ZIP code
68763
in O'Neill, NebraskaPopulation 4,572
52.88/ 100
Ranked #12,261 of 32,066 US ZIPs (top 38%)
Ranked #352 of 566 Nebraska ZIPs (bottom 38%)
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.
Nitrate in drinking water
11.0%
in the top 3.0% nationally
Lower is healthier
ST94thUS97thDefinition & source ›
The modeled share of this area’s domestic-well groundwater at or above the federal nitrate limit of 10 milligrams 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 ›Civic-institution access
0.85 per 1,000 residents
in the top 5.6% nationally
Higher is healthier
ST82ndUS94thDefinition & 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 ›Dental provider access
1.1 per 1,000 residents
in the top 5.9% nationally
Higher is healthier
ST93rdUS94thDefinition & source ›
The number of dental offices located 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 ›Grocery access
0.21 per 1,000 residents
in the top 6.6% nationally
Higher is healthier
ST95thUS93rdDefinition & source ›
The number of full supermarkets 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. ZipVitals’s food-access signal is derived from these in-ZIP densities — it is not USDA’s food-desert designation, which measures distance to the nearest supermarket. Where a leg is missing, a ZIP reads “not determinable,” never “not a food desert.”
Full methodology ›Elder-services access
0.21 per 1,000 residents
in the top 6.6% nationally
Higher is healthier
ST81stUS93rdDefinition & 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 ›Pharmacy access
0.43 per 1,000 residents
in the top 7.3% nationally
Higher is healthier
ST85thUS93rdDefinition & source ›
The number of pharmacies located 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 ›Lithium in drinking water
10 µg/L
in the bottom 8.6% nationally
Lower is healthier
ST1stUS9thDefinition & 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 ›Loneliness
28.3%
in the bottom 9.0% nationally
Lower is healthier
ST53rdUS9thDefinition & source ›
The estimated share of adults who report feeling lonely.
Full methodology ›Fine-particle (PM2.5) exceedance
0.85%
in the top 10.1% nationally
Lower is healthier
ST96thUS90thDefinition & source ›
The share of days in the year when modeled fine-particle (PM2.5) pollution was above the EPA’s daily limit of 35 micrograms per cubic meter.
Full methodology ›PFAS in drinking water
46.5%
in the top 16% nationally
Lower is healthier
ST97thUS84thDefinition & 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 ›The read
O'Neill, Nebraska (ZIP 68763), on the composite measure, lands in the top 38% healthiest ZIPs nationally (12,261st) and the bottom 38% of Nebraska (352nd), based on limited data; treat as directional.
Where this area does well, the measures make it plain: distance to an emergency room settles at the national minimum, shared with about 11% of ZIPs. Civic stands in the top 5.6% nationally, dental providers is in the top 5.9% nationally, and grocery rests in the top 6.6% nationally. Elder services sits in the top 6.6% nationally, and pharmacy registers in the top 7.3% nationally. Lithium in drinking water lands in the bottom 8.6% nationally, and modeled loneliness resides in the bottom 9.0% nationally. Against that, modeled nitrate lies in the top 3.0% nationally, and fine-particle settles in the top 10.1% nationally.
