ZIP code
28173
in Waxhaw, North CarolinaPopulation 65,274
65.96/ 100
Ranked #1,644 of 32,066 US ZIPs (top 5.2%)
Ranked #32 of 793 North Carolina ZIPs (top 4.1%)
Ranked #10 of 113 Charlotte-Concord-Gastonia, NC-SC ZIPs (top 8.9%)
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
$150,597
in the top 3.8% nationally
Higher is healthier
ST99thUS96thDefinition & source ›
The middle household income in this ZIP — half of households earn more, half earn less — in dollars per year.
Full methodology ›Natural-disaster risk
in the top 3.4% nationally
Lower is healthier
ST98thUS97thDefinition & 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 ›Expected annual disaster loss
$0
in the top 3.6% nationally
Lower is healthier
ST99thUS96thDefinition & 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 ›Lack of transportation
5.0%
in the bottom 7.6% nationally
Lower is healthier
ST6thUS8thDefinition & source ›
The estimated share of adults who lacked reliable transportation in the past 12 months.
Full methodology ›Independent-living disability
5.4%
in the bottom 4.8% nationally
Lower is healthier
ST4thUS5thDefinition & 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 ›Coronary heart disease
4.6%
in the bottom 6.3% nationally
Lower is healthier
ST6thUS6thDefinition & source ›
The estimated share of adults who have been told by a health professional that they have coronary heart disease or angina.
Full methodology ›Mobility disability
9.2%
in the bottom 6.2% nationally
Lower is healthier
ST5thUS6thDefinition & source ›
The estimated share of adults with serious difficulty walking or climbing stairs.
Full methodology ›Food insecurity
8.2%
in the bottom 8.3% nationally
Lower is healthier
ST6thUS8thDefinition & source ›
The estimated share of adults who experienced food insecurity in the past 12 months.
Full methodology ›Stroke
2.4%
in the bottom 5.4% nationally
Lower is healthier
ST5thUS5thDefinition & source ›
The estimated share of adults who have been told by a health professional that they have had a stroke.
Full methodology ›Fair or poor health
12.9%
in the bottom 5.7% nationally
Lower is healthier
ST5thUS6thDefinition & source ›
The estimated share of adults who rate their own general health as fair or poor.
Full methodology ›The read
Waxhaw, North Carolina (ZIP 28173), by its composite score, sits in the top 5.2% healthiest ZIPs nationally (1,644th) and the top 4.1% of North Carolina (32nd).
The data opens on a genuinely even set of readings: household income sits in the top 3.8% nationally, and modeled transportation lies in the bottom 7.6% nationally. Modeled independent living disability rests in the bottom 4.8% nationally, and coronary heart disease resides in the bottom 6.3% nationally. Modeled mobility disability is in the bottom 6.2% nationally, food insecurity lands in the bottom 8.3% nationally, and stroke stands in the bottom 5.4% nationally. Modeled fair or poor health registers in the bottom 5.7% nationally. On the other side, modeled disaster risk settles in the top 3.4% nationally, and expected annual loss sits in the top 3.6% nationally.
