ZIP code
76067
in Mineral Wells, TexasPopulation 21,080
38.71/ 100
Ranked #27,591 of 32,066 US ZIPs (bottom 14.0%)
Ranked #1,560 of 1,868 Texas ZIPs (bottom 16%)
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.
Dry extreme heat
88.2 days/year
in the top 3.5% nationally
Lower is healthier
ST65thUS97thDefinition & source ›
The average number of days per year with a modeled daily high of at least 95 °F.
Full methodology ›Industrial-pollution burden
in the top 3.5% nationally
Lower is healthier
ST90thUS97thDefinition & 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 ›Distance to a community health center
29.2 mi
in the top 4.3% nationally
Lower is healthier
ST94thUS96thDefinition & source ›
The distance in miles from this ZIP’s edge to the nearest federally funded community health center, which serves patients regardless of ability to pay.
Full methodology ›Uninsured (under 65)
18.5%
in the top 5.9% nationally
Lower is healthier
ST61stUS94thDefinition & source ›
The estimated share of adults aged 18–64 with no current health-insurance coverage.
Full methodology ›Mammography
67.9%
in the bottom 7.4% nationally
Higher is healthier
ST10thUS7thDefinition & source ›
The estimated share of women aged 50–74 who had a mammogram within the past two years.
Full methodology ›Subsidized affordable housing
307 units
in the top 8.0% nationally
Higher is healthier
ST86thUS92ndDefinition & source ›
The number of affordable rental units in this ZIP supported by the federal Low-Income Housing Tax Credit program.
Full methodology ›Colon-cancer screening
58.2%
in the bottom 9.7% nationally
Higher is healthier
ST32ndUS10thDefinition & source ›
The estimated share of adults aged 45–75 who are up to date on colorectal-cancer screening.
Full methodology ›Lithium in drinking water
11 µg/L
in the bottom 12.4% nationally
Lower is healthier
ST6thUS12thDefinition & 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 ›The read
On the composite measure, Mineral Wells, Texas (ZIP 76067) stands in the bottom 14.0% nationally (27,591st) and the bottom 16% of Texas (1,560th).
A balanced set of signals defines this area, not any single one: distance to an emergency room lands at the national minimum, shared with about 11% of ZIPs. Subsidized affordable housing settles in the top 8.0% nationally, and lithium in drinking water rests in the bottom 12.4% nationally. By contrast, modeled extreme heat lands in the top 3.5% nationally, modeled industrial-pollution burden settles in the top 3.5% nationally, and distance to a community health center rests in the top 4.3% nationally. Modeled uninsured lands in the top 5.9% nationally, mammography settles in the bottom 7.4% nationally, and expected annual loss rests in the top 10.7% nationally. Modeled colon screening lands in the bottom 9.7% nationally.
Set beside the wider area around it, industrial-pollution burden runs far higher than the surrounding ZIPs on this measure. For clarity, industrial-pollution burden is the EPA's modeled screening score weighting industrial chemical releases by their toxicity and how many people live nearby. Expected annual loss is FEMA's modeled estimate, in dollars, of average yearly harm to people from natural hazards. Lithium in drinking water is a natural metal that dissolves into some groundwater and has no federal drinking-water limit yet. ZIP 76066, just across the boundary, ranks better overall among the ZIPs nearby.
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.
Nothing measured is lifting this score.
About typical
Social Need / SDOH
healthier than 42%
16%
Holding it back
Chronic Disease Burden
healthier than 37%
21%
Environmental Hazard
healthier than 34%
14%
Preventive Care
healthier than 8%
13%
Risk Behavior
healthier than 14%
11%
Mental Health
healthier than 22%
8%
Disability
healthier than 22%
7%
Climate / Disaster Risk
healthier than 12%
5%
Healthcare Access
healthier than 5%
5%
Lifting this score
Climate / Disaster Risk
healthier than 65%
5%
Holding it back
Chronic Disease Burden
healthier than 24%
21%
Social Need / SDOH
healthier than 36%
16%
Environmental Hazard
healthier than 20%
14%
Preventive Care
healthier than 28%
13%
Risk Behavior
healthier than 21%
11%
Mental Health
healthier than 11%
8%
Disability
healthier than 26%
7%
Healthcare Access
healthier than 3%
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 ›
Findings that name this ZIP
2 of our published findings list this ZIP code. Each finding compares one published measure against a stated benchmark, and names only the ZIP codes whose estimates are reliable enough to rank. See all surprising findings.
