ZIP code
67108
in Mount Hope, KansasPopulation 1,384
52.20/ 100
Ranked #13,185 of 32,066 US ZIPs (top 41%)
Ranked #196 of 682 Kansas ZIPs (top 29%)
Ranked #36 of 77 Wichita, KS ZIPs (top 47%)
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.
Elder-services access
0.57 per 1,000 residents
in the top 2.0% nationally
Higher is healthier
ST88thUS98thDefinition & source ›
The number of services for older adults and people with disabilities 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 ›Poverty rate
0.84%
in the bottom 5.1% nationally
Lower is healthier
ST5thUS5thDefinition & source ›
The share of residents whose income is below the federal poverty line, from the Census Bureau’s American Community Survey.
Full methodology ›Dry extreme heat
49 days/year
in the top 9.7% nationally
Lower is healthier
ST75thUS90thDefinition & source ›
The average number of days per year with a modeled daily high of at least 95 °F.
Full methodology ›Floodplain exposure
29.1%
in the top 10.5% nationally
Lower is healthier
ST93rdUS90thDefinition & source ›
The share of this ZIP’s land area inside FEMA’s 1%-annual-chance floodplain — the “100-year” flood zone, where flooding has about a 1-in-100 chance in any given year.
Measured from FEMA’s mapped flood panels. Where a panel has not been mapped, no value is published for that ZIP — those ZIPs are absent from this comparison rather than counted as unexposed.
Full methodology ›Arsenic in groundwater
8.0%
in the top 22% nationally
Lower is healthier
ST97thUS78thDefinition & 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 ›Air-toxics cancer risk
20 per million
in the bottom 25% nationally
Lower is healthier
ST1stUS25thDefinition & source ›
The EPA’s modeled estimate of added lifetime cancer risk from breathing outdoor air toxics, in cases per million people exposed over a lifetime.
Full methodology ›The read
By the composite health measure, Mount Hope, Kansas (ZIP 67108) ranks in the top 41% healthiest ZIPs nationally (13,185th) and the top 29% of Kansas (196th).
The picture here is genuinely mixed, with readings on both sides: elder services lies in the top 2.0% nationally, and poverty lands in the bottom 5.1% nationally. Modeled transportation sits in the bottom 17% nationally. On the other side, modeled extreme heat is in the top 9.7% nationally, floodplain exposure settles in the top 10.5% nationally, and modeled fine-particle resides in the top 12.9% nationally. Lead in tap water registers in the top 13.8% nationally, and fatal road crashes rests in the top 14.4% nationally. Distance to a hazardous-chemical facility stands at the national minimum, shared with about 31% of ZIPs. Walkability lies in the bottom 17% nationally.
To spell things out, fine-particle is fine airborne particles about one-thirtieth the width of a hair, counted on modeled days above the EPA standard. Lead in tap water is the EPA trigger, 15 parts per billion in tap samples, above which a water system must act on lead. Distance to a hazardous-chemical facility is a plant handling large amounts of hazardous chemicals that must file an EPA risk-management plan for accidental releases. Close by, ZIP 67001, just across the boundary, ranks healthier overall.
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 Wichita, KS metro area.
Compared with the ZIP codes measured across all nine scoring domains — not with all US ZIP codes.