Next to the surrounding area, expected annual loss runs far higher than the surrounding ZIPs on this measure. For anyone unfamiliar, disaster risk is the area's national rank on its highest non-flood peril in FEMA's modeled Risk Index, like wildfire or quake. Expected annual loss is FEMA's modeled estimate, in dollars, of average yearly harm to people from natural hazards. For a healthier comparison close by, see ZIP 28277, just across the boundary. The area further 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. 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 89%
21%
Social Need / SDOH
healthier than 94%
16%
Environmental Hazard
healthier than 81%
14%
Preventive Care
healthier than 82%
13%
Risk Behavior
healthier than 92%
11%
Mental Health
healthier than 68%
8%
Disability
healthier than 93%
7%
Healthcare Access
healthier than 92%
5%
Holding it back
Climate / Disaster Risk
healthier than 35%
5%
Lifting this score
Chronic Disease Burden
healthier than 92%
21%
Social Need / SDOH
healthier than 93%
16%
Environmental Hazard
healthier than 67%
14%
Preventive Care
healthier than 76%
13%
Risk Behavior
healthier than 89%
11%
Mental Health
healthier than 89%
8%
Disability
healthier than 96%
7%
Healthcare Access
healthier than 89%
5%
Holding it back
Climate / Disaster Risk
healthier than 37%
5%
Lifting this score
Chronic Disease Burden
healthier than 81%
21%
Social Need / SDOH
healthier than 86%
16%
Environmental Hazard
healthier than 95%
14%
Preventive Care
healthier than 86%
13%
Risk Behavior
healthier than 94%
11%
Mental Health
healthier than 86%
8%
Disability
healthier than 89%
7%
Healthcare Access
healthier than 86%
5%
Holding it back
Climate / Disaster Risk
healthier than 30%
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 ›
Nearby & similar ZIPs
Editorially selected — see how this ZIP compares to nearby and similar places.
Nearby
28104
North Carolinashares a border
Score 64.34
Closest healthier
28277
North Carolinashares a border
Score 69.15
Similar health profile
27502
North Carolina100% similar profile
Score 69.69
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 | 23.1% | 20.1–26.3 |
| High blood pressure among adults | 31.0% | 27.1–35.0 |
| Cancer (non-skin) or melanoma among adults | 7.6% | 6.8–8.4 |
| Current asthma among adults | 10.0% | 8.7–11.3 |
| Coronary heart disease among adults | 4.6% | 4.1–5.1 |
| Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease among adults | 4.6% | 4.1–5.2 |
| Depression among adults | 23.7% | 20.1–27.4 |
| Diagnosed diabetes among adults | 8.9% | 7.7–10.3 |
| High cholesterol among adults who have ever been screened | 35.2% | 30.9–39.6 |
| Obesity among adults | 31.1% | 24.7–38.3 |
| Stroke among adults | 2.4% | 2.3–2.6 |
| All teeth lost among adults aged >=65 years | 8.2% | 6.5–9.9 |
PreventionCDC PLACES 2022 / 2023 · BRFSS
| Measure | Crude prevalence | 95% CI |
|---|---|---|
| Current lack of health insurance among adults aged 18-64 years | 6.3% | 5.3–7.3 |
| Taking medicine to control high blood pressure among adults with high blood pressure | 74.6% | 70.8–78.0 |
| Visits to doctor for routine checkup within the past year among adults | 80.3% | 76.6–83.5 |
| Cholesterol screening among adults | 90.3% | 88.9–91.6 |
| Colorectal cancer screening among adults aged 45–75 years | 65.4% | 60.2–69.9 |
| Visited dentist or dental clinic in the past year among adults | 72.8% | 69.7–75.6 |
| Mammography use among women aged 50-74 years | 78.9% | 71.5–84.5 |
