ZIP code
48467
in Port Austin, MichiganPopulation 2,412
49.00/ 100
Ranked #17,663 of 32,066 US ZIPs (bottom 45%)
Ranked #572 of 973 Michigan ZIPs (bottom 41%)
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.
Arsenic in groundwater
27%
in the top 3.9% nationally
Lower is healthier
ST88thUS96thDefinition & source ›
The modeled probability that untreated groundwater in this area — the source private wells draw on — exceeds the federal arsenic limit of 10 micrograms per liter.
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 ›Recreation access
1.3 per 1,000 residents
in the top 4.5% nationally
Higher is healthier
ST97thUS96thDefinition & 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 ›Coronary heart disease
10.9%
in the top 4.7% nationally
Lower is healthier
ST94thUS95thDefinition & source ›
The estimated share of adults who have been told by a health professional that they have coronary heart disease or angina.
Full methodology ›Colon-cancer screening
75.2%
in the top 2.7% nationally
Higher is healthier
ST93rdUS97thDefinition & source ›
The estimated share of adults aged 45–75 who are up to date on colorectal-cancer screening.
Full methodology ›Hearing disability
11.3%
in the top 7.5% nationally
Lower is healthier
ST94thUS93rdDefinition & source ›
The estimated share of adults who are deaf or have serious difficulty hearing.
Full methodology ›Outpatient-care access
0.45 per 1,000 residents
in the top 9.6% nationally
Higher is healthier
ST92ndUS90thDefinition & 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 ›High blood pressure
46.1%
in the top 9.6% nationally
Lower is healthier
ST92ndUS90thDefinition & source ›
The estimated share of adults who have been told by a health professional that they have high blood pressure.
Full methodology ›Binge drinking
12.5%
in the bottom 9.9% nationally
Lower is healthier
ST7thUS10thDefinition & 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 ›Distance to a nursing home
9.5 mi
in the top 12.2% nationally
Lower is healthier
ST90thUS88thDefinition & source ›
The distance in miles from this ZIP’s edge to the nearest Medicare- or Medicaid-certified nursing home.
Full methodology ›High cholesterol
42.7%
in the top 12.1% nationally
Lower is healthier
ST94thUS88thDefinition & source ›
The estimated share of adults with high cholesterol, among those who have ever been screened for it.
Full methodology ›The read
Port Austin, Michigan (ZIP 48467), in overall standing, comes out in the bottom 45% nationally (17,663rd) and the bottom 41% of Michigan (572nd), based on limited data; treat as directional.
A few readings each way define this mixed profile: recreation sits in the top 4.5% nationally, modeled colon screening stands in the top 2.7% nationally, and outpatient resides in the top 9.6% nationally. Modeled humid heat sits in the bottom 10.8% nationally. Modeled loud transportation noise stands at the national minimum, shared with about 22% of ZIPs. Modeled binge drinking resides in the bottom 9.9% nationally. Pulling the other way, modeled arsenic sits in the top 3.9% nationally, and coronary heart disease stands in the top 4.7% nationally. Modeled hearing disability resides in the top 7.5% nationally, and high blood pressure sits in the top 9.6% nationally.
Defined simply, for reference, arsenic is a natural groundwater contaminant, here a modeled estimate of the chance private-well levels exceed a benchmark. Humid heat is a modeled heat-stress measure combining temperature, humidity, sun, and wind to gauge heat on the body outdoors. 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. The closest healthier ZIP overall is ZIP 48468, 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 85%
14%
Preventive Care
healthier than 95%
13%
Risk Behavior
healthier than 75%
11%
Climate / Disaster RiskPartial
in the top 1.0%
5%
About typical
Mental Health
healthier than 49%
8%
Holding it back
Chronic Disease Burden
healthier than 8%
21%
Social Need / SDOH
healthier than 39%
16%
Disability
healthier than 26%
7%
Healthcare Access
healthier than 17%
5%
Lifting this score
Environmental Hazard
healthier than 81%
14%
Preventive Care
healthier than 91%
13%
Risk Behavior
healthier than 75%
11%
Mental Health
healthier than 86%
8%
Climate / Disaster RiskPartial
in the top 0.8%
5%
About typical
Social Need / SDOH
healthier than 44%
16%
Holding it back
Chronic Disease Burden
healthier than 5%
21%
Disability
healthier than 17%
7%
Healthcare Access
healthier than 10%
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
48445
Michiganshares a border
Score 47.45
Closest healthier
48468
Michiganshares a border
Score 50.17
Similar health profile
04441
Maine99% similar profile
Score 50.60
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 | 40.4% | 36.4–44.7 |
| High blood pressure among adults | 46.1% | 41.5–50.9 |
| Cancer (non-skin) or melanoma among adults | 13.7% | 12.5–15.1 |
| Current asthma among adults | 11.4% | 10.1–12.8 |
| Coronary heart disease among adults | 10.9% | 9.8–12.2 |
| Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease among adults | 12.0% | 10.6–13.7 |
| Depression among adults | 25.2% | 21.5–29.3 |
| Diagnosed diabetes among adults | 16.2% | 14.0–18.6 |
| High cholesterol among adults who have ever been screened | 42.7% | 37.9–47.6 |
| Obesity among adults | 38.6% | 30.6–47.4 |
| Stroke among adults | 5.2% | 4.7–5.8 |
| All teeth lost among adults aged >=65 years | 10.8% | 8.7–13.2 |
PreventionCDC PLACES 2022 / 2023 · BRFSS
| Measure | Crude prevalence | 95% CI |
|---|---|---|
| Current lack of health insurance among adults aged 18-64 years | 6.9% | 5.8–8.3 |
| Taking medicine to control high blood pressure among adults with high blood pressure | 84.2% | 81.6–86.6 |
| Visits to doctor for routine checkup within the past year among adults | 84.0% | 81.2–86.8 |
| Cholesterol screening among adults | 90.7% | 89.4–91.9 |
| Colorectal cancer screening among adults aged 45–75 years | 75.2% | 70.6–79.4 |
| Visited dentist or dental clinic in the past year among adults | 67.7% | 64.1–71.0 |
| Mammography use among women aged 50-74 years | 75.8% | 68.1–82.6 |
Health Risk BehaviorsCDC PLACES 2022 / 2023 · BRFSS
| Measure | Crude prevalence | 95% CI |
|---|---|---|
| Binge drinking among adults | 12.5% | 10.2–15.2 |
| Current cigarette smoking among adults | 15.6% | 13.2–18.3 |
| No leisure-time physical activity among adults | 29.5% | 24.8–34.9 |
| Short sleep duration among adults | 31.8% | 25.7–38.5 |
Health StatusCDC PLACES 2023 · BRFSS
| Measure | Crude prevalence | 95% CI |
|---|---|---|
| Fair or poor self-rated health status among adults | 22.5% | 19.5–26.0 |
| Frequent mental distress among adults | 15.4% | 13.6–17.4 |
| Frequent physical distress among adults | 17.1% | 15.1–19.4 |
DisabilityCDC PLACES 2023 · BRFSS
| Measure | Crude prevalence | 95% CI |
|---|---|---|
| Cognitive disability among adults | 13.7% | 12.0–15.7 |
| Any disability among adults | 37.7% | 32.9–42.8 |
| Hearing disability among adults | 11.3% | 10.0–12.7 |
| Independent living disability among adults | 9.6% | 8.5–10.9 |
| Mobility disability among adults | 19.9% | 17.3–22.9 |
| Self-care disability among adults | 4.8% | 4.3–5.4 |
| Vision disability among adults | 5.8% | 5.2–6.6 |
Health-Related Social NeedsCDC PLACES 2023 · BRFSS
| Measure | Crude prevalence | 95% CI |
|---|---|---|
| Lack of social and emotional support among adults | 21.3% | 18.2–24.9 |
| Food insecurity in the past 12 months among adults | 13.2% | 11.0–15.8 |
| Received food stamps in the past 12 months among adults | 12.7% | 10.6–15.4 |
| Housing insecurity in the past 12 months among adults | 8.8% | 7.5–10.4 |
| Lack of reliable transportation in the past 12 months among adults | 6.8% | 5.9–7.9 |
| Loneliness among adults | 29.8% | 25.1–35.1 |
| Utility services shut-off threat in the past 12 months among adults | 6.7% | 5.7–7.8 |
Community & economyCensus ACS 5-Year · 2024 release · observed
| Measure | Value | US median (p10–p90) | MI median (p10–p90) |
|---|---|---|---|
| Poverty rate | 14.6% | 10.6% (3.1–25.8%) n=32,364 | 10.7% (4.3–22.3%) n=974 |
| Uninsured 18–64 | 5.2% | 9.0% (1.5–24.3%) n=32,286 | 6.8% (2.5–13.5%) n=975 |
| No HS diploma (25+) | 5.4% | 7.9% (1.8–20.7%) n=32,505 | 6.7% (2.5–14.2%) n=974 |
| Bachelor's or higher (25+) | 28.9% | 23.3% (9.2–53.6%) n=32,505 | 22.1% (11.4–48.3%) n=974 |
| Unemployment rate (16+) | 1.9% | 3.9% (0.0–9.8%) n=32,274 | 4.6% (1.3–10.0%) n=974 |
| Households without a vehicle | 6.4% | 3.9% (0.0–12.5%) n=32,322 | 4.5% (0.9–10.8%) n=973 |
| Broadband subscription | 85.3% | 89.3% (75.1–97.1%) n=32,322 | 88.8% (79.5–95.5%) n=973 |
| Housing cost burden (≥30% income) | 22.1% | 23.7% (10.6–40.0%) n=32,322 | 22.5% (14.8–32.9%) n=973 |
| Homeownership rate | 81.4% | 78.7% (51.7–94.0%) n=32,322 | 85.3% (62.2–94.6%) n=973 |
| Crowded housing (>1 per room) | 0.5% | 1.3% (0.0–6.3%) n=32,322 | 1.1% (0.0–3.6%) n=973 |
| Foreign-born population | 2.2% | 2.6% (0.0–18.6%) n=32,553 | 1.8% (0.3–10.0%) n=975 |
| Single-parent households | 79.7% | 53.6% (37.3–74.1%) n=32,087 | 56.5% (43.6–74.2%) n=970 |
| Population 65+ | 43.1% | 19.4% (10.8–33.6%) n=32,553 | 20.5% (13.7–35.2%) n=975 |
| Median age | 62.2 yr | 42.2 yr (33.0–56.3) n=32,292 | 43.6 yr (35.2–58.2) n=974 |
| Median household income | $53,750 | $72,070 ($46,039–$118,707) n=30,318 | $68,216 ($47,282–$105,129) n=962 |
| Median home value | $172,500 | $222,200 ($100,300–$579,820) n=30,049 | $192,350 ($116,360–$355,650) n=952 |
| Median gross rent | $744 | $1,021 ($677–$1,912) n=25,670 | $972 ($719–$1,368) n=849 |
Life expectancyNCHS / RWJF USALEEP · model-based
| Measure | Value | US median (p10–p90) | MI median (p10–p90) |
|---|---|---|---|
| Life expectancy unavailable for this ZIP — fewer than 80% of the census tracts that make it up could be matched across the 2010→2020 tract-boundary revision, so no value is published rather than an unreliable one. See how coverage gaps are handled. | |||
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