ZIP code
29125
in Pinewood, South CarolinaPopulation 2,861
42.81/ 100
Ranked #24,540 of 32,066 US ZIPs (bottom 23%)
Ranked #293 of 417 South Carolina ZIPs (bottom 30%)
Ranked #7 of 11 Sumter, SC ZIPs (bottom 36%)
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.
Diabetes
21.1%
in the top 2.4% nationally
Lower is healthier
ST89thUS98thDefinition & source ›
The estimated share of adults who have been diagnosed with diabetes.
Full methodology ›Stroke
6.2%
in the top 3.2% nationally
Lower is healthier
ST89thUS97thDefinition & source ›
The estimated share of adults who have been told by a health professional that they have had a stroke.
Full methodology ›High blood pressure
50.2%
in the top 3.3% nationally
Lower is healthier
ST91stUS97thDefinition & source ›
The estimated share of adults who have been told by a health professional that they have high blood pressure.
Full methodology ›Fatal road crashes
52.4 per 100,000 residents per year
in the top 3.3% nationally
Lower is healthier
ST89thUS97thDefinition & 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 ›Unemployment rate
15.8%
in the top 3.4% nationally
Lower is healthier
ST96thUS97thDefinition & source ›
The share of the civilian labor force that is unemployed.
Full methodology ›Self-care disability
6.9%
in the top 6.3% nationally
Lower is healthier
ST81stUS94thDefinition & source ›
The estimated share of adults with difficulty dressing or bathing.
Full methodology ›Binge drinking
11.4%
in the bottom 4.3% nationally
Lower is healthier
ST6thUS4thDefinition & source ›
The estimated share of adults who report binge drinking — five or more drinks on one occasion for men, four or more for women.
Full methodology ›Mobility disability
23%
in the top 6.8% nationally
Lower is healthier
ST87thUS93rdDefinition & source ›
The estimated share of adults with serious difficulty walking or climbing stairs.
Full methodology ›Vision disability
8.8%
in the top 8.3% nationally
Lower is healthier
ST82ndUS92ndDefinition & source ›
The estimated share of adults who are blind or have serious difficulty seeing even with glasses.
Full methodology ›Food insecurity
27.9%
in the top 7.9% nationally
Lower is healthier
ST80thUS92ndDefinition & source ›
The estimated share of adults who experienced food insecurity in the past 12 months.
Full methodology ›The read
Judged by its overall standing, Pinewood, South Carolina (ZIP 29125) sits in the bottom 23% nationally (24,540th) and the bottom 30% of South Carolina (293rd).
The profile carries real weight, and several readings make that plain: modeled diabetes lands in the top 2.4% nationally, stroke rests in the top 3.2% nationally, and high blood pressure settles in the top 3.3% nationally. Fatal road crashes lands in the top 3.3% nationally, unemployment rests in the top 3.4% nationally, and modeled self-care disability settles in the top 6.3% nationally. Modeled mobility disability lands in the top 6.8% nationally, and vision disability rests in the top 8.3% nationally. Modeled food insecurity settles in the top 7.9% nationally. Better still, modeled binge drinking lands in the bottom 4.3% nationally.
A healthier nearby ZIP overall is ZIP 29030, just across the boundary. Fatal road crashes lands in the top 3.3% nationally.
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 Sumter, SC metro area.
Compared with the ZIP codes measured across all nine scoring domains — not with all US ZIP codes.
