ZIP code
49826
in Rumely, MichiganPopulation 214
53.76/ 100
Ranked #11,028 of 32,066 US ZIPs (top 34%)
Ranked #318 of 973 Michigan ZIPs (top 33%)
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.
Homeownership rate
100%
at the national maximum
Higher is healthier
ST99thUS99thDefinition & source ›
The share of occupied homes that are owned, rather than rented, by the people living in them.
Full methodology ›Arsenic in groundwater
1.0%
in the bottom 2.6% nationally
Lower is healthier
ST1stUS3rdDefinition & 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 ›Air-toxics cancer risk
10 per million
in the bottom 2.8% nationally
Lower is healthier
ST1stUS3rdDefinition & 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 ›Park land
42.8%
in the top 3.1% nationally
Higher is healthier
ST97thUS97thDefinition & source ›
The share of this ZIP’s land area that is public parkland.
Full methodology ›Natural-disaster risk
in the bottom 3.1% nationally
Lower is healthier
ST7thUS3rdDefinition & 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 ›Distance to a hazardous-chemical facility
24 mi
in the top 3.3% nationally
Higher is healthier
ST94thUS97thDefinition & source ›
The distance in miles from this ZIP’s edge to the nearest facility that handles enough hazardous chemicals to require an EPA risk-management plan for accidental releases.
Full methodology ›Walkability
1.3 intersections/sq mi
in the bottom 4.0% nationally
Higher is healthier
ST1stUS4thDefinition & source ›
The number of street intersections per square mile — a standard street-connectivity measure; denser networks correlate with more walkable neighborhoods.
Full methodology ›Distance to a Superfund site
84.5 mi
in the top 4.7% nationally
Higher is healthier
ST99thUS95thDefinition & source ›
The distance in miles from this ZIP’s edge to the nearest Superfund site — an abandoned or uncontrolled hazardous-waste site the EPA has listed for cleanup.
Full methodology ›Distance to a nursing home
15.9 mi
in the top 4.9% nationally
Lower is healthier
ST98thUS95thDefinition & source ›
The distance in miles from this ZIP’s edge to the nearest Medicare- or Medicaid-certified nursing home.
Full methodology ›Industrial-pollution burden
in the bottom 5.9% nationally
Lower is healthier
ST2ndUS6thDefinition & 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 ›The read
On balance, and by the composite measure, Rumely, Michigan (ZIP 49826) ranks in the top 34% healthiest ZIPs nationally (11,028th) and the top 33% of Michigan (318th), based on limited data; treat as directional.
The measures split the difference for this area: homeownership resides at the national maximum, and modeled arsenic lands in the bottom 2.6% nationally. Modeled air-toxics cancer risk registers in the bottom 2.8% nationally, and park land sits in the top 3.1% nationally. Modeled disaster risk rests in the bottom 3.1% nationally, distance to a hazardous-chemical facility is in the top 3.3% nationally, and distance to a Superfund site stands in the top 4.7% nationally. Modeled industrial-pollution burden settles in the bottom 5.9% nationally. Against that, walkability lies in the bottom 4.0% nationally, and distance to a nursing home resides in the top 4.9% nationally.
Compared with the ZIPs it borders, park land runs far higher than the surrounding ZIPs on this measure. In plainer terms, arsenic is a natural groundwater contaminant, here a modeled estimate of the chance private-well levels exceed a benchmark. Air-toxics cancer risk is a modeled EPA estimate of added lifetime cancer risk from breathing outdoor air, per million people. Disaster risk is the area's national rank on its highest non-flood peril in FEMA's modeled Risk Index, like wildfire or quake. For a healthier nearby ZIP overall, look to ZIP 49825, 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
Environmental Hazard
in the top 0.7%
14%
Preventive Care
healthier than 91%
13%
Risk Behavior
healthier than 74%
11%
Climate / Disaster RiskPartial
in the top 0.00%
5%
About typical
Social Need / SDOH
healthier than 48%
16%
Mental Health
healthier than 48%
8%
Disability
healthier than 53%
7%
Holding it back
Chronic Disease Burden
healthier than 25%
21%
Healthcare Access
healthier than 7%
5%
Lifting this score
Environmental Hazard
healthier than 98%
14%
Preventive Care
healthier than 79%
13%
Risk Behavior
healthier than 75%
11%
Mental Health
healthier than 86%
8%
Climate / Disaster RiskPartial
in the top 0.00%
5%
About typical
Social Need / SDOH
healthier than 52%
16%
Disability
healthier than 53%
7%
Holding it back
Chronic Disease Burden
healthier than 24%
21%
Healthcare Access
healthier than 4%
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
49825
Michiganshares a border
Score 55.30
Closest healthier
49885
Michiganshares a border
Score 58.27
Similar health profile
