Skip to main content
ZipVitals

Menu

ZIP code

63629

in Bunker, MissouriPopulation 947

ZipVitals Score
How is the ZipVitals Score calculated? →

37.87/ 100

Ranked #28,091 of 32,066 US ZIPs (bottom 12.4%)

Ranked #769 of 993 Missouri ZIPs (bottom 23%)

Ranks are modeled estimates — ZIPs a few hundred places apart are effectively tied.

Broad coverage across health domains

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.

Tree cover

91.1%

in the top 1.0% nationally

Higher is healthier

ST99th
US99th
Definition & source ›

The share of this ZIP’s land area covered by forest.

Full methodology ›

Arsenic in groundwater

1.00%

in the bottom 2.0% nationally

Lower is healthier

ST2nd
US2nd
Definition & 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 ›

Distance to an emergency room

25.4 mi

in the top 3.0% nationally

Lower is healthier

ST97th
US97th
Definition & source ›

The distance in miles from this ZIP’s edge to the nearest Medicare-certified hospital with an emergency room.

Full methodology ›

Park land

43.2%

in the top 3.0% nationally

Higher is healthier

ST98th
US97th
Definition & source ›

The share of this ZIP’s land area that is public parkland.

Full methodology ›

PFAS in drinking water

7.4%

in the bottom 4.0% nationally

Lower is healthier

ST10th
US4th
Definition & 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 ›

Cognitive disability

20.4%

in the top 7.8% nationally

Lower is healthier

ST76th
US92nd
Definition & source ›

The estimated share of adults with serious difficulty concentrating, remembering, or making decisions.

Full methodology ›

Hearing disability

11.3%

in the top 7.5% nationally

Lower is healthier

ST80th
US93rd
Definition & source ›

The estimated share of adults who are deaf or have serious difficulty hearing.

Full methodology ›

Slow internet speeds

1.4%

in the top 8.5% nationally

Lower is healthier

ST91st
US92nd
Definition & source ›

The share of homes whose fastest available download speed is under 10 Mbps.

Full methodology ›

Home broadband subscription

74.4%

in the bottom 9.3% nationally

Higher is healthier

ST13th
US9th
Definition & source ›

The share of households with a broadband internet subscription.

Full methodology ›

Walkability

2.3 intersections/sq mi

in the bottom 9.4% nationally

Higher is healthier

ST3rd
US9th
Definition & source ›

The number of street intersections per square mile — a standard street-connectivity measure; denser networks correlate with more walkable neighborhoods.

Full methodology ›

The read

On the composite measure, Bunker, Missouri (ZIP 63629) stands in the bottom 12.4% nationally (28,091st) and the bottom 23% of Missouri (769th), based on limited data; treat as directional.

continue reading

The weightiest signals in the profile are worth naming up front: distance to an emergency room resides in the top 3.0% nationally, and modeled cognitive disability stands in the top 7.8% nationally. Modeled hearing disability sits in the top 7.5% nationally, and slow internet speeds resides in the top 8.5% nationally. Home broadband subscription stands in the bottom 9.3% nationally, and walkability sits in the bottom 9.4% nationally. More positively, modeled tree cover resides in the top 1.0% nationally, modeled arsenic stands in the bottom 2.0% nationally, and park land sits in the top 3.0% nationally. Modeled pfas resides in the bottom 4.0% nationally.

Set beside the wider area around it, park land runs far higher than the surrounding ZIPs on this measure. For clarity, arsenic is a natural groundwater contaminant, here a modeled estimate of the chance private-well levels exceed a benchmark. 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. ZIP 65440, just across the boundary, ranks better overall among the ZIPs nearby.

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.

Compare within

Lifting this score

Environmental Hazard

healthier than 86%

14%

Holding it back

Chronic Disease Burden

healthier than 14%

21%

Social Need / SDOH

healthier than 19%

16%

Preventive Care

healthier than 23%

13%

Risk Behavior

healthier than 9%

11%

Mental Health

healthier than 20%

8%

Disability

healthier than 10%

7%

Climate / Disaster RiskPartial

healthier than 33%

5%

Healthcare Access

healthier than 18%

5%

Lifting this score

Environmental Hazard

healthier than 89%

14%

Holding it back

Chronic Disease Burden

healthier than 17%

21%

Social Need / SDOH

healthier than 18%

16%

Preventive Care

healthier than 22%

13%

Risk Behavior

healthier than 17%

11%

Mental Health

healthier than 27%

8%

Disability

healthier than 16%

7%

Climate / Disaster RiskPartial

healthier than 39%

5%

Healthcare Access

healthier than 11%

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.