In everyday language, nitrate is a groundwater compound from fertilizer, manure, and sewage, here a modeled estimate of the chance private-well levels exceed a benchmark. Lithium in drinking water is a natural metal that dissolves into some groundwater and has no federal drinking-water limit yet. Fine-particle is fine airborne particles about one-thirtieth the width of a hair, counted on modeled days above the EPA standard. A healthier neighbor overall sits at ZIP 68713, 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
Mental Health
healthier than 94%
8%
Healthcare Access
in the top 0.00%
5%
About typical
Chronic Disease Burden
healthier than 49%
21%
Social Need / SDOH
healthier than 52%
16%
Environmental Hazard
healthier than 42%
14%
Disability
healthier than 48%
7%
Climate / Disaster RiskPartial
healthier than 44%
5%
Holding it back
Preventive Care
healthier than 39%
13%
Risk Behavior
healthier than 30%
11%
Lifting this score
Environmental Hazard
healthier than 80%
14%
Climate / Disaster RiskPartial
healthier than 70%
5%
Healthcare Access
in the top 0.00%
5%
About typical
Social Need / SDOH
healthier than 42%
16%
Mental Health
healthier than 50%
8%
Holding it back
Chronic Disease Burden
healthier than 30%
21%
Preventive Care
healthier than 24%
13%
Risk Behavior
healthier than 9%
11%
Disability
healthier than 20%
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
68713
Nebraskashares a border
Score 56.53
Closest healthier
68725
Nebraskashares a border
Score 55.19
Similar health profile
69357
Nebraska97% similar profile
Score 51.71
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% | 25.6–32.1 |
| High blood pressure among adults | 36.0% | 32.0–39.8 |
| Cancer (non-skin) or melanoma among adults | 9.8% | 8.9–10.9 |
| Current asthma among adults | 9.4% | 8.3–10.6 |
| Coronary heart disease among adults | 8.0% | 7.0–9.0 |
| Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease among adults | 8.2% | 7.1–9.5 |
| Depression among adults | 16.5% | 13.9–19.3 |
| Diagnosed diabetes among adults | 12.9% | 11.1–14.8 |
| High cholesterol among adults who have ever been screened | 35.1% | 31.3–39.1 |
| Obesity among adults | 39.5% | 33.1–46.0 |
| Stroke among adults | 4.0% | 3.5–4.5 |
| All teeth lost among adults aged >=65 years | 18.5% | 15.2–22.0 |
PreventionCDC PLACES 2022 / 2023 · BRFSS
| Measure | Crude prevalence | 95% CI |
|---|---|---|
| Current lack of health insurance among adults aged 18-64 years | 10.2% | 8.5–12.2 |
| Taking medicine to control high blood pressure among adults with high blood pressure | 80.9% | 78.2–83.4 |
| Visits to doctor for routine checkup within the past year among adults | 76.3% | 72.9–79.7 |
| Cholesterol screening among adults | 83.9% | 81.7–85.9 |
| Colorectal cancer screening among adults aged 45–75 years | 65.1% | 59.9–70.1 |
| Visited dentist or dental clinic in the past year among adults | 61.9% | 58.3–65.6 |
| Mammography use among women aged 50-74 years | 75.1% | 67.5–81.9 |
Health Risk BehaviorsCDC PLACES 2022 / 2023 · BRFSS
| Measure | Crude prevalence | 95% CI |
|---|---|---|
| Binge drinking among adults | 19.0% | 15.9–22.4 |
| Current cigarette smoking among adults | 15.5% | 13.0–18.2 |
| No leisure-time physical activity among adults | 30.9% | 26.3–35.6 |
| Short sleep duration among adults | 32.7% | 26.9–38.9 |
Health StatusCDC PLACES 2023 · BRFSS
| Measure | Crude prevalence | 95% CI |
