ZIP code
28078
in Huntersville, North CarolinaPopulation 71,657
65.66/ 100
Ranked #1,757 of 32,066 US ZIPs (top 5.5%)
Ranked #33 of 793 North Carolina ZIPs (top 4.2%)
Ranked #11 of 113 Charlotte-Concord-Gastonia, NC-SC ZIPs (top 9.8%)
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.
Air-toxics cancer risk
40 per million
in the top 4.5% nationally
Lower is healthier
ST98thUS96thDefinition & 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 ›Lead in tap water
0 ppb
at the national minimum
Lower is healthier
US1stDefinition & source ›
The lead level at the 90th percentile of tap-water samples reported by the public water systems serving this ZIP, in parts per billion — the EPA requires action above 15 ppb.
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 ›Coronary heart disease
4.2%
in the bottom 4.1% nationally
Lower is healthier
ST5thUS4thDefinition & source ›
The estimated share of adults who have been told by a health professional that they have coronary heart disease or angina.
Full methodology ›Fair or poor health
11.9%
in the bottom 3.2% nationally
Lower is healthier
ST3rdUS3rdDefinition & source ›
The estimated share of adults who rate their own general health as fair or poor.
Full methodology ›Obesity
26.6%
in the bottom 8.4% nationally
Lower is healthier
ST4thUS8thDefinition & source ›
The estimated share of adults with obesity, defined as a body-mass index of 30 or higher.
Full methodology ›Mobility disability
8.7%
in the bottom 4.7% nationally
Lower is healthier
ST4thUS5thDefinition & source ›
The estimated share of adults with serious difficulty walking or climbing stairs.
Full methodology ›Stroke
2.3%
in the bottom 4.3% nationally
Lower is healthier
ST4thUS4thDefinition & source ›
The estimated share of adults who have been told by a health professional that they have had a stroke.
Full methodology ›Energy-cost burden
1.5%
in the bottom 4.2% nationally
Lower is healthier
ST5thUS4thDefinition & 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 ›Independent-living disability
5.3%
in the bottom 4.2% nationally
Lower is healthier
ST3rdUS4thDefinition & source ›
The estimated share of adults who have difficulty doing errands alone, such as visiting a doctor’s office, because of a physical, mental, or emotional condition.
Full methodology ›Diabetes
8.0%
in the bottom 4.3% nationally
Lower is healthier
ST4thUS4thDefinition & source ›
The estimated share of adults who have been diagnosed with diabetes.
Full methodology ›The read
Overall, Huntersville, North Carolina (ZIP 28078) lands in the top 5.5% healthiest ZIPs nationally (1,757th) and the top 4.2% of North Carolina (33rd).
A handful of measures stand out most sharply across the profile here: lead in tap water settles at the national minimum, and modeled coronary heart disease resides in the bottom 4.1% nationally. Modeled fair or poor health registers in the bottom 3.2% nationally, and obesity rests in the bottom 8.4% nationally. Modeled mobility disability stands in the bottom 4.7% nationally, stroke lies in the bottom 4.3% nationally, and energy burden lands in the bottom 4.2% nationally. Modeled independent living disability sits in the bottom 4.2% nationally, and diabetes is in the bottom 4.3% nationally. On the other side, modeled air-toxics cancer risk settles in the top 4.5% nationally.
Set beside the nearby areas, park land runs far higher than the surrounding ZIPs on this measure. A note on the terms: air-toxics cancer risk is a modeled EPA estimate of added lifetime cancer risk from breathing outdoor air, per million people. Lead in tap water is the EPA trigger, 15 parts per billion in tap samples, above which a water system must act on lead. Energy burden is the share of household income that goes to home energy bills. For a healthier nearby comparison, ZIP 28036, just across the boundary, ranks better overall.
