ZIP code
28203
in Charlotte, North CarolinaPopulation 18,823
68.30/ 100
Ranked #944 of 32,066 US ZIPs (top 3.0%)
Ranked #16 of 793 North Carolina ZIPs (top 2.1%)
Ranked #4 of 113 Charlotte-Concord-Gastonia, NC-SC ZIPs (top 3.6%)
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.
High cholesterol
23.7%
in the bottom 1.2% nationally
Lower is healthier
ST2ndUS1stDefinition & source ›
The estimated share of adults with high cholesterol, among those who have ever been screened for it.
Full methodology ›High blood pressure
18.9%
in the bottom 1.1% nationally
Lower is healthier
ST1stUS1stDefinition & source ›
The estimated share of adults who have been told by a health professional that they have high blood pressure.
Full methodology ›Coronary heart disease
2.3%
in the bottom 1.1% nationally
Lower is healthier
ST1stUS1stDefinition & source ›
The estimated share of adults who have been told by a health professional that they have coronary heart disease or angina.
Full methodology ›Diabetes
4.7%
in the bottom 1.1% nationally
Lower is healthier
ST1stUS1stDefinition & source ›
The estimated share of adults who have been diagnosed with diabetes.
Full methodology ›Stroke
1.4%
in the bottom 1.2% nationally
Lower is healthier
ST1stUS1stDefinition & source ›
The estimated share of adults who have been told by a health professional that they have had a stroke.
Full methodology ›Mobility disability
5.1%
in the bottom 1.0% nationally
Lower is healthier
ST1stUS1stDefinition & source ›
The estimated share of adults with serious difficulty walking or climbing stairs.
Full methodology ›Hearing disability
3.3%
in the bottom 1.1% nationally
Lower is healthier
ST1stUS1stDefinition & source ›
The estimated share of adults who are deaf or have serious difficulty hearing.
Full methodology ›Binge drinking
21.5%
in the top 2.4% nationally
Lower is healthier
ST99thUS98thDefinition & source ›
The estimated share of adults who report binge drinking — five or more drinks on one occasion for men, four or more for women.
Full methodology ›Recreation access
1.8 per 1,000 residents
in the top 2.2% nationally
Higher is healthier
ST98thUS98thDefinition & 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 ›Obesity
23.9%
in the bottom 4.1% nationally
Lower is healthier
ST1stUS4thDefinition & source ›
The estimated share of adults with obesity, defined as a body-mass index of 30 or higher.
Full methodology ›The read
By the composite measure, ZIP 28203, one of several in Charlotte, North Carolina sits in the top 3.0% healthiest ZIPs nationally (944th) and the top 2.1% of North Carolina (16th).
Where the data leans one way, another reading answers it: modeled high cholesterol sits in the bottom 1.2% nationally, high blood pressure registers in the bottom 1.1% nationally, and coronary heart disease lands in the bottom 1.1% nationally. Modeled diabetes resides in the bottom 1.1% nationally, stroke lies in the bottom 1.2% nationally, and mobility disability settles in the bottom 1.0% nationally. Modeled hearing disability stands in the bottom 1.1% nationally, and recreation is in the top 2.2% nationally. Modeled obesity rests in the bottom 4.1% nationally. On the other hand, modeled binge drinking sits in the top 2.4% nationally.
