Skip to main content
ZipVitals

Menu

ZIP code

29547

in Hamer, South CarolinaPopulation 2,832

ZipVitals Score
How is the ZipVitals Score calculated? →

34.59/ 100

Ranked #29,527 of 32,066 US ZIPs (bottom 8.0%)

Ranked #398 of 417 South Carolina ZIPs (bottom 4.6%)

Ranks are modeled estimates — ZIPs a few hundred places apart are effectively tied.

Robust across all 9 health domains

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.

Self-care disability

7.7%

in the top 3.6% nationally

Lower is healthier

ST92nd
US96th
Definition & source ›

The estimated share of adults with difficulty dressing or bathing.

Full methodology ›

Diabetes

20.1%

in the top 3.7% nationally

Lower is healthier

ST83rd
US96th
Definition & source ›

The estimated share of adults who have been diagnosed with diabetes.

Full methodology ›

Independent-living disability

14.0%

in the top 4.1% nationally

Lower is healthier

ST95th
US96th
Definition & source ›

The estimated share of adults who have difficulty doing errands alone, such as visiting a doctor’s office, because of a physical, mental, or emotional condition.

Full methodology ›

Vision disability

9.9%

in the top 5.1% nationally

Lower is healthier

ST93rd
US95th
Definition & source ›

The estimated share of adults who are blind or have serious difficulty seeing even with glasses.

Full methodology ›

Fatal road crashes

56.5 per 100,000 residents per year

in the top 2.8% nationally

Lower is healthier

ST89th
US97th
Definition & 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 ›

Fair or poor health

32%

in the top 5.3% nationally

Lower is healthier

ST95th
US95th
Definition & source ›

The estimated share of adults who rate their own general health as fair or poor.

Full methodology ›

Food insecurity

34.7%

in the top 3.7% nationally

Lower is healthier

ST95th
US96th
Definition & source ›

The estimated share of adults who experienced food insecurity in the past 12 months.

Full methodology ›

Home broadband subscription

64.2%

in the bottom 3.9% nationally

Higher is healthier

ST5th
US4th
Definition & source ›

The share of households with a broadband internet subscription.

Full methodology ›

Utility shut-off threat

17.8%

in the top 3.9% nationally

Lower is healthier

ST95th
US96th
Definition & source ›

The estimated share of adults whose household was threatened with a utility shut-off in the past 12 months.

Full methodology ›

Unemployment rate

14.2%

in the top 4.3% nationally

Lower is healthier

ST95th
US96th
Definition & source ›

The share of the civilian labor force that is unemployed.

Full methodology ›

The read

Hamer, South Carolina (ZIP 29547), in overall standing, comes out in the bottom 8.0% nationally (29,527th) and the bottom 4.6% of South Carolina (398th).

continue reading

The profile carries real weight, and several readings make that plain: modeled self-care disability settles in the top 3.6% nationally, diabetes lands in the top 3.7% nationally, and independent living disability rests in the top 4.1% nationally. Modeled vision disability settles in the top 5.1% nationally, fatal road crashes lands in the top 2.8% nationally, and modeled fair or poor health rests in the top 5.3% nationally. Modeled food insecurity settles in the top 3.7% nationally, and home broadband subscription lands in the bottom 3.9% nationally. Modeled utility shutoff rests in the top 3.9% nationally, and unemployment settles in the top 4.3% nationally.

The closest healthier ZIP overall is ZIP 29563, about 0.6 miles away. Modeled vision disability settles in the top 5.1% 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.

Compared with the ZIP codes measured across all nine scoring domains — not with all US ZIP codes.

Compare within

Lifting this score

Environmental Hazard

healthier than 78%

14%

About typical

Healthcare Access

healthier than 54%

5%

Holding it back

Chronic Disease Burden

healthier than 10%

21%

Social Need / SDOH

healthier than 3%

16%

Preventive Care

healthier than 20%

13%

Risk Behavior

healthier than 9%

11%

Mental Health

healthier than 22%

8%

Disability

healthier than 5%

7%

Climate / Disaster Risk

healthier than 29%

5%

Lifting this score

Environmental Hazard

healthier than 62%

14%

About typical

Climate / Disaster Risk

healthier than 49%

5%

Healthcare Access

healthier than 48%

5%

Holding it back

Chronic Disease Burden

healthier than 16%

21%

Social Need / SDOH

healthier than 7%

16%

Preventive Care

healthier than 8%

13%

Risk Behavior

healthier than 7%

11%

Mental Health

healthier than 12%

8%

Disability

healthier than 7%

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 77.7; chronic-disease standing 10.2 — 68 points apart, cleaner on the environment than it is on chronic illness.

    Ranked #1,221 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.