Below what income predicts
The ZIP codes that outlive their incomes
Estimated life expectancy is 75.0 ± 1.1 years. A median household income of $62,190 predicts 78.2 years — 3.3 years below.
Ranked #4,425 of the 5,842 ZIP codes this finding names, ordered by years above what income predicts, highest first.
Below its nearby ZIPs
The ZIP codes that outlive their neighbors
Estimated life expectancy is 75.0 ± 1.1 years. The 50 nearest ZIP codes with estimates average 78.2 years — 3.3 years below them.
Ranked #2,568 of the 3,687 ZIP codes this finding names, ordered by years above the nearby-ZIP average, highest first.
Nearby & similar ZIPs
Editorially selected — see how this ZIP compares to nearby and similar places.
Nearby
76066
Texasshares a border
Score 49.05
Closest healthier
76088
Texasshares a border
Score 48.69
Similar health profile
74046
Oklahoma98% similar profile
Score 37.00
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 | 28.3% | 25.1–31.6 |
| High blood pressure among adults | 38.1% | 33.9–42.3 |
| Cancer (non-skin) or melanoma among adults | 8.3% | 7.5–9.0 |
| Current asthma among adults | 10.7% | 9.5–11.9 |
| Coronary heart disease among adults | 7.9% | 7.1–8.6 |
| Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease among adults | 9.2% | 8.3–10.2 |
| Depression among adults | 24.6% | 21.0–28.4 |
| Diagnosed diabetes among adults | 14.5% | 12.7–16.4 |
| High cholesterol among adults who have ever been screened | 38.4% | 34.1–42.8 |
| Obesity among adults | 40.2% | 31.8–48.8 |
| Stroke among adults | 4.3% | 3.9–4.6 |
| All teeth lost among adults aged >=65 years | 18.0% | 14.8–21.7 |
PreventionCDC PLACES 2022 / 2023 · BRFSS
| Measure | Crude prevalence | 95% CI |
|---|---|---|
| Current lack of health insurance among adults aged 18-64 years | 18.5% | 16.3–20.7 |
| Taking medicine to control high blood pressure among adults with high blood pressure | 77.6% | 74.8–80.0 |
| Visits to doctor for routine checkup within the past year among adults | 74.1% | 70.0–77.7 |
| Cholesterol screening among adults | 83.8% | 81.9–85.5 |
| Colorectal cancer screening among adults aged 45–75 years | 58.2% | 52.7–63.6 |
| Visited dentist or dental clinic in the past year among adults | 49.5% | 45.6–53.4 |
| Mammography use among women aged 50-74 years | 67.9% | 59.0–76.0 |
Health Risk BehaviorsCDC PLACES 2022 / 2023 · BRFSS
| Measure | Crude prevalence | 95% CI |
|---|---|---|
| Binge drinking among adults | 16.4% | 13.5–19.6 |
| Current cigarette smoking among adults | 17.4% | 15.3–19.7 |
| No leisure-time physical activity among adults | 32.1% | 27.5–37.0 |
| Short sleep duration among adults | 40.1% | 33.0–47.7 |
Health StatusCDC PLACES 2023 · BRFSS
| Measure | Crude prevalence | 95% CI |
|---|---|---|
