ZIP code
28518
in Beulaville, North CarolinaPopulation 7,651
49.04/ 100
Ranked #17,605 of 32,066 US ZIPs (bottom 45%)
Ranked #436 of 793 North Carolina ZIPs (bottom 45%)
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.
Transportation noise
18.1%
in the top 3.0% nationally
Lower is healthier
ST99thUS97thDefinition & source ›
The modeled share of residents exposed to average road, rail, and aviation noise at or above 55 decibels — a noticeable background presence.
Full methodology ›Mental-health provider access
0.13 per 1,000 residents
in the top 8.2% nationally
Higher is healthier
ST89thUS92ndDefinition & source ›
The number of mental-health clinics located 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 ›Pharmacy access
0.38 per 1,000 residents
in the top 9.0% nationally
Higher is healthier
ST93rdUS91stDefinition & source ›
The number of pharmacies located 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 ›Radon
0.7 pCi/L
in the bottom 3.4% nationally
Lower is healthier
ST13thUS3rdDefinition & source ›
The modeled typical indoor radon level for this area, in picocuries per liter — the EPA recommends fixing a home at 4 pCi/L or above.
Modeled from indoor-radon measurements. In Alaska and Hawaii, where those measurements are not published, a US Geological Survey geologic radon-potential category stands in — a coarser input, disclosed rather than hidden.
Full methodology ›Industrial-pollution burden
in the bottom 11.9% nationally
Lower is healthier
ST5thUS12thDefinition & 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 ›Air-toxics cancer risk
20 per million
in the bottom 25% nationally
Lower is healthier
ST1stUS25thDefinition & 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 ›The read
On the composite measure, Beulaville, North Carolina (ZIP 28518) stands in the bottom 45% nationally (17,605th) and the bottom 45% of North Carolina (436th).
A profile of give and take, with clear readings each way: mental-health providers settles in the top 8.2% nationally, and pharmacy rests in the top 9.0% nationally. Modeled radon lands in the bottom 3.4% nationally. Distance to a community health center settles at the national minimum, shared with about 23% of ZIPs. Modeled industrial-pollution burden rests in the bottom 11.9% nationally, outpatient lands in the top 12.5% nationally, and grocery settles in the top 14.8% nationally. Outer-floodplain exposure rests at the national minimum, shared with about 36% of ZIPs. On the other side, modeled transportation noise lands in the top 3.0% nationally, and floodplain exposure settles in the top 17% nationally.
For clarity, radon is a radioactive soil gas the EPA identifies as the top cause of lung cancer in nonsmokers. Industrial-pollution burden is the EPA's modeled screening score weighting industrial chemical releases by their toxicity and how many people live nearby. Transportation noise is the modeled share of an area exposed to average road, rail, and air noise at or above 55 decibels. ZIP 28349, just across the boundary, ranks better overall among the ZIPs nearby.
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.
Compared with the ZIP codes measured across all nine scoring domains — not with all US ZIP codes.
Lifting this score
Environmental Hazard
healthier than 74%
14%
Preventive Care
healthier than 62%
13%
Risk Behavior
healthier than 66%
11%
About typical
Healthcare Access
healthier than 57%
5%
Holding it back
Chronic Disease Burden
healthier than 40%
21%
Social Need / SDOH
healthier than 30%
16%
Mental Health
healthier than 33%
8%
Disability
healthier than 33%
7%
Climate / Disaster Risk
healthier than 25%
5%
Nothing measured is lifting this score.
About typical
Chronic Disease Burden
healthier than 53%
21%
Environmental Hazard
healthier than 58%
14%
Preventive Care
healthier than 48%
13%
Risk Behavior
healthier than 50%
11%
Mental Health
healthier than 42%
8%
Disability
healthier than 47%
7%
Healthcare Access
healthier than 47%
5%
Holding it back
Social Need / SDOH
healthier than 30%
16%
Climate / Disaster Risk
healthier than 20%
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
28349
North Carolinashares a border
Score 50.56
Closest healthier
28540
North Carolinaabout 3.8 mi away
Score 51.29
Similar health profile
73130
Oklahoma91% similar profile
Score 49.69
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 | 30.0% | 27.1–33.0 |
| High blood pressure among adults | 39.8% | 36.2–43.5 |
| Cancer (non-skin) or melanoma among adults | 8.8% | 8.0–9.5 |
| Current asthma among adults | 11.2% | 10.0–12.4 |
