ZIP code
49653
in Lake Leelanau, MichiganPopulation 1,766
61.59/ 100
Ranked #3,766 of 32,066 US ZIPs (top 11.8%)
Ranked #90 of 973 Michigan ZIPs (top 9.3%)
Ranked #8 of 28 Traverse City, MI ZIPs (top 29%)
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.
Colon-cancer screening
78.5%
in the top 0.6% nationally
Higher is healthier
ST99thUS99thDefinition & source ›
The estimated share of adults aged 45–75 who are up to date on colorectal-cancer screening.
Full methodology ›Recreation access
1.5 per 1,000 residents
in the top 3.6% nationally
Higher is healthier
ST98thUS96thDefinition & 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 ›Housing insecurity
6.3%
in the bottom 3.6% nationally
Lower is healthier
ST3rdUS4thDefinition & source ›
The estimated share of adults who experienced housing insecurity in the past 12 months.
Full methodology ›Short sleep
27.9%
in the bottom 2.9% nationally
Lower is healthier
ST4thUS3rdDefinition & source ›
The estimated share of adults who usually sleep less than seven hours in a 24-hour period.
Full methodology ›Lack of transportation
4.6%
in the bottom 4.4% nationally
Lower is healthier
ST3rdUS4thDefinition & source ›
The estimated share of adults who lacked reliable transportation in the past 12 months.
Full methodology ›Loneliness
27.5%
in the bottom 5.0% nationally
Lower is healthier
ST3rdUS5thDefinition & source ›
The estimated share of adults who report feeling lonely.
Full methodology ›Food insecurity
7.8%
in the bottom 6.6% nationally
Lower is healthier
ST4thUS7thDefinition & source ›
The estimated share of adults who experienced food insecurity in the past 12 months.
Full methodology ›Air-toxics cancer risk
19.5 per million
in the bottom 7.4% nationally
Lower is healthier
ST16thUS7thDefinition & source ›
The EPA’s modeled estimate of added lifetime cancer risk from breathing outdoor air toxics, in cases per million people exposed over a lifetime.
Full methodology ›Utility shut-off threat
4.6%
in the bottom 8.6% nationally
Lower is healthier
ST3rdUS9thDefinition & source ›
The estimated share of adults whose household was threatened with a utility shut-off in the past 12 months.
Full methodology ›Cognitive disability
10.4%
in the bottom 6.8% nationally
Lower is healthier
ST5thUS7thDefinition & source ›
The estimated share of adults with serious difficulty concentrating, remembering, or making decisions.
Full methodology ›The read
Lake Leelanau, Michigan (ZIP 49653), overall, ranks in the top 11.8% healthiest ZIPs nationally (3,766th) and the top 9.3% of Michigan (90th).
Reading the numbers as a whole, the picture lands somewhere in between: modeled colon screening sits in the top 0.6% nationally, recreation lands in the top 3.6% nationally, and modeled housing insecurity lies in the bottom 3.6% nationally. Modeled short sleep stands in the bottom 2.9% nationally, transportation rests in the bottom 4.4% nationally, and loneliness registers in the bottom 5.0% nationally. Modeled food insecurity resides in the bottom 6.6% nationally, and air-toxics cancer risk settles in the bottom 7.4% nationally. Modeled utility shutoff is in the bottom 8.6% nationally, and cognitive disability sits in the bottom 6.8% nationally.
Measured against the nearby ZIPs, park land runs far lower than the surrounding ZIPs on this measure. Defined simply, air-toxics cancer risk is a modeled EPA estimate of added lifetime cancer risk from breathing outdoor air, per million people. ZIP 49621, just across the boundary, comes out healthier overall.