Lifting this score
Environmental Hazard
healthier than 86%
14%
Preventive Care
healthier than 82%
13%
Mental Health
healthier than 61%
8%
Healthcare Access
healthier than 67%
5%
Holding it back
Chronic Disease Burden
healthier than 9%
21%
Social Need / SDOH
healthier than 15%
16%
Risk Behavior
healthier than 28%
11%
Disability
healthier than 12%
7%
Climate / Disaster Risk
healthier than 17%
5%
Lifting this score
Environmental Hazard
healthier than 75%
14%
Preventive Care
healthier than 82%
13%
Mental Health
healthier than 71%
8%
Healthcare Access
healthier than 65%
5%
Holding it back
Chronic Disease Burden
healthier than 13%
21%
Social Need / SDOH
healthier than 31%
16%
Risk Behavior
healthier than 34%
11%
Disability
healthier than 21%
7%
Climate / Disaster Risk
healthier than 23%
5%
Lifting this score
Environmental Hazard
healthier than 80%
14%
Preventive Care
healthier than 90%
13%
Risk Behavior
healthier than 60%
11%
Mental Health
healthier than 70%
8%
Healthcare Access
healthier than 60%
5%
About typical
Social Need / SDOH
healthier than 40%
16%
Climate / Disaster Risk
healthier than 40%
5%
Holding it back
Chronic Disease Burden
in the bottom 0.00%
21%
Disability
healthier than 20%
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 86.0; chronic-disease standing 8.7 (bottom 10%) — 77 points apart, cleaner on the environment than it is on chronic illness.
Ranked #639 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
29030
South Carolinashares a border
Score 43.76
Closest healthier
29148
South Carolinashares a border
Score 42.88
Similar health profile
23882
Virginia98% similar profile
Score 42.94
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 | 35.0% | 32.4–37.6 |
| High blood pressure among adults | 50.2% | 47.2–53.3 |
| Cancer (non-skin) or melanoma among adults | 8.0% | 7.4–8.6 |
| Current asthma among adults | 11.2% | 10.2–12.3 |
| Coronary heart disease among adults | 8.9% | 8.2–9.7 |
| Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease among adults | 10.2% | 9.2–11.2 |
| Depression among adults | 20.5% | 18.3–22.9 |
| Diagnosed diabetes among adults | 21.1% | 19.3–23.0 |
| High cholesterol among adults who have ever been screened | 40.5% | 37.4–43.5 |
| Obesity among adults | 43.5% | 38.6–48.6 |
| Stroke among adults | 6.2% | 5.8–6.7 |
| All teeth lost among adults aged >=65 years | 20.6% | 18.2–23.5 |
PreventionCDC PLACES 2022 / 2023 · BRFSS
| Measure | Crude prevalence | 95% CI |
|---|---|---|
| Current lack of health insurance among adults aged 18-64 years | 13.4% | 11.7–15.1 |
| Taking medicine to control high blood pressure among adults with high blood pressure | 84.6% | 83.1–86.2 |
| Visits to doctor for routine checkup within the past year among adults | 84.6% | 82.5–86.5 |
| Cholesterol screening among adults | 88.2% | 86.9–89.4 |
| Colorectal cancer screening among adults aged 45–75 years | 71.0% | 67.9–74.3 |
| Visited dentist or dental clinic in the past year among adults | 54.5% | 51.8–57.4 |
| Mammography use among women aged 50-74 years | 80.1% | 75.8–84.4 |
Health Risk BehaviorsCDC PLACES 2022 / 2023 · BRFSS
| Measure | Crude prevalence | 95% CI |
|---|---|---|
| Binge drinking among adults | 11.4% | 9.8–13.1 |
| Current cigarette smoking among adults | 17.2% | 15.3–19.2 |
| No leisure-time physical activity among adults | 33.7% | 30.2–37.5 |
| Short sleep duration among adults | 42.2% | 38.2–46.8 |
Health StatusCDC PLACES 2023 · BRFSS
