ZIP code
29572
in Myrtle Beach, South CarolinaPopulation 12,124
57.10/ 100
Ranked #7,182 of 32,066 US ZIPs (top 22%)
Ranked #57 of 417 South Carolina ZIPs (top 13.7%)
Ranked #5 of 15 Myrtle Beach-Conway-North Myrtle Beach, SC ZIPs (top 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.
Physician access
4.6 per 1,000 residents
in the top 1.6% nationally
Higher is healthier
ST99thUS98thDefinition & source ›
The number of physicians’ offices 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 ›Grocery access
0.47 per 1,000 residents
in the top 1.8% nationally
Higher is healthier
ST99thUS98thDefinition & 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 ›Loneliness
26.6%
in the bottom 2.1% nationally
Lower is healthier
ST4thUS2ndDefinition & source ›
The estimated share of adults who report feeling lonely.
Full methodology ›High cholesterol
46.4%
in the top 2.2% nationally
Lower is healthier
ST97thUS98thDefinition & source ›
The estimated share of adults with high cholesterol, among those who have ever been screened for it.
Full methodology ›Natural-disaster risk
in the top 5.5% nationally
Lower is healthier
ST91stUS95thDefinition & source ›
This area’s national rank on its single highest non-flood natural hazard — such as wildfire, tornado, or earthquake — in FEMA’s modeled National Risk Index; flooding is shown separately.
Full methodology ›Recreation access
1.2 per 1,000 residents
in the top 5.8% nationally
Higher is healthier
ST98thUS94thDefinition & source ›
The number of places for physical recreation — gyms, sports, and fitness venues — 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 ›Loud transportation noise
2.2%
in the top 6.3% nationally
Lower is healthier
ST98thUS94thDefinition & source ›
The modeled share of residents exposed to average road, rail, and aviation noise at or above 65 decibels — around the volume of normal conversation.
Full methodology ›Outer-floodplain exposure
5.8%
in the top 6.5% nationally
Lower is healthier
ST91stUS94thDefinition & source ›
The share of this ZIP’s land area inside FEMA’s 0.2%-annual-chance flood band — the “500-year” zone, a lower but real 1-in-500 yearly chance.
Measured from FEMA’s mapped flood panels. Where a panel has not been mapped, no value is published for that ZIP — those ZIPs are absent from this comparison rather than counted as unexposed.
Full methodology ›Energy-cost burden
1.4%
in the bottom 3.3% nationally
Lower is healthier
ST1stUS3rdDefinition & source ›
The modeled share of household income spent on home energy bills — electricity, gas, and heating fuels.
A modeled share of household income spent on home energy. Estimates that hit the model’s 100% ceiling are suppressed rather than published, because at that point the figure reflects the model’s limit rather than a measured burden.
Full methodology ›Colon-cancer screening
74.1%
in the top 4.6% nationally
Higher is healthier
ST91stUS95thDefinition & source ›
The estimated share of adults aged 45–75 who are up to date on colorectal-cancer screening.
Full methodology ›The read
ZIP 29572, one of several in Myrtle Beach, South Carolina ranks in the top 22% healthiest ZIPs nationally (7,182nd) and the top 13.7% of South Carolina (57th).
Several signals sit on each side of the ledger here: physicians rests in the top 1.6% nationally, and grocery lands in the top 1.8% nationally. Modeled loneliness settles in the bottom 2.1% nationally. Distance to an emergency room rests at the national minimum, shared with about 11% of ZIPs. Recreation lands in the top 5.8% nationally, and modeled energy burden settles in the bottom 3.3% nationally. Working the other way, modeled high cholesterol rests in the top 2.2% nationally, disaster risk lands in the top 5.5% nationally, and loud transportation noise settles in the top 6.3% nationally. Outer-floodplain exposure rests in the top 6.5% nationally.
Against its neighbors, outer-floodplain exposure runs far higher than the surrounding ZIPs on this measure. For context, disaster risk is the area's national rank on its highest non-flood peril in FEMA's modeled Risk Index, like wildfire or quake. Loud transportation noise is the modeled share of an area exposed to road, rail, and air noise at or above 65 decibels, near conversation volume. Outer-floodplain exposure is land with a lower but real 1-in-500 chance of flooding each year, nicknamed the "500-year floodplain". The closest ZIP that ranks healthier overall is ZIP 29579, 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. Compare it against the US, this state and the Myrtle Beach-Conway-North Myrtle Beach, SC metro area.
