ZIP code
36768
in Pine Apple, AlabamaPopulation 671
39.43/ 100
Ranked #27,118 of 32,066 US ZIPs (bottom 15%)
Ranked #418 of 619 Alabama ZIPs (bottom 32%)
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.
High blood pressure
58%
in the top 0.3% nationally
Lower is healthier
ST96thUS99thDefinition & source ›
The estimated share of adults who have been told by a health professional that they have high blood pressure.
Full methodology ›Diabetes
23.2%
in the top 1.1% nationally
Lower is healthier
ST91stUS99thDefinition & source ›
The estimated share of adults who have been diagnosed with diabetes.
Full methodology ›Stroke
6.9%
in the top 1.4% nationally
Lower is healthier
ST93rdUS99thDefinition & source ›
The estimated share of adults who have been told by a health professional that they have had a stroke.
Full methodology ›Outpatient-care access
1.4 per 1,000 residents
in the top 1.0% nationally
Higher is healthier
ST99thUS99thDefinition & source ›
The number of outpatient clinics 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 ›Binge drinking
9.5%
in the bottom 0.8% nationally
Lower is healthier
ST5thUS1stDefinition & 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
26.2%
in the top 2.2% nationally
Lower is healthier
ST91stUS98thDefinition & source ›
The estimated share of adults with serious difficulty walking or climbing stairs.
Full methodology ›Self-care disability
7.4%
in the top 4.4% nationally
Lower is healthier
ST86thUS96thDefinition & source ›
The estimated share of adults with difficulty dressing or bathing.
Full methodology ›Obesity
47.9%
in the top 1.6% nationally
Lower is healthier
ST89thUS98thDefinition & source ›
The estimated share of adults with obesity, defined as a body-mass index of 30 or higher.
Full methodology ›High cholesterol
46.1%
in the top 2.6% nationally
Lower is healthier
ST93rdUS97thDefinition & source ›
The estimated share of adults with high cholesterol, among those who have ever been screened for it.
Full methodology ›Walkability
1.4 intersections/sq mi
in the bottom 4.2% nationally
Higher is healthier
ST2ndUS4thDefinition & source ›
The number of street intersections per square mile — a standard street-connectivity measure; denser networks correlate with more walkable neighborhoods.
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
- 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
- Limited home internet for telehealth
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
In its overall standing, Pine Apple, Alabama (ZIP 36768) lands in the bottom 15% nationally (27,118th) and the bottom 32% of Alabama (418th).
Reading the data plainly, a few things define this area first: modeled high blood pressure lands in the top 0.3% nationally, diabetes lies in the top 1.1% nationally, and stroke stands in the top 1.4% nationally. Modeled mobility disability rests in the top 2.2% nationally, self-care disability registers in the top 4.4% nationally, and obesity resides in the top 1.6% nationally. Modeled high cholesterol settles in the top 2.6% nationally, and walkability is in the bottom 4.2% nationally. More encouragingly, outpatient sits in the top 1.0% nationally, and modeled binge drinking lands in the bottom 0.8% nationally.
On the overall standing, ZIP 36030, just across the boundary, ranks healthier. In the round, 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.
Compared with the ZIP codes measured across all nine scoring domains — not with all US ZIP codes.
Lifting this score
Environmental Hazard
healthier than 96%
14%
Preventive Care
healthier than 82%
13%
Mental Health
healthier than 78%
8%
About typical
Healthcare Access
healthier than 58%
5%
Holding it back
Chronic Disease Burden
healthier than 2%
21%
Social Need / SDOH
healthier than 6%
16%
Risk Behavior
healthier than 30%
11%
Disability
healthier than 6%
7%
Climate / Disaster Risk
healthier than 24%
5%
Lifting this score
Environmental Hazard
healthier than 98%
14%
Preventive Care
healthier than 91%
13%
Mental Health
healthier than 95%
8%
Healthcare Access
healthier than 61%
5%
About typical
Risk Behavior
healthier than 53%
11%
Holding it back
Chronic Disease Burden
healthier than 7%
21%
Social Need / SDOH
healthier than 17%
16%
Disability
healthier than 17%
7%
Climate / Disaster Risk
healthier than 35%
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 ›
Nearby & similar ZIPs
Editorially selected — see how this ZIP compares to nearby and similar places.