| Measure | Crude prevalence | 95% CI |
|---|---|---|
| Fair or poor self-rated health status among adults | 27.7% | 25.3–30.4 |
| Frequent mental distress among adults | 17.4% | 15.9–19.0 |
| Frequent physical distress among adults | 17.1% | 15.6–18.8 |
DisabilityCDC PLACES 2023 · BRFSS
| Measure | Crude prevalence | 95% CI |
|---|---|---|
| Cognitive disability among adults | 16.5% | 14.9–18.1 |
| Any disability among adults | 38.5% | 35.1–42.0 |
| Hearing disability among adults | 7.5% | 6.9–8.2 |
| Independent living disability among adults | 12.0% | 10.9–13.1 |
| Mobility disability among adults | 23.0% | 20.9–25.1 |
| Self-care disability among adults | 6.9% | 6.4–7.5 |
| Vision disability among adults | 8.8% | 8.1–9.5 |
Health-Related Social NeedsCDC PLACES 2023 · BRFSS
| Measure | Crude prevalence | 95% CI |
|---|---|---|
| Lack of social and emotional support among adults | 28.7% | 25.9–31.6 |
| Food insecurity in the past 12 months among adults | 27.9% | 25.4–30.6 |
| Received food stamps in the past 12 months among adults | 19.8% | 17.7–22.0 |
| Housing insecurity in the past 12 months among adults | 20.1% | 18.1–22.1 |
| Lack of reliable transportation in the past 12 months among adults | 12.7% | 11.5–13.9 |
| Loneliness among adults | 35.2% | 31.9–38.9 |
| Utility services shut-off threat in the past 12 months among adults | 14.1% | 12.7–15.5 |
Community & economyCensus ACS 5-Year · 2024 release · observed
| Measure | Value | US median (p10–p90) | SC median (p10–p90) |
|---|---|---|---|
| Poverty rate | 14.9% | 10.6% (3.1–25.8%) n=32,364 | 15.5% (6.2–28.7%) n=410 |
| Uninsured 18–64 | 13.1% | 9.0% (1.5–24.3%) n=32,286 | 14.1% (5.9–25.5%) n=412 |
| No HS diploma (25+) | 13.0% | 7.9% (1.8–20.7%) n=32,505 | 11.6% (3.4–21.1%) n=417 |
| Bachelor's or higher (25+) | 13.8% | 23.3% (9.2–53.6%) n=32,505 | 20.1% (9.1–48.9%) n=417 |
| Unemployment rate (16+) | 15.8% | 3.9% (0.0–9.8%) n=32,274 | 4.6% (0.2–11.1%) n=414 |
| Households without a vehicle | 5.8% | 3.9% (0.0–12.5%) n=32,322 | 4.8% (0.0–13.6%) n=410 |
| Broadband subscription | 93.4% | 89.3% (75.1–97.1%) n=32,322 | 86.1% (71.4–95.1%) n=410 |
| Housing cost burden (≥30% income) | 23.7% | 23.7% (10.6–40.0%) n=32,322 | 23.3% (12.8–35.0%) n=410 |
| Homeownership rate | 77.1% | 78.7% (51.7–94.0%) n=32,322 | 77.3% (54.9–91.8%) n=410 |
| Crowded housing (>1 per room) | 0.0% | 1.3% (0.0–6.3%) n=32,322 | 1.4% (0.0–4.6%) n=410 |
| Foreign-born population | 0.0% | 2.6% (0.0–18.6%) n=32,553 | 2.7% (0.0–9.0%) n=419 |
| Single-parent households | 28.8% | 53.6% (37.3–74.1%) n=32,087 | 50.9% (37.6–69.9%) n=404 |
| Population 65+ | 13.4% | 19.4% (10.8–33.6%) n=32,553 | 19.6% (10.9–31.7%) n=419 |
| Median age | 39.3 yr | 42.2 yr (33.0–56.3) n=32,292 | 41.4 yr (33.8–54.1) n=415 |
| Median household income | $62,778 | $72,070 ($46,039–$118,707) n=30,318 | $58,990 ($40,800–$90,964) n=384 |
| Median home value | $117,900 | $222,200 ($100,300–$579,820) n=30,049 | $177,400 ($88,260–$384,940) n=383 |
| Median gross rent | $808 | $1,021 ($677–$1,912) n=25,670 | $950 ($678–$1,545) n=343 |
Life expectancyNCHS / RWJF USALEEP · model-based
| Measure | Value | US median (p10–p90) | SC median (p10–p90) |
|---|---|---|---|
| Life expectancy at birth | 73.7 yr ± 0.69 | 78.9 yr (74.7–82.8) n=31,308 | 76.3 yr (73.2–79.9) n=389 |
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 0.69 years of 73.7, 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