ZIP code
48628
in Hope, MichiganPopulation 2,076
54.09/ 100
Ranked #10,583 of 32,066 US ZIPs (top 33%)
Ranked #307 of 973 Michigan ZIPs (top 32%)
Too few scored ZIPs in the Midland, MI metro area to rank within it.
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
24.9%
in the top 4.5% nationally
Lower is healthier
ST87thUS96thDefinition & 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 ›Floodplain exposure
0.12%
in the bottom 7.7% nationally
Lower is healthier
ST20thUS8thDefinition & 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 ›Colon-cancer screening
72.8%
in the top 7.9% nationally
Higher is healthier
ST77thUS92ndDefinition & source ›
The estimated share of adults aged 45–75 who are up to date on colorectal-cancer screening.
Full methodology ›Transportation noise
0.58%
in the bottom 17% nationally
Lower is healthier
ST8thUS17thDefinition & source ›
The modeled share of residents exposed to average road, rail, and aviation noise at or above 55 decibels — a noticeable background presence.
Full methodology ›Radon
1 pCi/L
in the bottom 23% nationally
Lower is healthier
ST9thUS23rdDefinition & 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
On balance, and by the composite measure, Hope, Michigan (ZIP 48628) ranks in the top 33% healthiest ZIPs nationally (10,583rd) and the top 32% of Michigan (307th).
The profile opens on a set of genuinely favorable readings: floodplain exposure lies in the bottom 7.7% nationally, and modeled colon screening resides in the top 7.9% nationally. Modeled loud transportation noise lands at the national minimum, shared with about 22% of ZIPs. Park land registers in the top 12.6% nationally, homeownership sits in the top 12.9% nationally, and modeled loneliness rests in the bottom 14.1% nationally. Modeled disaster risk is in the bottom 16% nationally, and transportation noise stands in the bottom 17% nationally. On the other side, modeled arsenic settles in the top 4.5% nationally. Fiber broadband lies at the national minimum, shared with about 19% of ZIPs.
Compared with the ZIPs it borders, park land runs far higher than the surrounding ZIPs on this measure. In plainer terms, arsenic is a natural groundwater contaminant, here a modeled estimate of the chance private-well levels exceed a benchmark. Disaster risk is the area's national rank on its highest non-flood peril in FEMA's modeled Risk Index, like wildfire or quake. Floodplain exposure is land with about a 1-in-100 chance of flooding each year, nicknamed the "100-year floodplain". For a healthier nearby ZIP overall, look to ZIP 48642, 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 Midland, MI 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 89%
14%
Preventive Care
healthier than 92%
13%
Risk Behavior
healthier than 73%
11%
Climate / Disaster Risk
healthier than 94%
5%
About typical
Social Need / SDOH
healthier than 51%
16%
Disability
healthier than 54%
7%
Holding it back
Chronic Disease Burden
healthier than 36%
21%
Mental Health
healthier than 35%
8%
Healthcare Access
healthier than 26%
5%
Lifting this score
Environmental Hazard
healthier than 85%
14%
Preventive Care
healthier than 83%
13%
Risk Behavior
healthier than 74%
11%
Mental Health
healthier than 76%
8%
Climate / Disaster Risk
healthier than 86%
5%
About typical
Social Need / SDOH
healthier than 55%
16%
Disability
healthier than 55%
7%
Holding it back
Chronic Disease Burden
healthier than 38%
21%
Healthcare Access
healthier than 21%
5%
Lifting this score
Environmental Hazard
healthier than 75%
14%
Preventive Care
in the top 0.00%
13%
Mental Health
healthier than 75%
8%
Climate / Disaster Risk
in the top 0.00%
5%
Holding it back
Chronic Disease Burden
healthier than 25%
21%
Social Need / SDOH
healthier than 25%
16%
Risk Behavior
healthier than 25%
11%
Disability
healthier than 25%
7%
Healthcare Access
in the bottom 0.00%
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 88.8; chronic-disease standing 35.7 — 53 points apart, cleaner on the environment than it is on chronic illness.