Lifting this score
Social Need / SDOH
healthier than 65%
16%
Environmental Hazard
healthier than 63%
14%
Disability
healthier than 65%
7%
About typical
Chronic Disease Burden
healthier than 58%
21%
Preventive Care
healthier than 50%
13%
Risk Behavior
healthier than 55%
11%
Mental Health
healthier than 60%
8%
Holding it back
Climate / Disaster Risk
healthier than 12%
5%
Healthcare Access
healthier than 19%
5%
Lifting this score
Chronic Disease Burden
healthier than 67%
21%
Social Need / SDOH
healthier than 75%
16%
Environmental Hazard
healthier than 85%
14%
Disability
healthier than 73%
7%
About typical
Preventive Care
healthier than 54%
13%
Risk Behavior
healthier than 50%
11%
Holding it back
Mental Health
healthier than 33%
8%
Climate / Disaster Risk
healthier than 6%
5%
Healthcare Access
healthier than 34%
5%
Lifting this score
Environmental Hazard
healthier than 89%
14%
Preventive Care
healthier than 67%
13%
About typical
Chronic Disease Burden
healthier than 47%
21%
Social Need / SDOH
healthier than 56%
16%
Risk Behavior
healthier than 48%
11%
Mental Health
healthier than 45%
8%
Disability
healthier than 53%
7%
Holding it back
Climate / Disaster Risk
healthier than 9%
5%
Healthcare Access
healthier than 19%
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
67001
Kansasshares a border
Score 57.22
Closest healthier
67025
Kansasshares a border
Score 52.67
Similar health profile
76935
Texas98% similar profile
Score 55.83
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 | 28.9% | 26.8–31.0 |
| High blood pressure among adults | 35.9% | 33.6–38.3 |
| Cancer (non-skin) or melanoma among adults | 9.8% | 9.1–10.6 |
| Current asthma among adults | 10.0% | 9.1–11.0 |
| Coronary heart disease among adults | 7.2% | 6.5–7.9 |
| Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease among adults | 7.4% | 6.5–8.5 |
| Depression among adults | 22.8% | 20.7–25.0 |
| Diagnosed diabetes among adults | 11.6% | 10.4–12.9 |
| High cholesterol among adults who have ever been screened | 38.6% | 36.1–41.1 |
| Obesity among adults | 38.4% | 35.1–41.7 |
| Stroke among adults | 3.5% | 3.2–3.9 |
| All teeth lost among adults aged >=65 years | 9.1% | 7.7–10.6 |
PreventionCDC PLACES 2022 / 2023 · BRFSS
| Measure | Crude prevalence | 95% CI |
|---|---|---|
| Current lack of health insurance among adults aged 18-64 years | 7.8% | 6.6–9.3 |
| Taking medicine to control high blood pressure among adults with high blood pressure | 80.2% | 78.1–82.1 |
| Visits to doctor for routine checkup within the past year among adults | 76.2% | 73.9–78.4 |
| Cholesterol screening among adults | 86.2% | 84.6–87.7 |
| Colorectal cancer screening among adults aged 45–75 years | 67.0% | 64.3–69.7 |
| Visited dentist or dental clinic in the past year among adults | 65.3% | 63.1–67.6 |
| Mammography use among women aged 50-74 years | 72.7% | 68.1–76.9 |
Health Risk BehaviorsCDC PLACES 2022 / 2023 · BRFSS
| Measure | Crude prevalence | 95% CI |
|---|---|---|
| Binge drinking among adults | 16.2% | 14.5–18.0 |
| Current cigarette smoking among adults | 14.9% | 12.9–17.1 |
| No leisure-time physical activity among adults | 24.1% | 21.4–27.1 |
| Short sleep duration among adults | 36.1% | 33.5–39.0 |
Health StatusCDC PLACES 2023 · BRFSS
| Measure | Crude prevalence | 95% CI |
|---|---|---|
