ZIP code
49406
in Douglas, MichiganPopulation 1,085
63.48/ 100
Ranked #2,717 of 32,066 US ZIPs (top 8.5%)
Ranked #63 of 973 Michigan ZIPs (top 6.5%)
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.
Grocery access
0.97 per 1,000 residents
in the top 0.4% nationally
Higher is healthier
ST99thUS99thDefinition & source ›
The number of full supermarkets 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. ZipVitals’s food-access signal is derived from these in-ZIP densities — it is not USDA’s food-desert designation, which measures distance to the nearest supermarket. Where a leg is missing, a ZIP reads “not determinable,” never “not a food desert.”
Full methodology ›PFAS in drinking water
89.2%
in the top 0.5% nationally
Lower is healthier
ST99thUS99thDefinition & source ›
The modeled probability that PFAS “forever chemicals” would be detected in untreated groundwater in this area, the source private wells draw on.
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 ›Housing insecurity
5.4%
in the bottom 1.2% nationally
Lower is healthier
ST1stUS1stDefinition & source ›
The estimated share of adults who experienced housing insecurity in the past 12 months.
Full methodology ›Dental provider access
1.9 per 1,000 residents
in the top 1.3% nationally
Higher is healthier
ST99thUS99thDefinition & source ›
The number of dental offices 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 ›Loneliness
26.3%
in the bottom 1.5% nationally
Lower is healthier
ST1stUS1stDefinition & source ›
The estimated share of adults who report feeling lonely.
Full methodology ›Recreation access
1.9 per 1,000 residents
in the top 1.8% nationally
Higher is healthier
ST99thUS98thDefinition & 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 ›Short sleep
26.3%
in the bottom 0.9% nationally
Lower is healthier
ST2ndUS1stDefinition & source ›
The estimated share of adults who usually sleep less than seven hours in a 24-hour period.
Full methodology ›Natural-disaster risk
in the bottom 1.9% nationally
Lower is healthier
ST6thUS2ndDefinition & 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 ›Lack of transportation
4.2%
in the bottom 2.2% nationally
Lower is healthier
ST2ndUS2ndDefinition & source ›
The estimated share of adults who lacked reliable transportation in the past 12 months.
Full methodology ›Colon-cancer screening
76.2%
in the top 1.7% nationally
Higher is healthier
ST96thUS98thDefinition & source ›
The estimated share of adults aged 45–75 who are up to date on colorectal-cancer screening.
Full methodology ›The read
In its overall standing, Douglas, Michigan (ZIP 49406) lands in the top 8.5% healthiest ZIPs nationally (2,717th) and the top 6.5% of Michigan (63rd).
Reading the numbers as a whole, the picture lands somewhere in between: grocery lies in the top 0.4% nationally, modeled housing insecurity stands in the bottom 1.2% nationally, and dental providers rests in the top 1.3% nationally. Modeled loneliness registers in the bottom 1.5% nationally, recreation resides in the top 1.8% nationally, and modeled short sleep settles in the bottom 0.9% nationally. Modeled disaster risk is in the bottom 1.9% nationally, and transportation sits in the bottom 2.2% nationally. Modeled colon screening lands in the top 1.7% nationally. On the other side, modeled pfas lies in the top 0.5% nationally.
Against the wider neighborhood, grocery runs far higher than the surrounding ZIPs on this measure. Put simply, pfas is the man-made "forever chemicals" that build up in the body and environment instead of breaking down; here a modeled estimate of the chance a private well contains them. Disaster risk is the area's national rank on its highest non-flood peril in FEMA's modeled Risk Index, like wildfire or quake. On the overall standing, ZIP 49453, just across the boundary, ranks healthier.
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
Social Need / SDOH
healthier than 96%
16%
Environmental Hazard
healthier than 71%
14%
Preventive Care
in the top 0.4%
13%
Risk Behavior
healthier than 96%
11%
Mental Health
healthier than 88%
8%
Disability
healthier than 79%
7%
About typical
Climate / Disaster Risk
healthier than 51%
5%
Holding it back
Chronic Disease Burden
healthier than 36%
21%
Healthcare Access
healthier than 24%
5%
Lifting this score
Social Need / SDOH
healthier than 98%
16%
Environmental Hazard
healthier than 63%
14%
Preventive Care
in the top 0.6%
13%
Risk Behavior
healthier than 97%
11%
Mental Health
healthier than 97%
8%
Disability
healthier than 83%
7%
Holding it back
Chronic Disease Burden
healthier than 39%
21%
Climate / Disaster Risk
healthier than 6%
5%
Healthcare Access
healthier than 19%
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
49408
Michiganshares a border
