ZIP code
29934
in Pineland, South CarolinaPopulation 1,183
42.75/ 100
Ranked #24,592 of 32,066 US ZIPs (bottom 23%)
Ranked #296 of 417 South Carolina ZIPs (bottom 29%)
Ranked #17 of 19 Hilton Head Island-Bluffton-Port Royal, SC ZIPs (bottom 10.6%)
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
21.5%
in the top 2.1% nationally
Lower is healthier
ST92ndUS98thDefinition & source ›
The estimated share of adults who have been diagnosed with diabetes.
Full methodology ›Stroke
6.1%
in the top 3.6% nationally
Lower is healthier
ST87thUS96thDefinition & source ›
The estimated share of adults who have been told by a health professional that they have had a stroke.
Full methodology ›Self-care disability
7.3%
in the top 4.7% nationally
Lower is healthier
ST88thUS95thDefinition & source ›
The estimated share of adults with difficulty dressing or bathing.
Full methodology ›Crowded housing
13.1%
in the top 2.9% nationally
Lower is healthier
ST99thUS97thDefinition & source ›
The share of occupied homes with more than one person per room, the Census definition of crowded housing.
Full methodology ›Floodplain exposure
0.00%
at the national minimum
Lower is healthier
ST1stUS1stDefinition & source ›
The share of this ZIP’s land area inside FEMA’s 1%-annual-chance floodplain — the “100-year” flood zone, where flooding has about a 1-in-100 chance in any given year.
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 ›PFAS in drinking water
7.4%
in the bottom 4.1% nationally
Lower is healthier
ST6thUS4thDefinition & source ›
The modeled probability that PFAS “forever chemicals” would be detected in untreated groundwater in this area, the source private wells draw on.
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 ›Housing-cost burden
2.7%
in the bottom 4.2% nationally
Lower is healthier
ST4thUS4thDefinition & source ›
The share of households spending 30% or more of their income on housing.
Full methodology ›Food insecurity
33.2%
in the top 4.3% nationally
Lower is healthier
ST94thUS96thDefinition & source ›
The estimated share of adults who experienced food insecurity in the past 12 months.
Full methodology ›Vision disability
9.4%
in the top 6.3% nationally
Lower is healthier
ST90thUS94thDefinition & source ›
The estimated share of adults who are blind or have serious difficulty seeing even with glasses.
Full methodology ›Utility shut-off threat
17.2%
in the top 4.4% nationally
Lower is healthier
ST93rdUS96thDefinition & source ›
The estimated share of adults whose household was threatened with a utility shut-off in the past 12 months.
Full methodology ›Cross-source signals
Health need and barriers to care documented here
On our reading, this ZIP code carries the overlap at its acute level: acute means at least three of the six health-need readings and at least three of the six access barriers apply to the same place.
These are two separate readings of public data that both apply to this place — never a claim that one causes the other, never a severity score, and never a statement about any person who lives here.
Health need documented here
- People without health insurance
- Food insecurity
- Housing insecurity
- Adults reporting fair or poor health
- Chronic conditions
Barriers to reaching care
- Thin local supply of doctors
- Thin local supply of pharmacies
- Households with no vehicle
A reading appears below only where this ZIP code is among the most-affected 10% of US ZIP codes on it — one national bar, the same for every ZIP in the country.
See the full care-deserts analysis →The read
Pineland, South Carolina (ZIP 29934) ranks in the bottom 23% nationally (24,592nd) and the bottom 29% of South Carolina (296th).
Plainly, the numbers point to a handful of defining readings: modeled diabetes stands in the top 2.1% nationally, and stroke sits in the top 3.6% nationally. Modeled self-care disability resides in the top 4.7% nationally, and crowded housing stands in the top 2.9% nationally. Modeled food insecurity sits in the top 4.3% nationally, vision disability resides in the top 6.3% nationally, and utility shutoff stands in the top 4.4% nationally. On the brighter side, floodplain exposure sits at the national minimum, modeled pfas resides in the bottom 4.1% nationally, and housing-cost burden stands in the bottom 4.2% nationally.
