ZIP code
28643
in Lansing, North CarolinaPopulation 3,615
47.27/ 100
Ranked #19,835 of 32,066 US ZIPs (bottom 38%)
Ranked #494 of 793 North Carolina ZIPs (bottom 38%)
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.
Fiber broadband
100%
at the national maximum
Higher is healthier
ST99thUS99thDefinition & source ›
The share of homes where fiber-optic internet service is available.
Full methodology ›Tree cover
76.7%
in the top 6.2% nationally
Higher is healthier
ST92ndUS94thDefinition & source ›
The share of this ZIP’s land area covered by forest.
Full methodology ›Distance to a hazardous-chemical facility
15 mi
in the top 8.0% nationally
Higher is healthier
ST94thUS92ndDefinition & source ›
The distance in miles from this ZIP’s edge to the nearest facility that handles enough hazardous chemicals to require an EPA risk-management plan for accidental releases.
Full methodology ›Hearing disability
11.0%
in the top 9.4% nationally
Lower is healthier
ST93rdUS91stDefinition & source ›
The estimated share of adults who are deaf or have serious difficulty hearing.
Full methodology ›Median household income
$44,509
in the bottom 8.8% nationally
Higher is healthier
ST10thUS9thDefinition & source ›
The middle household income in this ZIP — half of households earn more, half earn less — in dollars per year.
Full methodology ›Transportation noise
0.50%
in the bottom 15% nationally
Lower is healthier
ST7thUS15thDefinition & 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 ›High cholesterol
42.2%
in the top 14.7% nationally
Lower is healthier
ST91stUS85thDefinition & source ›
The estimated share of adults with high cholesterol, among those who have ever been screened for it.
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 overall standing, Lansing, North Carolina (ZIP 28643) comes out in the bottom 38% nationally (19,835th) and the bottom 38% of North Carolina (494th).
The measures fall on both sides of the ledger for this area: fiber broadband lies at the national maximum, modeled tree cover sits in the top 6.2% nationally, and distance to a hazardous-chemical facility settles in the top 8.0% nationally. Modeled extreme heat registers at the national minimum, shared with about 19% of ZIPs. Modeled arsenic stands in the bottom 10.8% nationally. Crowded housing lands at the national minimum, shared with about 29% of ZIPs. Modeled transportation noise is in the bottom 15% nationally. Set against that, modeled hearing disability resides in the top 9.4% nationally, and coronary heart disease rests in the top 11.4% nationally. Household income lies in the bottom 8.8% nationally.
Relative to the ZIPs around it, park land runs far lower than the surrounding ZIPs on this measure. In plain terms, distance to a hazardous-chemical facility is a plant handling large amounts of hazardous chemicals that must file an EPA risk-management plan for accidental releases. Arsenic is a natural groundwater contaminant, here a modeled estimate of the chance private-well levels exceed a benchmark. Extreme heat is a modeled count of days a year reaching a dangerously high temperature, a leading weather hazard. The nearest healthier ZIP overall is ZIP 28640, 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 77%
14%
Preventive Care
healthier than 72%
13%
Risk Behavior
healthier than 65%
11%
Climate / Disaster Risk
healthier than 88%
5%
Healthcare Access
healthier than 68%
5%
Holding it back
Chronic Disease Burden
healthier than 16%
21%
Social Need / SDOH
healthier than 35%
16%
Mental Health
healthier than 30%
8%
Disability
healthier than 21%
7%
Lifting this score
Environmental Hazard
healthier than 62%
14%
Preventive Care
healthier than 63%
13%
Climate / Disaster Risk
healthier than 98%
5%
Healthcare Access
healthier than 63%
5%
About typical
Risk Behavior
healthier than 48%
11%
Holding it back
Chronic Disease Burden
healthier than 22%
21%
Social Need / SDOH
healthier than 34%
16%
Mental Health
healthier than 37%
8%
Disability
healthier than 29%
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 76.5; chronic-disease standing 16.1 — 60 points apart, cleaner on the environment than it is on chronic illness.