Compared with the ZIPs that surround it, park land runs far higher than the surrounding ZIPs on this measure. ZIP 28204, just across the boundary, ranks healthier 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
in the top 0.9%
21%
Social Need / SDOH
healthier than 98%
16%
Risk Behavior
healthier than 85%
11%
Disability
in the top 0.9%
7%
Healthcare Access
healthier than 82%
5%
About typical
Climate / Disaster Risk
healthier than 48%
5%
Holding it back
Environmental Hazard
healthier than 18%
14%
Preventive Care
healthier than 38%
13%
Mental Health
healthier than 38%
8%
Lifting this score
Chronic Disease Burden
in the top 0.9%
21%
Social Need / SDOH
healthier than 99%
16%
Risk Behavior
healthier than 82%
11%
Disability
in the top 0.3%
7%
Climate / Disaster Risk
healthier than 68%
5%
Healthcare Access
healthier than 80%
5%
About typical
Mental Health
healthier than 54%
8%
Holding it back
Environmental Hazard
healthier than 7%
14%
Preventive Care
healthier than 18%
13%
Lifting this score
Chronic Disease Burden
in the top 0.00%
21%
Social Need / SDOH
healthier than 97%
16%
Risk Behavior
healthier than 83%
11%
Disability
in the top 0.00%
7%
Climate / Disaster Risk
healthier than 84%
5%
Healthcare Access
healthier than 65%
5%
About typical
Mental Health
healthier than 47%
8%
Holding it back
Environmental Hazard
healthier than 20%
14%
Preventive Care
healthier than 22%
13%
“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.
Heavy environment, light chronic burden
Where the environment and chronic illness point in opposite directions
Environmental-hazard standing 17.8; chronic-disease standing 99.1 (top 1%) — 81 points apart, heavier on the environment than it is on chronic illness.
Ranked #17,283 of the 18,187 ZIP codes this finding names, ordered by the gap from cleanest environment to heaviest chronic burden, highest first.
Nearby & similar ZIPs
Editorially selected — see how this ZIP compares to nearby and similar places.
Nearby
28202
North Carolinashares a border
Score 64.80
Closest healthier
28204
North Carolinashares a border
Score 68.55
Similar health profile
64156
Missouri99% similar profile
Score 61.21
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 | 13.1% | 11.3–14.9 |
| High blood pressure among adults | 18.9% | 16.3–21.3 |
| Cancer (non-skin) or melanoma among adults | 4.2% | 3.7–4.6 |
| Current asthma among adults | 9.8% | 8.6–11.1 |
| Coronary heart disease among adults | 2.3% | 2.1–2.6 |
| Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease among adults | 2.6% | 2.3–3.1 |
| Depression among adults | 26.2% | 22.6–29.8 |
| Diagnosed diabetes among adults | 4.7% | 4.0–5.4 |
| High cholesterol among adults who have ever been screened | 23.7% | 20.6–26.7 |
| Obesity among adults | 23.9% | 19.4–28.3 |
| Stroke among adults | 1.4% | 1.2–1.5 |
| All teeth lost among adults aged >=65 years | 7.9% | 6.3–9.6 |
PreventionCDC PLACES 2022 / 2023 · BRFSS
| Measure | Crude prevalence | 95% CI |
|---|---|---|
| Current lack of health insurance among adults aged 18-64 years | 6.5% | 5.3–7.7 |
| Taking medicine to control high blood pressure among adults with high blood pressure | 60.8% | 57.3–64.0 |
| Visits to doctor for routine checkup within the past year among adults | 73.4% | 69.3–77.0 |
| Cholesterol screening among adults | 84.8% | 82.6–86.8 |
| Colorectal cancer screening among adults aged 45–75 years | 67.5% | 62.7–71.9 |
