ZIP code
78066
in Rio Medina, TexasPopulation 259
58.28/ 100
Ranked #6,169 of 32,066 US ZIPs (top 19%)
Ranked #184 of 1,868 Texas ZIPs (top 9.9%)
Ranked #21 of 117 San Antonio-New Braunfels, TX ZIPs (top 18%)
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.
Homeownership rate
100%
at the national maximum
Higher is healthier
ST99thUS99thDefinition & source ›
The share of occupied homes that are owned, rather than rented, by the people living in them.
Full methodology ›Dry extreme heat
91.2 days/year
in the top 2.6% nationally
Lower is healthier
ST78thUS97thDefinition & source ›
The average number of days per year with a modeled daily high of at least 95 °F.
Full methodology ›Housing-cost burden
48.2%
in the top 3.8% nationally
Lower is healthier
ST97thUS96thDefinition & source ›
The share of households spending 30% or more of their income on housing.
Full methodology ›Humid extreme heat
146 days/year
in the top 5.8% nationally
Lower is healthier
ST65thUS94thDefinition & source ›
The average number of days per year when modeled heat stress — temperature, humidity, sun, and wind combined — reaches levels hard on the body outdoors.
Full methodology ›Outer-floodplain exposure
5.0%
in the top 7.2% nationally
Lower is healthier
ST82ndUS93rdDefinition & source ›
The share of this ZIP’s land area inside FEMA’s 0.2%-annual-chance flood band — the “500-year” zone, a lower but real 1-in-500 yearly chance.
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 ›Tooth loss
5.9%
in the bottom 4.4% nationally
Lower is healthier
ST3rdUS4thDefinition & source ›
The estimated share of adults aged 65 and older who have lost all of their natural teeth.
Full methodology ›Energy-cost burden
1.7%
in the bottom 7.1% nationally
Lower is healthier
ST7thUS7thDefinition & 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 ›Distance to a hazardous-chemical facility
12 mi
in the top 11.2% nationally
Higher is healthier
ST96thUS89thDefinition & source ›
The distance in miles from this ZIP’s edge to the nearest facility that handles enough hazardous chemicals to require an EPA risk-management plan for accidental releases.
Full methodology ›Radon
0.8 pCi/L
in the bottom 6.3% nationally
Lower is healthier
ST37thUS6thDefinition & source ›
The modeled typical indoor radon level for this area, in picocuries per liter — the EPA recommends fixing a home at 4 pCi/L or above.
Modeled from indoor-radon measurements. In Alaska and Hawaii, where those measurements are not published, a US Geological Survey geologic radon-potential category stands in — a coarser input, disclosed rather than hidden.
Full methodology ›Independent-living disability
6.3%
in the bottom 12.2% nationally
Lower is healthier
ST9thUS12thDefinition & source ›
The estimated share of adults who have difficulty doing errands alone, such as visiting a doctor’s office, because of a physical, mental, or emotional condition.
Full methodology ›The read
Rio Medina, Texas (ZIP 78066), by its composite score, sits in the top 19% healthiest ZIPs nationally (6,169th) and the top 9.9% of Texas (184th).
The data opens on a genuinely even set of readings: homeownership is at the national maximum. Unemployment lands at the national minimum, shared with about 15% of ZIPs. Modeled tooth loss stands in the bottom 4.4% nationally, and energy burden registers in the bottom 7.1% nationally. Modeled loud transportation noise settles at the national minimum, shared with about 22% of ZIPs. Distance to a hazardous-chemical facility sits in the top 11.2% nationally. On the other side, modeled extreme heat lies in the top 2.6% nationally, housing-cost burden rests in the top 3.8% nationally, and modeled humid heat resides in the top 5.8% nationally. Outer-floodplain exposure is in the top 7.2% nationally.
