ZIP code
28606
in Boomer, North CarolinaPopulation 2,187
46.30/ 100
Ranked #20,988 of 32,066 US ZIPs (bottom 35%)
Ranked #528 of 793 North Carolina ZIPs (bottom 33%)
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 4.4% nationally
Lower is healthier
ST99thUS96thDefinition & 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 ›Tree cover
78.2%
in the top 5.6% nationally
Higher is healthier
ST93rdUS94thDefinition & source ›
The share of this ZIP’s land area covered by forest.
Full methodology ›Housing-cost burden
7.0%
in the bottom 6.4% nationally
Lower is healthier
ST3rdUS6thDefinition & source ›
The share of households spending 30% or more of their income on housing.
Full methodology ›Arsenic in groundwater
1.2%
in the bottom 7.2% nationally
Lower is healthier
ST12thUS7thDefinition & source ›
The modeled probability that untreated groundwater in this area — the source private wells draw on — exceeds the federal arsenic limit of 10 micrograms per liter.
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 ›Fatal road crashes
4.6 per 100,000 residents per year
in the bottom 18% nationally
Lower is healthier
ST9thUS18thDefinition & source ›
The annual rate of fatal road crashes per 100,000 residents, pooled over a ten-year window.
A rate per resident population. Where a ZIP has too few residents for the rate to be reliable — about 30% of US ZIPs — no value is published rather than an unstable one; those ZIPs are absent from this comparison, not counted as crash-free.
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
By its overall health score, Boomer, North Carolina (ZIP 28606) lands in the bottom 35% nationally (20,988th) and the bottom 33% of North Carolina (528th).
Strengths and concerns sit side by side across the measures here: modeled tree cover lies in the top 5.6% nationally, and housing-cost burden resides in the bottom 6.4% nationally. Modeled arsenic lands in the bottom 7.2% nationally. Crowded housing registers at the national minimum, shared with about 29% of ZIPs. Fatal road crashes sits in the bottom 18% nationally, and fiber broadband rests in the top 20% nationally. On the other hand, modeled industrial-pollution burden is in the top 4.4% nationally. Physicians stands at the national minimum, shared with about 38% of ZIPs. Households without a vehicle settles in the top 21% nationally, and modeled hearing disability lies in the top 20% nationally.
Weighed against the ZIPs nearby, industrial-pollution burden runs far higher than the surrounding ZIPs on this measure. To translate a couple of terms, industrial-pollution burden is the EPA's modeled screening score weighting industrial chemical releases by their toxicity and how many people live nearby. Arsenic is a natural groundwater contaminant, here a modeled estimate of the chance private-well levels exceed a benchmark. Overall, the nearest healthier neighbor is ZIP 28654, 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.
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%
About typical
Social Need / SDOH
healthier than 58%
16%
Preventive Care
healthier than 54%
13%
Risk Behavior
healthier than 59%
11%
Climate / Disaster Risk
healthier than 48%
5%
Healthcare Access
healthier than 54%
5%
Holding it back
Chronic Disease Burden
healthier than 19%
21%
Mental Health
healthier than 23%
8%
Disability
healthier than 23%
7%
Lifting this score
Climate / Disaster Risk
healthier than 69%
5%
About typical
Social Need / SDOH
healthier than 57%
16%
Environmental Hazard
healthier than 58%
14%
Risk Behavior
healthier than 41%
11%
Healthcare Access
healthier than 44%
5%
Holding it back
Chronic Disease Burden
healthier than 27%
21%
Preventive Care
healthier than 39%
13%
Mental Health
healthier than 19%
8%
Disability
healthier than 32%
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 73.9; chronic-disease standing 18.9 — 55 points apart, cleaner on the environment than it is on chronic illness.
