ZIP code
50162
in Melbourne, IowaPopulation 1,164
57.17/ 100
Ranked #7,116 of 32,066 US ZIPs (top 22%)
Ranked #133 of 922 Iowa ZIPs (top 14.5%)
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.
Radon
4.2 pCi/L
in the top 1.3% nationally
Lower is healthier
ST83rdUS99thDefinition & source ›
The modeled typical indoor radon level for this area, in picocuries per liter — the EPA recommends fixing a home at 4 pCi/L or above.
Modeled from indoor-radon measurements. In Alaska and Hawaii, where those measurements are not published, a US Geological Survey geologic radon-potential category stands in — a coarser input, disclosed rather than hidden.
Full methodology ›Binge drinking
22.7%
in the top 1.3% nationally
Lower is healthier
ST96thUS99thDefinition & source ›
The estimated share of adults who report binge drinking — five or more drinks on one occasion for men, four or more for women.
Full methodology ›PFAS in drinking water
5.7%
in the bottom 1.7% nationally
Lower is healthier
ST4thUS2ndDefinition & 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 ›Civic-institution access
1.6 per 1,000 residents
in the top 1.7% nationally
Higher is healthier
ST98thUS98thDefinition & 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 ›Arsenic in groundwater
31.8%
in the top 2.8% nationally
Lower is healthier
ST93rdUS97thDefinition & 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 ›Transportation noise
0.16%
in the bottom 9.6% nationally
Lower is healthier
ST19thUS10thDefinition & 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 ›Food insecurity
8.5%
in the bottom 9.8% nationally
Lower is healthier
ST9thUS10thDefinition & source ›
The estimated share of adults who experienced food insecurity in the past 12 months.
Full methodology ›Housing-cost burden
10.4%
in the bottom 9.9% nationally
Lower is healthier
ST12thUS10thDefinition & source ›
The share of households spending 30% or more of their income on housing.
Full methodology ›Mammography
80.5%
in the top 8.7% nationally
Higher is healthier
ST86thUS91stDefinition & source ›
The estimated share of women aged 50–74 who had a mammogram within the past two years.
Full methodology ›Mobility disability
10.3%
in the bottom 10.4% nationally
Lower is healthier
ST6thUS10thDefinition & source ›
The estimated share of adults with serious difficulty walking or climbing stairs.
Full methodology ›Cross-source signals
Combined exposures in this ZIP
More than one environmental exposure stands out in this ZIP. Each is established independently and shown on its own above; they are grouped here for context — not because one causes the other.
USGS models a high likelihood that groundwater arsenic here exceeds 10 µg/L — the level EPA sets as the limit for public water systems — and this area's modeled radon runs above EPA's 4 pCi/L action level.
See the full radon & arsenic analysis →
The read
On balance, and by the composite measure, Melbourne, Iowa (ZIP 50162) ranks in the top 22% healthiest ZIPs nationally (7,116th) and the top 14.5% of Iowa (133rd).
Neither strongly one way nor the other, the measures sit mixed: modeled pfas sits in the bottom 1.7% nationally, and civic rests in the top 1.7% nationally. Modeled transportation noise is in the bottom 9.6% nationally, and food insecurity stands in the bottom 9.8% nationally. Housing-cost burden settles in the bottom 9.9% nationally, modeled transportation lies in the bottom 11.1% nationally, and modeled mammography resides in the top 8.7% nationally. Against that, modeled radon lands in the top 1.3% nationally, binge drinking registers in the top 1.3% nationally, and arsenic sits in the top 2.8% nationally.
