ZIP code
28278
in Charlotte, North CarolinaPopulation 37,420
63.45/ 100
Ranked #2,731 of 32,066 US ZIPs (top 8.6%)
Ranked #53 of 793 North Carolina ZIPs (top 6.7%)
Ranked #19 of 113 Charlotte-Concord-Gastonia, NC-SC ZIPs (top 17%)
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.
Industrial-pollution burden
in the top 1.1% nationally
Lower is healthier
ST99thUS99thDefinition & 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 ›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
4.0%
in the bottom 3.3% nationally
Lower is healthier
ST4thUS3rdDefinition & source ›
The estimated share of adults who have been told by a health professional that they have coronary heart disease or angina.
Full methodology ›Hearing disability
4.5%
in the bottom 3.6% nationally
Lower is healthier
ST3rdUS4thDefinition & source ›
The estimated share of adults who are deaf or have serious difficulty hearing.
Full methodology ›Air-toxics cancer risk
39.8 per million
in the top 6.8% 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 ›Energy-cost burden
1.4%
in the bottom 3.8% 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 ›PFAS in drinking water
62.3%
in the top 7.1% nationally
Lower is healthier
ST87thUS93rdDefinition & 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 ›Mobility disability
8.9%
in the bottom 5.3% nationally
Lower is healthier
ST5thUS5thDefinition & source ›
The estimated share of adults with serious difficulty walking or climbing stairs.
Full methodology ›High cholesterol
31.5%
in the bottom 5.5% nationally
Lower is healthier
ST6thUS5thDefinition & source ›
The estimated share of adults with high cholesterol, among those who have ever been screened for it.
Full methodology ›Mammography
81.5%
in the top 5.2% nationally
Higher is healthier
ST95thUS95thDefinition & source ›
The estimated share of women aged 50–74 who had a mammogram within the past two years.
Full methodology ›The read
In overall standing, ZIP 28278, one of several in Charlotte, North Carolina comes out in the top 8.6% healthiest ZIPs nationally (2,731st) and the top 6.7% of North Carolina (53rd).
Both sides of the picture show up plainly in this area's numbers: lead in tap water sits at the national minimum, modeled coronary heart disease settles in the bottom 3.3% nationally, and modeled hearing disability registers in the bottom 3.6% nationally. Modeled energy burden stands in the bottom 3.8% nationally, mobility disability lands in the bottom 5.3% nationally, and high cholesterol is in the bottom 5.5% nationally. Modeled mammography resides in the top 5.2% nationally. By contrast, modeled industrial-pollution burden rests in the top 1.1% nationally, and air-toxics cancer risk lies in the top 6.8% nationally. Modeled pfas sits in the top 7.1% nationally.
Relative to the ZIPs around it, industrial-pollution burden runs far higher than the surrounding ZIPs on this measure. In plain terms, industrial-pollution burden is the EPA's modeled screening score weighting industrial chemical releases by their toxicity and how many people live nearby. Lead in tap water is the EPA trigger, 15 parts per billion in tap samples, above which a water system must act on lead. Air-toxics cancer risk is a modeled EPA estimate of added lifetime cancer risk from breathing outdoor air, per million people. The nearest healthier ZIP overall is ZIP 29708, just across the boundary.
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 95%
21%
Social Need / SDOH
healthier than 90%
16%
Preventive Care
healthier than 74%
13%
Risk Behavior
healthier than 82%
11%
Mental Health
healthier than 77%
8%
Disability
healthier than 94%
7%
Healthcare Access
healthier than 61%
5%
Holding it back
Environmental Hazard
healthier than 4%
14%
Climate / Disaster Risk
healthier than 32%
5%
Lifting this score
Chronic Disease Burden
healthier than 96%
21%
Social Need / SDOH
healthier than 89%
16%
Preventive Care
healthier than 67%
13%
Risk Behavior
healthier than 77%
11%
Mental Health
healthier than 95%
8%
Disability
healthier than 97%
7%
About typical
Healthcare Access
healthier than 55%
5%
Holding it back
Environmental Hazard
in the bottom 0.2%
14%
Climate / Disaster Risk
healthier than 30%
5%
Lifting this score
Chronic Disease Burden
healthier than 94%
21%
Social Need / SDOH
healthier than 80%
16%
Preventive Care
healthier than 79%
13%
Risk Behavior
healthier than 77%
11%
Mental Health
healthier than 93%
8%
Disability
healthier than 91%
7%
About typical
Healthcare Access
healthier than 41%
5%
Holding it back
Environmental Hazard
healthier than 3%
14%
Climate / Disaster Risk
healthier than 12%
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
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 4.1 (bottom 10%); chronic-disease standing 94.8 (top 10%) — 91 points apart, heavier on the environment than it is on chronic illness.
