ZIP code
49617
in Beulah, MichiganPopulation 3,526
53.87/ 100
Ranked #10,861 of 32,066 US ZIPs (top 34%)
Ranked #313 of 973 Michigan ZIPs (top 32%)
Ranked #19 of 28 Traverse City, MI ZIPs (bottom 32%)
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.
Civic-institution access
0.91 per 1,000 residents
in the top 4.9% nationally
Higher is healthier
ST97thUS95thDefinition & source ›
The number of civic and social organizations 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 ›Park land
20.8%
in the top 6.7% nationally
Higher is healthier
ST90thUS93rdDefinition & source ›
The share of this ZIP’s land area that is public parkland.
Full methodology ›Short sleep
29.1%
in the bottom 6.2% nationally
Lower is healthier
ST7thUS6thDefinition & source ›
The estimated share of adults who usually sleep less than seven hours in a 24-hour period.
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 ›Floodplain exposure
13.0%
in the top 30% nationally
Lower is healthier
ST90thUS70thDefinition & 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 ›The read
Beulah, Michigan (ZIP 49617), by its overall standing, sits in the top 34% healthiest ZIPs nationally (10,861st) and the top 32% of Michigan (313th).
Several good marks anchor the profile and deserve first mention: civic lands in the top 4.9% nationally, park land is in the top 6.7% nationally, and modeled short sleep resides in the bottom 6.2% nationally. Modeled colon screening rests in the top 5.7% nationally, homeownership lies in the top 11.2% nationally, and modeled humid heat sits in the bottom 11.4% nationally. Distance to a hazardous-chemical facility settles in the top 14.7% nationally, and modeled industrial-pollution burden registers in the bottom 15% nationally. Modeled loneliness stands in the bottom 16% nationally. By contrast, modeled pfas lands in the top 16% nationally.
Held up against its neighbors, park land runs far higher than the surrounding ZIPs on this measure. Defined in plain terms, distance to a hazardous-chemical facility is a plant handling large amounts of hazardous chemicals that must file an EPA risk-management plan for accidental releases. Industrial-pollution burden is the EPA's modeled screening score weighting industrial chemical releases by their toxicity and how many people live nearby. 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. The nearest ZIP ranking healthier overall is ZIP 49616, 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 Traverse City, MI metro area.
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 65%
16%
Environmental Hazard
healthier than 88%
14%
Preventive Care
healthier than 93%
13%
Risk Behavior
healthier than 86%
11%
Climate / Disaster Risk
healthier than 68%
5%
Healthcare Access
healthier than 73%
5%
About typical
Mental Health
healthier than 45%
8%
Disability
healthier than 47%
7%
Holding it back
Chronic Disease Burden
healthier than 21%
21%
Lifting this score
Social Need / SDOH
healthier than 69%
16%
Environmental Hazard
healthier than 85%
14%
Preventive Care
healthier than 87%
13%
Risk Behavior
healthier than 87%
11%
Mental Health
healthier than 84%
8%
Healthcare Access
healthier than 77%
5%
About typical
Disability
healthier than 47%
7%
Holding it back
Chronic Disease Burden
healthier than 18%
21%
Climate / Disaster Risk
healthier than 18%
5%
Lifting this score
Healthcare Access
healthier than 92%
5%
About typical
Environmental Hazard
healthier than 54%
14%
Risk Behavior
healthier than 54%
11%
Holding it back
Chronic Disease Burden
in the bottom 0.00%
21%
Social Need / SDOH
healthier than 31%
16%
Preventive Care
healthier than 38%
13%
Mental Health
healthier than 38%
8%
Disability
healthier than 8%
7%
Climate / Disaster Risk
healthier than 15%
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 88.4; chronic-disease standing 21.0 — 67 points apart, cleaner on the environment than it is on chronic illness.