Compared with the ZIP codes measured across all nine scoring domains — not with all US ZIP codes.
Lifting this score
Social Need / SDOH
healthier than 95%
16%
Environmental Hazard
healthier than 89%
14%
Preventive Care
healthier than 92%
13%
Risk Behavior
healthier than 85%
11%
Mental Health
healthier than 81%
8%
Healthcare Access
in the top 0.00%
5%
About typical
Disability
healthier than 46%
7%
Holding it back
Chronic Disease Burden
healthier than 28%
21%
Climate / Disaster Risk
healthier than 26%
5%
Lifting this score
Social Need / SDOH
healthier than 97%
16%
Environmental Hazard
healthier than 82%
14%
Preventive Care
healthier than 92%
13%
Risk Behavior
healthier than 92%
11%
Mental Health
healthier than 90%
8%
Disability
healthier than 69%
7%
Healthcare Access
in the top 0.00%
5%
About typical
Chronic Disease Burden
healthier than 48%
21%
Climate / Disaster Risk
healthier than 43%
5%
Nothing measured is holding this score back.
Lifting this score
Social Need / SDOH
healthier than 93%
16%
Preventive Care
healthier than 71%
13%
Risk Behavior
healthier than 79%
11%
Mental Health
healthier than 79%
8%
Healthcare Access
in the top 0.00%
5%
About typical
Chronic Disease Burden
healthier than 57%
21%
Disability
healthier than 57%
7%
Climate / Disaster Risk
healthier than 50%
5%
Holding it back
Environmental Hazard
healthier than 21%
14%
“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 89.6; chronic-disease standing 27.6 — 62 points apart, cleaner on the environment than it is on chronic illness.
Ranked #1,590 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
29577
South Carolinashares a border
Score 49.93
Closest healthier
29579
South Carolinashares a border
Score 57.79
Similar health profile
92210
California96% similar profile
Score 59.30
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 | 35.9% | 33.2–38.7 |
| High blood pressure among adults | 44.1% | 41.0–47.1 |
| Cancer (non-skin) or melanoma among adults | 13.4% | 12.4–14.6 |
| Current asthma among adults | 8.8% | 7.8–9.8 |
| Coronary heart disease among adults | 8.8% | 8.0–9.8 |
| Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease among adults | 9.1% | 8.0–10.2 |
| Depression among adults | 20.6% | 18.2–23.1 |
| Diagnosed diabetes among adults | 15.1% | 13.5–16.9 |
| High cholesterol among adults who have ever been screened | 46.4% | 43.3–49.4 |
| Obesity among adults | 30.6% | 27.0–34.4 |
| Stroke among adults | 4.5% | 4.1–4.9 |
| All teeth lost among adults aged >=65 years | 8.7% | 7.2–10.3 |
PreventionCDC PLACES 2022 / 2023 · BRFSS
| Measure | Crude prevalence | 95% CI |
|---|---|---|
| Current lack of health insurance among adults aged 18-64 years | 10.9% | 9.2–12.7 |
| Taking medicine to control high blood pressure among adults with high blood pressure | 85.7% | 83.7–87.5 |
| Visits to doctor for routine checkup within the past year among adults | 84.3% | 82.2–86.4 |
| Cholesterol screening among adults | 90.1% | 88.8–91.3 |
| Colorectal cancer screening among adults aged 45–75 years | 74.1% | 70.8–77.0 |
| Visited dentist or dental clinic in the past year among adults | 67.2% | 64.4–69.7 |
| Mammography use among women aged 50-74 years | 76.3% | 70.9–81.0 |
Health Risk BehaviorsCDC PLACES 2022 / 2023 · BRFSS
| Measure | Crude prevalence | 95% CI |
|---|---|---|
| Binge drinking among adults | 13.6% | 11.7–15.6 |
| Current cigarette smoking among adults | 13.1% | 11.4–15.0 |