Next to the surrounding area, outer-floodplain exposure runs far higher than the surrounding ZIPs on this measure. For anyone unfamiliar, 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. Extreme heat is a modeled count of days a year reaching a dangerously high temperature, a leading weather hazard. Humid heat is a modeled heat-stress measure combining temperature, humidity, sun, and wind to gauge heat on the body outdoors. For a healthier comparison close by, see ZIP 78253, 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. Compare it against the US, this state and the San Antonio-New Braunfels, TX metro area.
Compared with the ZIP codes measured across all nine scoring domains — not with all US ZIP codes.
Lifting this score
Chronic Disease Burden
healthier than 70%
21%
Social Need / SDOH
healthier than 78%
16%
Environmental Hazard
healthier than 94%
14%
Preventive Care
healthier than 71%
13%
Risk Behavior
healthier than 79%
11%
Mental Health
healthier than 82%
8%
Disability
healthier than 79%
7%
Holding it back
Climate / Disaster Risk
healthier than 6%
5%
Healthcare Access
healthier than 26%
5%
Lifting this score
Social Need / SDOH
healthier than 80%
16%
Environmental Hazard
healthier than 92%
14%
Preventive Care
healthier than 96%
13%
Risk Behavior
healthier than 91%
11%
Mental Health
healthier than 89%
8%
Disability
healthier than 82%
7%
About typical
Chronic Disease Burden
healthier than 59%
21%
Holding it back
Climate / Disaster Risk
healthier than 28%
5%
Healthcare Access
healthier than 27%
5%
Lifting this score
Social Need / SDOH
healthier than 66%
16%
Environmental Hazard
healthier than 91%
14%
Preventive Care
healthier than 95%
13%
Risk Behavior
healthier than 91%
11%
Mental Health
healthier than 87%
8%
Disability
healthier than 77%
7%
About typical
Chronic Disease Burden
healthier than 49%
21%
Holding it back
Climate / Disaster Risk
healthier than 27%
5%
Healthcare Access
healthier than 12%
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
78009
Texasshares a border
Score 52.36
Closest healthier
78253
Texasshares a border
Score 59.61
Similar health profile
77476
Texas99% similar profile
Score 62.50
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 | 27.1% | 23.7–30.7 |
| High blood pressure among adults | 37.9% | 33.4–42.3 |
| Cancer (non-skin) or melanoma among adults | 9.5% | 8.5–10.6 |
| Current asthma among adults | 9.4% | 8.3–10.6 |
| Coronary heart disease among adults | 6.3% | 5.4–7.1 |
| Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease among adults | 5.8% | 4.7–6.9 |
| Depression among adults | 21.1% | 17.8–24.6 |
| Diagnosed diabetes among adults | 12.3% | 10.5–14.1 |
| High cholesterol among adults who have ever been screened | 39.5% | 35.2–44.1 |
| Obesity among adults | 35.5% | 28.3–43.3 |
| Stroke among adults | 3.1% | 2.7–3.6 |
| All teeth lost among adults aged >=65 years | 5.9% | 4.6–7.3 |
PreventionCDC PLACES 2022 / 2023 · BRFSS
| Measure | Crude prevalence | 95% CI |
|---|---|---|
| Current lack of health insurance among adults aged 18-64 years | 11.5% | 9.4–13.8 |
| Taking medicine to control high blood pressure among adults with high blood pressure | 79.0% | 75.7–81.8 |
| Visits to doctor for routine checkup within the past year among adults | 77.9% | 74.1–81.2 |
