ZIP code
49656
in Luther, MichiganPopulation 1,908
39.68/ 100
Ranked #26,965 of 32,066 US ZIPs (bottom 16%)
Ranked #907 of 973 Michigan ZIPs (bottom 6.8%)
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.
Coronary heart disease
11.2%
in the top 3.6% nationally
Lower is healthier
ST95thUS96thDefinition & source ›
The estimated share of adults who have been told by a health professional that they have coronary heart disease or angina.
Full methodology ›Energy-cost burden
5.8%
in the top 3.6% nationally
Lower is healthier
ST97thUS96thDefinition & source ›
The modeled share of household income spent on home energy bills — electricity, gas, and heating fuels.
A modeled share of household income spent on home energy. Estimates that hit the model’s 100% ceiling are suppressed rather than published, because at that point the figure reflects the model’s limit rather than a measured burden.
Full methodology ›Hearing disability
11.5%
in the top 6.5% nationally
Lower is healthier
ST95thUS94thDefinition & source ›
The estimated share of adults who are deaf or have serious difficulty hearing.
Full methodology ›Stroke
5.5%
in the top 7.8% nationally
Lower is healthier
ST93rdUS92ndDefinition & source ›
The estimated share of adults who have been told by a health professional that they have had a stroke.
Full methodology ›Transportation noise
0.10%
in the bottom 8.3% nationally
Lower is healthier
ST3rdUS8thDefinition & source ›
The modeled share of residents exposed to average road, rail, and aviation noise at or above 55 decibels — a noticeable background presence.
Full methodology ›Mobility disability
21.5%
in the top 11.4% nationally
Lower is healthier
ST94thUS89thDefinition & source ›
The estimated share of adults with serious difficulty walking or climbing stairs.
Full methodology ›High blood pressure
45.8%
in the top 10.3% nationally
Lower is healthier
ST91stUS90thDefinition & source ›
The estimated share of adults who have been told by a health professional that they have high blood pressure.
Full methodology ›Industrial-pollution burden
in the bottom 12.7% nationally
Lower is healthier
ST8thUS13thDefinition & source ›
The EPA’s modeled screening score for industrial chemical releases, weighting the amounts released by their toxicity and how many people live nearby — a relative comparison score, not a measured exposure.
Full methodology ›Arsenic in groundwater
1.5%
in the bottom 13.1% nationally
Lower is healthier
ST9thUS13thDefinition & 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 ›Independent-living disability
11.6%
in the top 13.9% nationally
Lower is healthier
ST91stUS86thDefinition & 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 its overall standing, Luther, Michigan (ZIP 49656) lands in the bottom 16% nationally (26,965th) and the bottom 6.8% of Michigan (907th), based on limited data; treat as directional.
This area's measures are easy to read as a mixed set: modeled transportation noise resides in the bottom 8.3% nationally. Modeled loud transportation noise settles at the national minimum, shared with about 22% of ZIPs. Modeled industrial-pollution burden is in the bottom 12.7% nationally, and arsenic sits in the bottom 13.1% nationally. Set against that, modeled coronary heart disease lands in the top 3.6% nationally, and energy burden lies in the top 3.6% nationally. Modeled hearing disability stands in the top 6.5% nationally, and stroke rests in the top 7.8% nationally. Modeled mobility disability registers in the top 11.4% nationally, and high blood pressure resides in the top 10.3% nationally.
Against the wider neighborhood, park land runs far lower than the surrounding ZIPs on this measure. Put simply, industrial-pollution burden is the EPA's modeled screening score weighting industrial chemical releases by their toxicity and how many people live nearby. Arsenic is a natural groundwater contaminant, here a modeled estimate of the chance private-well levels exceed a benchmark. Energy burden is the share of household income that goes to home energy bills. On the overall standing, ZIP 49601, 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
Environmental Hazard
healthier than 96%
14%
Preventive Care
healthier than 68%
13%
Climate / Disaster RiskPartial
healthier than 97%
5%
About typical
Healthcare Access
healthier than 40%
5%
Holding it back
Chronic Disease Burden
healthier than 5%
21%
Social Need / SDOH
healthier than 7%
16%
Risk Behavior
healthier than 28%
11%
Mental Health
healthier than 14%
8%
Disability
healthier than 13%
7%
Lifting this score
Environmental Hazard
healthier than 94%
14%
Climate / Disaster RiskPartial
healthier than 95%
5%
Holding it back
Chronic Disease Burden
healthier than 4%
21%
Social Need / SDOH
healthier than 7%
16%
Preventive Care
healthier than 34%
13%
Risk Behavior
healthier than 16%
11%
Mental Health
healthier than 33%
8%
Disability
healthier than 7%
7%
Healthcare Access
healthier than 39%
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