Score 52.68
Closest healthier
49453
Michiganshares a border
Score 65.55
Similar health profile
02666
Massachusetts99% similar profile
Score 63.05
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 | 36.2% | 32.4–40.2 |
| High blood pressure among adults | 40.9% | 36.6–45.4 |
| Cancer (non-skin) or melanoma among adults | 13.9% | 12.6–15.3 |
| Current asthma among adults | 10.1% | 8.9–11.3 |
| Coronary heart disease among adults | 8.4% | 7.4–9.6 |
| Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease among adults | 7.9% | 6.5–9.5 |
| Depression among adults | 21.9% | 18.7–25.3 |
| Diagnosed diabetes among adults | 13.0% | 11.1–15.1 |
| High cholesterol among adults who have ever been screened | 41.3% | 36.7–45.8 |
| Obesity among adults | 32.7% | 26.4–39.6 |
| Stroke among adults | 3.8% | 3.3–4.4 |
| All teeth lost among adults aged >=65 years | 7.3% | 5.8–8.9 |
PreventionCDC PLACES 2022 / 2023 · BRFSS
| Measure | Crude prevalence | 95% CI |
|---|---|---|
| Current lack of health insurance among adults aged 18-64 years | 3.9% | 3.0–4.9 |
| Taking medicine to control high blood pressure among adults with high blood pressure | 83.1% | 80.2–85.7 |
| Visits to doctor for routine checkup within the past year among adults | 85.0% | 82.3–87.5 |
| Cholesterol screening among adults | 93.2% | 92.1–94.3 |
| Colorectal cancer screening among adults aged 45–75 years | 76.2% | 71.9–80.0 |
| Visited dentist or dental clinic in the past year among adults | 79.3% | 76.7–81.8 |
| Mammography use among women aged 50-74 years | 82.6% | 76.8–87.3 |
Health Risk BehaviorsCDC PLACES 2022 / 2023 · BRFSS
| Measure | Crude prevalence | 95% CI |
|---|---|---|
| Binge drinking among adults | 14.9% | 12.3–17.8 |
| Current cigarette smoking among adults | 10.4% | 8.2–13.0 |
| No leisure-time physical activity among adults | 20.6% | 16.8–25.1 |
| Short sleep duration among adults | 26.3% | 21.6–31.2 |
Health StatusCDC PLACES 2023 · BRFSS
| Measure | Crude prevalence | 95% CI |
|---|---|---|
| Fair or poor self-rated health status among adults | 15.4% | 12.9–18.5 |
| Frequent mental distress among adults | 12.2% | 10.6–14.0 |
| Frequent physical distress among adults | 13.1% | 11.2–15.2 |
DisabilityCDC PLACES 2023 · BRFSS
| Measure | Crude prevalence | 95% CI |
|---|---|---|
| Cognitive disability among adults | 9.7% | 8.3–11.4 |
| Any disability among adults | 28.2% | 24.2–32.7 |
| Hearing disability among adults | 8.7% | 7.6–9.9 |
| Independent living disability among adults | 6.3% | 5.3–7.4 |
| Mobility disability among adults | 13.5% | 11.2–16.1 |
| Self-care disability among adults | 3.1% | 2.6–3.7 |
| Vision disability among adults | 3.7% | 3.2–4.4 |
Health-Related Social NeedsCDC PLACES 2023 · BRFSS
| Measure | Crude prevalence | 95% CI |
|---|---|---|
| Lack of social and emotional support among adults | 17.9% | 14.8–21.1 |
| Food insecurity in the past 12 months among adults | 7.1% | 5.5–9.1 |
| Received food stamps in the past 12 months among adults | 6.1% | 4.5–8.0 |
| Housing insecurity in the past 12 months among adults | 5.4% | 4.3–6.6 |
| Lack of reliable transportation in the past 12 months among adults | 4.2% | 3.5–5.1 |
| Loneliness among adults | 26.3% | 21.8–31.0 |
| Utility services shut-off threat in the past 12 months among adults | 4.1% | 3.3–4.9 |
Community & economyCensus ACS 5-Year · 2024 release · observed
| Measure | Value | US median (p10–p90) | MI median (p10–p90) |
|---|---|---|---|
| Poverty rate | 3.1% | 10.6% (3.1–25.8%) n=32,364 | 10.7% (4.3–22.3%) n=974 |
| Uninsured 18–64 | 10.8% | 9.0% (1.5–24.3%) n=32,286 | 6.8% (2.5–13.5%) n=975 |
| No HS diploma (25+) | 0.6% | 7.9% (1.8–20.7%) n=32,505 | 6.7% (2.5–14.2%) n=974 |
| Bachelor's or higher (25+) | 63.5% | 23.3% (9.2–53.6%) n=32,505 | 22.1% (11.4–48.3%) n=974 |
| Unemployment rate (16+) | 1.3% | 3.9% (0.0–9.8%) n=32,274 | 4.6% (1.3–10.0%) n=974 |
| Households without a vehicle | 2.2% | 3.9% (0.0–12.5%) n=32,322 | 4.5% (0.9–10.8%) n=973 |
| Broadband subscription | 98.3% | 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 | 96.8% | 78.7% (51.7–94.0%) n=32,322 | 85.3% (62.2–94.6%) n=973 |
| Crowded housing (>1 per room) | 0.0% | 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 | 70.6% | 53.6% (37.3–74.1%) n=32,087 | 56.5% (43.6–74.2%) n=970 |
| Population 65+ | 33.9% | 19.4% (10.8–33.6%) n=32,553 | 20.5% (13.7–35.2%) n=975 |
| Median age | 59.2 yr | 42.2 yr (33.0–56.3) n=32,292 | 43.6 yr (35.2–58.2) n=974 |
| Median household income | $102,500 | $72,070 ($46,039–$118,707) n=30,318 | $68,216 ($47,282–$105,129) n=962 |
| Median home value | $497,100 | $222,200 ($100,300–$579,820) n=30,049 | $192,350 ($116,360–$355,650) n=952 |
| Median gross rent | — | $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