| Fair or poor self-rated health status among adults | 26.1% | 23.4–29.1 |
| Frequent mental distress among adults | 19.3% | 17.2–21.4 |
| Frequent physical distress among adults | 16.4% | 14.7–18.3 |
DisabilityCDC PLACES 2023 · BRFSS
| Measure | Crude prevalence | 95% CI |
|---|---|---|
| Cognitive disability among adults | 17.9% | 16.2–19.9 |
| Any disability among adults | 37.1% | 32.8–41.5 |
| Hearing disability among adults | 8.7% | 7.8–9.7 |
| Independent living disability among adults | 10.8% | 9.8–11.9 |
| Mobility disability among adults | 18.4% | 16.4–20.5 |
| Self-care disability among adults | 5.2% | 4.8–5.7 |
| Vision disability among adults | 7.1% | 6.5–7.7 |
Community & economyCensus ACS 5-Year · 2024 release · observed
| Measure | Value | US median (p10–p90) | TX median (p10–p90) |
|---|---|---|---|
| Poverty rate | 17.4% | 10.6% (3.1–25.8%) n=32,364 | 12.4% (3.5–26.4%) n=1,869 |
| Uninsured 18–64 | 29.3% | 9.0% (1.5–24.3%) n=32,286 | 22.3% (8.2–41.5%) n=1,862 |
| No HS diploma (25+) | 15.3% | 7.9% (1.8–20.7%) n=32,505 | 12.2% (2.5–30.0%) n=1,881 |
| Bachelor's or higher (25+) | 12.5% | 23.3% (9.2–53.6%) n=32,505 | 21.9% (9.0–51.4%) n=1,881 |
| Unemployment rate (16+) | 6.7% | 3.9% (0.0–9.8%) n=32,274 | 4.2% (0.0–9.4%) n=1,865 |
| Households without a vehicle | 5.0% | 3.9% (0.0–12.5%) n=32,322 | 3.7% (0.0–10.8%) n=1,868 |
| Broadband subscription | 89.0% | 89.3% (75.1–97.1%) n=32,322 | 89.2% (75.0–97.3%) n=1,868 |
| Housing cost burden (≥30% income) | 33.8% | 23.7% (10.6–40.0%) n=32,322 | 26.2% (8.8–40.3%) n=1,868 |
| Homeownership rate | 64.5% | 78.7% (51.7–94.0%) n=32,322 | 75.0% (46.4–92.3%) n=1,868 |
| Crowded housing (>1 per room) | 5.1% | 1.3% (0.0–6.3%) n=32,322 | 3.1% (0.0–9.0%) n=1,868 |
| Foreign-born population | 5.7% | 2.6% (0.0–18.6%) n=32,553 | 8.1% (0.1–26.4%) n=1,886 |
| Single-parent households | 49.5% | 53.6% (37.3–74.1%) n=32,087 | 48.5% (34.3–70.6%) n=1,861 |
| Population 65+ | 17.4% | 19.4% (10.8–33.6%) n=32,553 | 16.1% (8.6–30.1%) n=1,886 |
| Median age | 39.2 yr | 42.2 yr (33.0–56.3) n=32,292 | 38.3 yr (30.9–52.3) n=1,866 |
| Median household income | $62,190 | $72,070 ($46,039–$118,707) n=30,318 | $69,983 ($46,006–$112,413) n=1,737 |
| Median home value | $172,200 | $222,200 ($100,300–$579,820) n=30,049 | $210,500 ($97,060–$429,760) n=1,693 |
| Median gross rent | $1,128 | $1,021 ($677–$1,912) n=25,670 | $1,154 ($764–$1,815) n=1,508 |
Life expectancyNCHS / RWJF USALEEP · model-based
| Measure | Value | US median (p10–p90) | TX median (p10–p90) |
|---|---|---|---|
| Life expectancy at birth | 75.0 yr ± 0.55 | 78.9 yr (74.7–82.8) n=31,308 | 78.2 yr (75.1–81.7) n=1,772 |
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 0.55 years of 75.0, 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