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 85%
16%
Environmental Hazard
healthier than 86%
14%
Preventive Care
in the top 0.8%
13%
Risk Behavior
healthier than 95%
11%
Mental Health
healthier than 77%
8%
Disability
healthier than 76%
7%
About typical
Chronic Disease Burden
healthier than 41%
21%
Holding it back
Climate / Disaster Risk
healthier than 36%
5%
Healthcare Access
healthier than 36%
5%
Lifting this score
Social Need / SDOH
healthier than 87%
16%
Environmental Hazard
healthier than 82%
14%
Preventive Care
healthier than 99%
13%
Risk Behavior
healthier than 96%
11%
Mental Health
healthier than 95%
8%
Disability
healthier than 79%
7%
About typical
Chronic Disease Burden
healthier than 46%
21%
Holding it back
Climate / Disaster Risk
healthier than 4%
5%
Healthcare Access
healthier than 33%
5%
Lifting this score
Social Need / SDOH
healthier than 69%
16%
Preventive Care
healthier than 77%
13%
Risk Behavior
healthier than 77%
11%
Mental Health
healthier than 85%
8%
Disability
healthier than 69%
7%
Healthcare Access
healthier than 62%
5%
About typical
Chronic Disease Burden
healthier than 54%
21%
Holding it back
Environmental Hazard
healthier than 38%
14%
Climate / Disaster Risk
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 ›
Nearby & similar ZIPs
Editorially selected — see how this ZIP compares to nearby and similar places.
Nearby
49621
Michiganshares a border
Score 61.76
Closest healthier
49654
Michiganshares a border
Score 64.05
Similar health profile
02534
Massachusetts99% similar profile
Score 63.64
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 | 35.4% | 31.2–39.6 |
| High blood pressure among adults | 39.8% | 35.1–44.8 |
| Cancer (non-skin) or melanoma among adults | 13.4% | 12.0–14.7 |
| Current asthma among adults | 10.4% | 9.1–11.8 |
| Coronary heart disease among adults | 8.3% | 7.3–9.5 |
| Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease among adults | 7.7% | 6.4–9.2 |
| Depression among adults | 23.5% | 19.8–27.4 |
| Diagnosed diabetes among adults | 12.2% | 10.3–14.5 |
| High cholesterol among adults who have ever been screened | 40.6% | 35.6–45.5 |
| Obesity among adults | 31.9% | 24.2–40.5 |
| Stroke among adults | 3.8% | 3.3–4.3 |
| All teeth lost among adults aged >=65 years | 7.0% | 5.6–8.7 |
PreventionCDC PLACES 2022 / 2023 · BRFSS
| Measure | Crude prevalence | 95% CI |
|---|---|---|
| Current lack of health insurance among adults aged 18-64 years | 4.6% | 3.8–5.6 |
| Taking medicine to control high blood pressure among adults with high blood pressure | 82.9% | 79.8–85.6 |
| Visits to doctor for routine checkup within the past year among adults | 84.3% | 81.1–87.0 |
| Cholesterol screening among adults | 92.4% | 91.1–93.5 |
| Colorectal cancer screening among adults aged 45–75 years | 78.5% | 74.4–82.3 |
| Visited dentist or dental clinic in the past year among adults | 77.0% | 74.2–79.7 |
| Mammography use among women aged 50-74 years | 80.7% | 74.0–86.5 |
Health Risk BehaviorsCDC PLACES 2022 / 2023 · BRFSS
| Measure | Crude prevalence | 95% CI |
|---|---|---|
| Binge drinking among adults | 14.3% | 11.6–17.3 |
| Current cigarette smoking among adults | 10.6% | 8.5–12.8 |
| No leisure-time physical activity among adults | 20.4% | 16.2–24.9 |
