-74 years | 81.3% | 75.7–86.0 |
Health Risk BehaviorsCDC PLACES 2022 · BRFSS
| Measure | Crude prevalence | 95% CI |
|---|---|---|
| Short sleep duration among adults | 30.7% | 27.0–34.5 |
Community & economyCensus ACS 5-Year · 2024 release · observed
| Measure | Value | US median (p10–p90) | PA median (p10–p90) |
|---|---|---|---|
| Poverty rate | 6.3% | 10.6% (3.1–25.8%) n=32,364 | 9.3% (2.1–21.6%) n=1,759 |
| Uninsured 18–64 | 3.6% | 9.0% (1.5–24.3%) n=32,286 | 6.3% (0.0–16.6%) n=1,753 |
| No HS diploma (25+) | 2.2% | 7.9% (1.8–20.7%) n=32,505 | 7.0% (1.5–16.1%) n=1,762 |
| Bachelor's or higher (25+) | 74.8% | 23.3% (9.2–53.6%) n=32,505 | 21.9% (8.9–50.4%) n=1,762 |
| Unemployment rate (16+) | 3.1% | 3.9% (0.0–9.8%) n=32,274 | 3.9% (0.0–9.6%) n=1,755 |
| Households without a vehicle | 7.5% | 3.9% (0.0–12.5%) n=32,322 | 4.8% (0.0–15.6%) n=1,758 |
| Broadband subscription | 94.2% | 89.3% (75.1–97.1%) n=32,322 | 88.2% (75.7–97.3%) n=1,758 |
| Housing cost burden (≥30% income) | 23.9% | 23.7% (10.6–40.0%) n=32,322 | 21.9% (9.9–35.3%) n=1,758 |
| Homeownership rate | 76.2% | 78.7% (51.7–94.0%) n=32,322 | 80.1% (57.1–94.5%) n=1,758 |
| Crowded housing (>1 per room) | 0.3% | 1.3% (0.0–6.3%) n=32,322 | 0.6% (0.0–3.3%) n=1,758 |
| Foreign-born population | 10.6% | 2.6% (0.0–18.6%) n=32,553 | 1.4% (0.0–10.2%) n=1,763 |
| Single-parent households | 51.8% | 53.6% (37.3–74.1%) n=32,087 | 56.3% (38.5–72.8%) n=1,744 |
| Population 65+ | 27.2% | 19.4% (10.8–33.6%) n=32,553 | 21.1% (12.3–31.4%) n=1,763 |
| Median age | 47.4 yr | 42.2 yr (33.0–56.3) n=32,292 | 44.2 yr (33.9–55.5) n=1,752 |
| Median household income | $116,575 | $72,070 ($46,039–$118,707) n=30,318 | $71,250 ($50,880–$112,747) n=1,642 |
| Median home value | $491,700 | $222,200 ($100,300–$579,820) n=30,049 | $197,200 ($99,000–$382,120) n=1,649 |
| Median gross rent | $1,320 | $1,021 ($677–$1,912) n=25,670 | $983 ($701–$1,527) n=1,367 |
Life expectancyNCHS / RWJF USALEEP · model-based
| Measure | Value | US median (p10–p90) | PA median (p10–p90) |
|---|---|---|---|
| Life expectancy at birth | 81.1 yr ± 0.84 | 78.9 yr (74.7–82.8) n=31,308 | 79.2 yr (76.0–82.0) n=1,730 |
About the ± — it’s this estimate’s give-or-take (statisticians call it the standard error). The true life expectancy for this ZIP most likely falls within 0.84 years of 81.1, and it’s very unlikely to be off by more than twice that.
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