ZIP code
65685
in Louisburg, MissouriPopulation 794
31.89/ 100
Ranked #30,337 of 32,066 US ZIPs (bottom 5.4%)
Ranked #920 of 993 Missouri ZIPs (bottom 7.4%)
Ranked #48 of 52 Springfield, MO ZIPs (bottom 7.7%)
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.
Civic-institution access
2.1 per 1,000 residents
in the top 1.0% nationally
Higher is healthier
ST99thUS99thDefinition & 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 ›Cognitive disability
22.6%
in the top 3.0% nationally
Lower is healthier
ST93rdUS97thDefinition & source ›
The estimated share of adults with serious difficulty concentrating, remembering, or making decisions.
Full methodology ›Independent-living disability
13.9%
in the top 4.3% nationally
Lower is healthier
ST94thUS96thDefinition & source ›
The estimated share of adults who have difficulty doing errands alone, such as visiting a doctor’s office, because of a physical, mental, or emotional condition.
Full methodology ›Hearing disability
12.4%
in the top 3.3% nationally
Lower is healthier
ST91stUS97thDefinition & source ›
The estimated share of adults who are deaf or have serious difficulty hearing.
Full methodology ›Mobility disability
24.3%
in the top 4.4% nationally
Lower is healthier
ST92ndUS96thDefinition & source ›
The estimated share of adults with serious difficulty walking or climbing stairs.
Full methodology ›Mammography
67.1%
in the bottom 5.7% nationally
Higher is healthier
ST3rdUS6thDefinition & source ›
The estimated share of women aged 50–74 who had a mammogram within the past two years.
Full methodology ›Self-care disability
6.8%
in the top 6.8% nationally
Lower is healthier
ST94thUS93rdDefinition & source ›
The estimated share of adults with difficulty dressing or bathing.
Full methodology ›Arsenic in groundwater
1.2%
in the bottom 5.7% nationally
Lower is healthier
ST15thUS6thDefinition & 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 ›Fair or poor health
30.4%
in the top 7.6% nationally
Lower is healthier
ST93rdUS92ndDefinition & source ›
The estimated share of adults who rate their own general health as fair or poor.
Full methodology ›Coronary heart disease
10.6%
in the top 6.0% nationally
Lower is healthier
ST91stUS94thDefinition & 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
Judged by its overall standing, Louisburg, Missouri (ZIP 65685) sits in the bottom 5.4% nationally (30,337th) and the bottom 7.4% of Missouri (920th).
A demanding profile, and several measures drive it: modeled cognitive disability sits in the top 3.0% nationally, independent living disability stands in the top 4.3% nationally, and hearing disability resides in the top 3.3% nationally. Modeled mobility disability sits in the top 4.4% nationally, mammography stands in the bottom 5.7% nationally, and self-care disability resides in the top 6.8% nationally. Modeled fair or poor health sits in the top 7.6% nationally, and coronary heart disease stands in the top 6.0% nationally. On the stronger side, civic resides in the top 1.0% nationally, and modeled arsenic sits in the bottom 5.7% nationally.
Placed beside its immediate neighbors, civic runs far higher than the surrounding ZIPs on this measure. Put plainly, arsenic is a natural groundwater contaminant, here a modeled estimate of the chance private-well levels exceed a benchmark. A healthier nearby ZIP overall is ZIP 65622, 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 Springfield, MO metro area.
Compared with the ZIP codes measured across all nine scoring domains — not with all US ZIP codes.
