ZIP code
38852
in Iuka, MississippiPopulation 8,721
43.11/ 100
Ranked #24,272 of 32,066 US ZIPs (bottom 24%)
Ranked #151 of 406 Mississippi ZIPs (top 37%)
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.
Mental-health provider access
0.21 per 1,000 residents
in the top 3.8% nationally
Higher is healthier
ST96thUS96thDefinition & source ›
The number of mental-health 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 ›Fiber broadband
98.4%
in the top 6.1% nationally
Higher is healthier
ST92ndUS94thDefinition & source ›
The share of homes where fiber-optic internet service is available.
Full methodology ›Hearing disability
11.0%
in the top 9.4% nationally
Lower is healthier
ST95thUS91stDefinition & source ›
The estimated share of adults who are deaf or have serious difficulty hearing.
Full methodology ›High blood pressure
46%
in the top 9.8% nationally
Lower is healthier
ST37thUS90thDefinition & source ›
The estimated share of adults who have been told by a health professional that they have high blood pressure.
Full methodology ›High cholesterol
43.4%
in the top 9.0% nationally
Lower is healthier
ST89thUS91stDefinition & source ›
The estimated share of adults with high cholesterol, among those who have ever been screened for it.
Full methodology ›Loud transportation noise
1.0%
in the top 19% nationally
Lower is healthier
ST91stUS81stDefinition & 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 ›Humid extreme heat
106 days/year
in the top 19% nationally
Lower is healthier
ST2ndUS81stDefinition & source ›
The average number of days per year when modeled heat stress — temperature, humidity, sun, and wind combined — reaches levels hard on the body outdoors.
Full methodology ›Radon
1.1 pCi/L
in the bottom 27% nationally
Lower is healthier
ST97thUS27thDefinition & source ›
The modeled typical indoor radon level for this area, in picocuries per liter — the EPA recommends fixing a home at 4 pCi/L or above.
Modeled from indoor-radon measurements. In Alaska and Hawaii, where those measurements are not published, a US Geological Survey geologic radon-potential category stands in — a coarser input, disclosed rather than hidden.
Full methodology ›The read
In overall standing, Iuka, Mississippi (ZIP 38852) comes out in the bottom 24% nationally (24,272nd) and the top 37% of Mississippi (151st).
Both sides of the picture show up plainly in this area's numbers: mental-health providers registers in the top 3.8% nationally. Distance to an emergency room stands at the national minimum, shared with about 11% of ZIPs. Fiber broadband lands in the top 6.1% nationally. Distance to a nursing home is at the national minimum, shared with about 27% of ZIPs. Modeled arsenic resides in the bottom 14.2% nationally. By contrast, modeled hearing disability rests in the top 9.4% nationally, and high blood pressure lies in the top 9.8% nationally. Fatal road crashes sits in the top 10.7% nationally, modeled high cholesterol settles in the top 9.0% nationally, and modeled mobility disability registers in the top 13.2% nationally.
In plain terms, arsenic is a natural groundwater contaminant, here a modeled estimate of the chance private-well levels exceed a benchmark. The nearest healthier ZIP overall is ZIP 35677, 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.
Compared with the ZIP codes measured across all nine scoring domains — not with all US ZIP codes.
Lifting this score
Environmental Hazard
healthier than 72%
14%
Healthcare Access
healthier than 64%
5%
About typical
Social Need / SDOH
healthier than 44%
16%
Mental Health
healthier than 59%
8%
Holding it back
Chronic Disease Burden
healthier than 15%
21%
Preventive Care
healthier than 19%
13%
Risk Behavior
healthier than 35%
11%
Disability
healthier than 16%
7%
Climate / Disaster Risk
healthier than 35%
5%
Lifting this score
Social Need / SDOH
healthier than 81%
16%
Risk Behavior
healthier than 73%
11%
Climate / Disaster Risk
healthier than 94%
5%
About typical
Chronic Disease Burden
healthier than 46%
21%
Preventive Care
healthier than 41%
13%
Disability
healthier than 57%
7%
Healthcare Access
healthier than 59%
5%
Holding it back
Environmental Hazard
healthier than 37%
14%
Mental Health
healthier than 40%
8%
“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
2 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.