Ranked #2,262 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
48612
Michiganshares a border
Score 46.38
Closest healthier
48642
Michiganshares a border
Score 59.74
Similar health profile
49676
Michigan99% similar profile
Score 53.63
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 | 34.9% | 31.7–38.2 |
| High blood pressure among adults | 39.6% | 35.9–43.3 |
| Cancer (non-skin) or melanoma among adults | 11.1% | 10.2–12.1 |
| Current asthma among adults | 11.4% | 10.2–12.7 |
| Coronary heart disease among adults | 8.2% | 7.4–9.2 |
| Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease among adults | 9.3% | 8.0–10.8 |
| Depression among adults | 26.0% | 22.8–29.5 |
| Diagnosed diabetes among adults | 12.5% | 11.0–14.2 |
| High cholesterol among adults who have ever been screened | 39.8% | 36.1–43.6 |
| Obesity among adults | 34.1% | 28.4–39.9 |
| Stroke among adults | 4.0% | 3.6–4.5 |
| All teeth lost among adults aged >=65 years | 8.6% | 7.1–10.3 |
PreventionCDC PLACES 2022 / 2023 · BRFSS
| Measure | Crude prevalence | 95% CI |
|---|---|---|
| Current lack of health insurance among adults aged 18-64 years | 5.7% | 4.5–7.2 |
| Taking medicine to control high blood pressure among adults with high blood pressure | 80.1% | 77.5–82.5 |
| Visits to doctor for routine checkup within the past year among adults | 81.5% | 78.4–84.1 |
| Cholesterol screening among adults | 89.6% | 87.9–91.0 |
| Colorectal cancer screening among adults aged 45–75 years | 72.8% | 69.0–76.3 |
| Visited dentist or dental clinic in the past year among adults | 70.0% | 67.1–72.7 |
| Mammography use among women aged 50-74 years | 78.5% | 72.4–83.5 |
Health Risk BehaviorsCDC PLACES 2022 / 2023 · BRFSS
| Measure | Crude prevalence | 95% CI |
|---|---|---|
| Binge drinking among adults | 15.6% | 13.1–18.3 |
| Current cigarette smoking among adults | 15.2% | 12.7–18.0 |
| No leisure-time physical activity among adults | 23.8% | 20.2–27.9 |
| Short sleep duration among adults | 31.6% | 26.9–36.6 |
Health StatusCDC PLACES 2023 · BRFSS
| Measure | Crude prevalence | 95% CI |
|---|---|---|
| Fair or poor self-rated health status among adults | 19.1% | 16.7–22.0 |
| Frequent mental distress among adults | 16.4% | 14.6–18.4 |
| Frequent physical distress among adults | 15.3% | 13.6–17.2 |
DisabilityCDC PLACES 2023 · BRFSS
| Measure | Crude prevalence | 95% CI |
|---|---|---|
| Cognitive disability among adults | 13.6% | 11.9–15.5 |
| Any disability among adults | 31.5% | 27.9–35.6 |
| Hearing disability among adults | 8.6% | 7.7–9.6 |
| Independent living disability among adults | 8.3% | 7.3–9.5 |
| Mobility disability among adults | 15.2% | 13.3–17.5 |
| Self-care disability among adults | 3.9% | 3.4–4.4 |
| Vision disability among adults | 4.6% | 4.1–5.2 |
Health-Related Social NeedsCDC PLACES 2023 · BRFSS
| Measure | Crude prevalence | 95% CI |
|---|---|---|
| Lack of social and emotional support among adults | 21.2% | 18.0–24.5 |
| Food insecurity in the past 12 months among adults | 11.5% | 9.4–13.9 |
| Received food stamps in the past 12 months among adults | 10.7% | 8.6–13.0 |
| Housing insecurity in the past 12 months among adults | 8.9% | 7.4–10.5 |
| Lack of reliable transportation in the past 12 months among adults | 6.4% | 5.5–7.4 |
| Loneliness among adults | 29.0% | 24.7–33.4 |
| Utility services shut-off threat in the past 12 months among adults | 6.6% | 5.6–7.6 |
Community & economyCensus ACS 5-Year · 2024 release · observed
| Measure | Value | US median (p10–p90) | MI median (p10–p90) |
|---|---|---|---|
| Poverty rate | 6.1% | 10.6% (3.1–25.8%) n=32,364 | 10.7% (4.3–22.3%) n=974 |
| Uninsured 18–64 | 3.9% | 9.0% (1.5–24.3%) n=32,286 | 6.8% (2.5–13.5%) n=975 |
| No HS diploma (25+) | 4.5% | 7.9% (1.8–20.7%) n=32,505 | 6.7% (2.5–14.2%) n=974 |
| Bachelor's or higher (25+) | 32.8% | 23.3% (9.2–53.6%) n=32,505 | 22.1% (11.4–48.3%) n=974 |
| Unemployment rate (16+) | 3.3% | 3.9% (0.0–9.8%) n=32,274 | 4.6% (1.3–10.0%) n=974 |
| Households without a vehicle | 1.4% | 3.9% (0.0–12.5%) n=32,322 | 4.5% (0.9–10.8%) n=973 |
| Broadband subscription | 87.0% | 89.3% (75.1–97.1%) n=32,322 | 88.8% (79.5–95.5%) n=973 |
| Housing cost burden (≥30% income) | 15.5% | 23.7% (10.6–40.0%) n=32,322 | 22.5% (14.8–32.9%) n=973 |
| Homeownership rate | 92.4% | 78.7% (51.7–94.0%) n=32,322 | 85.3% (62.2–94.6%) n=973 |
| Crowded housing (>1 per room) | 1.0% | 1.3% (0.0–6.3%) n=32,322 | 1.1% (0.0–3.6%) n=973 |
| Foreign-born population | 2.8% | 2.6% (0.0–18.6%) n=32,553 | 1.8% (0.3–10.0%) n=975 |
| Single-parent households | 68.4% | 53.6% (37.3–74.1%) n=32,087 | 56.5% (43.6–74.2%) n=970 |
| Population 65+ | 22.8% | 19.4% (10.8–33.6%) n=32,553 | 20.5% (13.7–35.2%) n=975 |
| Median age | 47.3 yr | 42.2 yr (33.0–56.3) n=32,292 | 43.6 yr (35.2–58.2) n=974 |
| Median household income | $93,854 | $72,070 ($46,039–$118,707) n=30,318 | $68,216 ($47,282–$105,129) n=962 |
| Median home value | $215,600 | $222,200 ($100,300–$579,820) n=30,049 | $192,350 ($116,360–$355,650) n=952 |
| Median gross rent | $1,500 | $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 at birth | 79.5 yr ± 0.75 | 78.9 yr (74.7–82.8) n=31,308 | 78.6 yr (75.7–81.6) n=940 |
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 0.75 years of 79.5, 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