Nearby
36030
Alabamashares a border
Score 42.41
Closest healthier
36037
Alabamaabout 1.9 mi away
Score 41.26
Similar health profile
30678
Georgia99% similar profile
Score 44.27
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 | 39.2% | 35.5–42.9 |
| High blood pressure among adults | 58.0% | 53.9–62.1 |
| Cancer (non-skin) or melanoma among adults | 8.8% | 8.0–9.7 |
| Current asthma among adults | 11.1% | 9.9–12.5 |
| Coronary heart disease among adults | 10.5% | 9.4–11.6 |
| Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease among adults | 11.1% | 9.7–12.7 |
| Depression among adults | 19.2% | 16.4–22.4 |
| Diagnosed diabetes among adults | 23.2% | 20.7–25.9 |
| High cholesterol among adults who have ever been screened | 46.1% | 41.6–50.5 |
| Obesity among adults | 47.9% | 39.7–56.1 |
| Stroke among adults | 6.9% | 6.2–7.6 |
| All teeth lost among adults aged >=65 years | 22.6% | 18.8–26.6 |
PreventionCDC PLACES 2022 / 2023 · BRFSS
| Measure | Crude prevalence | 95% CI |
|---|---|---|
| Current lack of health insurance among adults aged 18-64 years | 11.5% | 9.3–14.0 |
| Taking medicine to control high blood pressure among adults with high blood pressure | 85.0% | 83.0–87.0 |
| Visits to doctor for routine checkup within the past year among adults | 85.5% | 83.0–88.0 |
| Cholesterol screening among adults | 89.4% | 87.8–90.8 |
| Colorectal cancer screening among adults aged 45–75 years | 69.4% | 64.5–74.0 |
| Visited dentist or dental clinic in the past year among adults | 50.7% | 46.9–54.5 |
| Mammography use among women aged 50-74 years | 78.8% | 71.7–84.7 |
Health Risk BehaviorsCDC PLACES 2022 / 2023 · BRFSS
| Measure | Crude prevalence | 95% CI |
|---|---|---|
| Binge drinking among adults | 9.5% | 7.8–11.5 |
| Current cigarette smoking among adults | 17.7% | 15.2–20.4 |
| No leisure-time physical activity among adults | 37.1% | 32.0–42.3 |
| Short sleep duration among adults | 42.0% | 35.3–49.0 |
Health StatusCDC PLACES 2023 · BRFSS
| Measure | Crude prevalence | 95% CI |
|---|---|---|
| Fair or poor self-rated health status among adults | 31.3% | 27.7–35.0 |
| Frequent mental distress among adults | 16.2% | 14.4–18.2 |
| Frequent physical distress among adults | 17.3% | 15.4–19.4 |
DisabilityCDC PLACES 2023 · BRFSS
| Measure | Crude prevalence | 95% CI |
|---|---|---|
| Cognitive disability among adults | 16.7% | 14.6–18.8 |
| Any disability among adults | 44.0% | 39.3–48.9 |
| Hearing disability among adults | 9.8% | 8.8–10.9 |
| Independent living disability among adults | 12.7% | 11.2–14.4 |
| Mobility disability among adults | 26.2% | 23.3–29.3 |
| Self-care disability among adults | 7.4% | 6.6–8.4 |
| Vision disability among adults | 9.3% | 8.2–10.3 |
Health-Related Social NeedsCDC PLACES 2023 · BRFSS
| Measure | Crude prevalence | 95% CI |
|---|---|---|
| Lack of social and emotional support among adults | 29.7% | 25.7–33.9 |
| Food insecurity in the past 12 months among adults | 28.3% | 24.6–32.4 |
| Received food stamps in the past 12 months among adults | 22.9% | 19.5–26.7 |
| Housing insecurity in the past 12 months among adults | 19.3% | 16.7–22.2 |
| Lack of reliable transportation in the past 12 months among adults | 12.9% | 11.4–14.8 |
| Loneliness among adults | 37.1% | 31.8–42.5 |
| Utility services shut-off threat in the past 12 months among adults | 13.7% | 11.9–15.6 |
Community & economyCensus ACS 5-Year · 2024 release · observed
| Measure | Value | US median (p10–p90) | AL median (p10–p90) |
|---|---|---|---|
| Poverty rate | 17.6% | 10.6% (3.1–25.8%) n=32,364 | 15.4% (5.1–31.1%) n=623 |
| Uninsured 18–64 | 5.9% | 9.0% (1.5–24.3%) n=32,286 | 13.7% (5.2–25.2%) n=625 |
| No HS diploma (25+) | 22.7% | 7.9% (1.8–20.7%) n=32,505 | 13.2% (3.6–23.0%) n=626 |
| Bachelor's or higher (25+) | 20.4% | 23.3% (9.2–53.6%) n=32,505 | 16.9% (6.9–38.8%) n=626 |
| Unemployment rate (16+) | 0.9% | 3.9% (0.0–9.8%) n=32,274 | 4.2% (0.0–11.0%) n=622 |
| Households without a vehicle | 1.3% | 3.9% (0.0–12.5%) n=32,322 | 4.0% (0.0–12.1%) n=622 |
| Broadband subscription | 70.0% | 89.3% (75.1–97.1%) n=32,322 | 84.9% (68.8–94.9%) n=622 |
| Housing cost burden (≥30% income) | 20.9% | 23.7% (10.6–40.0%) n=32,322 | 21.3% (10.1–35.0%) n=622 |
| Homeownership rate | 67.5% | 78.7% (51.7–94.0%) n=32,322 | 78.3% (54.7–92.5%) n=622 |
| Crowded housing (>1 per room) | 1.6% | 1.3% (0.0–6.3%) n=32,322 | 1.3% (0.0–4.2%) n=622 |
| Foreign-born population | 0.0% | 2.6% (0.0–18.6%) n=32,553 | 1.3% (0.0–6.2%) n=628 |
| Single-parent households | 28.5% | 53.6% (37.3–74.1%) n=32,087 | 50.9% (35.0–68.6%) n=617 |
| Population 65+ | 26.2% | 19.4% (10.8–33.6%) n=32,553 | 19.0% (11.9–29.2%) n=628 |
| Median age | 52.1 yr | 42.2 yr (33.0–56.3) n=32,292 | 41.3 yr (33.4–52.9) n=621 |
| Median household income | $35,735 | $72,070 ($46,039–$118,707) n=30,318 | $55,896 ($37,738–$88,230) n=587 |
| Median home value | $116,900 | $222,200 ($100,300–$579,820) n=30,049 | $160,950 ($87,300–$292,680) n=568 |
| Median gross rent | $1,069 | $1,021 ($677–$1,912) n=25,670 | $856 ($625–$1,266) n=503 |
Life expectancyNCHS / RWJF USALEEP · model-based
| Measure | Value | US median (p10–p90) | AL median (p10–p90) |
|---|---|---|---|
| Life expectancy at birth | 74.3 yr ± 1.37 | 78.9 yr (74.7–82.8) n=31,308 | 74.7 yr (72.1–78.3) n=599 |
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 1.37 years of 74.3, 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