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 94%
21%
Social Need / SDOH
healthier than 96%
16%
Preventive Care
healthier than 76%
13%
Risk Behavior
healthier than 86%
11%
Mental Health
healthier than 68%
8%
Disability
healthier than 95%
7%
About typical
Healthcare Access
healthier than 59%
5%
Holding it back
Environmental Hazard
healthier than 35%
14%
Climate / Disaster Risk
healthier than 34%
5%
Lifting this score
Chronic Disease Burden
healthier than 96%
21%
Social Need / SDOH
healthier than 95%
16%
Preventive Care
healthier than 70%
13%
Risk Behavior
healthier than 82%
11%
Mental Health
healthier than 88%
8%
Disability
healthier than 97%
7%
About typical
Healthcare Access
healthier than 51%
5%
Holding it back
Environmental Hazard
healthier than 19%
14%
Climate / Disaster Risk
healthier than 33%
5%
Lifting this score
Chronic Disease Burden
healthier than 93%
21%
Social Need / SDOH
healthier than 87%
16%
Preventive Care
healthier than 83%
13%
Risk Behavior
healthier than 85%
11%
Mental Health
healthier than 84%
8%
Disability
healthier than 94%
7%
About typical
Environmental Hazard
healthier than 50%
14%
Holding it back
Climate / Disaster Risk
healthier than 20%
5%
Healthcare Access
healthier than 38%
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
4 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.
Below what income predicts
The ZIP codes that outlive their incomes
Estimated life expectancy is 79.5 ± 1.1 years. A median household income of $120,831 predicts 80.8 years — 1.3 years below.
Ranked #1,661 of the 5,842 ZIP codes this finding names, ordered by years above what income predicts, highest first.
Above its nearby ZIPs
The ZIP codes that outlive their neighbors
Estimated life expectancy is 79.5 ± 1.1 years. The 38 nearest ZIP codes with estimates average 77.5 years — 2.0 years above them.
Ranked #1,375 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 35.6; chronic-disease standing 94.3 (top 10%) — 59 points apart, heavier on the environment than it is on chronic illness.
Ranked #15,288 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 40.0 cases per million — among the tenth of compared ZIP codes with the most. Estimated life expectancy is 79.5 ± 1.1 years.
Ranked #504 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
28027
North Carolinashares a border
Score 58.41
Closest healthier
28036
North Carolinashares a border
Score 67.21
Similar health profile
55038
Minnesota99% similar profile
Score 65.70
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 | 21.8% | 19.2–24.4 |
| High blood pressure among adults | 27.9% | 24.7–31.0 |
| Cancer (non-skin) or melanoma among adults | 7.3% | 6.6–8.0 |
| Current asthma among adults | 10.0% | 8.8–11.2 |
| Coronary heart disease among adults | 4.2% | 3.8–4.7 |
| Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease among adults | 4.2% | 3.8–4.7 |
| Depression among adults | 23.7% | 20.5–27.0 |
| Diagnosed diabetes among adults | 8.0% | 6.9–9.2 |
| High cholesterol among adults who have ever been screened | 32.3% | 28.7–35.8 |
| Obesity among adults | 26.6% | 22.1–31.3 |
| Stroke among adults | 2.3% | 2.1–2.5 |
| All teeth lost among adults aged >=65 years | 7.8% | 6.2–9.6 |
PreventionCDC PLACES 2022 / 2023 · BRFSS
| Measure | Crude prevalence | 95% CI |
|---|---|---|
| Current lack of health insurance among adults aged 18-64 years | 6.9% | 5.9–7.9 |
| Taking medicine to control high blood pressure among adults with high blood pressure | 73.1% | 69.5–76.3 |
| Visits to doctor for routine checkup within the past year among adults | 78.4% | 75.0–81.4 |
| Cholesterol screening among adults | 89.7% | 88.2–91.0 |
