ZIP code
64767
in Milo, MissouriPopulation 418
35.49/ 100
Ranked #29,194 of 32,066 US ZIPs (bottom 9.0%)
Ranked #850 of 993 Missouri ZIPs (bottom 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.
PFAS in drinking water
4.4%
in the bottom 0.7% nationally
Lower is healthier
ST1stUS1stDefinition & 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 ›Poverty rate
40%
in the top 3.0% nationally
Lower is healthier
ST97thUS97thDefinition & source ›
The share of residents whose income is below the federal poverty line, from the Census Bureau’s American Community Survey.
Full methodology ›Lithium in drinking water
90 µg/L
in the top 3.1% nationally
Lower is healthier
ST98thUS97thDefinition & 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 ›Hearing disability
12.1%
in the top 4.2% nationally
Lower is healthier
ST89thUS96thDefinition & source ›
The estimated share of adults who are deaf or have serious difficulty hearing.
Full methodology ›Slow internet speeds
3.1%
in the top 3.8% nationally
Lower is healthier
ST98thUS96thDefinition & source ›
The share of homes whose fastest available download speed is under 10 Mbps.
Full methodology ›Energy-cost burden
5.4%
in the top 5.8% nationally
Lower is healthier
ST94thUS94thDefinition & 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 ›Tooth loss
24.3%
in the top 8.3% nationally
Lower is healthier
ST87thUS92ndDefinition & source ›
The estimated share of adults aged 65 and older who have lost all of their natural teeth.
Full methodology ›Cognitive disability
20.1%
in the top 9.0% nationally
Lower is healthier
ST73rdUS91stDefinition & source ›
The estimated share of adults with serious difficulty concentrating, remembering, or making decisions.
Full methodology ›Homeownership rate
95%
in the top 8.6% nationally
Higher is healthier
ST91stUS91stDefinition & source ›
The share of occupied homes that are owned, rather than rented, by the people living in them.
Full methodology ›Coronary heart disease
10.2%
in the top 8.3% nationally
Lower is healthier
ST88thUS92ndDefinition & source ›
The estimated share of adults who have been told by a health professional that they have coronary heart disease or angina.
Full methodology ›The read
Milo, Missouri (ZIP 64767), by its overall standing, sits in the bottom 9.0% nationally (29,194th) and the bottom 14.5% of Missouri (850th).
The profile opens balanced, with readings on either hand: modeled pfas rests in the bottom 0.7% nationally. Unemployment lies at the national minimum, shared with about 15% of ZIPs. Homeownership sits in the top 8.6% nationally. By contrast, poverty settles in the top 3.0% nationally, and lithium in drinking water registers in the top 3.1% nationally. Modeled hearing disability stands in the top 4.2% nationally, and slow internet speeds lands in the top 3.8% nationally. Modeled energy burden is in the top 5.8% nationally, and tooth loss resides in the top 8.3% nationally. Modeled cognitive disability rests in the top 9.0% nationally.
Held up against its neighbors, slow internet speeds runs far higher than the surrounding ZIPs on this measure. Defined in plain terms, 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. Lithium in drinking water is a natural metal that dissolves into some groundwater and has no federal drinking-water limit yet. Energy burden is the share of household income that goes to home energy bills. The nearest ZIP ranking healthier overall is ZIP 64772, 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.
Nothing measured is lifting this score.
About typical
Environmental Hazard
healthier than 42%
14%
Healthcare Access
healthier than 41%
5%
Holding it back
Chronic Disease Burden
healthier than 11%
21%
Social Need / SDOH
healthier than 7%
16%
Preventive Care
healthier than 22%
13%
Risk Behavior
healthier than 10%
11%
Mental Health
healthier than 19%
8%
Disability
healthier than 9%
7%
Climate / Disaster Risk
healthier than 32%
5%
Nothing measured is lifting this score.
About typical
Healthcare Access
healthier than 44%
5%
Holding it back
Chronic Disease Burden
healthier than 12%
21%
Social Need / SDOH
healthier than 4%
16%
Environmental Hazard
healthier than 32%
14%
Preventive Care
healthier than 19%
13%
Risk Behavior
healthier than 19%
11%
Mental Health
healthier than 25%
8%
Disability
healthier than 13%
7%
Climate / Disaster Risk
healthier than 35%
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
64744
Missourishares a border
Score 33.85
Closest healthier
64772
Missourishares a border
Score 39.94
Similar health profile
63851
Missouri99% similar profile
Score 19.04
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 | 35.5% | 31.6–39.4 |
| High blood pressure among adults | 42.7% | 38.1–47.1 |
| Cancer (non-skin) or melanoma among adults | 10.5% | 9.4–11.7 |
| Current asthma among adults | 11.1% | 9.8–12.6 |
| Coronary heart disease among adults | 10.2% | 9.1–11.4 |
| Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease among adults | 12.3% | 10.6–14.2 |
| Depression among adults | 26.2% | 22.3–30.3 |
| Diagnosed diabetes among adults | 15.3% | 13.2–17.6 |
| High cholesterol among adults who have ever been screened | 42.1% | 37.2–46.8 |
| Obesity among adults | 37.9% | 29.6–46.4 |
| Stroke among adults | 5.1% | 4.5–5.7 |
| All teeth lost among adults aged >=65 years | 24.3% | 20.4–28.9 |
PreventionCDC PLACES 2022 / 2023 · BRFSS
| Measure | Crude prevalence | 95% CI |
|---|---|---|
| Current lack of health insurance among adults aged 18-64 years | 10.2% | 8.3–12.3 |
| Taking medicine to control high blood pressure among adults with high blood pressure | 80.4% | 77.6–83.1 |
| Visits to doctor for routine checkup within the past year among adults | 79.5% | 76.0–83.0 |
| Cholesterol screening among adults | 84.3% | 82.0–86.3 |
| Colorectal cancer screening among adults aged 45–75 years | 61.3% | 56.0–66.8 |
| Visited dentist or dental clinic in the past year among adults | 48.8% | 44.8–53.1 |
| Mammography use among women aged 50-74 years | 69.1% | 60.3–77.7 |
Health Risk BehaviorsCDC PLACES 2022 / 2023 · BRFSS
| Measure | Crude prevalence | 95% CI |
|---|---|---|
| Binge drinking among adults | 14.5% | 11.8–17.6 |
| Current cigarette smoking among adults | 21.4% | 18.0–24.8 |
| No leisure-time physical activity among adults | 35.5% | 30.0–41.2 |
| Short sleep duration among adults | 39.3% | 32.6–47.3 |
Health StatusCDC PLACES 2023 · BRFSS
| Measure | Crude prevalence | 95% CI |
|---|---|---|
| Fair or poor self-rated health status among adults | 26.9% | 23.3–30.8 |
| Frequent mental distress among adults | 18.6% | 16.2–21.0 |
| Frequent physical distress among adults | 18.2% | 15.9–20.7 |
DisabilityCDC PLACES 2023 · BRFSS
| Measure | Crude prevalence | 95% CI |
|---|---|---|
| Cognitive disability among adults | 20.1% | 17.5–22.8 |
| Any disability among adults | 44.2% | 38.9–49.4 |
| Hearing disability among adults | 12.1% | 10.8–13.6 |
| Independent living disability among adults | 12.0% | 10.4–13.6 |
| Mobility disability among adults | 21.9% | 19.1–25.0 |
| Self-care disability among adults | 5.6% | 4.9–6.4 |
| Vision disability among adults | 7.0% | 6.2–7.9 |
Health-Related Social NeedsCDC PLACES 2023 · BRFSS
| Measure | Crude prevalence | 95% CI |
|---|---|---|
| Lack of social and emotional support among adults | 20.1% | 16.8–23.7 |
| Food insecurity in the past 12 months among adults | 16.8% | 13.9–20.0 |
| Received food stamps in the past 12 months among adults | 14.8% | 12.2–17.6 |
| Housing insecurity in the past 12 months among adults | 12.7% | 10.7–15.0 |
| Lack of reliable transportation in the past 12 months among adults | 9.6% | 8.3–11.1 |
| Loneliness among adults | 31.1% | 26.2–36.5 |
| Utility services shut-off threat in the past 12 months among adults | 9.8% | 8.4–11.4 |
Community & economyCensus ACS 5-Year · 2024 release · observed
| Measure | Value | US median (p10–p90) | MO median (p10–p90) |
|---|---|---|---|
| Poverty rate | 40.0% | 10.6% (3.1–25.8%) n=32,364 | 12.3% (3.2–26.0%) n=1,009 |
| Uninsured 18–64 | 37.2% | 9.0% (1.5–24.3%) n=32,286 | 13.2% (3.5–28.4%) n=1,006 |
| No HS diploma (25+) | 19.2% | 7.9% (1.8–20.7%) n=32,505 | 9.5% (2.5–20.5%) n=1,009 |
| Bachelor's or higher (25+) | 17.0% | 23.3% (9.2–53.6%) n=32,505 | 18.1% (7.2–40.2%) n=1,009 |
| Unemployment rate (16+) | 0.0% | 3.9% (0.0–9.8%) n=32,274 | 2.9% (0.0–8.5%) n=1,003 |
| Households without a vehicle | 13.0% | 3.9% (0.0–12.5%) n=32,322 | 4.1% (0.0–11.9%) n=1,009 |
| Broadband subscription | 83.9% | 89.3% (75.1–97.1%) n=32,322 | 86.3% (72.7–95.2%) n=1,009 |
| Housing cost burden (≥30% income) | 37.9% | 23.7% (10.6–40.0%) n=32,322 | 20.7% (8.4–33.9%) n=1,009 |
| Homeownership rate | 95.0% | 78.7% (51.7–94.0%) n=32,322 | 79.4% (56.0–94.3%) n=1,009 |
| Crowded housing (>1 per room) | 2.5% | 1.3% (0.0–6.3%) n=32,322 | 1.1% (0.0–5.1%) n=1,009 |
| Foreign-born population | 0.2% | 2.6% (0.0–18.6%) n=32,553 | 0.8% (0.0–6.4%) n=1,010 |
| Single-parent households | 38.5% | 53.6% (37.3–74.1%) n=32,087 | 55.0% (39.5–75.6%) n=1,005 |
| Population 65+ | 16.0% | 19.4% (10.8–33.6%) n=32,553 | 19.2% (11.7–31.1%) n=1,010 |
| Median age | 37.6 yr | 42.2 yr (33.0–56.3) n=32,292 | 41.5 yr (33.3–55.9) n=1,005 |
| Median household income | $36,813 | $72,070 ($46,039–$118,707) n=30,318 | $61,740 ($42,457–$95,231) n=948 |
| Median home value | $175,800 | $222,200 ($100,300–$579,820) n=30,049 | $174,150 ($91,880–$309,500) n=930 |
| Median gross rent | — | $1,021 ($677–$1,912) n=25,670 | $813 ($553–$1,265) n=786 |
Life expectancyNCHS / RWJF USALEEP · model-based
| Measure | Value | US median (p10–p90) | MO median (p10–p90) |
|---|---|---|---|
| Life expectancy at birth | 75.2 yr ± 0.93 | 78.9 yr (74.7–82.8) n=31,308 | 77.6 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 0.93 years of 75.2, 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