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
MeasureCrude prevalence95% CI
Arthritis among adults35.2%32.1–38.1
High blood pressure among adults42.3%38.7–45.8
Cancer (non-skin) or melanoma among adults9.9%9.1–10.8
Current asthma among adults11.2%10.1–12.3
Coronary heart disease among adults9.7%8.8–10.7
Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease among adults12.4%11.1–14.0
Depression among adults25.7%22.6–28.8
Diagnosed diabetes among adults15.5%13.8–17.3
High cholesterol among adults who have ever been screened41.3%37.7–44.8
Obesity among adults40.9%34.2–47.7
Stroke among adults4.9%4.5–5.4
All teeth lost among adults aged >=65 years17.7%15.2–20.3
PreventionCDC PLACES 2022 / 2023 · BRFSS
MeasureCrude prevalence95% CI
Current lack of health insurance among adults aged 18-64 years10.3%8.6–12.4
Taking medicine to control high blood pressure among adults with high blood pressure79.8%77.5–81.8
Visits to doctor for routine checkup within the past year among adults78.7%75.9–81.4
Cholesterol screening among adults83.3%81.5–85.1
Colorectal cancer screening among adults aged 45–75 years61.4%57.3–65.2
Visited dentist or dental clinic in the past year among adults53.9%50.7–57.0
Mammography use among women aged 50-74 years70.1%63.4–76.0
Health Risk BehaviorsCDC PLACES 2022 / 2023 · BRFSS
MeasureCrude prevalence95% CI
Binge drinking among adults14.7%12.5–17.0
Current cigarette smoking among adults22.1%19.4–25.1
No leisure-time physical activity among adults35.5%31.1–40.0
Short sleep duration among adults39.0%33.5–44.3
Health StatusCDC PLACES 2023 · BRFSS
MeasureCrude prevalence95% CI
Fair or poor self-rated health status among adults27.0%24.2–30.2
Frequent mental distress among adults18.8%17.0–20.7
Frequent physical distress among adults18.3%16.6–20.3
DisabilityCDC PLACES 2023 · BRFSS
MeasureCrude prevalence95% CI
Cognitive disability among adults20.4%18.3–22.7
Any disability among adults43.4%39.3–47.6
Hearing disability among adults11.3%10.3–12.4
Independent living disability among adults11.9%10.7–13.3
Mobility disability among adults21.5%19.3–24.0
Self-care disability among adults5.7%5.1–6.4
Vision disability among adults6.9%6.2–7.7
Health-Related Social NeedsCDC PLACES 2023 · BRFSS
MeasureCrude prevalence95% CI
Lack of social and emotional support among adults20.3%17.8–23.3
Food insecurity in the past 12 months among adults17.2%14.8–20.0
Received food stamps in the past 12 months among adults15.2%12.9–17.7
Housing insecurity in the past 12 months among adults13.1%11.4–15.0
Lack of reliable transportation in the past 12 months among adults9.9%8.8–11.2
Loneliness among adults30.7%26.9–35.0
Utility services shut-off threat in the past 12 months among adults10.2%9.0–11.5
Community & economyCensus ACS 5-Year · 2024 release · observed
MeasureValueUS median (p10–p90)MO median (p10–p90)
Poverty rate18.1%10.6% (3.1–25.8%) n=32,36412.3% (3.2–26.0%) n=1,009
Uninsured 18–6411.2%9.0% (1.5–24.3%) n=32,28613.2% (3.5–28.4%) n=1,006
No HS diploma (25+)15.0%7.9% (1.8–20.7%) n=32,5059.5% (2.5–20.5%) n=1,009
Bachelor's or higher (25+)5.3%23.3% (9.2–53.6%) n=32,50518.1% (7.2–40.2%) n=1,009
Unemployment rate (16+)3.3%3.9% (0.0–9.8%) n=32,2742.9% (0.0–8.5%) n=1,003
Households without a vehicle10.7%3.9% (0.0–12.5%) n=32,3224.1% (0.0–11.9%) n=1,009
Broadband subscription74.4%89.3% (75.1–97.1%) n=32,32286.3% (72.7–95.2%) n=1,009
Housing cost burden (≥30% income)23.7%23.7% (10.6–40.0%) n=32,32220.7% (8.4–33.9%) n=1,009
Homeownership rate90.1%78.7% (51.7–94.0%) n=32,32279.4% (56.0–94.3%) n=1,009
Crowded housing (>1 per room)3.9%1.3% (0.0–6.3%) n=32,3221.1% (0.0–5.1%) n=1,009
Foreign-born population0.0%2.6% (0.0–18.6%) n=32,5530.8% (0.0–6.4%) n=1,010
Single-parent households70.3%53.6% (37.3–74.1%) n=32,08755.0% (39.5–75.6%) n=1,005
Population 65+28.7%19.4% (10.8–33.6%) n=32,55319.2% (11.7–31.1%) n=1,010
Median age49.1 yr42.2 yr (33.0–56.3) n=32,29241.5 yr (33.3–55.9) n=1,005
Median household income$47,049$72,070 ($46,039–$118,707) n=30,318$61,740 ($42,457–$95,231) n=948
Median home value$103,800$222,200 ($100,300–$579,820) n=30,049$174,150 ($91,880–$309,500) n=930
Median gross rent$480$1,021 ($677–$1,912) n=25,670$813 ($553–$1,265) n=786
Life expectancyNCHS / RWJF USALEEP · model-based
MeasureValueUS median (p10–p90)MO median (p10–p90)
Life expectancy at birth77.5 yr ± 0.9678.9 yr (74.7–82.8) n=31,30877.6 yr (74.6–81.0) n=995

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 77.5, and it’s very unlikely to be off by more than twice that.

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