| Colorectal cancer screening among adults aged 45–75 years | 66.2% | 61.6–70.4 |
| Visited dentist or dental clinic in the past year among adults | 70.8% | 67.7–73.7 |
| Mammography use among women aged 50-74 years | 80.8% | 74.3–85.9 |
Health Risk BehaviorsCDC PLACES 2022 / 2023 · BRFSS
| Measure | Crude prevalence | 95% CI |
|---|---|---|
| Binge drinking among adults | 17.3% | 14.4–20.1 |
| Current cigarette smoking among adults | 9.1% | 7.9–10.4 |
| No leisure-time physical activity among adults | 16.1% | 13.6–18.8 |
| Short sleep duration among adults | 34.5% | 30.0–39.0 |
Health StatusCDC PLACES 2023 · BRFSS
| Measure | Crude prevalence | 95% CI |
|---|---|---|
| Fair or poor self-rated health status among adults | 11.9% | 10.5–13.5 |
| Frequent mental distress among adults | 14.4% | 12.8–16.1 |
| Frequent physical distress among adults | 9.5% | 8.4–10.7 |
DisabilityCDC PLACES 2023 · BRFSS
| Measure | Crude prevalence | 95% CI |
|---|---|---|
| Cognitive disability among adults | 11.1% | 9.9–12.4 |
| Any disability among adults | 23.0% | 20.1–26.0 |
| Hearing disability among adults | 5.1% | 4.5–5.7 |
| Independent living disability among adults | 5.3% | 4.8–5.9 |
| Mobility disability among adults | 8.7% | 7.6–9.9 |
| Self-care disability among adults | 2.4% | 2.2–2.6 |
| Vision disability among adults | 3.1% | 2.9–3.4 |
Health-Related Social NeedsCDC PLACES 2023 · BRFSS
| Measure | Crude prevalence | 95% CI |
|---|---|---|
| Lack of social and emotional support among adults | 20.0% | 17.2–23.0 |
| Food insecurity in the past 12 months among adults | 8.5% | 7.3–9.8 |
| Received food stamps in the past 12 months among adults | 5.8% | 4.9–6.7 |
| Housing insecurity in the past 12 months among adults | 8.0% | 6.9–9.2 |
| Lack of reliable transportation in the past 12 months among adults | 5.2% | 4.6–5.9 |
| Loneliness among adults | 29.6% | 25.7–34.0 |
| Utility services shut-off threat in the past 12 months among adults | 5.2% | 4.5–6.0 |
Community & economyCensus ACS 5-Year · 2024 release · observed
| Measure | Value | US median (p10–p90) | NC median (p10–p90) |
|---|---|---|---|
| Poverty rate | 3.3% | 10.6% (3.1–25.8%) n=32,364 | 13.0% (4.4–25.0%) n=793 |
| Uninsured 18–64 | 6.1% | 9.0% (1.5–24.3%) n=32,286 | 14.5% (5.7–24.9%) n=794 |
| No HS diploma (25+) | 3.4% | 7.9% (1.8–20.7%) n=32,505 | 10.4% (3.1–19.8%) n=798 |
| Bachelor's or higher (25+) | 56.3% | 23.3% (9.2–53.6%) n=32,505 | 22.8% (10.7–53.4%) n=798 |
| Unemployment rate (16+) | 3.3% | 3.9% (0.0–9.8%) n=32,274 | 4.2% (0.0–9.1%) n=796 |
| Households without a vehicle | 2.8% | 3.9% (0.0–12.5%) n=32,322 | 3.9% (0.0–10.2%) n=793 |
| Broadband subscription | 95.6% | 89.3% (75.1–97.1%) n=32,322 | 87.6% (76.2–96.3%) n=793 |
| Housing cost burden (≥30% income) | 22.0% | 23.7% (10.6–40.0%) n=32,322 | 24.7% (14.1–36.5%) n=793 |
| Homeownership rate | 71.6% | 78.7% (51.7–94.0%) n=32,322 | 75.0% (52.7–89.7%) n=793 |
| Crowded housing (>1 per room) | 0.5% | 1.3% (0.0–6.3%) n=32,322 | 1.4% (0.0–4.5%) n=793 |
| Foreign-born population | 10.1% | 2.6% (0.0–18.6%) n=32,553 | 4.2% (0.0–12.9%) n=799 |
| Single-parent households | 46.5% | 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 | 40.0 yr | 42.2 yr (33.0–56.3) n=32,292 | 42.5 yr (33.3–55.7) n=797 |
| Median household income | $120,831 | $72,070 ($46,039–$118,707) n=30,318 | $65,030 ($44,419–$97,111) n=749 |
| Median home value | $473,900 | $222,200 ($100,300–$579,820) n=30,049 | $223,850 ($113,970–$452,990) n=758 |
| Median gross rent | $1,820 | $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 | 79.5 yr ± 0.57 | 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 0.57 years of 79.5, 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