ZIP code
65779
in Wheatland, MissouriPopulation 1,053
30.49/ 100
Ranked #30,661 of 32,066 US ZIPs (bottom 4.4%)
Ranked #942 of 993 Missouri ZIPs (bottom 5.2%)
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.
Hearing disability
15.9%
in the top 0.2% nationally
Lower is healthier
ST99thUS99thDefinition & source ›
The estimated share of adults who are deaf or have serious difficulty hearing.
Full methodology ›Coronary heart disease
14.0%
in the top 0.3% nationally
Lower is healthier
ST99thUS99thDefinition & source ›
The estimated share of adults who have been told by a health professional that they have coronary heart disease or angina.
Full methodology ›Stroke
7.0%
in the top 1.3% nationally
Lower is healthier
ST99thUS99thDefinition & source ›
The estimated share of adults who have been told by a health professional that they have had a stroke.
Full methodology ›Mobility disability
28.6%
in the top 0.9% nationally
Lower is healthier
ST98thUS99thDefinition & source ›
The estimated share of adults with serious difficulty walking or climbing stairs.
Full methodology ›Fatal road crashes
76 per 100,000 residents per year
in the top 1.1% nationally
Lower is healthier
ST99thUS99thDefinition & source ›
The annual rate of fatal road crashes per 100,000 residents, pooled over a ten-year window.
A rate per resident population. Where a ZIP has too few residents for the rate to be reliable — about 30% of US ZIPs — no value is published rather than an unstable one; those ZIPs are absent from this comparison, not counted as crash-free.
Full methodology ›Energy-cost burden
6.5%
in the top 1.8% nationally
Lower is healthier
ST99thUS98thDefinition & 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 ›Diabetes
20.3%
in the top 3.4% nationally
Lower is healthier
ST98thUS97thDefinition & source ›
The estimated share of adults who have been diagnosed with diabetes.
Full methodology ›High blood pressure
51.5%
in the top 2.2% nationally
Lower is healthier
ST99thUS98thDefinition & source ›
The estimated share of adults who have been told by a health professional that they have high blood pressure.
Full methodology ›Industrial-pollution burden
in the bottom 2.0% nationally
Lower is healthier
ST1stUS2ndDefinition & source ›
The EPA’s modeled screening score for industrial chemical releases, weighting the amounts released by their toxicity and how many people live nearby — a relative comparison score, not a measured exposure.
Full methodology ›High cholesterol
47.4%
in the top 1.2% nationally
Lower is healthier
ST99thUS99thDefinition & source ›
The estimated share of adults with high cholesterol, among those who have ever been screened for it.
Full methodology ›The read
By its overall health score, Wheatland, Missouri (ZIP 65779) lands in the bottom 4.4% nationally (30,661st) and the bottom 5.2% of Missouri (942nd), based on limited data; treat as directional.
The measures that press hardest set the tone here: modeled hearing disability resides in the top 0.2% nationally, and coronary heart disease lands in the top 0.3% nationally. Modeled stroke registers in the top 1.3% nationally, and mobility disability sits in the top 0.9% nationally. Fatal road crashes rests in the top 1.1% nationally, modeled energy burden is in the top 1.8% nationally, and modeled diabetes stands in the top 3.4% nationally. Modeled high blood pressure settles in the top 2.2% nationally, and high cholesterol lies in the top 1.2% nationally. On the stronger side, modeled industrial-pollution burden resides in the bottom 2.0% nationally.
To translate a couple of terms, industrial-pollution burden is the EPA's modeled screening score weighting industrial chemical releases by their toxicity and how many people live nearby. Energy burden is the share of household income that goes to home energy bills. Overall, the nearest healthier neighbor is ZIP 65355, 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
Environmental Hazard
healthier than 72%
14%
Healthcare Access
healthier than 64%
5%
About typical
Preventive Care
healthier than 47%
13%
Holding it back
Chronic Disease Burden
in the bottom 0.7%
21%
Social Need / SDOH
healthier than 4%
16%
Risk Behavior
healthier than 11%
11%
Mental Health
healthier than 37%
8%
Disability
healthier than 2%
7%
Climate / Disaster RiskPartial
healthier than 25%
5%
Lifting this score
Environmental Hazard
healthier than 70%
14%
Preventive Care
healthier than 68%
13%
Mental Health
healthier than 67%
8%
Healthcare Access
healthier than 70%
5%
Holding it back
Chronic Disease Burden
in the bottom 0.3%
21%
Social Need / SDOH
healthier than 2%
16%
Risk Behavior
healthier than 25%
11%
Disability
healthier than 2%
7%
Climate / Disaster RiskPartial
healthier than 20%
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
65355
Missourishares a border
Score 38.85
Closest healthier
65634
Missourishares a border
Score 31.23
Similar health profile
62996
Illinois99% similar profile
Score 35.14
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 | 44.0% | 39.8–48.2 |