Health Risk BehaviorsCDC PLACES 2022 / 2023 · BRFSS
| Measure | Crude prevalence | 95% CI |
|---|---|---|
| Binge drinking among adults | 16.4% | 13.3–19.7 |
| Current cigarette smoking among adults | 9.9% | 8.5–11.5 |
| No leisure-time physical activity among adults | 17.5% | 14.5–20.8 |
| Short sleep duration among adults | 30.5% | 24.7–36.1 |
Health StatusCDC PLACES 2023 · BRFSS
| Measure | Crude prevalence | 95% CI |
|---|---|---|
| Fair or poor self-rated health status among adults | 12.9% | 11.2–14.7 |
| Frequent mental distress among adults | 14.3% | 12.6–16.1 |
| Frequent physical distress among adults | 10.1% | 8.9–11.4 |
DisabilityCDC PLACES 2023 · BRFSS
| Measure | Crude prevalence | 95% CI |
|---|---|---|
| Cognitive disability among adults | 11.1% | 9.8–12.5 |
| Any disability among adults | 23.1% | 19.8–26.6 |
| Hearing disability among adults | 5.4% | 4.7–6.0 |
| Independent living disability among adults | 5.4% | 4.9–6.0 |
| Mobility disability among adults | 9.2% | 8.0–10.5 |
| Self-care disability among adults | 2.5% | 2.3–2.7 |
| Vision disability among adults | 3.2% | 3.0–3.5 |
Health-Related Social NeedsCDC PLACES 2023 · BRFSS
| Measure | Crude prevalence | 95% CI |
|---|---|---|
| Lack of social and emotional support among adults | 19.0% | 16.1–22.2 |
| Food insecurity in the past 12 months among adults | 8.2% | 7.0–9.6 |
| Received food stamps in the past 12 months among adults | 5.5% | 4.7–6.5 |
| Housing insecurity in the past 12 months among adults | 7.4% | 6.3–8.6 |
| Lack of reliable transportation in the past 12 months among adults | 5.0% | 4.4–5.7 |
| Loneliness among adults | 28.6% | 24.0–33.3 |
| Utility services shut-off threat in the past 12 months among adults | 4.8% | 4.1–5.5 |
Community & economyCensus ACS 5-Year · 2024 release · observed
| Measure | Value | US median (p10–p90) | NC median (p10–p90) |
|---|---|---|---|
| Poverty rate | 4.4% | 10.6% (3.1–25.8%) n=32,364 | 13.0% (4.4–25.0%) n=793 |
| Uninsured 18–64 | 5.8% | 9.0% (1.5–24.3%) n=32,286 | 14.5% (5.7–24.9%) n=794 |
| No HS diploma (25+) | 4.4% | 7.9% (1.8–20.7%) n=32,505 | 10.4% (3.1–19.8%) n=798 |
| Bachelor's or higher (25+) | 58.2% | 23.3% (9.2–53.6%) n=32,505 | 22.8% (10.7–53.4%) n=798 |
| Unemployment rate (16+) | 3.9% | 3.9% (0.0–9.8%) n=32,274 | 4.2% (0.0–9.1%) n=796 |
| Households without a vehicle | 0.7% | 3.9% (0.0–12.5%) n=32,322 | 3.9% (0.0–10.2%) n=793 |
| Broadband subscription | 96.7% | 89.3% (75.1–97.1%) n=32,322 | 87.6% (76.2–96.3%) n=793 |
| Housing cost burden (≥30% income) | 16.6% | 23.7% (10.6–40.0%) n=32,322 | 24.7% (14.1–36.5%) n=793 |
| Homeownership rate | 90.0% | 78.7% (51.7–94.0%) n=32,322 | 75.0% (52.7–89.7%) n=793 |
| Crowded housing (>1 per room) | 1.4% | 1.3% (0.0–6.3%) n=32,322 | 1.4% (0.0–4.5%) n=793 |
| Foreign-born population | 11.9% | 2.6% (0.0–18.6%) n=32,553 | 4.2% (0.0–12.9%) n=799 |
| Single-parent households | 39.6% | 53.6% (37.3–74.1%) n=32,087 | 51.8% (39.2–70.1%) n=790 |
| Population 65+ | 10.9% | 19.4% (10.8–33.6%) n=32,553 | 19.7% (11.1–31.9%) n=799 |
| Median age | 41.2 yr | 42.2 yr (33.0–56.3) n=32,292 | 42.5 yr (33.3–55.7) n=797 |
| Median household income | $150,597 | $72,070 ($46,039–$118,707) n=30,318 | $65,030 ($44,419–$97,111) n=749 |
| Median home value | $608,000 | $222,200 ($100,300–$579,820) n=30,049 | $223,850 ($113,970–$452,990) n=758 |
| Median gross rent | $1,776 | $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 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