| Cholesterol screening among adults | 89.5% | 87.8–91.1 |
| Colorectal cancer screening among adults aged 45–75 years | 68.0% | 63.4–72.5 |
| Visited dentist or dental clinic in the past year among adults | 67.2% | 63.8–70.6 |
| Mammography use among women aged 50-74 years | 79.2% | 72.1–85.5 |
Health Risk BehaviorsCDC PLACES 2022 / 2023 · BRFSS
| Measure | Crude prevalence | 95% CI |
|---|---|---|
| Binge drinking among adults | 16.7% | 13.7–19.9 |
| Current cigarette smoking among adults | 10.5% | 8.3–12.7 |
| No leisure-time physical activity among adults | 22.6% | 18.5–27.0 |
| Short sleep duration among adults | 33.1% | 27.0–39.9 |
Health StatusCDC PLACES 2023 · BRFSS
| Measure | Crude prevalence | 95% CI |
|---|---|---|
| Fair or poor self-rated health status among adults | 17.2% | 14.4–20.0 |
| Frequent mental distress among adults | 14.2% | 12.3–16.2 |
| Frequent physical distress among adults | 12.4% | 10.7–14.2 |
DisabilityCDC PLACES 2023 · BRFSS
| Measure | Crude prevalence | 95% CI |
|---|---|---|
| Cognitive disability among adults | 11.5% | 9.8–13.3 |
| Any disability among adults | 29.0% | 24.8–33.4 |
| Hearing disability among adults | 7.1% | 6.2–8.0 |
| Independent living disability among adults | 6.3% | 5.4–7.3 |
| Mobility disability among adults | 13.3% | 11.1–15.5 |
| Self-care disability among adults | 3.1% | 2.6–3.5 |
| Vision disability among adults | 4.1% | 3.5–4.7 |
Community & economyCensus ACS 5-Year · 2024 release · observed
| Measure | Value | US median (p10–p90) | TX median (p10–p90) |
|---|---|---|---|
| Poverty rate | 10.8% | 10.6% (3.1–25.8%) n=32,364 | 12.4% (3.5–26.4%) n=1,869 |
| Uninsured 18–64 | 0.0% | 9.0% (1.5–24.3%) n=32,286 | 22.3% (8.2–41.5%) n=1,862 |
| No HS diploma (25+) | 0.0% | 7.9% (1.8–20.7%) n=32,505 | 12.2% (2.5–30.0%) n=1,881 |
| Bachelor's or higher (25+) | 60.6% | 23.3% (9.2–53.6%) n=32,505 | 21.9% (9.0–51.4%) n=1,881 |
| Unemployment rate (16+) | 0.0% | 3.9% (0.0–9.8%) n=32,274 | 4.2% (0.0–9.4%) n=1,865 |
| Households without a vehicle | 7.2% | 3.9% (0.0–12.5%) n=32,322 | 3.7% (0.0–10.8%) n=1,868 |
| Broadband subscription | 92.8% | 89.3% (75.1–97.1%) n=32,322 | 89.2% (75.0–97.3%) n=1,868 |
| Housing cost burden (≥30% income) | 48.2% | 23.7% (10.6–40.0%) n=32,322 | 26.2% (8.8–40.3%) n=1,868 |
| Homeownership rate | 100.0% | 78.7% (51.7–94.0%) n=32,322 | 75.0% (46.4–92.3%) n=1,868 |
| Crowded housing (>1 per room) | 0.0% | 1.3% (0.0–6.3%) n=32,322 | 3.1% (0.0–9.0%) n=1,868 |
| Foreign-born population | 24.7% | 2.6% (0.0–18.6%) n=32,553 | 8.1% (0.1–26.4%) n=1,886 |
| Single-parent households | 100.0% | 53.6% (37.3–74.1%) n=32,087 | 48.5% (34.3–70.6%) n=1,861 |
| Population 65+ | 42.9% | 19.4% (10.8–33.6%) n=32,553 | 16.1% (8.6–30.1%) n=1,886 |
| Median age | 64.8 yr | 42.2 yr (33.0–56.3) n=32,292 | 38.3 yr (30.9–52.3) n=1,866 |
| Median household income | $87,604 | $72,070 ($46,039–$118,707) n=30,318 | $69,983 ($46,006–$112,413) n=1,737 |
| Median home value | $326,900 | $222,200 ($100,300–$579,820) n=30,049 | $210,500 ($97,060–$429,760) n=1,693 |
| Median gross rent | — | $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 | 82.5 yr ± 1.02 | 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 1.02 years of 82.5, 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