ZIP code
55920
in Byron, MinnesotaPopulation 9,271
63.83/ 100
Ranked #2,555 of 32,066 US ZIPs (top 8.0%)
Ranked #66 of 866 Minnesota ZIPs (top 7.7%)
Ranked #4 of 34 Rochester, MN ZIPs (top 11.8%)
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.
Loneliness
26.4%
in the bottom 1.7% nationally
Lower is healthier
ST3rdUS2ndDefinition & source ›
The estimated share of adults who report feeling lonely.
Full methodology ›Mammography
82.3%
in the top 3.4% nationally
Higher is healthier
ST98thUS97thDefinition & source ›
The estimated share of women aged 50–74 who had a mammogram within the past two years.
Full methodology ›Median household income
$131,336
in the top 6.7% nationally
Higher is healthier
ST96thUS93rdDefinition & source ›
The middle household income in this ZIP — half of households earn more, half earn less — in dollars per year.
Full methodology ›Lithium in drinking water
9.9 µg/L
in the bottom 6.3% nationally
Lower is healthier
ST20thUS6thDefinition & source ›
The average detected level of lithium — a natural trace metal with no federal drinking-water limit yet — across the public water systems serving this ZIP, in micrograms per liter.
Measured from EPA records for the public water systems that serve this ZIP. Households on private wells — roughly 30% of the US population — are not covered by this measure, and this figure says nothing about their water.
Full methodology ›Food insecurity
7.8%
in the bottom 6.6% nationally
Lower is healthier
ST6thUS7thDefinition & source ›
The estimated share of adults who experienced food insecurity in the past 12 months.
Full methodology ›Housing insecurity
7.0%
in the bottom 7.4% nationally
Lower is healthier
ST9thUS7thDefinition & source ›
The estimated share of adults who experienced housing insecurity in the past 12 months.
Full methodology ›Fair or poor health
12.7%
in the bottom 5.1% nationally
Lower is healthier
ST5thUS5thDefinition & source ›
The estimated share of adults who rate their own general health as fair or poor.
Full methodology ›Tooth loss
5.5%
in the bottom 3.3% nationally
Lower is healthier
ST4thUS3rdDefinition & source ›
The estimated share of adults aged 65 and older who have lost all of their natural teeth.
Full methodology ›Utility shut-off threat
4.6%
in the bottom 8.6% nationally
Lower is healthier
ST11thUS9thDefinition & source ›
The estimated share of adults whose household was threatened with a utility shut-off in the past 12 months.
Full methodology ›PFAS in drinking water
10.0%
in the bottom 9.0% nationally
Lower is healthier
ST14thUS9thDefinition & 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 ›The read
Byron, Minnesota (ZIP 55920) ranks in the top 8.0% healthiest ZIPs nationally (2,555th) and the top 7.7% of Minnesota (66th).
Several signals sit on each side of the ledger here: modeled loneliness settles in the bottom 1.7% nationally, and mammography rests in the top 3.4% nationally. Household income lands in the top 6.7% nationally, and lithium in drinking water settles in the bottom 6.3% nationally. Modeled food insecurity rests in the bottom 6.6% nationally, housing insecurity lands in the bottom 7.4% nationally, and fair or poor health settles in the bottom 5.1% nationally. Modeled tooth loss rests in the bottom 3.3% nationally, utility shutoff lands in the bottom 8.6% nationally, and pfas settles in the bottom 9.0% nationally.
For context, lithium in drinking water is a natural metal that dissolves into some groundwater and has no federal drinking-water limit yet. 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 closest ZIP that ranks healthier overall is ZIP 55902, 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 Rochester, MN metro area.
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 88%
21%
Social Need / SDOH
healthier than 95%
16%
Preventive Care
healthier than 72%
13%
Risk Behavior
healthier than 85%
11%
Disability
healthier than 92%
7%
Climate / Disaster Risk
healthier than 77%
5%
About typical
Environmental Hazard
healthier than 43%
14%
Mental Health
healthier than 58%
8%
Healthcare Access
healthier than 40%
5%
Nothing measured is holding this score back.
