ZIP code
37215
in Forest Hills, TennesseePopulation 22,018
63.63/ 100
Ranked #2,648 of 32,066 US ZIPs (top 8.3%)
Ranked #8 of 616 Tennessee ZIPs (top 1.3%)
Ranked #4 of 110 Nashville-Davidson--Murfreesboro--Franklin, TN ZIPs (top 3.7%)
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.
Median household income
$155,863
in the top 3.3% nationally
Higher is healthier
ST99thUS97thDefinition & source ›
The middle household income in this ZIP — half of households earn more, half earn less — in dollars per year.
Full methodology ›Outpatient-care access
0.88 per 1,000 residents
in the top 2.5% nationally
Higher is healthier
ST98thUS98thDefinition & 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 ›Physician access
3.2 per 1,000 residents
in the top 3.1% nationally
Higher is healthier
ST98thUS97thDefinition & 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 ›Short sleep
28%
in the bottom 3.1% nationally
Lower is healthier
ST1stUS3rdDefinition & source ›
The estimated share of adults who usually sleep less than seven hours in a 24-hour period.
Full methodology ›Obesity
25.5%
in the bottom 6.3% nationally
Lower is healthier
ST1stUS6thDefinition & source ›
The estimated share of adults with obesity, defined as a body-mass index of 30 or higher.
Full methodology ›Dental provider access
1.1 per 1,000 residents
in the top 5.1% nationally
Higher is healthier
ST98thUS95thDefinition & source ›
The number of dental 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 ›Child-care access
0.67 per 1,000 residents
in the top 5.6% nationally
Higher is healthier
ST98thUS94thDefinition & source ›
The number of child day-care services 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 ›Energy-cost burden
1.3%
in the bottom 2.8% 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 ›Recreation access
1.1 per 1,000 residents
in the top 6.7% nationally
Higher is healthier
ST97thUS93rdDefinition & 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 ›Civic-institution access
0.72 per 1,000 residents
in the top 7.4% nationally
Higher is healthier
ST96thUS93rdDefinition & source ›
The number of civic and social organizations 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 ›The read
By its overall health score, Forest Hills, Tennessee (ZIP 37215) lands in the top 8.3% healthiest ZIPs nationally (2,648th) and the top 1.3% of Tennessee (8th).
Strengths and concerns sit side by side across the measures here: household income is in the top 3.3% nationally, and outpatient stands in the top 2.5% nationally. Physicians settles in the top 3.1% nationally, and modeled short sleep lies in the bottom 3.1% nationally. Modeled obesity resides in the bottom 6.3% nationally, dental providers lands in the top 5.1% nationally, and childcare registers in the top 5.6% nationally. Modeled energy burden sits in the bottom 2.8% nationally, recreation rests in the top 6.7% nationally, and civic is in the top 7.4% nationally.
Weighed against the ZIPs nearby, park land runs far lower than the surrounding ZIPs on this measure. To translate a couple of terms, energy burden is the share of household income that goes to home energy bills. Overall, the nearest healthier neighbor is ZIP 37027, 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 Nashville-Davidson--Murfreesboro--Franklin, TN metro area.
Compared with the ZIP codes measured across all nine scoring domains — not with all US ZIP codes.
Lifting this score
Chronic Disease Burden
healthier than 83%
21%
Social Need / SDOH
healthier than 98%
16%
Preventive Care
healthier than 91%
13%
Risk Behavior
healthier than 96%
11%
Disability
healthier than 92%
7%
Healthcare Access
healthier than 71%
5%
About typical
Mental Health
healthier than 47%
8%
Climate / Disaster Risk
healthier than 48%
5%
Holding it back
Environmental Hazard
healthier than 9%
14%
Lifting this score
Chronic Disease Burden
healthier than 95%
21%
Social Need / SDOH
healthier than 99%
16%
Preventive Care
healthier than 98%
13%
Risk Behavior
in the top 0.9%
11%
Mental Health
healthier than 97%
8%
Disability
healthier than 98%
7%
Climate / Disaster Risk
healthier than 62%
5%
Healthcare Access
healthier than 72%
5%
Holding it back
Environmental Hazard
healthier than 7%
14%
Lifting this score
Chronic Disease Burden
healthier than 81%
21%
Social Need / SDOH
healthier than 97%
16%
Preventive Care
healthier than 98%
13%
Risk Behavior
in the top 1.0%
11%
Mental Health
healthier than 94%
8%
Disability
healthier than 92%
7%
Healthcare Access
healthier than 69%
5%
About typical
Climate / Disaster Risk
healthier than 59%
5%
Holding it back
Environmental Hazard
healthier than 13%
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
4 of our published findings list 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.