| Short sleep duration among adults | 27.9% | 22.2–34.4 |
Health StatusCDC PLACES 2023 · BRFSS
| Measure | Crude prevalence | 95% CI |
|---|---|---|
| Fair or poor self-rated health status among adults | 15.5% | 12.9–18.5 |
| Frequent mental distress among adults | 13.3% | 11.6–15.3 |
| Frequent physical distress among adults | 13.0% | 11.1–15.0 |
DisabilityCDC PLACES 2023 · BRFSS
| Measure | Crude prevalence | 95% CI |
|---|---|---|
| Cognitive disability among adults | 10.4% | 8.9–12.1 |
| Any disability among adults | 28.9% | 24.2–33.7 |
| Hearing disability among adults | 8.9% | 7.7–10.2 |
| Independent living disability among adults | 6.5% | 5.5–7.6 |
| Mobility disability among adults | 13.4% | 11.2–15.9 |
| Self-care disability among adults | 3.1% | 2.6–3.6 |
| Vision disability among adults | 3.8% | 3.2–4.3 |
Health-Related Social NeedsCDC PLACES 2023 · BRFSS
| Measure | Crude prevalence | 95% CI |
|---|---|---|
| Lack of social and emotional support among adults | 18.5% | 15.5–22.2 |
| Food insecurity in the past 12 months among adults | 7.8% | 6.2–9.5 |
| Received food stamps in the past 12 months among adults | 6.7% | 5.3–8.2 |
| Housing insecurity in the past 12 months among adults | 6.3% | 5.2–7.6 |
| Lack of reliable transportation in the past 12 months among adults | 4.6% | 3.9–5.4 |
| Loneliness among adults | 27.5% | 23.4–33.2 |
| Utility services shut-off threat in the past 12 months among adults | 4.6% | 3.9–5.5 |
Community & economyCensus ACS 5-Year · 2024 release · observed
| Measure | Value | US median (p10–p90) | MI median (p10–p90) |
|---|---|---|---|
| Poverty rate | 6.5% | 10.6% (3.1–25.8%) n=32,364 | 10.7% (4.3–22.3%) n=974 |
| Uninsured 18–64 | 8.7% | 9.0% (1.5–24.3%) n=32,286 | 6.8% (2.5–13.5%) n=975 |
| No HS diploma (25+) | 1.4% | 7.9% (1.8–20.7%) n=32,505 | 6.7% (2.5–14.2%) n=974 |
| Bachelor's or higher (25+) | 52.2% | 23.3% (9.2–53.6%) n=32,505 | 22.1% (11.4–48.3%) n=974 |
| Unemployment rate (16+) | 2.8% | 3.9% (0.0–9.8%) n=32,274 | 4.6% (1.3–10.0%) n=974 |
| Households without a vehicle | 2.6% | 3.9% (0.0–12.5%) n=32,322 | 4.5% (0.9–10.8%) n=973 |
| Broadband subscription | 84.3% | 89.3% (75.1–97.1%) n=32,322 | 88.8% (79.5–95.5%) n=973 |
| Housing cost burden (≥30% income) | 31.5% | 23.7% (10.6–40.0%) n=32,322 | 22.5% (14.8–32.9%) n=973 |
| Homeownership rate | 93.4% | 78.7% (51.7–94.0%) n=32,322 | 85.3% (62.2–94.6%) n=973 |
| Crowded housing (>1 per room) | 0.7% | 1.3% (0.0–6.3%) n=32,322 | 1.1% (0.0–3.6%) n=973 |
| Foreign-born population | 0.6% | 2.6% (0.0–18.6%) n=32,553 | 1.8% (0.3–10.0%) n=975 |
| Single-parent households | 70.3% | 53.6% (37.3–74.1%) n=32,087 | 56.5% (43.6–74.2%) n=970 |
| Population 65+ | 36.2% | 19.4% (10.8–33.6%) n=32,553 | 20.5% (13.7–35.2%) n=975 |
| Median age | 59.5 yr | 42.2 yr (33.0–56.3) n=32,292 | 43.6 yr (35.2–58.2) n=974 |
| Median household income | $85,787 | $72,070 ($46,039–$118,707) n=30,318 | $68,216 ($47,282–$105,129) n=962 |
| Median home value | $669,800 | $222,200 ($100,300–$579,820) n=30,049 | $192,350 ($116,360–$355,650) n=952 |
| Median gross rent | $1,065 | $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 | 82.3 yr ± 0.96 | 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 0.96 years of 82.3, 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