ZIP code
28572
in Pink Hill, North CarolinaPopulation 6,658
48.92/ 100
Ranked #17,776 of 32,066 US ZIPs (bottom 45%)
Ranked #440 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.
Grocery access
0.31 per 1,000 residents
in the top 3.6% nationally
Higher is healthier
ST94thUS96thDefinition & source ›
The number of full supermarkets 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. ZipVitals’s food-access signal is derived from these in-ZIP densities — it is not USDA’s food-desert designation, which measures distance to the nearest supermarket. Where a leg is missing, a ZIP reads “not determinable,” never “not a food desert.”
Full methodology ›Pharmacy access
0.46 per 1,000 residents
in the top 6.1% nationally
Higher is healthier
ST96thUS94thDefinition & 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 4.1% nationally
Lower is healthier
ST16thUS4thDefinition & 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 ›Crowded housing
4.8%
in the top 14.6% nationally
Lower is healthier
ST92ndUS85thDefinition & source ›
The share of occupied homes with more than one person per room, the Census definition of crowded housing.
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
In its overall standing, Pink Hill, North Carolina (ZIP 28572) lands in the bottom 45% nationally (17,776th) and the bottom 45% of North Carolina (440th).
Taken together, the data gives a genuinely mixed reading: grocery sits in the top 3.6% nationally, pharmacy lands in the top 6.1% nationally, and modeled radon lies in the bottom 4.1% nationally. Distance to a community health center stands at the national minimum, shared with about 23% of ZIPs. Lithium in drinking water rests in the bottom 14.8% nationally, and distance to a hazardous-chemical facility registers in the top 20% nationally. On the other side, crowded housing resides in the top 14.6% nationally, and PFOA in drinking water settles in the top 18% nationally. PFOS in drinking water is in the top 19% nationally, and fatal road crashes sits in the top 21% nationally.
Put simply, radon is a radioactive soil gas the EPA identifies as the top cause of lung cancer in nonsmokers. Lithium in drinking water is a natural metal that dissolves into some groundwater and has no federal drinking-water limit yet. PFOA in drinking water is one of the man-made "forever chemicals" that build up in the body and environment instead of breaking down. On the overall standing, ZIP 28349, just across the boundary, ranks healthier.
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 98%
14%
Risk Behavior
healthier than 61%
11%
About typical
Preventive Care
healthier than 53%
13%
Healthcare Access
healthier than 58%
5%
Holding it back
Chronic Disease Burden
healthier than 37%
21%
Social Need / SDOH
healthier than 30%
16%
Mental Health
healthier than 29%
8%
Disability
healthier than 28%
7%
Climate / Disaster Risk
healthier than 39%
5%
Lifting this score
Environmental Hazard
healthier than 93%
14%
About typical
Chronic Disease Burden
healthier than 49%
21%
Risk Behavior
healthier than 43%
11%
Climate / Disaster Risk
healthier than 46%
5%
Healthcare Access
healthier than 48%
5%
Holding it back
Social Need / SDOH
healthier than 29%
16%
Preventive Care
healthier than 38%
13%
Mental Health
healthier than 34%
8%
Disability
healthier than 40%
7%
“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.
Clean environment, heavy chronic burden
Where the environment and chronic illness point in opposite directions
Environmental-hazard standing 97.7 (top 10%); chronic-disease standing 36.7 — 61 points apart, cleaner on the environment than it is on chronic illness.
Ranked #1,659 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
28349
North Carolinashares a border
Score 50.56
Closest healthier
28518
North Carolinashares a border
Score 49.04
Similar health profile
27542
North Carolina93% similar profile
Score 48.30
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 | 30.5% | 28.1–33.0 |
| High blood pressure among adults | 39.9% | 36.9–43.1 |
| Cancer (non-skin) or melanoma among adults | 9.1% | 8.4–9.8 |
| Current asthma among adults | 11.0% | 10.0–12.1 |
| Coronary heart disease among adults | 8.0% | 7.4–8.7 |
| Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease among adults | 9.3% | 8.4–10.2 |
| Depression among adults | 25.4% | 22.7–28.4 |
| Diagnosed diabetes among adults | 13.2% | 11.9–14.6 |
| High cholesterol among adults who have ever been screened | 38.3% | 35.2–41.6 |