| Coronary heart disease among adults | 7.6% | 6.9–8.3 |
| Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease among adults | 8.8% | 7.9–9.7 |
| Depression among adults | 24.9% | 21.9–28.2 |
| Diagnosed diabetes among adults | 13.1% | 11.5–14.7 |
| High cholesterol among adults who have ever been screened | 37.2% | 33.5–41.0 |
| Obesity among adults | 36.8% | 30.3–43.7 |
| Stroke among adults | 4.3% | 3.9–4.6 |
| All teeth lost among adults aged >=65 years | 17.0% | 14.2–20.2 |
PreventionCDC PLACES 2022 / 2023 · BRFSS
| Measure | Crude prevalence | 95% CI |
|---|---|---|
| Current lack of health insurance among adults aged 18-64 years | 11.1% | 9.6–12.7 |
| Taking medicine to control high blood pressure among adults with high blood pressure | 78.4% | 75.9–80.7 |
| Visits to doctor for routine checkup within the past year among adults | 80.3% | 77.4–82.9 |
| Cholesterol screening among adults | 87.2% | 85.7–88.7 |
| Colorectal cancer screening among adults aged 45–75 years | 67.7% | 63.2–71.8 |
| Visited dentist or dental clinic in the past year among adults | 61.9% | 58.6–65.0 |
| Mammography use among women aged 50-74 years | 77.5% | 71.1–82.9 |
Health Risk BehaviorsCDC PLACES 2022 / 2023 · BRFSS
| Measure | Crude prevalence | 95% CI |
|---|---|---|
| Binge drinking among adults | 14.4% | 12.2–16.8 |
| Current cigarette smoking among adults | 15.7% | 13.8–17.8 |
| No leisure-time physical activity among adults | 25.7% | 22.2–29.5 |
| Short sleep duration among adults | 34.0% | 28.9–39.5 |
Health StatusCDC PLACES 2023 · BRFSS
| Measure | Crude prevalence | 95% CI |
|---|---|---|
| Fair or poor self-rated health status among adults | 21.6% | 19.3–24.0 |
| Frequent mental distress among adults | 17.5% | 15.8–19.3 |
| Frequent physical distress among adults | 14.3% | 12.9–15.9 |
DisabilityCDC PLACES 2023 · BRFSS
| Measure | Crude prevalence | 95% CI |
|---|---|---|
| Cognitive disability among adults | 16.5% | 14.8–18.2 |
| Any disability among adults | 36.0% | 32.4–39.8 |
| Hearing disability among adults | 8.5% | 7.6–9.4 |
| Independent living disability among adults | 9.5% | 8.6–10.5 |
| Mobility disability among adults | 16.8% | 15.0–18.7 |
| Self-care disability among adults | 4.7% | 4.3–5.1 |
| Vision disability among adults | 6.1% | 5.6–6.6 |
Health-Related Social NeedsCDC PLACES 2023 · BRFSS
| Measure | Crude prevalence | 95% CI |
|---|---|---|
| Lack of social and emotional support among adults | 22.6% | 19.6–25.7 |
| Food insecurity in the past 12 months among adults | 16.1% | 14.1–18.3 |
| Received food stamps in the past 12 months among adults | 13.7% | 11.8–15.6 |
| Housing insecurity in the past 12 months among adults | 12.6% | 11.1–14.2 |
| Lack of reliable transportation in the past 12 months among adults | 8.8% | 7.9–9.8 |
| Loneliness among adults | 32.8% | 28.6–37.2 |
| Utility services shut-off threat in the past 12 months among adults | 8.5% | 7.5–9.6 |
Community & economyCensus ACS 5-Year · 2024 release · observed
| Measure | Value | US median (p10–p90) | NC median (p10–p90) |
|---|---|---|---|
| Poverty rate | 16.6% | 10.6% (3.1–25.8%) n=32,364 | 13.0% (4.4–25.0%) n=793 |
| Uninsured 18–64 | 18.3% | 9.0% (1.5–24.3%) n=32,286 | 14.5% (5.7–24.9%) n=794 |
| No HS diploma (25+) | 9.5% | 7.9% (1.8–20.7%) n=32,505 | 10.4% (3.1–19.8%) n=798 |
| Bachelor's or higher (25+) | 21.2% | 23.3% (9.2–53.6%) n=32,505 | 22.8% (10.7–53.4%) n=798 |
| Unemployment rate (16+) | 6.2% | 3.9% (0.0–9.8%) n=32,274 | 4.2% (0.0–9.1%) n=796 |
| Households without a vehicle | 4.8% | 3.9% (0.0–12.5%) n=32,322 | 3.9% (0.0–10.2%) n=793 |
| Broadband subscription | 86.1% | 89.3% (75.1–97.1%) n=32,322 | 87.6% (76.2–96.3%) n=793 |
| Housing cost burden (≥30% income) | 27.3% | 23.7% (10.6–40.0%) n=32,322 | 24.7% (14.1–36.5%) n=793 |
| Homeownership rate | 77.7% | 78.7% (51.7–94.0%) n=32,322 | 75.0% (52.7–89.7%) n=793 |
| Crowded housing (>1 per room) | 2.9% | 1.3% (0.0–6.3%) n=32,322 | 1.4% (0.0–4.5%) n=793 |
| Foreign-born population | 2.9% | 2.6% (0.0–18.6%) n=32,553 | 4.2% (0.0–12.9%) n=799 |
| Single-parent households | 47.2% | 53.6% (37.3–74.1%) n=32,087 | 51.8% (39.2–70.1%) n=790 |
| Population 65+ | 18.3% | 19.4% (10.8–33.6%) n=32,553 | 19.7% (11.1–31.9%) n=799 |
| Median age | 38.0 yr | 42.2 yr (33.0–56.3) n=32,292 | 42.5 yr (33.3–55.7) n=797 |
| Median household income | $54,127 | $72,070 ($46,039–$118,707) n=30,318 | $65,030 ($44,419–$97,111) n=749 |
| Median home value | $159,000 | $222,200 ($100,300–$579,820) n=30,049 | $223,850 ($113,970–$452,990) n=758 |
| Median gross rent | $939 | $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