| Fair or poor self-rated health status among adults | 17.4% | 15.5–19.6 |
| Frequent mental distress among adults | 15.9% | 14.4–17.4 |
| Frequent physical distress among adults | 12.8% | 11.5–14.2 |
DisabilityCDC PLACES 2023 · BRFSS
| Measure | Crude prevalence | 95% CI |
|---|---|---|
| Cognitive disability among adults | 13.6% | 12.2–15.2 |
| Any disability among adults | 30.4% | 27.5–33.3 |
| Hearing disability among adults | 8.3% | 7.5–9.2 |
| Independent living disability among adults | 7.4% | 6.6–8.4 |
| Mobility disability among adults | 14.2% | 12.6–16.0 |
| Self-care disability among adults | 3.4% | 3.0–3.8 |
| Vision disability among adults | 4.1% | 3.7–4.6 |
Health-Related Social NeedsCDC PLACES 2023 · BRFSS
| Measure | Crude prevalence | 95% CI |
|---|---|---|
| Lack of social and emotional support among adults | 21.9% | 19.5–24.3 |
| Food insecurity in the past 12 months among adults | 10.2% | 8.7–11.9 |
| Received food stamps in the past 12 months among adults | 5.5% | 4.5–6.6 |
| Housing insecurity in the past 12 months among adults | 9.2% | 7.9–10.5 |
| Lack of reliable transportation in the past 12 months among adults | 5.7% | 5.0–6.5 |
| Loneliness among adults | 30.7% | 28.0–33.4 |
| Utility services shut-off threat in the past 12 months among adults | 6.9% | 6.0–7.8 |
Community & economyCensus ACS 5-Year · 2024 release · observed
| Measure | Value | US median (p10–p90) | KS median (p10–p90) |
|---|---|---|---|
| Poverty rate | 0.8% | 10.6% (3.1–25.8%) n=32,364 | 8.8% (2.7–20.7%) n=688 |
| Uninsured 18–64 | 5.2% | 9.0% (1.5–24.3%) n=32,286 | 10.6% (2.3–24.2%) n=686 |
| No HS diploma (25+) | 10.6% | 7.9% (1.8–20.7%) n=32,505 | 5.7% (1.1–14.8%) n=689 |
| Bachelor's or higher (25+) | 23.0% | 23.3% (9.2–53.6%) n=32,505 | 24.0% (11.3–43.6%) n=689 |
| Unemployment rate (16+) | 1.6% | 3.9% (0.0–9.8%) n=32,274 | 2.2% (0.0–7.1%) n=689 |
| Households without a vehicle | 4.9% | 3.9% (0.0–12.5%) n=32,322 | 2.8% (0.0–8.3%) n=688 |
| Broadband subscription | 86.2% | 89.3% (75.1–97.1%) n=32,322 | 88.4% (75.3–96.9%) n=688 |
| Housing cost burden (≥30% income) | 15.1% | 23.7% (10.6–40.0%) n=32,322 | 19.5% (7.8–31.9%) n=688 |
| Homeownership rate | 87.9% | 78.7% (51.7–94.0%) n=32,322 | 79.7% (59.7–94.6%) n=688 |
| Crowded housing (>1 per room) | 2.5% | 1.3% (0.0–6.3%) n=32,322 | 0.7% (0.0–4.6%) n=688 |
| Foreign-born population | 0.4% | 2.6% (0.0–18.6%) n=32,553 | 1.1% (0.0–9.9%) n=692 |
| Single-parent households | 52.8% | 53.6% (37.3–74.1%) n=32,087 | 55.7% (41.7–78.0%) n=684 |
| Population 65+ | 20.1% | 19.4% (10.8–33.6%) n=32,553 | 20.6% (11.9–35.1%) n=692 |
| Median age | 41.9 yr | 42.2 yr (33.0–56.3) n=32,292 | 41.9 yr (32.2–56.9) n=689 |
| Median household income | $87,679 | $72,070 ($46,039–$118,707) n=30,318 | $67,738 ($49,860–$97,877) n=659 |
| Median home value | $160,500 | $222,200 ($100,300–$579,820) n=30,049 | $135,800 ($68,740–$290,700) n=627 |
| Median gross rent | $1,066 | $1,021 ($677–$1,912) n=25,670 | $820 ($592–$1,257) n=519 |
Life expectancyNCHS / RWJF USALEEP · model-based
| Measure | Value | US median (p10–p90) | KS median (p10–p90) |
|---|---|---|---|
| Life expectancy at birth | 78.6 yr ± 0.83 | 78.9 yr (74.7–82.8) n=31,308 | 78.9 yr (76.2–81.8) n=687 |
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 0.83 years of 78.6, 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