Ranked #17,924 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
28012
North Carolinashares a border
Score 55.52
Closest healthier
29708
South Carolinashares a border
Score 65.63
Similar health profile
55378
Minnesota99% similar profile
Score 64.23
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 | 20.5% | 17.9–23.2 |
| High blood pressure among adults | 28.9% | 25.4–32.3 |
| Cancer (non-skin) or melanoma among adults | 6.1% | 5.5–6.8 |
| Current asthma among adults | 10.1% | 8.8–11.4 |
| Coronary heart disease among adults | 4.0% | 3.5–4.4 |
| Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease among adults | 4.0% | 3.5–4.5 |
| Depression among adults | 21.9% | 18.7–25.1 |
| Diagnosed diabetes among adults | 8.8% | 7.5–10.2 |
| High cholesterol among adults who have ever been screened | 31.5% | 27.8–35.1 |
| Obesity among adults | 28.1% | 23.1–33.0 |
| Stroke among adults | 2.4% | 2.2–2.5 |
| All teeth lost among adults aged >=65 years | 7.4% | 5.9–9.0 |
PreventionCDC PLACES 2022 / 2023 · BRFSS
| Measure | Crude prevalence | 95% CI |
|---|---|---|
| Current lack of health insurance among adults aged 18-64 years | 8.1% | 7.0–9.2 |
| Taking medicine to control high blood pressure among adults with high blood pressure | 72.8% | 68.9–76.1 |
| Visits to doctor for routine checkup within the past year among adults | 78.9% | 75.4–82.0 |
| Cholesterol screening among adults | 89.5% | 88.0–90.9 |
| Colorectal cancer screening among adults aged 45–75 years | 66.6% | 61.9–70.9 |
| Visited dentist or dental clinic in the past year among adults | 68.4% | 65.1–71.4 |
| Mammography use among women aged 50-74 years | 81.5% | 75.2–86.6 |
Health Risk BehaviorsCDC PLACES 2022 / 2023 · BRFSS
| Measure | Crude prevalence | 95% CI |
|---|---|---|
| Binge drinking among adults | 15.9% | 13.1–18.7 |
| Current cigarette smoking among adults | 9.3% | 8.0–10.9 |
| No leisure-time physical activity among adults | 17.7% | 14.8–20.8 |
| Short sleep duration among adults | 37.5% | 32.7–42.2 |
Health StatusCDC PLACES 2023 · BRFSS
| Measure | Crude prevalence | 95% CI |
|---|---|---|
| Fair or poor self-rated health status among adults | 13.0% | 11.3–14.8 |
| Frequent mental distress among adults | 14.5% | 12.7–16.3 |
| Frequent physical distress among adults | 9.5% | 8.3–10.7 |
DisabilityCDC PLACES 2023 · BRFSS
| Measure | Crude prevalence | 95% CI |
|---|---|---|
| Cognitive disability among adults | 11.4% | 10.0–12.8 |
| Any disability among adults | 23.3% | 20.1–26.5 |
| Hearing disability among adults | 4.5% | 4.0–5.1 |
| Independent living disability among adults | 5.5% | 4.9–6.2 |
| Mobility disability among adults | 8.9% | 7.7–10.2 |
| Self-care disability among adults | 2.6% | 2.4–2.9 |
| Vision disability among adults | 3.5% | 3.2–3.9 |
Health-Related Social NeedsCDC PLACES 2023 · BRFSS
| Measure | Crude prevalence | 95% CI |
|---|---|---|
| Lack of social and emotional support among adults | 22.7% | 19.5–26.1 |
| Food insecurity in the past 12 months among adults | 11.4% | 9.8–13.1 |
| Received food stamps in the past 12 months among adults | 7.9% | 6.7–9.2 |
| Housing insecurity in the past 12 months among adults | 10.6% | 9.1–12.2 |
| Lack of reliable transportation in the past 12 months among adults | 6.4% | 5.6–7.3 |
| Loneliness among adults | 31.1% | 27.0–35.8 |
| Utility services shut-off threat in the past 12 months among adults | 6.8% | 5.9–7.8 |
Community & economyCensus ACS 5-Year · 2024 release · observed
| Measure | Value | US median (p10–p90) | NC median (p10–p90) |
|---|---|---|---|
| Poverty rate | 3.5% | 10.6% (3.1–25.8%) n=32,364 | 13.0% (4.4–25.0%) n=793 |
| Uninsured 18–64 | 5.5% | 9.0% (1.5–24.3%) n=32,286 | 14.5% (5.7–24.9%) n=794 |
| No HS diploma (25+) | 5.1% | 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+) | 3.0% | 3.9% (0.0–9.8%) n=32,274 | 4.2% (0.0–9.1%) n=796 |
| Households without a vehicle | 1.8% | 3.9% (0.0–12.5%) n=32,322 | 3.9% (0.0–10.2%) n=793 |
| Broadband subscription | 96.6% | 89.3% (75.1–97.1%) n=32,322 | 87.6% (76.2–96.3%) n=793 |
| Housing cost burden (≥30% income) | 24.9% | 23.7% (10.6–40.0%) n=32,322 | 24.7% (14.1–36.5%) n=793 |
| Homeownership rate | 74.3% | 78.7% (51.7–94.0%) n=32,322 | 75.0% (52.7–89.7%) n=793 |
| Crowded housing (>1 per room) | 1.1% | 1.3% (0.0–6.3%) n=32,322 | 1.4% (0.0–4.5%) n=793 |
| Foreign-born population | 16.9% | 2.6% (0.0–18.6%) n=32,553 | 4.2% (0.0–12.9%) n=799 |
| Single-parent households | 46.7% | 53.6% (37.3–74.1%) n=32,087 | 51.8% (39.2–70.1%) n=790 |
| Population 65+ | 11.0% | 19.4% (10.8–33.6%) n=32,553 | 19.7% (11.1–31.9%) n=799 |
| Median age | 36.6 yr | 42.2 yr (33.0–56.3) n=32,292 | 42.5 yr (33.3–55.7) n=797 |
| Median household income | $125,470 | $72,070 ($46,039–$118,707) n=30,318 | $65,030 ($44,419–$97,111) n=749 |
| Median home value | $460,600 | $222,200 ($100,300–$579,820) n=30,049 | $223,850 ($113,970–$452,990) n=758 |
| Median gross rent | $1,786 | $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