49304
Michiganshares a border
Score 36.99
Closest healthier
49601
Michiganshares a border
Score 49.25
Similar health profile
04942
Maine99% similar profile
Score 40.18
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 | 40.0% | 36.1–44.0 |
| High blood pressure among adults | 45.8% | 41.2–50.3 |
| Cancer (non-skin) or melanoma among adults | 11.8% | 10.6–13.1 |
| Current asthma among adults | 12.0% | 10.6–13.4 |
| Coronary heart disease among adults | 11.2% | 9.8–12.6 |
| Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease among adults | 13.8% | 11.8–15.9 |
| Depression among adults | 27.9% | 24.0–32.1 |
| Diagnosed diabetes among adults | 16.5% | 14.2–18.8 |
| High cholesterol among adults who have ever been screened | 41.3% | 36.5–46.0 |
| Obesity among adults | 39.2% | 31.0–47.9 |
| Stroke among adults | 5.5% | 4.9–6.2 |
| All teeth lost among adults aged >=65 years | 20.8% | 17.1–24.6 |
PreventionCDC PLACES 2022 / 2023 · BRFSS
| Measure | Crude prevalence | 95% CI |
|---|---|---|
| Current lack of health insurance among adults aged 18-64 years | 8.0% | 6.3–9.8 |
| Taking medicine to control high blood pressure among adults with high blood pressure | 81.8% | 78.8–84.3 |
| Visits to doctor for routine checkup within the past year among adults | 82.0% | 78.6–85.0 |
| Cholesterol screening among adults | 88.2% | 86.4–89.8 |
| Colorectal cancer screening among adults aged 45–75 years | 67.7% | 62.4–72.7 |
| Visited dentist or dental clinic in the past year among adults | 63.5% | 59.6–67.2 |
| Mammography use among women aged 50-74 years | 71.2% | 62.3–79.1 |
Health Risk BehaviorsCDC PLACES 2022 / 2023 · BRFSS
| Measure | Crude prevalence | 95% CI |
|---|---|---|
| Binge drinking among adults | 14.3% | 11.7–17.2 |
| Current cigarette smoking among adults | 21.1% | 17.8–24.4 |
| No leisure-time physical activity among adults | 33.0% | 27.4–38.4 |
| Short sleep duration among adults | 34.0% | 27.3–41.2 |
Health StatusCDC PLACES 2023 · BRFSS
| Measure | Crude prevalence | 95% CI |
|---|---|---|
| Fair or poor self-rated health status among adults | 26.5% | 22.6–30.5 |
| Frequent mental distress among adults | 18.4% | 16.3–20.7 |
| Frequent physical distress among adults | 19.2% | 16.8–21.7 |
DisabilityCDC PLACES 2023 · BRFSS
| Measure | Crude prevalence | 95% CI |
|---|---|---|
| Cognitive disability among adults | 17.0% | 14.9–19.3 |
| Any disability among adults | 40.0% | 34.9–45.1 |
| Hearing disability among adults | 11.5% | 10.1–12.8 |
| Independent living disability among adults | 11.6% | 10.1–13.3 |
| Mobility disability among adults | 21.5% | 18.4–24.7 |
| Self-care disability among adults | 5.8% | 5.0–6.7 |
| Vision disability among adults | 7.0% | 6.1–8.0 |
Health-Related Social NeedsCDC PLACES 2023 · BRFSS
| Measure | Crude prevalence | 95% CI |
|---|---|---|
| Lack of social and emotional support among adults | 23.3% | 19.9–27.1 |
| Food insecurity in the past 12 months among adults | 18.2% | 15.0–21.6 |
| Received food stamps in the past 12 months among adults | 19.4% | 16.1–23.0 |
| Housing insecurity in the past 12 months among adults | 12.1% | 10.3–14.1 |
| Lack of reliable transportation in the past 12 months among adults | 9.1% | 7.8–10.4 |
| Loneliness among adults | 31.7% | 26.9–36.8 |
| Utility services shut-off threat in the past 12 months among adults | 9.4% | 8.1–10.9 |
Community & economyCensus ACS 5-Year · 2024 release · observed
| Measure | Value | US median (p10–p90) | MI median (p10–p90) |
|---|---|---|---|
| Poverty rate | 17.3% | 10.6% (3.1–25.8%) n=32,364 | 10.7% (4.3–22.3%) n=974 |
| Uninsured 18–64 | 11.3% | 9.0% (1.5–24.3%) n=32,286 | 6.8% (2.5–13.5%) n=975 |
| No HS diploma (25+) | 10.9% | 7.9% (1.8–20.7%) n=32,505 | 6.7% (2.5–14.2%) n=974 |
| Bachelor's or higher (25+) | 11.0% | 23.3% (9.2–53.6%) n=32,505 | 22.1% (11.4–48.3%) n=974 |
| Unemployment rate (16+) | 2.5% | 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 | 81.4% | 89.3% (75.1–97.1%) n=32,322 | 88.8% (79.5–95.5%) n=973 |
| Housing cost burden (≥30% income) | 22.6% | 23.7% (10.6–40.0%) n=32,322 | 22.5% (14.8–32.9%) n=973 |
| Homeownership rate | 79.1% | 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 | 0.7% | 2.6% (0.0–18.6%) n=32,553 | 1.8% (0.3–10.0%) n=975 |
| Single-parent households | 58.5% | 53.6% (37.3–74.1%) n=32,087 | 56.5% (43.6–74.2%) n=970 |
| Population 65+ | 27.2% | 19.4% (10.8–33.6%) n=32,553 | 20.5% (13.7–35.2%) n=975 |
| Median age | 50.7 yr | 42.2 yr (33.0–56.3) n=32,292 | 43.6 yr (35.2–58.2) n=974 |
| Median household income | $56,656 | $72,070 ($46,039–$118,707) n=30,318 | $68,216 ($47,282–$105,129) n=962 |
| Median home value | $135,500 | $222,200 ($100,300–$579,820) n=30,049 | $192,350 ($116,360–$355,650) n=952 |
| Median gross rent | $1,007 | $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 | 79.4 yr ± 1.93 | 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 1.93 years of 79.4, 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