ZIP code
48840
in Haslett, MichiganPopulation 12,386
60.80/ 100
Ranked #4,266 of 32,066 US ZIPs (top 13.4%)
Ranked #104 of 973 Michigan ZIPs (top 10.7%)
Ranked #3 of 37 Lansing-East Lansing, MI ZIPs (top 8.2%)
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
18.5%
in the top 7.2% nationally
Lower is healthier
ST83rdUS93rdDefinition & 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 ›Colon-cancer screening
73.6%
in the top 5.7% nationally
Higher is healthier
ST84thUS94thDefinition & source ›
The estimated share of adults aged 45–75 who are up to date on colorectal-cancer screening.
Full methodology ›Transit access
2.6 per 1,000 residents
in the top 12.1% nationally
Higher is healthier
ST92ndUS88thDefinition & source ›
The number of public-transit stops 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 ›Fair or poor health
14.8%
in the bottom 12.7% nationally
Lower is healthier
ST9thUS13thDefinition & source ›
The estimated share of adults who rate their own general health as fair or poor.
Full methodology ›Uninsured (under 65)
4.9%
in the bottom 5.8% nationally
Lower is healthier
ST12thUS6thDefinition & source ›
The estimated share of adults aged 18–64 with no current health-insurance coverage.
Full methodology ›Homeownership rate
61.2%
in the bottom 17% nationally
Higher is healthier
ST9thUS17thDefinition & source ›
The share of occupied homes that are owned, rather than rented, by the people living in them.
Full methodology ›Independent-living disability
6.7%
in the bottom 17% nationally
Lower is healthier
ST10thUS17thDefinition & source ›
The estimated share of adults who have difficulty doing errands alone, such as visiting a doctor’s office, because of a physical, mental, or emotional condition.
Full methodology ›The read
In overall standing, Haslett, Michigan (ZIP 48840) comes out in the top 13.4% healthiest ZIPs nationally (4,266th) and the top 10.7% of Michigan (104th).
Several readings land clearly in this area's favor and shape the picture: modeled colon screening sits in the top 5.7% nationally, subsidized affordable housing settles in the top 11.2% nationally, and transit registers in the top 12.1% nationally. Lead in tap water stands in the bottom 13.1% nationally, modeled fair or poor health lands in the bottom 12.7% nationally, and modeled tooth loss is in the bottom 12.0% nationally. Fatal road crashes resides in the bottom 15% nationally, and modeled short sleep rests in the bottom 16% nationally. Modeled uninsured lies in the bottom 5.8% nationally. Set against that, modeled arsenic sits in the top 7.2% nationally.
Relative to the ZIPs around it, park land runs far higher than the surrounding ZIPs on this measure. In plain terms, arsenic is a natural groundwater contaminant, here a modeled estimate of the chance private-well levels exceed a benchmark. Lead in tap water is the EPA trigger, 15 parts per billion in tap samples, above which a water system must act on lead. Subsidized affordable housing is the main federal tax-credit program (HUD) funding affordable rental housing, counted as local units it supports. The nearest healthier ZIP overall is ZIP 48864, 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 Lansing-East Lansing, MI 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 67%
21%
Social Need / SDOH
healthier than 85%
16%
Environmental Hazard
healthier than 68%
14%
Preventive Care
healthier than 94%
13%
Risk Behavior
healthier than 87%
11%
Disability
healthier than 83%
7%
Climate / Disaster Risk
healthier than 66%
5%
Healthcare Access
healthier than 61%
5%
About typical
Mental Health
healthier than 43%
8%
Nothing measured is holding this score back.
Lifting this score
Chronic Disease Burden
healthier than 77%
21%
Social Need / SDOH
healthier than 87%
16%
Preventive Care
healthier than 88%
13%
Risk Behavior
healthier than 88%
11%
Mental Health
healthier than 84%
8%
Disability
healthier than 87%
7%
Healthcare Access
healthier than 64%
5%
About typical
Environmental Hazard
healthier than 59%
14%
Holding it back
Climate / Disaster Risk
healthier than 16%
5%
Lifting this score
Chronic Disease Burden
healthier than 67%
21%
Social Need / SDOH
healthier than 92%
16%
Environmental Hazard
healthier than 83%
14%
Preventive Care
healthier than 92%
13%
Risk Behavior
healthier than 92%
11%
Mental Health
healthier than 94%
8%
Disability
healthier than 92%
7%
Healthcare Access
healthier than 69%
5%
Holding it back
Climate / Disaster Risk
healthier than 28%
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
48823
Michiganshares a border
Score 53.25
Closest healthier
48864
Michiganshares a border
Score 68.44
Similar health profile
49306
Michigan99% similar profile
Score 62.17
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 | 30.3% | 27.7–32.9 |
| High blood pressure among adults | 35.2% | 32.2–38.2 |