Compared with the ZIPs it borders, civic runs far higher than the surrounding ZIPs on this measure. In plainer terms, radon is a radioactive soil gas the EPA identifies as the top cause of lung cancer in nonsmokers. 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. Arsenic is a natural groundwater contaminant, here a modeled estimate of the chance private-well levels exceed a benchmark. For a healthier nearby ZIP overall, look to ZIP 50120, 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
Chronic Disease Burden
healthier than 78%
21%
Preventive Care
healthier than 81%
13%
Mental Health
healthier than 69%
8%
Disability
healthier than 88%
7%
About typical
Social Need / SDOH
healthier than 43%
16%
Climate / Disaster Risk
healthier than 57%
5%
Holding it back
Environmental Hazard
healthier than 19%
14%
Risk Behavior
healthier than 40%
11%
Healthcare Access
healthier than 38%
5%
Lifting this score
Chronic Disease Burden
healthier than 91%
21%
Preventive Care
healthier than 71%
13%
Disability
healthier than 94%
7%
Healthcare Access
healthier than 74%
5%
About typical
Social Need / SDOH
healthier than 54%
16%
Risk Behavior
healthier than 53%
11%
Climate / Disaster Risk
healthier than 57%
5%
Holding it back
Environmental Hazard
healthier than 21%
14%
Mental Health
healthier than 35%
8%
“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.
Heavy environment, light chronic burden
Where the environment and chronic illness point in opposite directions
Environmental-hazard standing 18.7; chronic-disease standing 78.1 — 59 points apart, heavier on the environment than it is on chronic illness.
Ranked #15,347 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
50028
Iowashares a border
Score 56.09
Closest healthier
50120
Iowashares a border
Score 58.13
Similar health profile
19547
Pennsylvania99% similar profile
Score 59.06
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 | 25.3% | 22.3–28.5 |
| High blood pressure among adults | 30.9% | 27.3–34.7 |
| Cancer (non-skin) or melanoma among adults | 8.6% | 7.8–9.5 |
| Current asthma among adults | 9.9% | 8.7–11.1 |
| Coronary heart disease among adults | 5.4% | 4.8–6.2 |
| Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease among adults | 5.7% | 4.8–6.6 |
| Depression among adults | 21.3% | 18.2–24.7 |
| Diagnosed diabetes among adults | 9.6% | 8.2–11.2 |
| High cholesterol among adults who have ever been screened | 34.5% | 30.6–38.4 |
| Obesity among adults | 41.9% | 35.6–48.4 |
| Stroke among adults | 2.7% | 2.4–3.1 |
| All teeth lost among adults aged >=65 years | 10.4% | 8.4–12.6 |
PreventionCDC PLACES 2022 / 2023 · BRFSS
| Measure | Crude prevalence | 95% CI |
|---|---|---|
| Current lack of health insurance among adults aged 18-64 years | 5.5% | 4.4–6.7 |
| Taking medicine to control high blood pressure among adults with high blood pressure | 76.1% | 72.9–79.1 |
| Visits to doctor for routine checkup within the past year among adults | 78.9% | 75.6–81.9 |
| Cholesterol screening among adults | 86.1% | 84.2–87.9 |
| Colorectal cancer screening among adults aged 45–75 years | 69.9% | 66.0–73.6 |
| Visited dentist or dental clinic in the past year among adults | 71.4% | 68.4–74.3 |
| Mammography use among women aged 50-74 years | 80.5% | 74.6–85.5 |
Health Risk BehaviorsCDC PLACES 2022 / 2023 · BRFSS
| Measure | Crude prevalence | 95% CI |
|---|---|---|
| Binge drinking among adults | 22.7% | 19.1–26.3 |
| Current cigarette smoking among adults | 13.4% | 11.1–16.0 |
| No leisure-time physical activity among adults | 21.0% | 17.3–24.9 |
