ZIP code
28075
in Harrisburg, North CarolinaPopulation 21,517
63.41/ 100
Ranked #2,754 of 32,066 US ZIPs (top 8.6%)
Ranked #54 of 793 North Carolina ZIPs (top 6.9%)
Ranked #20 of 113 Charlotte-Concord-Gastonia, NC-SC ZIPs (top 18%)
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.
Median household income
$144,288
in the top 4.6% nationally
Higher is healthier
ST98thUS95thDefinition & source ›
The middle household income in this ZIP — half of households earn more, half earn less — in dollars per year.
Full methodology ›Mammography
82.5%
in the top 3.1% nationally
Higher is healthier
ST98thUS97thDefinition & source ›
The estimated share of women aged 50–74 who had a mammogram within the past two years.
Full methodology ›Distance to a Superfund site
1 mi
in the bottom 7.2% nationally
Higher is healthier
ST7thUS7thDefinition & source ›
The distance in miles from this ZIP’s edge to the nearest Superfund site — an abandoned or uncontrolled hazardous-waste site the EPA has listed for cleanup.
Full methodology ›Air-toxics cancer risk
38.8 per million
in the top 7.5% nationally
Lower is healthier
ST96thUS93rdDefinition & 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 ›PFAS in drinking water
60.8%
in the top 7.7% nationally
Lower is healthier
ST85thUS92ndDefinition & source ›
The modeled probability that PFAS “forever chemicals” would be detected in untreated groundwater in this area, the source private wells draw on.
A modeled likelihood for untreated groundwater, the source drawn on by private wells, which are federally unregulated. It is not a measurement of treated water delivered by a public system, and it is not a test of any individual well.
Full methodology ›Industrial-pollution burden
in the top 8.8% nationally
Lower is healthier
ST94thUS91stDefinition & 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 ›Energy-cost burden
1.6%
in the bottom 5.8% nationally
Lower is healthier
ST7thUS6thDefinition & 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 ›Home broadband subscription
97%
in the top 10.4% nationally
Higher is healthier
ST94thUS90thDefinition & source ›
The share of households with a broadband internet subscription.
Full methodology ›Coronary heart disease
4.9%
in the bottom 8.7% nationally
Lower is healthier
ST8thUS9thDefinition & source ›
The estimated share of adults who have been told by a health professional that they have coronary heart disease or angina.
Full methodology ›Homeownership rate
92.8%
in the top 12.1% nationally
Higher is healthier
ST94thUS88thDefinition & source ›
The share of occupied homes that are owned, rather than rented, by the people living in them.
Full methodology ›The read
By its overall health score, Harrisburg, North Carolina (ZIP 28075) lands in the top 8.6% healthiest ZIPs nationally (2,754th) and the top 6.9% of North Carolina (54th).
Strengths and concerns sit side by side across the measures here: household income lies in the top 4.6% nationally, and modeled mammography resides in the top 3.1% nationally. Modeled energy burden lands in the bottom 5.8% nationally, and home broadband subscription registers in the top 10.4% nationally. Modeled coronary heart disease sits in the bottom 8.7% nationally, and homeownership rests in the top 12.1% nationally. On the other hand, distance to a Superfund site is in the bottom 7.2% nationally, modeled air-toxics cancer risk stands in the top 7.5% nationally, and modeled pfas settles in the top 7.7% nationally. Modeled industrial-pollution burden lies in the top 8.8% nationally.
Weighed against the ZIPs nearby, outer-floodplain exposure runs far higher than the surrounding ZIPs on this measure. To translate a couple of terms, distance to a Superfund site is an abandoned or uncontrolled hazardous-waste site the EPA has identified for cleanup. Air-toxics cancer risk is a modeled EPA estimate of added lifetime cancer risk from breathing outdoor air, per million people. Pfas is the man-made "forever chemicals" that build up in the body and environment instead of breaking down; here a modeled estimate of the chance a private well contains them. Overall, the nearest healthier neighbor is ZIP 28078, about 5.1 miles away.
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. Compare it against the US, this state and the Charlotte-Concord-Gastonia, NC-SC metro area.
Compared with the ZIP codes measured across all nine scoring domains — not with all US ZIP codes.