Ranked #1,694 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
24292
Virginiashares a border
Score 44.39
Closest healthier
28640
North Carolinashares a border
Score 50.96
Similar health profile
28622
North Carolina99% similar profile
Score 47.94
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 | 35.8% | 31.9–39.7 |
| High blood pressure among adults | 43.8% | 39.3–48.5 |
| Cancer (non-skin) or melanoma among adults | 11.2% | 10.1–12.3 |
| Current asthma among adults | 11.0% | 9.7–12.5 |
| Coronary heart disease among adults | 9.8% | 8.7–11.0 |
| Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease among adults | 11.1% | 9.6–12.7 |
| Depression among adults | 25.9% | 22.1–30.0 |
| Diagnosed diabetes among adults | 14.5% | 12.5–16.7 |
| High cholesterol among adults who have ever been screened | 42.2% | 37.4–47.0 |
| Obesity among adults | 36.9% | 28.5–45.6 |
| Stroke among adults | 4.9% | 4.4–5.4 |
| All teeth lost among adults aged >=65 years | 15.2% | 12.4–18.5 |
PreventionCDC PLACES 2022 / 2023 · BRFSS
| Measure | Crude prevalence | 95% CI |
|---|---|---|
| Current lack of health insurance among adults aged 18-64 years | 10.1% | 8.2–12.2 |
| Taking medicine to control high blood pressure among adults with high blood pressure | 81.0% | 78.0–83.7 |
| Visits to doctor for routine checkup within the past year among adults | 81.1% | 77.7–84.3 |
| Cholesterol screening among adults | 88.3% | 86.6–89.9 |
| Colorectal cancer screening among adults aged 45–75 years | 66.7% | 61.5–71.6 |
| Visited dentist or dental clinic in the past year among adults | 62.4% | 58.5–66.2 |
| Mammography use among women aged 50-74 years | 77.9% | 70.5–84.3 |
Health Risk BehaviorsCDC PLACES 2022 / 2023 · BRFSS
| Measure | Crude prevalence | 95% CI |
|---|---|---|
| Binge drinking among adults | 13.4% | 10.9–16.3 |
| Current cigarette smoking among adults | 17.5% | 14.9–20.5 |
| No leisure-time physical activity among adults | 27.7% | 23.0–32.9 |
| Short sleep duration among adults | 33.0% | 26.4–39.8 |
Health StatusCDC PLACES 2023 · BRFSS
| Measure | Crude prevalence | 95% CI |
|---|---|---|
| Fair or poor self-rated health status among adults | 23.2% | 20.1–26.6 |
| Frequent mental distress among adults | 17.1% | 15.1–19.4 |
| Frequent physical distress among adults | 16.2% | 14.2–18.3 |
DisabilityCDC PLACES 2023 · BRFSS
| Measure | Crude prevalence | 95% CI |
|---|---|---|
| Cognitive disability among adults | 16.5% | 14.5–18.8 |
| Any disability among adults | 38.7% | 34.0–43.8 |
| Hearing disability among adults | 11.0% | 9.7–12.4 |
| Independent living disability among adults | 10.1% | 8.9–11.5 |
| Mobility disability among adults | 19.2% | 16.7–22.0 |
| Self-care disability among adults | 5.1% | 4.5–5.8 |
| Vision disability among adults | 6.2% | 5.6–7.0 |
Health-Related Social NeedsCDC PLACES 2023 · BRFSS
| Measure | Crude prevalence | 95% CI |
|---|---|---|
| Lack of social and emotional support among adults | 21.3% | 17.9–25.0 |
| Food insecurity in the past 12 months among adults | 14.0% | 11.6–16.5 |
| Received food stamps in the past 12 months among adults | 12.0% | 9.9–14.2 |
| Housing insecurity in the past 12 months among adults | 9.9% | 8.4–11.6 |
| Lack of reliable transportation in the past 12 months among adults | 7.6% | 6.6–8.8 |
| Loneliness among adults | 31.4% | 26.5–36.7 |
| Utility services shut-off threat in the past 12 months among adults | 6.9% | 5.9–8.0 |
Community & economyCensus ACS 5-Year · 2024 release · observed
| Measure | Value | US median (p10–p90) | NC median (p10–p90) |
|---|---|---|---|
| Poverty rate | 17.5% | 10.6% (3.1–25.8%) n=32,364 | 13.0% (4.4–25.0%) n=793 |
| Uninsured 18–64 | 17.6% | 9.0% (1.5–24.3%) n=32,286 | 14.5% (5.7–24.9%) n=794 |
| No HS diploma (25+) | 19.3% | 7.9% (1.8–20.7%) n=32,505 | 10.4% (3.1–19.8%) n=798 |
| Bachelor's or higher (25+) | 15.6% | 23.3% (9.2–53.6%) n=32,505 | 22.8% (10.7–53.4%) n=798 |
| Unemployment rate (16+) | 4.0% | 3.9% (0.0–9.8%) n=32,274 | 4.2% (0.0–9.1%) n=796 |
| Households without a vehicle | 4.4% | 3.9% (0.0–12.5%) n=32,322 | 3.9% (0.0–10.2%) n=793 |
| Broadband subscription | 81.3% | 89.3% (75.1–97.1%) n=32,322 | 87.6% (76.2–96.3%) n=793 |
| Housing cost burden (≥30% income) | 14.7% | 23.7% (10.6–40.0%) n=32,322 | 24.7% (14.1–36.5%) n=793 |
| Homeownership rate | 78.0% | 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 | 2.0% | 2.6% (0.0–18.6%) n=32,553 | 4.2% (0.0–12.9%) n=799 |
| Single-parent households | 60.7% | 53.6% (37.3–74.1%) n=32,087 | 51.8% (39.2–70.1%) n=790 |
| Population 65+ | 26.9% | 19.4% (10.8–33.6%) n=32,553 | 19.7% (11.1–31.9%) n=799 |
| Median age | 46.3 yr | 42.2 yr (33.0–56.3) n=32,292 | 42.5 yr (33.3–55.7) n=797 |
| Median household income | $44,509 | $72,070 ($46,039–$118,707) n=30,318 | $65,030 ($44,419–$97,111) n=749 |
| Median home value | $149,500 | $222,200 ($100,300–$579,820) n=30,049 | $223,850 ($113,970–$452,990) n=758 |
| Median gross rent | $997 | $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 | 76.4 yr ± 1.39 | 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 1.39 years of 76.4, 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