| Short sleep duration among adults | 32.8% | 28.4–37.3 |
Health StatusCDC PLACES 2023 · BRFSS
| Measure | Crude prevalence | 95% CI |
|---|---|---|
| Fair or poor self-rated health status among adults | 14.4% | 12.2–16.8 |
| Frequent mental distress among adults | 15.9% | 13.8–18.0 |
| Frequent physical distress among adults | 11.6% | 10.1–13.3 |
DisabilityCDC PLACES 2023 · BRFSS
| Measure | Crude prevalence | 95% CI |
|---|---|---|
| Cognitive disability among adults | 12.2% | 10.5–13.9 |
| Any disability among adults | 24.6% | 20.9–28.4 |
| Hearing disability among adults | 6.3% | 5.5–7.2 |
| Independent living disability among adults | 6.1% | 5.2–6.9 |
| Mobility disability among adults | 10.3% | 8.7–12.1 |
| Self-care disability among adults | 2.7% | 2.3–3.0 |
| Vision disability among adults | 3.2% | 2.8–3.6 |
Health-Related Social NeedsCDC PLACES 2023 · BRFSS
| Measure | Crude prevalence | 95% CI |
|---|---|---|
| Lack of social and emotional support among adults | 21.4% | 18.3–24.5 |
| Food insecurity in the past 12 months among adults | 8.5% | 6.9–10.4 |
| Received food stamps in the past 12 months among adults | 6.8% | 5.4–8.3 |
| Housing insecurity in the past 12 months among adults | 7.7% | 6.4–9.0 |
| Lack of reliable transportation in the past 12 months among adults | 5.3% | 4.5–6.1 |
| Loneliness among adults | 30.2% | 26.1–34.4 |
| Utility services shut-off threat in the past 12 months among adults | 5.2% | 4.4–6.0 |
Community & economyCensus ACS 5-Year · 2024 release · observed
| Measure | Value | US median (p10–p90) | IA median (p10–p90) |
|---|---|---|---|
| Poverty rate | 8.1% | 10.6% (3.1–25.8%) n=32,364 | 8.5% (2.7–19.1%) n=931 |
| Uninsured 18–64 | 5.0% | 9.0% (1.5–24.3%) n=32,286 | 5.4% (0.7–14.7%) n=931 |
| No HS diploma (25+) | 2.4% | 7.9% (1.8–20.7%) n=32,505 | 5.1% (1.6–12.9%) n=932 |
| Bachelor's or higher (25+) | 19.9% | 23.3% (9.2–53.6%) n=32,505 | 20.9% (9.8–36.8%) n=932 |
| Unemployment rate (16+) | 3.2% | 3.9% (0.0–9.8%) n=32,274 | 2.2% (0.0–6.7%) n=932 |
| Households without a vehicle | 1.4% | 3.9% (0.0–12.5%) n=32,322 | 2.4% (0.0–7.9%) n=931 |
| Broadband subscription | 95.0% | 89.3% (75.1–97.1%) n=32,322 | 88.5% (77.9–95.1%) n=931 |
| Housing cost burden (≥30% income) | 10.4% | 23.7% (10.6–40.0%) n=32,322 | 18.2% (9.0–28.8%) n=931 |
| Homeownership rate | 68.9% | 78.7% (51.7–94.0%) n=32,322 | 82.1% (66.8–93.5%) n=931 |
| Crowded housing (>1 per room) | 0.4% | 1.3% (0.0–6.3%) n=32,322 | 0.4% (0.0–3.3%) n=931 |
| Foreign-born population | 0.6% | 2.6% (0.0–18.6%) n=32,553 | 1.0% (0.0–7.2%) n=932 |
| Single-parent households | 43.5% | 53.6% (37.3–74.1%) n=32,087 | 56.8% (43.7–75.5%) n=928 |
| Population 65+ | 15.7% | 19.4% (10.8–33.6%) n=32,553 | 20.2% (12.7–31.0%) n=932 |
| Median age | 39.0 yr | 42.2 yr (33.0–56.3) n=32,292 | 42.7 yr (34.1–54.7) n=931 |
| Median household income | $71,417 | $72,070 ($46,039–$118,707) n=30,318 | $73,848 ($55,055–$102,762) n=911 |
| Median home value | $176,600 | $222,200 ($100,300–$579,820) n=30,049 | $161,100 ($93,820–$278,170) n=892 |
| Median gross rent | $1,259 | $1,021 ($677–$1,912) n=25,670 | $825 ($614–$1,113) n=771 |
Life expectancyNCHS / RWJF USALEEP · model-based
| Measure | Value | US median (p10–p90) | IA median (p10–p90) |
|---|---|---|---|
| Life expectancy at birth | 85.5 yr ± 2.67 | 78.9 yr (74.7–82.8) n=31,308 | 80.0 yr (77.2–83.4) n=917 |
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 2.67 years of 85.5, 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