| No leisure-time physical activity among adults | 23.7% | 20.7–26.7 |
| Short sleep duration among adults | 31.9% | 28.5–35.3 |
Health StatusCDC PLACES 2023 · BRFSS
| Measure | Crude prevalence | 95% CI |
|---|---|---|
| Fair or poor self-rated health status among adults | 19.7% | 17.5–22.0 |
| Frequent mental distress among adults | 14.7% | 13.2–16.4 |
| Frequent physical distress among adults | 15.5% | 13.9–17.3 |
DisabilityCDC PLACES 2023 · BRFSS
| Measure | Crude prevalence | 95% CI |
|---|---|---|
| Cognitive disability among adults | 12.6% | 11.1–14.1 |
| Any disability among adults | 31.7% | 28.7–34.9 |
| Hearing disability among adults | 9.5% | 8.5–10.5 |
| Independent living disability among adults | 8.2% | 7.3–9.2 |
| Mobility disability among adults | 16.9% | 15.0–18.9 |
| Self-care disability among adults | 4.2% | 3.8–4.7 |
| Vision disability among adults | 5.4% | 4.9–5.9 |
Health-Related Social NeedsCDC PLACES 2023 · BRFSS
| Measure | Crude prevalence | 95% CI |
|---|---|---|
| Lack of social and emotional support among adults | 19.4% | 16.9–22.0 |
| Food insecurity in the past 12 months among adults | 12.5% | 10.7–14.5 |
| Received food stamps in the past 12 months among adults | 7.6% | 6.3–8.9 |
| Housing insecurity in the past 12 months among adults | 8.8% | 7.5–10.1 |
| Lack of reliable transportation in the past 12 months among adults | 6.3% | 5.5–7.1 |
| Loneliness among adults | 26.6% | 23.6–29.8 |
| Utility services shut-off threat in the past 12 months among adults | 6.0% | 5.1–6.8 |
Community & economyCensus ACS 5-Year · 2024 release · observed
| Measure | Value | US median (p10–p90) | SC median (p10–p90) |
|---|---|---|---|
| Poverty rate | 8.4% | 10.6% (3.1–25.8%) n=32,364 | 15.5% (6.2–28.7%) n=410 |
| Uninsured 18–64 | 17.1% | 9.0% (1.5–24.3%) n=32,286 | 14.1% (5.9–25.5%) n=412 |
| No HS diploma (25+) | 3.9% | 7.9% (1.8–20.7%) n=32,505 | 11.6% (3.4–21.1%) n=417 |
| Bachelor's or higher (25+) | 43.8% | 23.3% (9.2–53.6%) n=32,505 | 20.1% (9.1–48.9%) n=417 |
| Unemployment rate (16+) | 3.1% | 3.9% (0.0–9.8%) n=32,274 | 4.6% (0.2–11.1%) n=414 |
| Households without a vehicle | 5.2% | 3.9% (0.0–12.5%) n=32,322 | 4.8% (0.0–13.6%) n=410 |
| Broadband subscription | 92.3% | 89.3% (75.1–97.1%) n=32,322 | 86.1% (71.4–95.1%) n=410 |
| Housing cost burden (≥30% income) | 27.9% | 23.7% (10.6–40.0%) n=32,322 | 23.3% (12.8–35.0%) n=410 |
| Homeownership rate | 77.9% | 78.7% (51.7–94.0%) n=32,322 | 77.3% (54.9–91.8%) n=410 |
| Crowded housing (>1 per room) | 2.8% | 1.3% (0.0–6.3%) n=32,322 | 1.4% (0.0–4.6%) n=410 |
| Foreign-born population | 9.3% | 2.6% (0.0–18.6%) n=32,553 | 2.7% (0.0–9.0%) n=419 |
| Single-parent households | 73.4% | 53.6% (37.3–74.1%) n=32,087 | 50.9% (37.6–69.9%) n=404 |
| Population 65+ | 36.5% | 19.4% (10.8–33.6%) n=32,553 | 19.6% (10.9–31.7%) n=419 |
| Median age | 59.8 yr | 42.2 yr (33.0–56.3) n=32,292 | 41.4 yr (33.8–54.1) n=415 |
| Median household income | $85,247 | $72,070 ($46,039–$118,707) n=30,318 | $58,990 ($40,800–$90,964) n=384 |
| Median home value | $427,400 | $222,200 ($100,300–$579,820) n=30,049 | $177,400 ($88,260–$384,940) n=383 |
| Median gross rent | $1,334 | $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 | 78.0 yr ± 1.19 | 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 1.19 years of 78.0, 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