Lifting this score
Chronic Disease Burden
healthier than 82%
21%
Social Need / SDOH
healthier than 93%
16%
Environmental Hazard
healthier than 73%
14%
Preventive Care
healthier than 66%
13%
Risk Behavior
healthier than 86%
11%
Disability
healthier than 89%
7%
Healthcare Access
healthier than 75%
5%
About typical
Mental Health
healthier than 55%
8%
Climate / Disaster Risk
healthier than 53%
5%
Nothing measured is holding this score back.
Lifting this score
Chronic Disease Burden
healthier than 91%
21%
Social Need / SDOH
in the top 0.00%
16%
Preventive Care
healthier than 83%
13%
Risk Behavior
healthier than 83%
11%
Mental Health
healthier than 65%
8%
Disability
healthier than 91%
7%
Healthcare Access
healthier than 78%
5%
About typical
Environmental Hazard
healthier than 57%
14%
Holding it back
Climate / Disaster Risk
healthier than 17%
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
55901
Minnesotashares a border
Score 61.76
Closest healthier
55902
Minnesotashares a border
Score 67.29
Similar health profile
30750
Georgia99% similar profile
Score 61.41
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 | 21.9% | 19.6–24.4 |
| High blood pressure among adults | 28.9% | 26.1–32.2 |
| Cancer (non-skin) or melanoma among adults | 8.7% | 7.9–9.6 |
| Current asthma among adults | 10.0% | 8.8–11.2 |
| Coronary heart disease among adults | 5.0% | 4.5–5.7 |
| Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease among adults | 4.5% | 3.9–5.3 |
| Depression among adults | 25.6% | 22.5–28.9 |
| Diagnosed diabetes among adults | 8.6% | 7.4–9.9 |
| High cholesterol among adults who have ever been screened | 33.4% | 30.0–36.9 |
| Obesity among adults | 37.0% | 32.3–42.2 |
| Stroke among adults | 2.6% | 2.3–2.9 |
| All teeth lost among adults aged >=65 years | 5.5% | 4.4–6.7 |
PreventionCDC PLACES 2022 / 2023 · BRFSS
| Measure | Crude prevalence | 95% CI |
|---|---|---|
| Current lack of health insurance among adults aged 18-64 years | 5.5% | 4.4–6.8 |
| Taking medicine to control high blood pressure among adults with high blood pressure | 74.8% | 71.4–77.8 |
| Visits to doctor for routine checkup within the past year among adults | 72.6% | 68.9–75.9 |
| Cholesterol screening among adults | 86.9% | 85.0–88.6 |
| Colorectal cancer screening among adults aged 45–75 years | 71.0% | 67.0–74.8 |
| Visited dentist or dental clinic in the past year among adults | 71.0% | 68.1–73.8 |
| Mammography use among women aged 50-74 years | 82.3% | 76.8–87.0 |
Health Risk BehaviorsCDC PLACES 2022 / 2023 · BRFSS
| Measure | Crude prevalence | 95% CI |
|---|---|---|
| Binge drinking among adults | 17.4% | 14.7–20.4 |
| Current cigarette smoking among adults | 11.7% | 9.6–14.0 |
| No leisure-time physical activity among adults | 19.3% | 16.3–22.8 |
| Short sleep duration among adults | 30.1% | 25.8–34.5 |
Health StatusCDC PLACES 2023 · BRFSS
| Measure | Crude prevalence | 95% CI |
|---|---|---|
| Fair or poor self-rated health status among adults | 12.7% | 10.9–14.9 |
| Frequent mental distress among adults | 14.1% | 12.4–16.0 |
| Frequent physical distress among adults | 10.3% | 9.0–11.8 |
DisabilityCDC PLACES 2023 · BRFSS