| Obesity among adults | 37.0% | 31.5–42.8 |
| Stroke among adults | 4.3% | 4.0–4.6 |
| All teeth lost among adults aged >=65 years | 16.0% | 13.7–18.4 |
PreventionCDC PLACES 2022 / 2023 · BRFSS
| Measure | Crude prevalence | 95% CI |
|---|---|---|
| Current lack of health insurance among adults aged 18-64 years | 13.2% | 11.7–15.0 |
| Taking medicine to control high blood pressure among adults with high blood pressure | 78.3% | 76.2–80.3 |
| Visits to doctor for routine checkup within the past year among adults | 79.7% | 77.1–82.2 |
| Cholesterol screening among adults | 86.6% | 85.0–88.0 |
| Colorectal cancer screening among adults aged 45–75 years | 67.0% | 63.3–70.4 |
| Visited dentist or dental clinic in the past year among adults | 62.0% | 59.1–64.7 |
| Mammography use among women aged 50-74 years | 77.9% | 72.6–82.5 |
Health Risk BehaviorsCDC PLACES 2022 / 2023 · BRFSS
| Measure | Crude prevalence | 95% CI |
|---|---|---|
| Binge drinking among adults | 14.6% | 12.6–16.8 |
| Current cigarette smoking among adults | 16.5% | 14.7–18.5 |
| No leisure-time physical activity among adults | 27.6% | 24.4–31.0 |
| Short sleep duration among adults | 33.3% | 28.9–38.1 |
Health StatusCDC PLACES 2023 · BRFSS
| Measure | Crude prevalence | 95% CI |
|---|---|---|
| Fair or poor self-rated health status among adults | 22.8% | 20.6–25.0 |
| Frequent mental distress among adults | 17.6% | 16.0–19.2 |
| Frequent physical distress among adults | 15.0% | 13.7–16.4 |
DisabilityCDC PLACES 2023 · BRFSS
| Measure | Crude prevalence | 95% CI |
|---|---|---|
| Cognitive disability among adults | 17.0% | 15.5–18.6 |
| Any disability among adults | 37.0% | 33.7–40.4 |
| Hearing disability among adults | 9.1% | 8.3–9.9 |
| Independent living disability among adults | 9.8% | 9.0–10.7 |
| Mobility disability among adults | 17.3% | 15.6–19.0 |
| Self-care disability among adults | 4.8% | 4.5–5.2 |
| Vision disability among adults | 6.4% | 5.9–6.9 |
Health-Related Social NeedsCDC PLACES 2023 · BRFSS
| Measure | Crude prevalence | 95% CI |
|---|---|---|
| Lack of social and emotional support among adults | 22.4% | 19.9–24.9 |
| Food insecurity in the past 12 months among adults | 17.0% | 15.1–18.9 |
| Received food stamps in the past 12 months among adults | 14.2% | 12.5–16.0 |
| Housing insecurity in the past 12 months among adults | 13.0% | 11.6–14.3 |
| Lack of reliable transportation in the past 12 months among adults | 9.1% | 8.2–10.0 |
| Loneliness among adults | 32.3% | 28.7–36.0 |
| Utility services shut-off threat in the past 12 months among adults | 8.5% | 7.6–9.4 |
Community & economyCensus ACS 5-Year · 2024 release · observed
| Measure | Value | US median (p10–p90) | NC median (p10–p90) |
|---|---|---|---|
| Poverty rate | 17.7% | 10.6% (3.1–25.8%) n=32,364 | 13.0% (4.4–25.0%) n=793 |
| Uninsured 18–64 | 16.6% | 9.0% (1.5–24.3%) n=32,286 | 14.5% (5.7–24.9%) n=794 |
| No HS diploma (25+) | 14.1% | 7.9% (1.8–20.7%) n=32,505 | 10.4% (3.1–19.8%) n=798 |
| Bachelor's or higher (25+) | 14.4% | 23.3% (9.2–53.6%) n=32,505 | 22.8% (10.7–53.4%) n=798 |
| Unemployment rate (16+) | 5.1% | 3.9% (0.0–9.8%) n=32,274 | 4.2% (0.0–9.1%) n=796 |
| Households without a vehicle | 4.1% | 3.9% (0.0–12.5%) n=32,322 | 3.9% (0.0–10.2%) n=793 |
| Broadband subscription | 87.6% | 89.3% (75.1–97.1%) n=32,322 | 87.6% (76.2–96.3%) n=793 |
| Housing cost burden (≥30% income) | 21.8% | 23.7% (10.6–40.0%) n=32,322 | 24.7% (14.1–36.5%) n=793 |
| Homeownership rate | 72.2% | 78.7% (51.7–94.0%) n=32,322 | 75.0% (52.7–89.7%) n=793 |
| Crowded housing (>1 per room) | 4.8% | 1.3% (0.0–6.3%) n=32,322 | 1.4% (0.0–4.5%) n=793 |
| Foreign-born population | 6.8% | 2.6% (0.0–18.6%) n=32,553 | 4.2% (0.0–12.9%) n=799 |
| Single-parent households | 48.1% | 53.6% (37.3–74.1%) n=32,087 | 51.8% (39.2–70.1%) n=790 |
| Population 65+ | 17.3% | 19.4% (10.8–33.6%) n=32,553 | 19.7% (11.1–31.9%) n=799 |
| Median age | 36.1 yr | 42.2 yr (33.0–56.3) n=32,292 | 42.5 yr (33.3–55.7) n=797 |
| Median household income | $55,660 | $72,070 ($46,039–$118,707) n=30,318 | $65,030 ($44,419–$97,111) n=749 |
| Median home value | $137,100 | $222,200 ($100,300–$579,820) n=30,049 | $223,850 ($113,970–$452,990) n=758 |
| Median gross rent | $925 | $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 | 77.9 yr ± 0.63 | 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 0.63 years of 77.9, 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