| Cancer (non-skin) or melanoma among adults | 10.0% | 9.2–10.9 |
| Current asthma among adults | 11.2% | 10.1–12.3 |
| Coronary heart disease among adults | 6.2% | 5.6–6.9 |
| Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease among adults | 6.6% | 5.8–7.5 |
| Depression among adults | 26.1% | 23.3–28.9 |
| Diagnosed diabetes among adults | 10.6% | 9.4–11.9 |
| High cholesterol among adults who have ever been screened | 35.5% | 32.5–38.7 |
| Obesity among adults | 33.8% | 29.4–38.3 |
| Stroke among adults | 3.1% | 2.8–3.4 |
| All teeth lost among adults aged >=65 years | 7.8% | 6.4–9.4 |
PreventionCDC PLACES 2022 / 2023 · BRFSS
| Measure | Crude prevalence | 95% CI |
|---|---|---|
| Current lack of health insurance among adults aged 18-64 years | 4.9% | 4.2–5.8 |
| Taking medicine to control high blood pressure among adults with high blood pressure | 77.8% | 75.4–80.1 |
| Visits to doctor for routine checkup within the past year among adults | 81.3% | 78.8–83.7 |
| Cholesterol screening among adults | 89.6% | 88.3–90.8 |
| Colorectal cancer screening among adults aged 45–75 years | 73.6% | 70.2–76.9 |
| Visited dentist or dental clinic in the past year among adults | 75.8% | 73.5–78.1 |
| Mammography use among women aged 50-74 years | 78.9% | 73.5–83.4 |
Health Risk BehaviorsCDC PLACES 2022 / 2023 · BRFSS
| Measure | Crude prevalence | 95% CI |
|---|---|---|
| Binge drinking among adults | 16.4% | 14.2–18.9 |
| Current cigarette smoking among adults | 11.2% | 9.6–12.8 |
| No leisure-time physical activity among adults | 19.4% | 16.7–22.3 |
| Short sleep duration among adults | 31.3% | 27.4–35.4 |
Health StatusCDC PLACES 2023 · BRFSS
| Measure | Crude prevalence | 95% CI |
|---|---|---|
| Fair or poor self-rated health status among adults | 14.8% | 13.1–16.6 |
| Frequent mental distress among adults | 15.4% | 13.7–17.0 |
| Frequent physical distress among adults | 12.2% | 10.8–13.5 |
DisabilityCDC PLACES 2023 · BRFSS
| Measure | Crude prevalence | 95% CI |
|---|---|---|
| Cognitive disability among adults | 11.8% | 10.5–13.2 |
| Any disability among adults | 27.1% | 24.0–30.2 |
| Hearing disability among adults | 6.8% | 6.1–7.5 |
| Independent living disability among adults | 6.7% | 5.9–7.4 |
| Mobility disability among adults | 11.4% | 9.9–12.8 |
| Self-care disability among adults | 2.9% | 2.6–3.2 |
| Vision disability among adults | 3.7% | 3.3–4.0 |
Health-Related Social NeedsCDC PLACES 2023 · BRFSS
| Measure | Crude prevalence | 95% CI |
|---|---|---|
| Lack of social and emotional support among adults | 20.0% | 17.5–22.8 |
| Food insecurity in the past 12 months among adults | 9.5% | 8.1–11.1 |
| Received food stamps in the past 12 months among adults | 8.4% | 7.1–9.9 |
| Housing insecurity in the past 12 months among adults | 8.0% | 6.9–9.2 |
| Lack of reliable transportation in the past 12 months among adults | 5.8% | 5.1–6.6 |
| Loneliness among adults | 30.8% | 27.1–34.9 |
| Utility services shut-off threat in the past 12 months among adults | 5.9% | 5.1–6.7 |
Community & economyCensus ACS 5-Year · 2024 release · observed
| Measure | Value | US median (p10–p90) | MI median (p10–p90) |
|---|---|---|---|
| Poverty rate | 6.4% | 10.6% (3.1–25.8%) n=32,364 | 10.7% (4.3–22.3%) n=974 |
| Uninsured 18–64 | 3.2% | 9.0% (1.5–24.3%) n=32,286 | 6.8% (2.5–13.5%) n=975 |
| No HS diploma (25+) | 3.3% | 7.9% (1.8–20.7%) n=32,505 | 6.7% (2.5–14.2%) n=974 |
| Bachelor's or higher (25+) | 48.7% | 23.3% (9.2–53.6%) n=32,505 | 22.1% (11.4–48.3%) n=974 |
| Unemployment rate (16+) | 4.2% | 3.9% (0.0–9.8%) n=32,274 | 4.6% (1.3–10.0%) n=974 |
| Households without a vehicle | 4.9% | 3.9% (0.0–12.5%) n=32,322 | 4.5% (0.9–10.8%) n=973 |
| Broadband subscription | 91.2% | 89.3% (75.1–97.1%) n=32,322 | 88.8% (79.5–95.5%) n=973 |
| Housing cost burden (≥30% income) | 26.9% | 23.7% (10.6–40.0%) n=32,322 | 22.5% (14.8–32.9%) n=973 |
| Homeownership rate | 61.2% | 78.7% (51.7–94.0%) n=32,322 | 85.3% (62.2–94.6%) n=973 |
| Crowded housing (>1 per room) | 1.7% | 1.3% (0.0–6.3%) n=32,322 | 1.1% (0.0–3.6%) n=973 |
| Foreign-born population | 8.0% | 2.6% (0.0–18.6%) n=32,553 | 1.8% (0.3–10.0%) n=975 |
| Single-parent households | 61.6% | 53.6% (37.3–74.1%) n=32,087 | 56.5% (43.6–74.2%) n=970 |
| Population 65+ | 21.3% | 19.4% (10.8–33.6%) n=32,553 | 20.5% (13.7–35.2%) n=975 |
| Median age | 42.4 yr | 42.2 yr (33.0–56.3) n=32,292 | 43.6 yr (35.2–58.2) n=974 |
| Median household income | $73,408 | $72,070 ($46,039–$118,707) n=30,318 | $68,216 ($47,282–$105,129) n=962 |
| Median home value | $280,900 | $222,200 ($100,300–$579,820) n=30,049 | $192,350 ($116,360–$355,650) n=952 |
| Median gross rent | $1,071 | $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 | 80.3 yr ± 0.88 | 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 0.88 years of 80.3, 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