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
MeasureCrude prevalence95% CI
Arthritis among adults32.1%28.7–35.6
High blood pressure among adults46.9%42.5–51.3
Cancer (non-skin) or melanoma among adults6.9%6.3–7.6
Current asthma among adults11.6%10.2–13.0
Coronary heart disease among adults8.4%7.6–9.3
Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease among adults11.5%10.3–12.9
Depression among adults22.8%19.4–26.4
Diagnosed diabetes among adults20.1%17.7–22.5
High cholesterol among adults who have ever been screened38.8%34.5–43.1
Obesity among adults45.9%37.9–53.8
Stroke among adults5.7%5.2–6.2
All teeth lost among adults aged >=65 years25.6%21.6–30.0
PreventionCDC PLACES 2022 / 2023 · BRFSS
MeasureCrude prevalence95% CI
Current lack of health insurance among adults aged 18-64 years17.3%14.9–19.8
Taking medicine to control high blood pressure among adults with high blood pressure80.8%78.1–83.1
Visits to doctor for routine checkup within the past year among adults80.4%77.0–83.5
Cholesterol screening among adults83.6%81.4–85.5
Colorectal cancer screening among adults aged 45–75 years61.8%56.4–67.0
Visited dentist or dental clinic in the past year among adults47.2%43.5–51.2
Mammography use among women aged 50-74 years74.5%66.7–81.3
Health Risk BehaviorsCDC PLACES 2022 / 2023 · BRFSS
MeasureCrude prevalence95% CI
Binge drinking among adults13.4%10.9–16.1
Current cigarette smoking among adults22.1%19.3–25.1
No leisure-time physical activity among adults36.0%31.0–41.4
Short sleep duration among adults40.3%33.7–47.2
Health StatusCDC PLACES 2023 · BRFSS
MeasureCrude prevalence95% CI
Fair or poor self-rated health status among adults32.0%28.5–35.7
Frequent mental distress among adults20.6%18.3–23.0
Frequent physical distress among adults18.8%16.7–21.0
DisabilityCDC PLACES 2023 · BRFSS
MeasureCrude prevalence95% CI
Cognitive disability among adults20.3%18.0–22.7
Any disability among adults41.5%36.8–46.5
Hearing disability among adults7.6%6.8–8.5
Independent living disability among adults14.0%12.5–15.7
Mobility disability among adults23.3%20.7–26.1
Self-care disability among adults7.7%7.0–8.7
Vision disability among adults9.9%9.0–10.9
Health-Related Social NeedsCDC PLACES 2023 · BRFSS
MeasureCrude prevalence95% CI
Lack of social and emotional support among adults30.8%26.9–35.0
Food insecurity in the past 12 months among adults34.7%30.9–38.7
Received food stamps in the past 12 months among adults26.1%22.8–29.5
Housing insecurity in the past 12 months among adults24.4%21.6–27.5
Lack of reliable transportation in the past 12 months among adults16.1%14.3–18.1
Loneliness among adults37.6%32.5–42.9
Utility services shut-off threat in the past 12 months among adults17.8%15.7–20.0
Community & economyCensus ACS 5-Year · 2024 release · observed
MeasureValueUS median (p10–p90)SC median (p10–p90)
Poverty rate25.3%10.6% (3.1–25.8%) n=32,36415.5% (6.2–28.7%) n=410
Uninsured 18–6422.8%9.0% (1.5–24.3%) n=32,28614.1% (5.9–25.5%) n=412
No HS diploma (25+)25.2%7.9% (1.8–20.7%) n=32,50511.6% (3.4–21.1%) n=417
Bachelor's or higher (25+)11.0%23.3% (9.2–53.6%) n=32,50520.1% (9.1–48.9%) n=417
Unemployment rate (16+)14.2%3.9% (0.0–9.8%) n=32,2744.6% (0.2–11.1%) n=414
Households without a vehicle9.5%3.9% (0.0–12.5%) n=32,3224.8% (0.0–13.6%) n=410
Broadband subscription64.2%89.3% (75.1–97.1%) n=32,32286.1% (71.4–95.1%) n=410
Housing cost burden (≥30% income)18.2%23.7% (10.6–40.0%) n=32,32223.3% (12.8–35.0%) n=410
Homeownership rate67.4%78.7% (51.7–94.0%) n=32,32277.3% (54.9–91.8%) n=410
Crowded housing (>1 per room)0.4%1.3% (0.0–6.3%) n=32,3221.4% (0.0–4.6%) n=410
Foreign-born population3.8%2.6% (0.0–18.6%) n=32,5532.7% (0.0–9.0%) n=419
Single-parent households54.7%53.6% (37.3–74.1%) n=32,08750.9% (37.6–69.9%) n=404
Population 65+13.3%19.4% (10.8–33.6%) n=32,55319.6% (10.9–31.7%) n=419
Median age40.2 yr42.2 yr (33.0–56.3) n=32,29241.4 yr (33.8–54.1) n=415
Median household income$55,472$72,070 ($46,039–$118,707) n=30,318$58,990 ($40,800–$90,964) n=384
Median home value$95,100$222,200 ($100,300–$579,820) n=30,049$177,400 ($88,260–$384,940) n=383
Median gross rent$841$1,021 ($677–$1,912) n=25,670$950 ($678–$1,545) n=343
Life expectancyNCHS / RWJF USALEEP · model-based
MeasureValueUS median (p10–p90)SC median (p10–p90)
Life expectancy at birth76.9 yr ± 1.2578.9 yr (74.7–82.8) n=31,30876.3 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 1.25 years of 76.9, and it’s very unlikely to be off by more than twice that.

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