ZIP code
48867
in Owosso, MichiganPopulation 27,500
47.09/ 100
Ranked #20,051 of 32,066 US ZIPs (bottom 37%)
Ranked #680 of 973 Michigan ZIPs (bottom 30%)
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
36.1%
in the top 2.2% nationally
Lower is healthier
ST92ndUS98thDefinition & 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 ›Lead in tap water
8.3 ppb
in the top 4.7% nationally
Lower is healthier
US95thDefinition & source ›
The lead level at the 90th percentile of tap-water samples reported by the public water systems serving this ZIP, in parts per billion — the EPA requires action above 15 ppb.
Measured from EPA records for the public water systems that serve this ZIP. Households on private wells — roughly 30% of the US population — are not covered by this measure, and this figure says nothing about their water.
Full methodology ›Subsidized affordable housing
431 units
in the top 5.4% nationally
Higher is healthier
ST94thUS95thDefinition & source ›
The number of affordable rental units in this ZIP supported by the federal Low-Income Housing Tax Credit program.
Full methodology ›Expected annual disaster loss
$0
in the top 5.5% nationally
Lower is healthier
ST99thUS95thDefinition & source ›
FEMA’s modeled estimate, in dollars per year, of the average harm to people expected from natural hazards — an annualized average, not a forecast for any single year.
Full methodology ›Natural-disaster risk
in the top 6.9% nationally
Lower is healthier
ST99thUS93rdDefinition & source ›
This area’s national rank on its single highest non-flood natural hazard — such as wildfire, tornado, or earthquake — in FEMA’s modeled National Risk Index; flooding is shown separately.
Full methodology ›Mental-health provider access
0.14 per 1,000 residents
in the top 7.0% nationally
Higher is healthier
ST93rdUS93rdDefinition & 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
79.2%
in the top 24% nationally
Higher is healthier
ST92ndUS76thDefinition & source ›
The share of homes where fiber-optic internet service is available.
Full methodology ›The read
Owosso, Michigan (ZIP 48867), by its overall standing, sits in the bottom 37% nationally (20,051st) and the bottom 30% of Michigan (680th).
The measures fall on both sides of the ledger for this area: subsidized affordable housing is in the top 5.4% nationally. Distance to an emergency room resides at the national minimum, shared with about 11% of ZIPs. Mental-health providers rests in the top 7.0% nationally, and physicians lies in the top 10.1% nationally. Distance to a community health center sits at the national minimum, shared with about 23% of ZIPs. Distance to a nursing home settles at the national minimum, shared with about 27% of ZIPs. Set against that, modeled arsenic registers in the top 2.2% nationally, and lead in tap water stands in the top 4.7% nationally. Modeled expected annual loss lands in the top 5.5% nationally, and disaster risk is in the top 6.9% nationally.
Held up against its neighbors, expected annual loss runs far higher than the surrounding ZIPs on this measure. Defined 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. Expected annual loss is FEMA's modeled estimate, in dollars, of average yearly harm to people from natural hazards. The nearest ZIP ranking healthier overall is ZIP 48414, 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
Preventive Care
healthier than 69%
13%
Climate / Disaster Risk
healthier than 85%
5%
Healthcare Access
in the top 0.00%
5%
About typical
Environmental Hazard
healthier than 42%
14%
Risk Behavior
healthier than 41%
11%
Holding it back
Chronic Disease Burden
healthier than 34%
21%
Social Need / SDOH
healthier than 35%
16%
Mental Health
healthier than 9%
8%
Disability
healthier than 37%
7%
Lifting this score
Healthcare Access
in the top 0.00%
5%
About typical
Climate / Disaster Risk
healthier than 53%
5%
Holding it back
Chronic Disease Burden
healthier than 35%
21%
Social Need / SDOH
healthier than 39%
16%
Environmental Hazard
healthier than 28%
14%
Preventive Care
healthier than 36%
13%
Risk Behavior
healthier than 29%
11%
Mental Health
healthier than 13%
8%
Disability
healthier than 31%
7%
“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
48414
Michiganshares a border
Score 49.07
Closest healthier
48429
Michiganshares a border
Score 48.89
Similar health profile
48509
Michigan99% similar profile
Score 46.34
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 | 32.8% | 29.5–36.2 |
| High blood pressure among adults | 38.1% | 34.2–42.2 |
| Cancer (non-skin) or melanoma among adults | 9.9% | 9.1–10.8 |
| Current asthma among adults | 12.0% | 10.7–13.5 |
| Coronary heart disease among adults | 8.0% | 7.2–8.9 |
| Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease among adults | 9.9% | 8.9–11.0 |
| Depression among adults | 28.9% | 25.2–32.9 |
| Diagnosed diabetes among adults | 12.9% | 11.3–14.7 |
| High cholesterol among adults who have ever been screened | 37.4% | 33.3–41.6 |
| Obesity among adults | 39.4% | 32.2–47.0 |
| Stroke among adults | 4.0% | 3.7–4.4 |
| All teeth lost among adults aged >=65 years | 10.9% | 8.8–13.2 |
PreventionCDC PLACES 2022 / 2023 · BRFSS
| Measure | Crude prevalence | 95% CI |
|---|---|---|
| Current lack of health insurance among adults aged 18-64 years | 7.3% | 6.3–8.5 |
| Taking medicine to control high blood pressure among adults with high blood pressure | 77.9% | 75.2–80.5 |
| Visits to doctor for routine checkup within the past year among adults | 80.5% | 77.2–83.4 |
| Cholesterol screening among adults | 86.4% | 84.8–87.9 |
| Colorectal cancer screening among adults aged 45–75 years | 69.6% | 64.6–74.0 |
| Visited dentist or dental clinic in the past year among adults | 66.3% | 62.9–69.7 |
| Mammography use among women aged 50-74 years | 74.8% | 66.7–81.3 |
Health Risk BehaviorsCDC PLACES 2022 / 2023 · BRFSS
| Measure | Crude prevalence | 95% CI |
|---|---|---|
| Binge drinking among adults | 15.6% | 12.9–18.6 |
| Current cigarette smoking among adults | 17.3% | 15.1–19.7 |
| No leisure-time physical activity among adults | 27.4% | 23.3–32.0 |
| Short sleep duration among adults | 36.0% | 29.6–42.3 |
Health StatusCDC PLACES 2023 · BRFSS
| Measure | Crude prevalence | 95% CI |
|---|---|---|
| Fair or poor self-rated health status among adults | 22.0% | 19.4–24.9 |
| Frequent mental distress among adults | 19.3% | 17.3–21.5 |
| Frequent physical distress among adults | 16.2% | 14.4–18.1 |
DisabilityCDC PLACES 2023 · BRFSS
| Measure | Crude prevalence | 95% CI |
|---|---|---|
| Cognitive disability among adults | 16.2% | 14.6–18.2 |
| Any disability among adults | 34.5% | 30.5–38.9 |
| Hearing disability among adults | 8.5% | 7.6–9.5 |
| Independent living disability among adults | 9.9% | 9.0–11.0 |
| Mobility disability among adults | 16.3% | 14.4–18.5 |
| Self-care disability among adults | 4.3% | 4.0–4.7 |
| Vision disability among adults | 5.4% | 5.0–6.0 |
Health-Related Social NeedsCDC PLACES 2023 · BRFSS
| Measure | Crude prevalence | 95% CI |
|---|---|---|
| Lack of social and emotional support among adults | 23.6% | 20.2–27.3 |
| Food insecurity in the past 12 months among adults | 15.6% | 13.4–18.1 |
| Received food stamps in the past 12 months among adults | 15.5% | 13.3–17.7 |
| Housing insecurity in the past 12 months among adults | 11.4% | 9.9–13.3 |
| Lack of reliable transportation in the past 12 months among adults | 8.4% | 7.4–9.5 |
| Loneliness among adults | 33.3% | 28.4–38.6 |
| Utility services shut-off threat in the past 12 months among adults | 8.6% | 7.5–9.9 |
Community & economyCensus ACS 5-Year · 2024 release · observed
| Measure | Value | US median (p10–p90) | MI median (p10–p90) |
|---|---|---|---|
| Poverty rate | 14.7% | 10.6% (3.1–25.8%) n=32,364 | 10.7% (4.3–22.3%) n=974 |
| Uninsured 18–64 | 6.7% | 9.0% (1.5–24.3%) n=32,286 | 6.8% (2.5–13.5%) n=975 |
| No HS diploma (25+) | 7.8% | 7.9% (1.8–20.7%) n=32,505 | 6.7% (2.5–14.2%) n=974 |
| Bachelor's or higher (25+) | 20.9% | 23.3% (9.2–53.6%) n=32,505 | 22.1% (11.4–48.3%) n=974 |
| Unemployment rate (16+) | 4.6% | 3.9% (0.0–9.8%) n=32,274 | 4.6% (1.3–10.0%) n=974 |
| Households without a vehicle | 7.3% | 3.9% (0.0–12.5%) n=32,322 | 4.5% (0.9–10.8%) n=973 |
| Broadband subscription | 88.4% | 89.3% (75.1–97.1%) n=32,322 | 88.8% (79.5–95.5%) n=973 |
| Housing cost burden (≥30% income) | 24.3% | 23.7% (10.6–40.0%) n=32,322 | 22.5% (14.8–32.9%) n=973 |
| Homeownership rate | 76.0% | 78.7% (51.7–94.0%) n=32,322 | 85.3% (62.2–94.6%) n=973 |
| Crowded housing (>1 per room) | 1.1% | 1.3% (0.0–6.3%) n=32,322 | 1.1% (0.0–3.6%) n=973 |
| Foreign-born population | 1.1% | 2.6% (0.0–18.6%) n=32,553 | 1.8% (0.3–10.0%) n=975 |
| Single-parent households | 56.3% | 53.6% (37.3–74.1%) n=32,087 | 56.5% (43.6–74.2%) n=970 |
| Population 65+ | 19.3% | 19.4% (10.8–33.6%) n=32,553 | 20.5% (13.7–35.2%) n=975 |
| Median age | 42.7 yr | 42.2 yr (33.0–56.3) n=32,292 | 43.6 yr (35.2–58.2) n=974 |
| Median household income | $59,825 | $72,070 ($46,039–$118,707) n=30,318 | $68,216 ($47,282–$105,129) n=962 |
| Median home value | $154,400 | $222,200 ($100,300–$579,820) n=30,049 | $192,350 ($116,360–$355,650) n=952 |
| Median gross rent | $828 | $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 | 77.1 yr ± 0.52 | 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 0.52 years of 77.1, 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