Below what income predicts
The ZIP codes that outlive their incomes
Estimated life expectancy is 72.6 ± 1.8 years. A median household income of $52,942 predicts 77.6 years — 5.0 years below.
Ranked #5,527 of the 5,842 ZIP codes this finding names, ordered by years above what income predicts, highest first.
Clean environment, heavy chronic burden
Where the environment and chronic illness point in opposite directions
Environmental-hazard standing 71.7; chronic-disease standing 14.9 — 57 points apart, cleaner on the environment than it is on chronic illness.
Ranked #1,972 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
35616
Alabamashares a border
Score 38.54
Closest healthier
35677
Alabamashares a border
Score 45.05
Similar health profile
42066
Kentucky97% similar profile
Score 38.86
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 | 36.3% | 32.7–40.3 |
| High blood pressure among adults | 46.0% | 41.6–50.7 |
| Cancer (non-skin) or melanoma among adults | 10.5% | 9.5–11.6 |
| Current asthma among adults | 9.7% | 8.5–10.9 |
| Coronary heart disease among adults | 9.5% | 8.5–10.5 |
| Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease among adults | 11.0% | 9.7–12.4 |
| Depression among adults | 21.7% | 18.4–25.5 |
| Diagnosed diabetes among adults | 15.4% | 13.4–17.6 |
| High cholesterol among adults who have ever been screened | 43.4% | 38.8–48.2 |
| Obesity among adults | 38.9% | 31.0–47.4 |
| Stroke among adults | 4.9% | 4.5–5.4 |
| All teeth lost among adults aged >=65 years | 20.5% | 16.9–24.2 |
PreventionCDC PLACES 2022 / 2023 · BRFSS
| Measure | Crude prevalence | 95% CI |
|---|---|---|
| Current lack of health insurance among adults aged 18-64 years | 10.6% | 8.9–12.3 |
| Taking medicine to control high blood pressure among adults with high blood pressure | 82.1% | 79.6–84.4 |
| Visits to doctor for routine checkup within the past year among adults | 81.2% | 77.9–84.3 |
| Cholesterol screening among adults | 87.0% | 85.1–88.6 |
| Colorectal cancer screening among adults aged 45–75 years | 60.1% | 54.7–65.3 |
| Visited dentist or dental clinic in the past year among adults | 9.8% | 8.3–11.4 |
| Mammography use among women aged 50-74 years | 70.3% | 61.8–77.9 |
Health Risk BehaviorsCDC PLACES 2022 / 2023 · BRFSS
| Measure | Crude prevalence | 95% CI |
|---|---|---|
| Binge drinking among adults | 13.8% | 11.3–16.8 |
| Current cigarette smoking among adults | 18.5% | 16.1–21.2 |
| No leisure-time physical activity among adults | 34.7% | 29.9–40.0 |
| Short sleep duration among adults | 34.4% | 28.0–41.2 |
Health StatusCDC PLACES 2023 · BRFSS
| Measure | Crude prevalence | 95% CI |
|---|---|---|
| Fair or poor self-rated health status among adults | 24.8% | 21.9–28.0 |
| Frequent mental distress among adults | 16.8% | 15.0–19.0 |
| Frequent physical distress among adults | 16.9% | 15.0–19.0 |
DisabilityCDC PLACES 2023 · BRFSS
| Measure | Crude prevalence | 95% CI |
|---|---|---|
| Cognitive disability among adults | 17.7% | 15.8–19.8 |