Above what income predicts
The ZIP codes that outlive their incomes
Estimated life expectancy is 83.2 ± 1.2 years. A median household income of $155,863 predicts 81.8 years — 1.4 years above.
Ranked #1,321 of the 5,842 ZIP codes this finding names, ordered by years above what income predicts, highest first.
Above its nearby ZIPs
The ZIP codes that outlive their neighbors
Estimated life expectancy is 83.2 ± 1.2 years. The 41 nearest ZIP codes with estimates average 77.1 years — 6.1 years above them.
Ranked #39 of the 3,687 ZIP codes this finding names, ordered by years above the nearby-ZIP average, highest first.
Heavy environment, light chronic burden
Where the environment and chronic illness point in opposite directions
Environmental-hazard standing 9.1 (bottom 10%); chronic-disease standing 82.5 — 73 points apart, heavier on the environment than it is on chronic illness.
Ranked #16,690 of the 18,187 ZIP codes this finding names, ordered by the gap from cleanest environment to heaviest chronic burden, highest first.
Highest-risk tenth
Air toxics and the years between the two ends of the risk scale
Modeled air-toxics cancer risk is 38.8 cases per million — among the tenth of compared ZIP codes with the most. Estimated life expectancy is 83.2 ± 1.2 years.
Ranked #1,644 of the 4,173 ZIP codes this finding names, ordered by modeled air-toxics risk, highest first.
Nearby & similar ZIPs
Editorially selected — see how this ZIP compares to nearby and similar places.
Nearby
37027
Tennesseeshares a border
Score 66.08
Closest healthier
37220
Tennesseeshares a border
Score 65.77
Similar health profile
28166
North Carolina99% similar profile
Score 56.90
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 | 29.6% | 26.7–32.5 |
| High blood pressure among adults | 32.9% | 29.6–36.2 |
| Cancer (non-skin) or melanoma among adults | 10.4% | 9.5–11.4 |
| Current asthma among adults | 9.5% | 8.4–10.7 |
| Coronary heart disease among adults | 5.6% | 5.0–6.2 |
| Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease among adults | 5.1% | 4.4–5.9 |
| Depression among adults | 26.9% | 23.7–30.2 |
| Diagnosed diabetes among adults | 9.5% | 8.2–10.8 |
| High cholesterol among adults who have ever been screened | 38.5% | 34.9–42.3 |
| Obesity among adults | 25.5% | 21.3–29.8 |
| Stroke among adults | 2.6% | 2.4–2.9 |
| All teeth lost among adults aged >=65 years | 5.4% | 4.3–6.7 |
PreventionCDC PLACES 2022 / 2023 · BRFSS
| Measure | Crude prevalence | 95% CI |
|---|---|---|
| Current lack of health insurance among adults aged 18-64 years | 5.6% | 4.6–6.6 |
| Taking medicine to control high blood pressure among adults with high blood pressure | 78.7% | 75.9–81.2 |
| Visits to doctor for routine checkup within the past year among adults | 78.8% | 75.8–81.6 |
| Cholesterol screening among adults | 91.0% | 89.7–92.2 |
| Colorectal cancer screening among adults aged 45–75 years | 71.7% | 67.7–75.5 |
| Visited dentist or dental clinic in the past year among adults | 74.6% | 72.1–77.3 |
| Mammography use among women aged 50-74 years | 78.7% | 72.3–84.2 |
Health Risk BehaviorsCDC PLACES 2022 / 2023 · BRFSS