| Measure | Crude prevalence | 95% CI |
|---|---|---|
| Cognitive disability among adults | 11.0% | 9.5–12.7 |
| Any disability among adults | 23.3% | 20.4–26.8 |
| Hearing disability among adults | 5.9% | 5.3–6.7 |
| Independent living disability among adults | 5.8% | 5.0–6.8 |
| Mobility disability among adults | 9.8% | 8.4–11.5 |
| Self-care disability among adults | 2.5% | 2.2–2.9 |
| Vision disability among adults | 3.1% | 2.7–3.5 |
Health-Related Social NeedsCDC PLACES 2023 · BRFSS
| Measure | Crude prevalence | 95% CI |
|---|---|---|
| Lack of social and emotional support among adults | 18.0% | 15.1–20.9 |
| Food insecurity in the past 12 months among adults | 7.8% | 6.2–9.6 |
| Received food stamps in the past 12 months among adults | 5.5% | 4.3–7.0 |
| Housing insecurity in the past 12 months among adults | 7.0% | 5.7–8.4 |
| Lack of reliable transportation in the past 12 months among adults | 5.4% | 4.6–6.3 |
| Loneliness among adults | 26.4% | 22.4–30.1 |
| Utility services shut-off threat in the past 12 months among adults | 4.6% | 3.8–5.4 |
Community & economyCensus ACS 5-Year · 2024 release · observed
| Measure | Value | US median (p10–p90) | MN median (p10–p90) |
|---|---|---|---|
| Poverty rate | 3.7% | 10.6% (3.1–25.8%) n=32,364 | 8.4% (3.6–16.8%) n=872 |
| Uninsured 18–64 | 0.6% | 9.0% (1.5–24.3%) n=32,286 | 6.2% (2.3–12.7%) n=872 |
| No HS diploma (25+) | 1.9% | 7.9% (1.8–20.7%) n=32,505 | 5.5% (2.2–11.2%) n=873 |
| Bachelor's or higher (25+) | 47.1% | 23.3% (9.2–53.6%) n=32,505 | 23.4% (13.6–48.8%) n=873 |
| Unemployment rate (16+) | 3.5% | 3.9% (0.0–9.8%) n=32,274 | 3.2% (0.8–7.1%) n=872 |
| Households without a vehicle | 2.1% | 3.9% (0.0–12.5%) n=32,322 | 3.4% (0.4–9.1%) n=871 |
| Broadband subscription | 95.1% | 89.3% (75.1–97.1%) n=32,322 | 89.2% (81.6–95.3%) n=871 |
| Housing cost burden (≥30% income) | 19.7% | 23.7% (10.6–40.0%) n=32,322 | 22.1% (14.0–31.1%) n=871 |
| Homeownership rate | 85.6% | 78.7% (51.7–94.0%) n=32,322 | 83.9% (67.0–94.0%) n=871 |
| Crowded housing (>1 per room) | 0.9% | 1.3% (0.0–6.3%) n=32,322 | 1.1% (0.0–3.9%) n=871 |
| Foreign-born population | 2.8% | 2.6% (0.0–18.6%) n=32,553 | 1.8% (0.1–11.9%) n=873 |
| Single-parent households | 50.7% | 53.6% (37.3–74.1%) n=32,087 | 56.9% (44.1–70.7%) n=870 |
| Population 65+ | 14.2% | 19.4% (10.8–33.6%) n=32,553 | 20.2% (12.7–30.7%) n=873 |
| Median age | 38.4 yr | 42.2 yr (33.0–56.3) n=32,292 | 42.3 yr (35.2–54.3) n=873 |
| Median household income | $131,336 | $72,070 ($46,039–$118,707) n=30,318 | $77,917 ($58,441–$110,840) n=864 |
| Median home value | $372,600 | $222,200 ($100,300–$579,820) n=30,049 | $234,000 ($132,740–$396,860) n=857 |
| Median gross rent | $1,138 | $1,021 ($677–$1,912) n=25,670 | $925 ($650–$1,588) n=759 |
Life expectancyNCHS / RWJF USALEEP · model-based
| Measure | Value | US median (p10–p90) | MN median (p10–p90) |
|---|---|---|---|
| Life expectancy at birth | 82.0 yr ± 1.22 | 78.9 yr (74.7–82.8) n=31,308 | 81.1 yr (78.3–84.8) n=864 |
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 1.22 years of 82.0, 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