16217
Pennsylvania97% similar profile
Score 51.75
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 | 35.2% | 31.1–39.3 |
| High blood pressure among adults | 42.1% | 37.5–46.9 |
| Cancer (non-skin) or melanoma among adults | 11.7% | 10.5–13.1 |
| Current asthma among adults | 10.8% | 9.4–12.2 |
| Coronary heart disease among adults | 9.6% | 8.3–11.0 |
| Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease among adults | 9.9% | 8.1–11.9 |
| Depression among adults | 24.7% | 20.8–28.7 |
| Diagnosed diabetes among adults | 14.0% | 11.8–16.3 |
| High cholesterol among adults who have ever been screened | 41.0% | 36.4–45.8 |
| Obesity among adults | 34.5% | 26.4–43.4 |
| Stroke among adults | 4.3% | 3.6–4.9 |
| All teeth lost among adults aged >=65 years | 11.0% | 8.7–13.4 |
PreventionCDC PLACES 2022 / 2023 · BRFSS
| Measure | Crude prevalence | 95% CI |
|---|---|---|
| Current lack of health insurance among adults aged 18-64 years | 5.5% | 3.7–7.5 |
| Taking medicine to control high blood pressure among adults with high blood pressure | 81.8% | 79.0–84.4 |
| Visits to doctor for routine checkup within the past year among adults | 82.0% | 78.6–84.9 |
| Cholesterol screening among adults | 89.5% | 87.3–91.3 |
| Colorectal cancer screening among adults aged 45–75 years | 70.0% | 65.3–74.1 |
| Visited dentist or dental clinic in the past year among adults | 68.5% | 64.7–71.8 |
| Mammography use among women aged 50-74 years | 78.1% | 70.2–84.3 |
Health Risk BehaviorsCDC PLACES 2022 / 2023 · BRFSS
| Measure | Crude prevalence | 95% CI |
|---|---|---|
| Binge drinking among adults | 15.2% | 12.4–18.3 |
| Current cigarette smoking among adults | 15.1% | 11.6–18.6 |
| No leisure-time physical activity among adults | 23.8% | 19.0–29.1 |
| Short sleep duration among adults | 31.9% | 25.3–38.6 |
Health StatusCDC PLACES 2023 · BRFSS
| Measure | Crude prevalence | 95% CI |
|---|---|---|
| Fair or poor self-rated health status among adults | 19.2% | 15.7–23.1 |
| Frequent mental distress among adults | 15.8% | 13.4–18.2 |
| Frequent physical distress among adults | 14.8% | 12.6–17.1 |
DisabilityCDC PLACES 2023 · BRFSS
| Measure | Crude prevalence | 95% CI |
|---|---|---|
| Cognitive disability among adults | 13.2% | 10.7–15.7 |
| Any disability among adults | 32.3% | 26.9–37.7 |
| Hearing disability among adults | 9.7% | 8.4–11.1 |
| Independent living disability among adults | 7.9% | 6.4–9.4 |
| Mobility disability among adults | 15.2% | 12.5–18.2 |
| Self-care disability among adults | 3.8% | 3.1–4.5 |
| Vision disability among adults | 4.6% | 3.8–5.4 |
Health-Related Social NeedsCDC PLACES 2023 · BRFSS
| Measure | Crude prevalence | 95% CI |
|---|---|---|
| Lack of social and emotional support among adults | 21.3% | 17.2–25.6 |
| Food insecurity in the past 12 months among adults | 11.1% | 8.0–14.2 |
| Received food stamps in the past 12 months among adults | 10.1% | 7.3–13.1 |
| Housing insecurity in the past 12 months among adults | 7.7% | 5.9–9.6 |
| Lack of reliable transportation in the past 12 months among adults | 6.2% | 4.9–7.5 |
| Loneliness among adults | 29.6% | 24.4–35.2 |
| Utility services shut-off threat in the past 12 months among adults | 5.7% | 4.5–6.9 |
Community & economyCensus ACS 5-Year · 2024 release · observed
| Measure | Value | US median (p10–p90) | MI median (p10–p90) |
|---|---|---|---|
| Poverty rate | 7.1% | 10.6% (3.1–25.8%) n=32,364 | 10.7% (4.3–22.3%) n=974 |
| Uninsured 18–64 | 0.0% | 9.0% (1.5–24.3%) n=32,286 | 6.8% (2.5–13.5%) n=975 |
| No HS diploma (25+) | 0.0% | 7.9% (1.8–20.7%) n=32,505 | 6.7% (2.5–14.2%) n=974 |
| Bachelor's or higher (25+) | 20.0% | 23.3% (9.2–53.6%) n=32,505 | 22.1% (11.4–48.3%) n=974 |
| Unemployment rate (16+) | 0.0% | 3.9% (0.0–9.8%) n=32,274 | 4.6% (1.3–10.0%) n=974 |
| Households without a vehicle | 0.0% | 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) | 21.6% | 23.7% (10.6–40.0%) n=32,322 | 22.5% (14.8–32.9%) n=973 |
| Homeownership rate | 100.0% | 78.7% (51.7–94.0%) n=32,322 | 85.3% (62.2–94.6%) n=973 |
| Crowded housing (>1 per room) | 5.9% | 1.3% (0.0–6.3%) n=32,322 | 1.1% (0.0–3.6%) n=973 |
| Foreign-born population | 0.0% | 2.6% (0.0–18.6%) n=32,553 | 1.8% (0.3–10.0%) n=975 |
| Single-parent households | 25.5% | 53.6% (37.3–74.1%) n=32,087 | 56.5% (43.6–74.2%) n=970 |
| Population 65+ | 0.9% | 19.4% (10.8–33.6%) n=32,553 | 20.5% (13.7–35.2%) n=975 |
| Median age | 18.0 yr | 42.2 yr (33.0–56.3) n=32,292 | 43.6 yr (35.2–58.2) n=974 |
| Median household income | $61,107 | $72,070 ($46,039–$118,707) n=30,318 | $68,216 ($47,282–$105,129) n=962 |
| Median home value | $335,700 | $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 at birth | 85.2 yr ± 3.08 | 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 3.08 years of 85.2, 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