Ranked #2,113 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
28624
North Carolinashares a border
Score 31.64
Closest healthier
28654
North Carolinashares a border
Score 50.77
Similar health profile
28713
North Carolina98% similar profile
Score 46.77
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 | 33.5% | 30.1–36.8 |
| High blood pressure among adults | 42.6% | 38.6–46.6 |
| Cancer (non-skin) or melanoma among adults | 10.0% | 9.1–11.0 |
| Current asthma among adults | 11.3% | 10.1–12.6 |
| Coronary heart disease among adults | 9.1% | 8.1–10.2 |
| Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease among adults | 10.5% | 9.0–12.1 |
| Depression among adults | 26.8% | 23.4–30.4 |
| Diagnosed diabetes among adults | 14.5% | 12.6–16.4 |
| High cholesterol among adults who have ever been screened | 40.7% | 36.7–44.7 |
| Obesity among adults | 38.3% | 31.4–46.0 |
| Stroke among adults | 4.7% | 4.2–5.3 |
| All teeth lost among adults aged >=65 years | 19.5% | 16.4–23.0 |
PreventionCDC PLACES 2022 / 2023 · BRFSS
| Measure | Crude prevalence | 95% CI |
|---|---|---|
| Current lack of health insurance among adults aged 18-64 years | 10.2% | 8.1–12.4 |
| Taking medicine to control high blood pressure among adults with high blood pressure | 79.8% | 77.1–82.2 |
| Visits to doctor for routine checkup within the past year among adults | 81.0% | 78.0–83.8 |
| Cholesterol screening among adults | 87.9% | 86.0–89.6 |
| Colorectal cancer screening among adults aged 45–75 years | 66.2% | 61.7–70.3 |
| Visited dentist or dental clinic in the past year among adults | 58.2% | 54.8–61.6 |
| Mammography use among women aged 50-74 years | 73.9% | 67.5–79.8 |
Health Risk BehaviorsCDC PLACES 2022 / 2023 · BRFSS
| Measure | Crude prevalence | 95% CI |
|---|---|---|
| Binge drinking among adults | 14.0% | 11.7–16.5 |
| Current cigarette smoking among adults | 17.6% | 14.7–20.5 |
| No leisure-time physical activity among adults | 27.3% | 23.0–31.8 |
| Short sleep duration among adults | 33.9% | 28.4–39.7 |
Health StatusCDC PLACES 2023 · BRFSS
| Measure | Crude prevalence | 95% CI |
|---|---|---|
| Fair or poor self-rated health status among adults | 22.9% | 19.8–26.2 |
| Frequent mental distress among adults | 17.5% | 15.5–19.5 |
| Frequent physical distress among adults | 15.9% | 14.0–18.0 |
DisabilityCDC PLACES 2023 · BRFSS
| Measure | Crude prevalence | 95% CI |
|---|---|---|
| Cognitive disability among adults | 16.7% | 14.6–19.0 |
| Any disability among adults | 37.2% | 32.6–41.9 |
| Hearing disability among adults | 9.9% | 8.8–11.1 |
| Independent living disability among adults | 10.1% | 8.8–11.4 |
| Mobility disability among adults | 18.5% | 16.1–21.2 |
| Self-care disability among adults | 5.2% | 4.6–6.0 |
| Vision disability among adults | 6.4% | 5.6–7.3 |
Health-Related Social NeedsCDC PLACES 2023 · BRFSS
| Measure | Crude prevalence | 95% CI |
|---|---|---|
| Lack of social and emotional support among adults | 22.2% | 19.0–26.0 |
| Food insecurity in the past 12 months among adults | 15.8% | 13.1–19.1 |
| Received food stamps in the past 12 months among adults | 13.7% | 11.1–16.8 |
| Housing insecurity in the past 12 months among adults | 11.6% | 9.8–13.7 |
| Lack of reliable transportation in the past 12 months among adults | 8.5% | 7.4–10.0 |
| Loneliness among adults | 32.3% | 27.9–37.5 |
| Utility services shut-off threat in the past 12 months among adults | 8.1% | 7.0–9.5 |
Community & economyCensus ACS 5-Year · 2024 release · observed
| Measure | Value | US median (p10–p90) | NC median (p10–p90) |
|---|---|---|---|
| Poverty rate | 10.0% | 10.6% (3.1–25.8%) n=32,364 | 13.0% (4.4–25.0%) n=793 |
| Uninsured 18–64 | 21.3% | 9.0% (1.5–24.3%) n=32,286 | 14.5% (5.7–24.9%) n=794 |
| No HS diploma (25+) | 15.4% | 7.9% (1.8–20.7%) n=32,505 | 10.4% (3.1–19.8%) n=798 |
| Bachelor's or higher (25+) | 8.6% | 23.3% (9.2–53.6%) n=32,505 | 22.8% (10.7–53.4%) n=798 |
| Unemployment rate (16+) | 2.3% | 3.9% (0.0–9.8%) n=32,274 | 4.2% (0.0–9.1%) n=796 |
| Households without a vehicle | 8.2% | 3.9% (0.0–12.5%) n=32,322 | 3.9% (0.0–10.2%) n=793 |
| Broadband subscription | 82.5% | 89.3% (75.1–97.1%) n=32,322 | 87.6% (76.2–96.3%) n=793 |
| Housing cost burden (≥30% income) | 7.0% | 23.7% (10.6–40.0%) n=32,322 | 24.7% (14.1–36.5%) n=793 |
| Homeownership rate | 82.7% | 78.7% (51.7–94.0%) n=32,322 | 75.0% (52.7–89.7%) n=793 |
| Crowded housing (>1 per room) | 0.0% | 1.3% (0.0–6.3%) n=32,322 | 1.4% (0.0–4.5%) n=793 |
| Foreign-born population | 0.0% | 2.6% (0.0–18.6%) n=32,553 | 4.2% (0.0–12.9%) n=799 |
| Single-parent households | 40.7% | 53.6% (37.3–74.1%) n=32,087 | 51.8% (39.2–70.1%) n=790 |
| Population 65+ | 35.5% | 19.4% (10.8–33.6%) n=32,553 | 19.7% (11.1–31.9%) n=799 |
| Median age | 52.3 yr | 42.2 yr (33.0–56.3) n=32,292 | 42.5 yr (33.3–55.7) n=797 |
| Median household income | $56,600 | $72,070 ($46,039–$118,707) n=30,318 | $65,030 ($44,419–$97,111) n=749 |
| Median home value | $95,900 | $222,200 ($100,300–$579,820) n=30,049 | $223,850 ($113,970–$452,990) n=758 |
| Median gross rent | — | $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 | 77.0 yr ± 2.18 | 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 2.18 years of 77.0, 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