Lifting this score
Chronic Disease Burden
healthier than 85%
21%
Social Need / SDOH
healthier than 93%
16%
Preventive Care
healthier than 86%
13%
Risk Behavior
healthier than 90%
11%
Mental Health
healthier than 71%
8%
Disability
healthier than 88%
7%
About typical
Healthcare Access
healthier than 54%
5%
Holding it back
Environmental Hazard
healthier than 24%
14%
Climate / Disaster Risk
healthier than 33%
5%
Lifting this score
Chronic Disease Burden
healthier than 91%
21%
Social Need / SDOH
healthier than 92%
16%
Preventive Care
healthier than 82%
13%
Risk Behavior
healthier than 86%
11%
Mental Health
healthier than 91%
8%
Disability
healthier than 94%
7%
About typical
Healthcare Access
healthier than 44%
5%
Holding it back
Environmental Hazard
healthier than 10%
14%
Climate / Disaster Risk
healthier than 32%
5%
Lifting this score
Chronic Disease Burden
healthier than 79%
21%
Social Need / SDOH
healthier than 84%
16%
Preventive Care
healthier than 91%
13%
Risk Behavior
healthier than 89%
11%
Mental Health
healthier than 89%
8%
Disability
healthier than 84%
7%
Holding it back
Environmental Hazard
healthier than 29%
14%
Climate / Disaster Risk
healthier than 17%
5%
Healthcare Access
healthier than 31%
5%
“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
3 of our published findings list 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 80.4 ± 1.8 years. The 40 nearest ZIP codes with estimates average 78.1 years — 2.3 years above them.
Ranked #1,249 of the 3,687 ZIP codes this finding names, ordered by years above the nearby-ZIP average, highest first.
Heavy environment, light chronic burden
Where the environment and chronic illness point in opposite directions
Environmental-hazard standing 24.1; chronic-disease standing 85.3 — 61 points apart, heavier on the environment than it is on chronic illness.
Ranked #15,536 of the 18,187 ZIP codes this finding names, ordered by the gap from cleanest environment to heaviest chronic burden, highest first.
Highest-risk tenth
Air toxics and the years between the two ends of the risk scale
Modeled air-toxics cancer risk is 38.8 cases per million — among the tenth of compared ZIP codes with the most. Estimated life expectancy is 80.4 ± 1.8 years.
Ranked #1,644 of the 4,173 ZIP codes this finding names, ordered by modeled air-toxics risk, highest first.
Nearby & similar ZIPs
Editorially selected — see how this ZIP compares to nearby and similar places.
Nearby
28025
North Carolinashares a border
Score 54.95
Closest healthier
28078
North Carolinaabout 5.1 mi away
Score 65.66
Similar health profile
63021
Missouri100% similar profile
Score 63.84
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 | 24.6% | 21.5–27.9 |
| High blood pressure among adults | 33.3% | 29.1–37.5 |
| Cancer (non-skin) or melanoma among adults | 7.5% | 6.7–8.3 |
| Current asthma among adults | 10.2% | 8.9–11.5 |
| Coronary heart disease among adults | 4.9% | 4.4–5.5 |
| Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease among adults | 5.0% | 4.4–5.7 |
| Depression among adults | 22.6% | 19.2–26.4 |
| Diagnosed diabetes among adults | 9.9% | 8.5–11.4 |
| High cholesterol among adults who have ever been screened | 34.5% | 30.0–39.1 |
| Obesity among adults | 30.8% | 23.5–38.4 |
| Stroke among adults | 2.7% | 2.5–3.0 |
| All teeth lost among adults aged >=65 years | 8.8% | 7.1–10.9 |
PreventionCDC PLACES 2022 / 2023 · BRFSS
| Measure | Crude prevalence | 95% CI |
|---|---|---|
| Current lack of health insurance among adults aged 18-64 years | 7.1% | 5.9–8.3 |
| Taking medicine to control high blood pressure among adults with high blood pressure | 75.7% | 72.1–78.8 |
| Visits to doctor for routine checkup within the past year among adults | 79.7% | 75.9–83.0 |
| Cholesterol screening among adults | 89.9% | 88.2–91.2 |
| Colorectal cancer screening among adults aged 45–75 years | 66.5% | 61.6–71.4 |