For context, pfas is the man-made "forever chemicals" that build up in the body and environment instead of breaking down; here a modeled estimate of the chance a private well contains them. Floodplain exposure is land with about a 1-in-100 chance of flooding each year, nicknamed the "100-year floodplain". The closest ZIP that ranks healthier overall is ZIP 29936, just across the boundary. The area also shows documented health need overlapping with barriers to reaching care, sitting in the most-affected 10% of US ZIP codes on several need measures and several access barriers.
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 Hilton Head Island-Bluffton-Port Royal, 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 94%
14%
Mental Health
healthier than 63%
8%
About typical
Preventive Care
healthier than 52%
13%
Healthcare Access
healthier than 48%
5%
Holding it back
Chronic Disease Burden
healthier than 14%
21%
Social Need / SDOH
healthier than 12%
16%
Risk Behavior
healthier than 15%
11%
Disability
healthier than 11%
7%
Climate / Disaster Risk
healthier than 38%
5%
Lifting this score
Environmental Hazard
healthier than 92%
14%
Mental Health
healthier than 74%
8%
Climate / Disaster Risk
healthier than 72%
5%
About typical
Preventive Care
healthier than 45%
13%
Healthcare Access
healthier than 42%
5%
Holding it back
Chronic Disease Burden
healthier than 26%
21%
Social Need / SDOH
healthier than 25%
16%
Risk Behavior
healthier than 14%
11%
Disability
healthier than 19%
7%
Lifting this score
Environmental Hazard
healthier than 89%
14%
Climate / Disaster Risk
in the top 0.00%
5%
Holding it back
Chronic Disease Burden
healthier than 28%
21%
Social Need / SDOH
healthier than 6%
16%
Preventive Care
healthier than 28%
13%
Risk Behavior
in the bottom 0.00%
11%
Mental Health
healthier than 22%
8%
Disability
healthier than 11%
7%
Healthcare Access
healthier than 33%
5%
“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 93.7 (top 10%); chronic-disease standing 14.3 — 79 points apart, cleaner on the environment than it is on chronic illness.
Ranked #519 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
29918
South Carolinashares a border
Score 36.42
Closest healthier
29936
South Carolinashares a border
Score 50.70
Similar health profile
30222
Georgia98% similar profile
Score 40.40
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 | 30.9% | 27.8–33.9 |
| High blood pressure among adults | 48.8% | 44.9–52.5 |
| Cancer (non-skin) or melanoma among adults | 6.2% | 5.6–6.9 |
| Current asthma among adults | 10.8% | 9.6–12.1 |
| Coronary heart disease among adults | 8.2% | 7.3–9.1 |
| Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease among adults | 9.4% | 8.2–10.8 |
| Depression among adults | 19.2% | 16.4–22.1 |
| Diagnosed diabetes among adults | 21.5% | 19.2–23.9 |
| High cholesterol among adults who have ever been screened | 39.6% | 35.7–43.4 |
| Obesity among adults | 42.0% | 35.1–48.8 |
| Stroke among adults | 6.1% | 5.5–6.8 |
| All teeth lost among adults aged >=65 years | 22.6% | 18.8–26.9 |
PreventionCDC PLACES 2022 / 2023 · BRFSS
| Measure | Crude prevalence | 95% CI |
|---|---|---|
| Current lack of health insurance among adults aged 18-64 years | 16.3% | 13.8–19.2 |
| Taking medicine to control high blood pressure among adults with high blood pressure | 82.5% | 80.4–84.5 |
| Visits to doctor for routine checkup within the past year among adults | 82.5% | 79.6–85.0 |
| Cholesterol screening among adults | 85.9% | 84.1–87.6 |
| Colorectal cancer screening among adults aged 45–75 years | 68.0% | 63.2–72.4 |
| Visited dentist or dental clinic in the past year among adults | 51.9% | 48.4–55.5 |