| Visited dentist or dental clinic in the past year among adults | 71.7% | 68.5–74.5 |
| Mammography use among women aged 50-74 years | 81.1% | 74.7–86.3 |
Health Risk BehaviorsCDC PLACES 2022 / 2023 · BRFSS
| Measure | Crude prevalence | 95% CI |
|---|---|---|
| Binge drinking among adults | 21.5% | 18.0–25.1 |
| Current cigarette smoking among adults | 6.9% | 5.8–8.4 |
| No leisure-time physical activity among adults | 12.6% | 10.5–15.1 |
| Short sleep duration among adults | 32.6% | 28.1–37.1 |
Health StatusCDC PLACES 2023 · BRFSS
| Measure | Crude prevalence | 95% CI |
|---|---|---|
| Fair or poor self-rated health status among adults | 9.4% | 8.1–11.0 |
| Frequent mental distress among adults | 15.9% | 14.0–17.9 |
| Frequent physical distress among adults | 7.2% | 6.2–8.2 |
DisabilityCDC PLACES 2023 · BRFSS
| Measure | Crude prevalence | 95% CI |
|---|---|---|
| Cognitive disability among adults | 11.8% | 10.3–13.5 |
| Any disability among adults | 19.8% | 17.0–23.0 |
| Hearing disability among adults | 3.3% | 2.9–3.7 |
| Independent living disability among adults | 4.9% | 4.3–5.6 |
| Mobility disability among adults | 5.1% | 4.4–5.9 |
| Self-care disability among adults | 1.6% | 1.5–1.8 |
| Vision disability among adults | 2.6% | 2.3–2.9 |
Health-Related Social NeedsCDC PLACES 2023 · BRFSS
| Measure | Crude prevalence | 95% CI |
|---|---|---|
| Lack of social and emotional support among adults | 18.9% | 16.1–22.1 |
| Food insecurity in the past 12 months among adults | 8.3% | 7.0–10.0 |
| Received food stamps in the past 12 months among adults | 6.0% | 4.9–7.3 |
| Housing insecurity in the past 12 months among adults | 7.7% | 6.5–9.1 |
| Lack of reliable transportation in the past 12 months among adults | 5.7% | 4.9–6.6 |
| Loneliness among adults | 32.1% | 27.8–36.8 |
| Utility services shut-off threat in the past 12 months among adults | 5.1% | 4.4–6.0 |
Community & economyCensus ACS 5-Year · 2024 release · observed
| Measure | Value | US median (p10–p90) | NC median (p10–p90) |
|---|---|---|---|
| Poverty rate | 8.4% | 10.6% (3.1–25.8%) n=32,364 | 13.0% (4.4–25.0%) n=793 |
| Uninsured 18–64 | 4.1% | 9.0% (1.5–24.3%) n=32,286 | 14.5% (5.7–24.9%) n=794 |
| No HS diploma (25+) | 2.7% | 7.9% (1.8–20.7%) n=32,505 | 10.4% (3.1–19.8%) n=798 |
| Bachelor's or higher (25+) | 81.1% | 23.3% (9.2–53.6%) n=32,505 | 22.8% (10.7–53.4%) n=798 |
| Unemployment rate (16+) | 1.8% | 3.9% (0.0–9.8%) n=32,274 | 4.2% (0.0–9.1%) n=796 |
| Households without a vehicle | 7.6% | 3.9% (0.0–12.5%) n=32,322 | 3.9% (0.0–10.2%) n=793 |
| Broadband subscription | 93.9% | 89.3% (75.1–97.1%) n=32,322 | 87.6% (76.2–96.3%) n=793 |
| Housing cost burden (≥30% income) | 31.7% | 23.7% (10.6–40.0%) n=32,322 | 24.7% (14.1–36.5%) n=793 |
| Homeownership rate | 29.4% | 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 | 6.6% | 2.6% (0.0–18.6%) n=32,553 | 4.2% (0.0–12.9%) n=799 |
| Single-parent households | 50.8% | 53.6% (37.3–74.1%) n=32,087 | 51.8% (39.2–70.1%) n=790 |
| Population 65+ | 7.0% | 19.4% (10.8–33.6%) n=32,553 | 19.7% (11.1–31.9%) n=799 |
| Median age | 28.7 yr | 42.2 yr (33.0–56.3) n=32,292 | 42.5 yr (33.3–55.7) n=797 |
| Median household income | $104,696 | $72,070 ($46,039–$118,707) n=30,318 | $65,030 ($44,419–$97,111) n=749 |
| Median home value | $707,800 | $222,200 ($100,300–$579,820) n=30,049 | $223,850 ($113,970–$452,990) n=758 |
| Median gross rent | $1,921 | $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