| Measure | Crude prevalence | 95% CI |
|---|---|---|
| Binge drinking among adults | 16.7% | 14.1–19.5 |
| Current cigarette smoking among adults | 8.1% | 6.8–9.4 |
| No leisure-time physical activity among adults | 17.0% | 14.4–19.8 |
| Short sleep duration among adults | 28.0% | 24.2–32.1 |
Health StatusCDC PLACES 2023 · BRFSS
| Measure | Crude prevalence | 95% CI |
|---|---|---|
| Fair or poor self-rated health status among adults | 13.6% | 11.8–15.5 |
| Frequent mental distress among adults | 14.4% | 12.7–16.1 |
| Frequent physical distress among adults | 10.4% | 9.1–11.7 |
DisabilityCDC PLACES 2023 · BRFSS
| Measure | Crude prevalence | 95% CI |
|---|---|---|
| Cognitive disability among adults | 10.7% | 9.3–12.1 |
| Any disability among adults | 26.0% | 22.7–29.1 |
| Hearing disability among adults | 6.7% | 5.9–7.5 |
| Independent living disability among adults | 5.5% | 4.8–6.3 |
| Mobility disability among adults | 10.6% | 9.1–12.1 |
| Self-care disability among adults | 2.2% | 1.9–2.5 |
| Vision disability among adults | 3.0% | 2.7–3.4 |
Community & economyCensus ACS 5-Year · 2024 release · observed
| Measure | Value | US median (p10–p90) | TN median (p10–p90) |
|---|---|---|---|
| Poverty rate | 7.4% | 10.6% (3.1–25.8%) n=32,364 | 13.8% (5.1–26.1%) n=609 |
| Uninsured 18–64 | 2.4% | 9.0% (1.5–24.3%) n=32,286 | 14.0% (5.9–24.0%) n=615 |
| No HS diploma (25+) | 1.7% | 7.9% (1.8–20.7%) n=32,505 | 11.6% (4.2–19.5%) n=613 |
| Bachelor's or higher (25+) | 80.6% | 23.3% (9.2–53.6%) n=32,505 | 19.0% (10.0–42.6%) n=613 |
| Unemployment rate (16+) | 1.7% | 3.9% (0.0–9.8%) n=32,274 | 4.0% (0.4–9.6%) n=613 |
| Households without a vehicle | 2.7% | 3.9% (0.0–12.5%) n=32,322 | 3.9% (0.3–10.1%) n=608 |
| Broadband subscription | 93.3% | 89.3% (75.1–97.1%) n=32,322 | 86.7% (76.0–94.9%) n=608 |
| Housing cost burden (≥30% income) | 29.1% | 23.7% (10.6–40.0%) n=32,322 | 21.4% (11.8–33.6%) n=608 |
| Homeownership rate | 75.8% | 78.7% (51.7–94.0%) n=32,322 | 77.7% (53.4–91.5%) n=608 |
| Crowded housing (>1 per room) | 0.1% | 1.3% (0.0–6.3%) n=32,322 | 1.5% (0.0–4.5%) n=608 |
| Foreign-born population | 8.1% | 2.6% (0.0–18.6%) n=32,553 | 1.8% (0.0–8.3%) n=617 |
| Single-parent households | 58.3% | 53.6% (37.3–74.1%) n=32,087 | 52.6% (39.1–68.7%) n=608 |
| Population 65+ | 23.3% | 19.4% (10.8–33.6%) n=32,553 | 19.0% (11.5–27.9%) n=617 |
| Median age | 44.9 yr | 42.2 yr (33.0–56.3) n=32,292 | 42.3 yr (33.8–52.5) n=615 |
| Median household income | $155,863 | $72,070 ($46,039–$118,707) n=30,318 | $61,577 ($42,745–$94,822) n=594 |
| Median home value | $1,046,500 | $222,200 ($100,300–$579,820) n=30,049 | $215,100 ($120,900–$397,120) n=593 |
| Median gross rent | $1,983 | $1,021 ($677–$1,912) n=25,670 | $908 ($659–$1,523) n=516 |
Life expectancyNCHS / RWJF USALEEP · model-based
| Measure | Value | US median (p10–p90) | TN median (p10–p90) |
|---|---|---|---|
| Life expectancy at birth | 83.2 yr ± 0.59 | 78.9 yr (74.7–82.8) n=31,308 | 75.1 yr (72.6–78.1) n=587 |
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 0.59 years of 83.2, 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