| Mammography use among women aged 50-74 years | 78.4% | 71.5–84.6 |
Health Risk BehaviorsCDC PLACES 2022 / 2023 · BRFSS
| Measure | Crude prevalence | 95% CI |
|---|---|---|
| Binge drinking among adults | 12.6% | 10.4–14.9 |
| Current cigarette smoking among adults | 17.8% | 15.3–20.6 |
| No leisure-time physical activity among adults | 36.5% | 31.8–41.6 |
| Short sleep duration among adults | 42.4% | 36.2–48.6 |
Health StatusCDC PLACES 2023 · BRFSS
| Measure | Crude prevalence | 95% CI |
|---|---|---|
| Fair or poor self-rated health status among adults | 29.6% | 26.2–33.1 |
| Frequent mental distress among adults | 18.1% | 16.2–20.2 |
| Frequent physical distress among adults | 16.9% | 15.0–18.9 |
DisabilityCDC PLACES 2023 · BRFSS
| Measure | Crude prevalence | 95% CI |
|---|---|---|
| Cognitive disability among adults | 17.5% | 15.6–19.7 |
| Any disability among adults | 39.6% | 35.3–44.0 |
| Hearing disability among adults | 6.6% | 5.9–7.4 |
| Independent living disability among adults | 12.1% | 10.7–13.6 |
| Mobility disability among adults | 22.3% | 19.7–25.1 |
| Self-care disability among adults | 7.3% | 6.4–8.3 |
| Vision disability among adults | 9.4% | 8.4–10.6 |
Health-Related Social NeedsCDC PLACES 2023 · BRFSS
| Measure | Crude prevalence | 95% CI |
|---|---|---|
| Lack of social and emotional support among adults | 31.4% | 27.4–35.5 |
| Food insecurity in the past 12 months among adults | 33.2% | 28.7–37.8 |
| Received food stamps in the past 12 months among adults | 23.4% | 19.8–27.2 |
| Housing insecurity in the past 12 months among adults | 24.1% | 20.9–27.3 |
| Lack of reliable transportation in the past 12 months among adults | 15.0% | 13.1–17.0 |
| Loneliness among adults | 35.3% | 30.6–40.3 |
| Utility services shut-off threat in the past 12 months among adults | 17.2% | 15.1–19.4 |
Community & economyCensus ACS 5-Year · 2024 release · observed
| Measure | Value | US median (p10–p90) | SC median (p10–p90) |
|---|---|---|---|
| Poverty rate | 11.6% | 10.6% (3.1–25.8%) n=32,364 | 15.5% (6.2–28.7%) n=410 |
| Uninsured 18–64 | 43.6% | 9.0% (1.5–24.3%) n=32,286 | 14.1% (5.9–25.5%) n=412 |
| No HS diploma (25+) | 14.4% | 7.9% (1.8–20.7%) n=32,505 | 11.6% (3.4–21.1%) n=417 |
| Bachelor's or higher (25+) | 14.3% | 23.3% (9.2–53.6%) n=32,505 | 20.1% (9.1–48.9%) n=417 |
| Unemployment rate (16+) | 0.0% | 3.9% (0.0–9.8%) n=32,274 | 4.6% (0.2–11.1%) n=414 |
| Households without a vehicle | 13.8% | 3.9% (0.0–12.5%) n=32,322 | 4.8% (0.0–13.6%) n=410 |
| Broadband subscription | 94.0% | 89.3% (75.1–97.1%) n=32,322 | 86.1% (71.4–95.1%) n=410 |
| Housing cost burden (≥30% income) | 2.7% | 23.7% (10.6–40.0%) n=32,322 | 23.3% (12.8–35.0%) n=410 |
| Homeownership rate | 83.6% | 78.7% (51.7–94.0%) n=32,322 | 77.3% (54.9–91.8%) n=410 |
| Crowded housing (>1 per room) | 13.1% | 1.3% (0.0–6.3%) n=32,322 | 1.4% (0.0–4.6%) n=410 |
| Foreign-born population | 11.2% | 2.6% (0.0–18.6%) n=32,553 | 2.7% (0.0–9.0%) n=419 |
| Single-parent households | 46.6% | 53.6% (37.3–74.1%) n=32,087 | 50.9% (37.6–69.9%) n=404 |
| Population 65+ | 11.6% | 19.4% (10.8–33.6%) n=32,553 | 19.6% (10.9–31.7%) n=419 |
| Median age | 39.5 yr | 42.2 yr (33.0–56.3) n=32,292 | 41.4 yr (33.8–54.1) n=415 |
| Median household income | $88,397 | $72,070 ($46,039–$118,707) n=30,318 | $58,990 ($40,800–$90,964) n=384 |
| Median home value | $174,200 | $222,200 ($100,300–$579,820) n=30,049 | $177,400 ($88,260–$384,940) n=383 |
| Median gross rent | — | $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 | 72.1 yr ± 1.85 | 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 1.85 years of 72.1, 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