Lifting this score
Environmental Hazard
healthier than 75%
14%
About typical
Climate / Disaster Risk
healthier than 46%
5%
Healthcare Access
healthier than 47%
5%
Holding it back
Chronic Disease Burden
healthier than 6%
21%
Social Need / SDOH
healthier than 11%
16%
Preventive Care
healthier than 12%
13%
Risk Behavior
healthier than 4%
11%
Mental Health
healthier than 11%
8%
Disability
healthier than 3%
7%
Lifting this score
Environmental Hazard
healthier than 74%
14%
Climate / Disaster Risk
healthier than 81%
5%
About typical
Healthcare Access
healthier than 53%
5%
Holding it back
Chronic Disease Burden
healthier than 8%
21%
Social Need / SDOH
healthier than 8%
16%
Preventive Care
healthier than 6%
13%
Risk Behavior
healthier than 5%
11%
Mental Health
healthier than 8%
8%
Disability
healthier than 4%
7%
Lifting this score
Environmental Hazard
healthier than 77%
14%
About typical
Climate / Disaster Risk
healthier than 59%
5%
Healthcare Access
healthier than 43%
5%
Holding it back
Chronic Disease Burden
healthier than 2%
21%
Social Need / SDOH
healthier than 5%
16%
Preventive Care
healthier than 7%
13%
Risk Behavior
healthier than 5%
11%
Mental Health
healthier than 9%
8%
Disability
healthier than 5%
7%
“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
65622
Missourishares a border
Score 39.42
Closest healthier
65663
Missourishares a border
Score 44.57
Similar health profile
65793
Missouri99% similar profile
Score 36.04
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 | 36.2% | 32.7–39.7 |
| High blood pressure among adults | 43.8% | 39.8–47.8 |
| Cancer (non-skin) or melanoma among adults | 9.9% | 8.9–10.8 |
| Current asthma among adults | 11.6% | 10.3–13.0 |
| Coronary heart disease among adults | 10.6% | 9.5–11.8 |
| Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease among adults | 14.3% | 12.4–16.2 |
| Depression among adults | 27.0% | 23.5–30.6 |
| Diagnosed diabetes among adults | 16.9% | 14.8–19.2 |
| High cholesterol among adults who have ever been screened | 41.4% | 37.4–45.4 |
| Obesity among adults | 41.6% | 34.1–49.0 |
| Stroke among adults | 5.5% | 5.0–6.1 |
| All teeth lost among adults aged >=65 years | 24.4% | 20.7–28.3 |
PreventionCDC PLACES 2022 / 2023 · BRFSS
| Measure | Crude prevalence | 95% CI |
|---|---|---|
| Current lack of health insurance among adults aged 18-64 years | 11.5% | 9.4–13.9 |
| Taking medicine to control high blood pressure among adults with high blood pressure | 80.4% | 77.9–82.7 |
| Visits to doctor for routine checkup within the past year among adults | 78.7% | 75.5–81.6 |
| Cholesterol screening among adults | 82.3% | 80.2–84.3 |
| Colorectal cancer screening among adults aged 45–75 years | 57.6% | 52.9–62.1 |
| Visited dentist or dental clinic in the past year among adults | 46.9% | 43.6–50.1 |
| Mammography use among women aged 50-74 years | 67.1% | 59.6–74.1 |
Health Risk BehaviorsCDC PLACES 2022 / 2023 · BRFSS
| Measure | Crude prevalence | 95% CI |
|---|---|---|
| Binge drinking among adults | 13.9% | 11.6–16.3 |
| Current cigarette smoking among adults | 24.9% | 21.5–28.4 |
| No leisure-time physical activity among adults | 39.1% | 33.8–44.6 |
| Short sleep duration among adults | 39.6% | 33.3–46.0 |
Health StatusCDC PLACES 2023 · BRFSS