| Any disability among adults | 40.4% | 36.0–45.2 |
| Hearing disability among adults | 11.0% | 9.8–12.3 |
| Independent living disability among adults | 10.7% | 9.6–11.9 |
| Mobility disability among adults | 21.0% | 18.5–23.6 |
| Self-care disability among adults | 5.3% | 4.8–5.9 |
| Vision disability among adults | 6.7% | 6.1–7.5 |
Health-Related Social NeedsCDC PLACES 2023 · BRFSS
| Measure | Crude prevalence | 95% CI |
|---|---|---|
| Lack of social and emotional support among adults | 24.8% | 21.1–28.6 |
| Food insecurity in the past 12 months among adults | 16.9% | 14.3–19.4 |
| Received food stamps in the past 12 months among adults | 9.6% | 8.0–11.3 |
| Housing insecurity in the past 12 months among adults | 11.5% | 9.8–13.2 |
| Lack of reliable transportation in the past 12 months among adults | 9.1% | 7.9–10.2 |
| Loneliness among adults | 32.6% | 27.7–37.7 |
| Utility services shut-off threat in the past 12 months among adults | 7.7% | 6.6–8.8 |
Community & economyCensus ACS 5-Year · 2024 release · observed
| Measure | Value | US median (p10–p90) | MS median (p10–p90) |
|---|---|---|---|
| Poverty rate | 18.5% | 10.6% (3.1–25.8%) n=32,364 | 19.9% (8.3–37.0%) n=406 |
| Uninsured 18–64 | 13.4% | 9.0% (1.5–24.3%) n=32,286 | 16.8% (8.1–29.3%) n=410 |
| No HS diploma (25+) | 15.0% | 7.9% (1.8–20.7%) n=32,505 | 14.4% (5.9–25.0%) n=411 |
| Bachelor's or higher (25+) | 21.7% | 23.3% (9.2–53.6%) n=32,505 | 18.0% (7.1–33.6%) n=411 |
| Unemployment rate (16+) | 4.5% | 3.9% (0.0–9.8%) n=32,274 | 4.8% (0.0–14.2%) n=411 |
| Households without a vehicle | 3.7% | 3.9% (0.0–12.5%) n=32,322 | 5.5% (0.0–13.9%) n=405 |
| Broadband subscription | 85.9% | 89.3% (75.1–97.1%) n=32,322 | 79.7% (62.7–93.0%) n=405 |
| Housing cost burden (≥30% income) | 22.5% | 23.7% (10.6–40.0%) n=32,322 | 22.7% (9.7–36.0%) n=405 |
| Homeownership rate | 80.9% | 78.7% (51.7–94.0%) n=32,322 | 77.2% (49.8–91.7%) n=405 |
| Crowded housing (>1 per room) | 0.5% | 1.3% (0.0–6.3%) n=32,322 | 1.4% (0.0–5.0%) n=405 |
| Foreign-born population | 0.2% | 2.6% (0.0–18.6%) n=32,553 | 0.6% (0.0–4.4%) n=412 |
| Single-parent households | 54.7% | 53.6% (37.3–74.1%) n=32,087 | 46.9% (29.2–61.4%) n=404 |
| Population 65+ | 24.4% | 19.4% (10.8–33.6%) n=32,553 | 17.8% (11.7–26.2%) n=412 |
| Median age | 48.7 yr | 42.2 yr (33.0–56.3) n=32,292 | 39.5 yr (30.5–49.6) n=411 |
| Median household income | $52,942 | $72,070 ($46,039–$118,707) n=30,318 | $50,353 ($32,100–$72,379) n=377 |
| Median home value | $150,400 | $222,200 ($100,300–$579,820) n=30,049 | $118,100 ($72,660–$219,420) n=374 |
| Median gross rent | $635 | $1,021 ($677–$1,912) n=25,670 | $827 ($532–$1,130) n=319 |
Life expectancyNCHS / RWJF USALEEP · model-based
| Measure | Value | US median (p10–p90) | MS median (p10–p90) |
|---|---|---|---|
| Life expectancy at birth | 72.6 yr ± 0.92 | 78.9 yr (74.7–82.8) n=31,308 | 75.4 yr (72.7–79.0) n=405 |
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 0.92 years of 72.6, 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