| High blood pressure among adults | 51.5% | 46.8–56.2 |
| Cancer (non-skin) or melanoma among adults | 13.1% | 11.9–14.4 |
| Current asthma among adults | 11.1% | 9.8–12.5 |
| Coronary heart disease among adults | 14.0% | 12.6–15.4 |
| Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease among adults | 16.3% | 14.5–18.3 |
| Depression among adults | 24.5% | 20.8–28.4 |
| Diagnosed diabetes among adults | 20.3% | 17.8–23.0 |
| High cholesterol among adults who have ever been screened | 47.4% | 42.5–52.3 |
| Obesity among adults | 42.8% | 34.1–51.8 |
| Stroke among adults | 7.0% | 6.3–7.6 |
| All teeth lost among adults aged >=65 years | 24.2% | 20.0–28.7 |
PreventionCDC PLACES 2022 / 2023 · BRFSS
| Measure | Crude prevalence | 95% CI |
|---|---|---|
| Current lack of health insurance among adults aged 18-64 years | 10.3% | 8.6–12.2 |
| Taking medicine to control high blood pressure among adults with high blood pressure | 84.9% | 82.5–87.1 |
| Visits to doctor for routine checkup within the past year among adults | 82.9% | 79.8–85.7 |
| Cholesterol screening among adults | 87.1% | 85.4–88.7 |
| Colorectal cancer screening among adults aged 45–75 years | 63.9% | 58.4–69.1 |
| Visited dentist or dental clinic in the past year among adults | 51.2% | 47.2–55.2 |
| Mammography use among women aged 50-74 years | 70.9% | 62.4–78.5 |
Health Risk BehaviorsCDC PLACES 2022 / 2023 · BRFSS
| Measure | Crude prevalence | 95% CI |
|---|---|---|
| Binge drinking among adults | 11.4% | 9.3–13.9 |
| Current cigarette smoking among adults | 22.6% | 19.5–25.7 |
| No leisure-time physical activity among adults | 40.8% | 35.0–46.5 |
| Short sleep duration among adults | 38.4% | 31.4–45.9 |
Health StatusCDC PLACES 2023 · BRFSS
| Measure | Crude prevalence | 95% CI |
|---|---|---|
| Fair or poor self-rated health status among adults | 31.5% | 27.7–35.2 |
| Frequent mental distress among adults | 17.3% | 15.3–19.4 |
| Frequent physical distress among adults | 21.1% | 18.6–23.5 |
DisabilityCDC PLACES 2023 · BRFSS
| Measure | Crude prevalence | 95% CI |
|---|---|---|
| Cognitive disability among adults | 20.0% | 17.6–22.3 |
| Any disability among adults | 49.6% | 44.4–54.5 |
| Hearing disability among adults | 15.9% | 14.3–17.6 |
| Independent living disability among adults | 13.8% | 12.2–15.3 |
| Mobility disability among adults | 28.6% | 25.4–32.0 |
| Self-care disability among adults | 7.2% | 6.5–8.1 |
| Vision disability among adults | 8.9% | 7.9–9.8 |
Health-Related Social NeedsCDC PLACES 2023 · BRFSS
| Measure | Crude prevalence | 95% CI |
|---|---|---|
| Lack of social and emotional support among adults | 19.0% | 16.1–22.3 |
| Food insecurity in the past 12 months among adults | 18.2% | 15.4–21.3 |
| Received food stamps in the past 12 months among adults | 17.4% | 14.9–20.2 |
| Housing insecurity in the past 12 months among adults | 12.6% | 10.8–14.6 |
| Lack of reliable transportation in the past 12 months among adults | 10.0% | 8.8–11.3 |
| Loneliness among adults | 29.2% | 24.6–34.3 |
| Utility services shut-off threat in the past 12 months among adults | 10.5% | 9.1–12.0 |
Community & economyCensus ACS 5-Year · 2024 release · observed
| Measure | Value | US median (p10–p90) | MO median (p10–p90) |
|---|---|---|---|
| Poverty rate | 20.7% | 10.6% (3.1–25.8%) n=32,364 | 12.3% (3.2–26.0%) n=1,009 |
| Uninsured 18–64 | 8.2% | 9.0% (1.5–24.3%) n=32,286 | 13.2% (3.5–28.4%) n=1,006 |
| No HS diploma (25+) | 13.6% | 7.9% (1.8–20.7%) n=32,505 | 9.5% (2.5–20.5%) n=1,009 |
| Bachelor's or higher (25+) | 12.8% | 23.3% (9.2–53.6%) n=32,505 | 18.1% (7.2–40.2%) n=1,009 |
| Unemployment rate (16+) | 2.7% | 3.9% (0.0–9.8%) n=32,274 | 2.9% (0.0–8.5%) n=1,003 |
| Households without a vehicle | 8.0% | 3.9% (0.0–12.5%) n=32,322 | 4.1% (0.0–11.9%) n=1,009 |
| Broadband subscription | 66.3% | 89.3% (75.1–97.1%) n=32,322 | 86.3% (72.7–95.2%) n=1,009 |
| Housing cost burden (≥30% income) | 26.8% | 23.7% (10.6–40.0%) n=32,322 | 20.7% (8.4–33.9%) n=1,009 |
| Homeownership rate | 78.7% | 78.7% (51.7–94.0%) n=32,322 | 79.4% (56.0–94.3%) n=1,009 |
| Crowded housing (>1 per room) | 0.6% | 1.3% (0.0–6.3%) n=32,322 | 1.1% (0.0–5.1%) n=1,009 |
| Foreign-born population | 0.3% | 2.6% (0.0–18.6%) n=32,553 | 0.8% (0.0–6.4%) n=1,010 |
| Single-parent households | 79.4% | 53.6% (37.3–74.1%) n=32,087 | 55.0% (39.5–75.6%) n=1,005 |
| Population 65+ | 44.5% | 19.4% (10.8–33.6%) n=32,553 | 19.2% (11.7–31.1%) n=1,010 |
| Median age | 62.8 yr | 42.2 yr (33.0–56.3) n=32,292 | 41.5 yr (33.3–55.9) n=1,005 |
| Median household income | $44,018 | $72,070 ($46,039–$118,707) n=30,318 | $61,740 ($42,457–$95,231) n=948 |
| Median home value | $179,700 | $222,200 ($100,300–$579,820) n=30,049 | $174,150 ($91,880–$309,500) n=930 |
| Median gross rent | $450 | $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 | 80.9 yr ± 1.45 | 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 1.45 years of 80.9, 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