ZIP code
73546
in Grandfield, OklahomaPopulation 1,127
35.35/ 100
Ranked #29,256 of 32,066 US ZIPs (bottom 8.8%)
Ranked #479 of 634 Oklahoma ZIPs (bottom 24%)
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
0.9 per 1,000 residents
in the top 0.9% nationally
Higher is healthier
ST98thUS99thDefinition & 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
0.9 per 1,000 residents
in the top 1.4% nationally
Higher is healthier
ST97thUS99thDefinition & 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 ›Dry extreme heat
90.6 days/year
in the top 2.8% nationally
Lower is healthier
ST99thUS97thDefinition & source ›
The average number of days per year with a modeled daily high of at least 95 °F.
Full methodology ›Child-care access
0.9 per 1,000 residents
in the top 3.0% nationally
Higher is healthier
ST96thUS97thDefinition & source ›
The number of child day-care services 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 ›Hearing disability
12.2%
in the top 3.8% nationally
Lower is healthier
ST80thUS96thDefinition & source ›
The estimated share of adults who are deaf or have serious difficulty hearing.
Full methodology ›Mobility disability
24%
in the top 4.9% nationally
Lower is healthier
ST87thUS95thDefinition & source ›
The estimated share of adults with serious difficulty walking or climbing stairs.
Full methodology ›Home broadband subscription
66.7%
in the bottom 4.7% nationally
Higher is healthier
ST7thUS5thDefinition & source ›
The share of households with a broadband internet subscription.
Full methodology ›Civic-institution access
0.9 per 1,000 residents
in the top 5.1% nationally
Higher is healthier
ST97thUS95thDefinition & 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 ›Transportation noise
0.01%
in the bottom 5.5% nationally
Lower is healthier
ST7thUS5thDefinition & source ›
The modeled share of residents exposed to average road, rail, and aviation noise at or above 55 decibels — a noticeable background presence.
Full methodology ›Obesity
44.8%
in the top 4.7% nationally
Lower is healthier
ST91stUS95thDefinition & source ›
The estimated share of adults with obesity, defined as a body-mass index of 30 or higher.
Full methodology ›The read
Grandfield, Oklahoma (ZIP 73546), overall, ranks in the bottom 8.8% nationally (29,256th) and the bottom 24% of Oklahoma (479th), based on limited data; treat as directional.
This area's pressures are easy to read across the measures: modeled extreme heat settles in the top 2.8% nationally, hearing disability is in the top 3.8% nationally, and mobility disability sits in the top 4.9% nationally. Home broadband subscription lands in the bottom 4.7% nationally, and modeled obesity lies in the top 4.7% nationally. On the brighter side, elder services stands in the top 0.9% nationally, and pharmacy rests in the top 1.4% nationally. Childcare registers in the top 3.0% nationally, and civic resides in the top 5.1% nationally. Modeled transportation noise settles in the bottom 5.5% nationally.
Measured against the nearby ZIPs, elder services runs far higher than the surrounding ZIPs on this measure. Defined simply, extreme heat is a modeled count of days a year reaching a dangerously high temperature, a leading weather hazard. Transportation noise is the modeled share of an area exposed to average road, rail, and air noise at or above 55 decibels. ZIP 73528, just across the boundary, comes out 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.
Compared with the ZIP codes measured across all nine scoring domains — not with all US ZIP codes.
Lifting this score
Environmental Hazard
healthier than 90%
14%
About typical
Healthcare Access
healthier than 58%
5%
Holding it back
Chronic Disease Burden
healthier than 9%
21%
Social Need / SDOH
healthier than 12%
16%
Preventive Care
healthier than 18%
13%
Risk Behavior
healthier than 20%
11%
Mental Health
healthier than 39%
8%
Disability
healthier than 7%
7%
Climate / Disaster RiskPartial
in the bottom 0.9%
5%
Lifting this score
Environmental Hazard
healthier than 97%
14%
Mental Health
healthier than 79%
8%
Healthcare Access
healthier than 65%
5%
About typical
Preventive Care
healthier than 41%
13%
Holding it back
Chronic Disease Burden
healthier than 22%
21%
Social Need / SDOH
healthier than 21%
16%
Risk Behavior
healthier than 36%
11%
Disability
healthier than 17%
7%
Climate / Disaster RiskPartial
in the bottom 0.7%
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
73528
Oklahomashares a border
Score 43.36
Closest healthier
73530
Oklahomashares a border
Score 41.76
Similar health profile
32680
Florida99% similar profile
Score 35.36
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 | 34.0% | 30.4–37.6 |
| High blood pressure among adults | 46.0% | 41.6–50.4 |
| Cancer (non-skin) or melanoma among adults | 9.4% | 8.5–10.4 |
| Current asthma among adults | 11.5% | 10.2–12.9 |
| Coronary heart disease among adults | 10.2% | 9.1–11.4 |
| Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease among adults | 11.2% | 9.7–12.8 |
| Depression among adults | 23.9% | 20.3–27.5 |
| Diagnosed diabetes among adults | 17.3% | 15.1–19.7 |
| High cholesterol among adults who have ever been screened | 42.9% | 38.3–47.4 |
| Obesity among adults | 44.8% | 36.1–53.2 |
| Stroke among adults | 5.3% | 4.7–5.9 |
| All teeth lost among adults aged >=65 years | 18.6% | 15.3–22.1 |
PreventionCDC PLACES 2022 / 2023 · BRFSS
| Measure | Crude prevalence | 95% CI |
|---|---|---|
| Current lack of health insurance among adults aged 18-64 years | 16.1% | 13.5–19.2 |
| Taking medicine to control high blood pressure among adults with high blood pressure | 80.7% | 78.2–83.1 |
| Visits to doctor for routine checkup within the past year among adults | 79.9% | 76.3–83.0 |
| Cholesterol screening among adults | 85.3% | 83.3–87.2 |
| Colorectal cancer screening among adults aged 45–75 years | 58.8% | 53.3–64.0 |
| Visited dentist or dental clinic in the past year among adults | 55.9% | 51.9–59.6 |
| Mammography use among women aged 50-74 years | 68.2% | 59.0–76.0 |
Health Risk BehaviorsCDC PLACES 2022 / 2023 · BRFSS
| Measure | Crude prevalence | 95% CI |
|---|---|---|
| Binge drinking among adults | 11.8% | 9.5–14.2 |
| Current cigarette smoking among adults | 19.5% | 16.7–22.3 |
| No leisure-time physical activity among adults | 39.2% | 33.7–45.0 |
| Short sleep duration among adults | 38.1% | 31.3–45.2 |
Health StatusCDC PLACES 2023 · BRFSS
| Measure | Crude prevalence | 95% CI |
|---|---|---|
| Fair or poor self-rated health status among adults | 27.7% | 24.2–31.4 |
| Frequent mental distress among adults | 17.5% | 15.5–19.7 |
| Frequent physical distress among adults | 17.7% | 15.7–20.0 |
DisabilityCDC PLACES 2023 · BRFSS
| Measure | Crude prevalence | 95% CI |
|---|---|---|
| Cognitive disability among adults | 19.1% | 16.8–21.5 |
| Any disability among adults | 45.7% | 40.6–50.8 |
| Hearing disability among adults | 12.2% | 10.8–13.6 |
| Independent living disability among adults | 11.8% | 10.4–13.4 |
| Mobility disability among adults | 24.0% | 21.1–27.0 |
| Self-care disability among adults | 6.1% | 5.4–6.9 |
| Vision disability among adults | 8.5% | 7.6–9.5 |
Health-Related Social NeedsCDC PLACES 2023 · BRFSS
| Measure | Crude prevalence | 95% CI |
|---|---|---|
| Lack of social and emotional support among adults | 25.9% | 22.1–29.7 |
| Food insecurity in the past 12 months among adults | 22.9% | 19.7–26.3 |
| Received food stamps in the past 12 months among adults | 19.6% | 16.7–22.6 |
| Housing insecurity in the past 12 months among adults | 16.1% | 13.8–18.4 |
| Lack of reliable transportation in the past 12 months among adults | 10.9% | 9.6–12.3 |
| Loneliness among adults | 33.0% | 27.8–38.2 |
| Utility services shut-off threat in the past 12 months among adults | 11.6% | 10.0–13.1 |
Community & economyCensus ACS 5-Year · 2024 release · observed
| Measure | Value | US median (p10–p90) | OK median (p10–p90) |
|---|---|---|---|
| Poverty rate | 15.9% | 10.6% (3.1–25.8%) n=32,364 | 16.3% (6.5–26.1%) n=643 |
| Uninsured 18–64 | 23.0% | 9.0% (1.5–24.3%) n=32,286 | 19.4% (9.5–30.7%) n=643 |
| No HS diploma (25+) | 18.5% | 7.9% (1.8–20.7%) n=32,505 | 10.9% (4.8–18.9%) n=644 |
| Bachelor's or higher (25+) | 9.7% | 23.3% (9.2–53.6%) n=32,505 | 18.4% (9.0–38.4%) n=644 |
| Unemployment rate (16+) | 9.2% | 3.9% (0.0–9.8%) n=32,274 | 4.3% (0.4–8.8%) n=643 |
| Households without a vehicle | 3.2% | 3.9% (0.0–12.5%) n=32,322 | 3.6% (0.0–9.0%) n=643 |
| Broadband subscription | 66.7% | 89.3% (75.1–97.1%) n=32,322 | 85.4% (70.2–95.0%) n=643 |
| Housing cost burden (≥30% income) | 21.3% | 23.7% (10.6–40.0%) n=32,322 | 20.0% (9.5–31.0%) n=643 |
| Homeownership rate | 62.7% | 78.7% (51.7–94.0%) n=32,322 | 78.2% (56.5–91.0%) n=643 |
| Crowded housing (>1 per room) | 0.8% | 1.3% (0.0–6.3%) n=32,322 | 2.3% (0.0–6.1%) n=643 |
| Foreign-born population | 5.6% | 2.6% (0.0–18.6%) n=32,553 | 1.9% (0.0–9.3%) n=645 |
| Single-parent households | 58.0% | 53.6% (37.3–74.1%) n=32,087 | 51.7% (39.5–66.1%) n=640 |
| Population 65+ | 28.7% | 19.4% (10.8–33.6%) n=32,553 | 18.4% (11.9–29.5%) n=645 |
| Median age | 43.2 yr | 42.2 yr (33.0–56.3) n=32,292 | 40.3 yr (33.1–52.0) n=642 |
| Median household income | $33,846 | $72,070 ($46,039–$118,707) n=30,318 | $58,728 ($43,042–$88,542) n=616 |
| Median home value | $60,500 | $222,200 ($100,300–$579,820) n=30,049 | $142,200 ($83,960–$248,900) n=615 |
| Median gross rent | $746 | $1,021 ($677–$1,912) n=25,670 | $839 ($628–$1,136) n=546 |
Life expectancyNCHS / RWJF USALEEP · model-based
| Measure | Value | US median (p10–p90) | OK median (p10–p90) |
|---|---|---|---|
| Life expectancy at birth | 78.5 yr ± 1.51 | 78.9 yr (74.7–82.8) n=31,308 | 77.2 yr (73.6–81.3) n=638 |
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 1.51 years of 78.5, 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