Ranked #1,230 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
49616
Michiganshares a border
Score 54.28
Closest healthier
49635
Michiganshares a border
Score 57.50
Similar health profile
27053
North Carolina97% similar profile
Score 51.78
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 | 37.5% | 33.4–41.6 |
| High blood pressure among adults | 42.1% | 37.4–46.9 |
| Cancer (non-skin) or melanoma among adults | 12.9% | 11.7–14.2 |
| Current asthma among adults | 11.2% | 9.9–12.6 |
| Coronary heart disease among adults | 9.2% | 8.2–10.2 |
| Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease among adults | 9.8% | 8.5–11.1 |
| Depression among adults | 25.6% | 21.8–29.7 |
| Diagnosed diabetes among adults | 13.8% | 11.9–15.9 |
| High cholesterol among adults who have ever been screened | 40.4% | 35.6–45.4 |
| Obesity among adults | 36.1% | 27.7–44.9 |
| Stroke among adults | 4.4% | 4.0–4.8 |
| All teeth lost among adults aged >=65 years | 11.5% | 9.2–13.9 |
PreventionCDC PLACES 2022 / 2023 · BRFSS
| Measure | Crude prevalence | 95% CI |
|---|---|---|
| Current lack of health insurance among adults aged 18-64 years | 5.7% | 4.6–7.0 |
| Taking medicine to control high blood pressure among adults with high blood pressure | 82.3% | 79.3–84.9 |
| Visits to doctor for routine checkup within the past year among adults | 83.2% | 80.0–86.1 |
| Cholesterol screening among adults | 90.5% | 89.2–91.8 |
| Colorectal cancer screening among adults aged 45–75 years | 73.6% | 69.1–77.7 |
| Visited dentist or dental clinic in the past year among adults | 70.5% | 67.1–73.6 |
| Mammography use among women aged 50-74 years | 74.6% | 66.6–81.1 |
Health Risk BehaviorsCDC PLACES 2022 / 2023 · BRFSS
| Measure | Crude prevalence | 95% CI |
|---|---|---|
| Binge drinking among adults | 14.1% | 11.4–17.2 |
| Current cigarette smoking among adults | 14.0% | 11.7–16.6 |
| No leisure-time physical activity among adults | 24.7% | 20.2–29.7 |
| Short sleep duration among adults | 29.1% | 23.2–35.3 |
Health StatusCDC PLACES 2023 · BRFSS
| Measure | Crude prevalence | 95% CI |
|---|---|---|
| Fair or poor self-rated health status among adults | 19.4% | 16.6–22.5 |
| Frequent mental distress among adults | 15.6% | 13.8–17.7 |
| Frequent physical distress among adults | 15.3% | 13.4–17.4 |
DisabilityCDC PLACES 2023 · BRFSS
| Measure | Crude prevalence | 95% CI |
|---|---|---|
| Cognitive disability among adults | 13.1% | 11.5–14.9 |
| Any disability among adults | 33.7% | 29.1–38.6 |
| Hearing disability among adults | 9.7% | 8.6–10.9 |
| Independent living disability among adults | 8.4% | 7.4–9.5 |
| Mobility disability among adults | 16.3% | 14.0–18.8 |
| Self-care disability among adults | 4.0% | 3.5–4.5 |
| Vision disability among adults | 4.8% | 4.3–5.4 |
Health-Related Social NeedsCDC PLACES 2023 · BRFSS
| Measure | Crude prevalence | 95% CI |
|---|---|---|
| Lack of social and emotional support among adults | 20.2% | 16.9–23.5 |
| Food insecurity in the past 12 months among adults | 11.1% | 9.3–13.3 |
| Received food stamps in the past 12 months among adults | 10.6% | 8.8–12.7 |
| Housing insecurity in the past 12 months among adults | 8.2% | 7.0–9.7 |
| Lack of reliable transportation in the past 12 months among adults | 6.2% | 5.4–7.1 |
| Loneliness among adults | 29.2% | 24.5–34.0 |
| Utility services shut-off threat in the past 12 months among adults | 6.2% | 5.3–7.2 |
Community & economyCensus ACS 5-Year · 2024 release · observed
| Measure | Value | US median (p10–p90) | MI median (p10–p90) |
|---|---|---|---|
| Poverty rate | 9.7% | 10.6% (3.1–25.8%) n=32,364 | 10.7% (4.3–22.3%) n=974 |
| Uninsured 18–64 | 9.2% | 9.0% (1.5–24.3%) n=32,286 | 6.8% (2.5–13.5%) n=975 |
| No HS diploma (25+) | 5.2% | 7.9% (1.8–20.7%) n=32,505 | 6.7% (2.5–14.2%) n=974 |
| Bachelor's or higher (25+) | 37.6% | 23.3% (9.2–53.6%) n=32,505 | 22.1% (11.4–48.3%) n=974 |
| Unemployment rate (16+) | 3.7% | 3.9% (0.0–9.8%) n=32,274 | 4.6% (1.3–10.0%) n=974 |
| Households without a vehicle | 2.3% | 3.9% (0.0–12.5%) n=32,322 | 4.5% (0.9–10.8%) n=973 |
| Broadband subscription | 94.0% | 89.3% (75.1–97.1%) n=32,322 | 88.8% (79.5–95.5%) n=973 |
| Housing cost burden (≥30% income) | 26.0% | 23.7% (10.6–40.0%) n=32,322 | 22.5% (14.8–32.9%) n=973 |
| Homeownership rate | 93.3% | 78.7% (51.7–94.0%) n=32,322 | 85.3% (62.2–94.6%) n=973 |
| Crowded housing (>1 per room) | 0.8% | 1.3% (0.0–6.3%) n=32,322 | 1.1% (0.0–3.6%) n=973 |
| Foreign-born population | 2.4% | 2.6% (0.0–18.6%) n=32,553 | 1.8% (0.3–10.0%) n=975 |
| Single-parent households | 57.2% | 53.6% (37.3–74.1%) n=32,087 | 56.5% (43.6–74.2%) n=970 |
| Population 65+ | 31.0% | 19.4% (10.8–33.6%) n=32,553 | 20.5% (13.7–35.2%) n=975 |
| Median age | 52.1 yr | 42.2 yr (33.0–56.3) n=32,292 | 43.6 yr (35.2–58.2) n=974 |
| Median household income | $74,207 | $72,070 ($46,039–$118,707) n=30,318 | $68,216 ($47,282–$105,129) n=962 |
| Median home value | $304,000 | $222,200 ($100,300–$579,820) n=30,049 | $192,350 ($116,360–$355,650) n=952 |
| Median gross rent | $738 | $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 | 78.5 yr ± 0.87 | 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 0.87 years of 78.5, 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