| Visited dentist or dental clinic in the past year among adults | 72.5% | 69.3–75.7 |
| Mammography use among women aged 50-74 years | 82.5% | 76.4–87.9 |
Health Risk BehaviorsCDC PLACES 2022 / 2023 · BRFSS
| Measure | Crude prevalence | 95% CI |
|---|---|---|
| Binge drinking among adults | 15.2% | 12.3–18.4 |
| Current cigarette smoking among adults | 10.5% | 8.8–12.3 |
| No leisure-time physical activity among adults | 18.6% | 15.2–22.1 |
| Short sleep duration among adults | 32.6% | 26.5–39.2 |
Health StatusCDC PLACES 2023 · BRFSS
| Measure | Crude prevalence | 95% CI |
|---|---|---|
| Fair or poor self-rated health status among adults | 14.4% | 12.3–16.5 |
| Frequent mental distress among adults | 14.7% | 12.9–16.6 |
| Frequent physical distress among adults | 10.4% | 9.1–11.8 |
DisabilityCDC PLACES 2023 · BRFSS
| Measure | Crude prevalence | 95% CI |
|---|---|---|
| Cognitive disability among adults | 11.8% | 10.3–13.3 |
| Any disability among adults | 25.7% | 21.9–29.4 |
| Hearing disability among adults | 5.6% | 4.9–6.3 |
| Independent living disability among adults | 6.1% | 5.3–6.8 |
| Mobility disability among adults | 10.5% | 9.0–12.0 |
| Self-care disability among adults | 2.8% | 2.6–3.1 |
| Vision disability among adults | 3.7% | 3.3–4.1 |
Health-Related Social NeedsCDC PLACES 2023 · BRFSS
| Measure | Crude prevalence | 95% CI |
|---|---|---|
| Lack of social and emotional support among adults | 21.5% | 18.4–24.9 |
| Food insecurity in the past 12 months among adults | 10.0% | 8.4–11.6 |
| Received food stamps in the past 12 months among adults | 7.2% | 6.0–8.5 |
| Housing insecurity in the past 12 months among adults | 8.8% | 7.5–10.1 |
| Lack of reliable transportation in the past 12 months among adults | 5.9% | 5.2–6.7 |
| Loneliness among adults | 30.8% | 26.0–35.7 |
| Utility services shut-off threat in the past 12 months among adults | 5.8% | 5.0–6.6 |
Community & economyCensus ACS 5-Year · 2024 release · observed
| Measure | Value | US median (p10–p90) | NC median (p10–p90) |
|---|---|---|---|
| Poverty rate | 4.5% | 10.6% (3.1–25.8%) n=32,364 | 13.0% (4.4–25.0%) n=793 |
| Uninsured 18–64 | 7.7% | 9.0% (1.5–24.3%) n=32,286 | 14.5% (5.7–24.9%) n=794 |
| No HS diploma (25+) | 4.8% | 7.9% (1.8–20.7%) n=32,505 | 10.4% (3.1–19.8%) n=798 |
| Bachelor's or higher (25+) | 55.3% | 23.3% (9.2–53.6%) n=32,505 | 22.8% (10.7–53.4%) n=798 |
| Unemployment rate (16+) | 3.2% | 3.9% (0.0–9.8%) n=32,274 | 4.2% (0.0–9.1%) n=796 |
| Households without a vehicle | 1.1% | 3.9% (0.0–12.5%) n=32,322 | 3.9% (0.0–10.2%) n=793 |
| Broadband subscription | 97.0% | 89.3% (75.1–97.1%) n=32,322 | 87.6% (76.2–96.3%) n=793 |
| Housing cost burden (≥30% income) | 17.7% | 23.7% (10.6–40.0%) n=32,322 | 24.7% (14.1–36.5%) n=793 |
| Homeownership rate | 92.8% | 78.7% (51.7–94.0%) n=32,322 | 75.0% (52.7–89.7%) n=793 |
| Crowded housing (>1 per room) | 0.2% | 1.3% (0.0–6.3%) n=32,322 | 1.4% (0.0–4.5%) n=793 |
| Foreign-born population | 12.9% | 2.6% (0.0–18.6%) n=32,553 | 4.2% (0.0–12.9%) n=799 |
| Single-parent households | 41.1% | 53.6% (37.3–74.1%) n=32,087 | 51.8% (39.2–70.1%) n=790 |
| Population 65+ | 12.8% | 19.4% (10.8–33.6%) n=32,553 | 19.7% (11.1–31.9%) n=799 |
| Median age | 41.4 yr | 42.2 yr (33.0–56.3) n=32,292 | 42.5 yr (33.3–55.7) n=797 |
| Median household income | $144,288 | $72,070 ($46,039–$118,707) n=30,318 | $65,030 ($44,419–$97,111) n=749 |
| Median home value | $482,800 | $222,200 ($100,300–$579,820) n=30,049 | $223,850 ($113,970–$452,990) n=758 |
| Median gross rent | $2,543 | $1,021 ($677–$1,912) n=25,670 | $957 ($715–$1,575) n=687 |
Life expectancyNCHS / RWJF USALEEP · model-based
| Measure | Value | US median (p10–p90) | NC median (p10–p90) |
|---|---|---|---|
| Life expectancy at birth | 80.4 yr ± 0.91 | 78.9 yr (74.7–82.8) n=31,308 | 77.3 yr (74.6–80.8) n=747 |
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 0.91 years of 80.4, 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