| Measure | Crude prevalence | 95% CI |
|---|---|---|
| Fair or poor self-rated health status among adults | 30.4% | 26.6–34.4 |
| Frequent mental distress among adults | 20.0% | 17.8–22.3 |
| Frequent physical distress among adults | 20.0% | 17.7–22.5 |
DisabilityCDC PLACES 2023 · BRFSS
| Measure | Crude prevalence | 95% CI |
|---|---|---|
| Cognitive disability among adults | 22.6% | 20.1–25.3 |
| Any disability among adults | 46.8% | 41.8–51.6 |
| Hearing disability among adults | 12.4% | 11.1–13.8 |
| Independent living disability among adults | 13.9% | 12.3–15.7 |
| Mobility disability among adults | 24.3% | 21.2–27.3 |
| Self-care disability among adults | 6.8% | 5.9–7.7 |
| Vision disability among adults | 8.3% | 7.4–9.4 |
Health-Related Social NeedsCDC PLACES 2023 · BRFSS
| Measure | Crude prevalence | 95% CI |
|---|---|---|
| Lack of social and emotional support among adults | 20.4% | 17.5–23.5 |
| Food insecurity in the past 12 months among adults | 21.2% | 18.0–24.5 |
| Received food stamps in the past 12 months among adults | 19.9% | 16.9–23.0 |
| Housing insecurity in the past 12 months among adults | 15.3% | 13.2–17.5 |
| Lack of reliable transportation in the past 12 months among adults | 11.6% | 10.2–13.1 |
| Loneliness among adults | 31.4% | 27.2–36.1 |
| Utility services shut-off threat in the past 12 months among adults | 12.2% | 10.7–13.9 |
Community & economyCensus ACS 5-Year · 2024 release · observed
| Measure | Value | US median (p10–p90) | MO median (p10–p90) |
|---|---|---|---|
| Poverty rate | 23.5% | 10.6% (3.1–25.8%) n=32,364 | 12.3% (3.2–26.0%) n=1,009 |
| Uninsured 18–64 | 41.5% | 9.0% (1.5–24.3%) n=32,286 | 13.2% (3.5–28.4%) n=1,006 |
| No HS diploma (25+) | 15.7% | 7.9% (1.8–20.7%) n=32,505 | 9.5% (2.5–20.5%) n=1,009 |
| Bachelor's or higher (25+) | 10.5% | 23.3% (9.2–53.6%) n=32,505 | 18.1% (7.2–40.2%) n=1,009 |
| Unemployment rate (16+) | 2.9% | 3.9% (0.0–9.8%) n=32,274 | 2.9% (0.0–8.5%) n=1,003 |
| Households without a vehicle | 0.4% | 3.9% (0.0–12.5%) n=32,322 | 4.1% (0.0–11.9%) n=1,009 |
| Broadband subscription | 72.9% | 89.3% (75.1–97.1%) n=32,322 | 86.3% (72.7–95.2%) n=1,009 |
| Housing cost burden (≥30% income) | 28.6% | 23.7% (10.6–40.0%) n=32,322 | 20.7% (8.4–33.9%) n=1,009 |
| Homeownership rate | 88.6% | 78.7% (51.7–94.0%) n=32,322 | 79.4% (56.0–94.3%) n=1,009 |
| Crowded housing (>1 per room) | 2.9% | 1.3% (0.0–6.3%) n=32,322 | 1.1% (0.0–5.1%) n=1,009 |
| Foreign-born population | 0.0% | 2.6% (0.0–18.6%) n=32,553 | 0.8% (0.0–6.4%) n=1,010 |
| Single-parent households | 64.1% | 53.6% (37.3–74.1%) n=32,087 | 55.0% (39.5–75.6%) n=1,005 |
| Population 65+ | 30.1% | 19.4% (10.8–33.6%) n=32,553 | 19.2% (11.7–31.1%) n=1,010 |
| Median age | 41.4 yr | 42.2 yr (33.0–56.3) n=32,292 | 41.5 yr (33.3–55.9) n=1,005 |
| Median household income | $51,394 | $72,070 ($46,039–$118,707) n=30,318 | $61,740 ($42,457–$95,231) n=948 |
| Median home value | $168,800 | $222,200 ($100,300–$579,820) n=30,049 | $174,150 ($91,880–$309,500) n=930 |
| Median gross rent | $1,167 | $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 | 76.8 yr ± 0.80 | 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 0.80 years of 76.8, 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