|---|---|---|
| Fair or poor self-rated health status among adults | 18.9% | 16.3–21.7 |
| Frequent mental distress among adults | 14.1% | 12.4–15.9 |
| Frequent physical distress among adults | 13.7% | 12.0–15.5 |
DisabilityCDC PLACES 2023 · BRFSS
| Measure | Crude prevalence | 95% CI |
|---|---|---|
| Cognitive disability among adults | 12.8% | 11.1–14.6 |
| Any disability among adults | 31.9% | 27.9–36.0 |
| Hearing disability among adults | 9.7% | 8.5–10.8 |
| Independent living disability among adults | 8.2% | 7.2–9.5 |
| Mobility disability among adults | 15.6% | 13.3–17.9 |
| Self-care disability among adults | 4.1% | 3.5–4.6 |
| Vision disability among adults | 5.3% | 4.7–6.1 |
Health-Related Social NeedsCDC PLACES 2023 · BRFSS
| Measure | Crude prevalence | 95% CI |
|---|---|---|
| Lack of social and emotional support among adults | 20.4% | 17.4–23.9 |
| Food insecurity in the past 12 months among adults | 13.4% | 11.0–16.1 |
| Received food stamps in the past 12 months among adults | 10.3% | 8.3–12.6 |
| Housing insecurity in the past 12 months among adults | 9.5% | 8.0–11.4 |
| Lack of reliable transportation in the past 12 months among adults | 7.1% | 6.1–8.2 |
| Loneliness among adults | 28.3% | 24.1–33.5 |
| Utility services shut-off threat in the past 12 months among adults | 6.8% | 5.8–8.0 |
Community & economyCensus ACS 5-Year · 2024 release · observed
| Measure | Value | US median (p10–p90) | NE median (p10–p90) |
|---|---|---|---|
| Poverty rate | 16.6% | 10.6% (3.1–25.8%) n=32,364 | 8.0% (2.6–16.7%) n=578 |
| Uninsured 18–64 | 15.2% | 9.0% (1.5–24.3%) n=32,286 | 8.4% (1.6–20.4%) n=579 |
| No HS diploma (25+) | 8.0% | 7.9% (1.8–20.7%) n=32,505 | 5.2% (1.5–11.9%) n=578 |
| Bachelor's or higher (25+) | 23.5% | 23.3% (9.2–53.6%) n=32,505 | 24.4% (12.1–39.7%) n=578 |
| Unemployment rate (16+) | 0.9% | 3.9% (0.0–9.8%) n=32,274 | 1.4% (0.0–5.8%) n=579 |
| Households without a vehicle | 6.1% | 3.9% (0.0–12.5%) n=32,322 | 2.1% (0.0–7.6%) n=578 |
| Broadband subscription | 83.4% | 89.3% (75.1–97.1%) n=32,322 | 87.6% (75.9–96.3%) n=578 |
| Housing cost burden (≥30% income) | 20.4% | 23.7% (10.6–40.0%) n=32,322 | 18.5% (7.6–30.4%) n=578 |
| Homeownership rate | 70.0% | 78.7% (51.7–94.0%) n=32,322 | 80.5% (61.0–93.2%) n=578 |
| Crowded housing (>1 per room) | 0.8% | 1.3% (0.0–6.3%) n=32,322 | 0.7% (0.0–4.6%) n=578 |
| Foreign-born population | 3.8% | 2.6% (0.0–18.6%) n=32,553 | 1.1% (0.0–8.3%) n=579 |
| Single-parent households | 61.8% | 53.6% (37.3–74.1%) n=32,087 | 57.2% (42.6–77.1%) n=577 |
| Population 65+ | 25.7% | 19.4% (10.8–33.6%) n=32,553 | 21.2% (11.4–34.7%) n=579 |
| Median age | 45.4 yr | 42.2 yr (33.0–56.3) n=32,292 | 42.3 yr (33.0–56.3) n=577 |
| Median household income | $65,362 | $72,070 ($46,039–$118,707) n=30,318 | $73,386 ($53,469–$103,625) n=556 |
| Median home value | $162,800 | $222,200 ($100,300–$579,820) n=30,049 | $168,400 ($90,000–$306,740) n=533 |
| Median gross rent | $704 | $1,021 ($677–$1,912) n=25,670 | $850 ($610–$1,250) n=442 |
Life expectancyNCHS / RWJF USALEEP · model-based
| Measure | Value | US median (p10–p90) | NE median (p10–p90) |
|---|---|---|---|
| Life expectancy at birth | 80.0 yr ± 1.12 | 78.9 yr (74.7–82.8) n=31,308 | 80.1 yr (77.4–83.0) n=553 |
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 1.12 years of 80.0, 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