ZIP code
84627
in Ephraim, UtahPopulation 6,244
52.43/ 100
Ranked #12,864 of 32,066 US ZIPs (top 40%)
Ranked #192 of 284 Utah ZIPs (bottom 32%)
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.
High cholesterol
26.9%
in the bottom 1.7% nationally
Lower is healthier
ST5thUS2ndDefinition & source ›
The estimated share of adults with high cholesterol, among those who have ever been screened for it.
Full methodology ›Humid extreme heat
2.3 days/year
in the bottom 1.4% nationally
Lower is healthier
ST9thUS1stDefinition & 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 ›Distance to a community health center
40.3 mi
in the top 2.1% nationally
Lower is healthier
ST99thUS98thDefinition & 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 ›High blood pressure
23.9%
in the bottom 2.3% nationally
Lower is healthier
ST5thUS2ndDefinition & source ›
The estimated share of adults who have been told by a health professional that they have high blood pressure.
Full methodology ›Air-toxics cancer risk
10 per million
in the bottom 2.8% nationally
Lower is healthier
ST24thUS3rdDefinition & 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 ›Outer-floodplain exposure
8.4%
in the top 4.5% nationally
Lower is healthier
ST97thUS96thDefinition & 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 ›Distance to a Superfund site
80.4 mi
in the top 5.1% nationally
Higher is healthier
ST66thUS95thDefinition & source ›
The distance in miles from this ZIP’s edge to the nearest Superfund site — an abandoned or uncontrolled hazardous-waste site the EPA has listed for cleanup.
Full methodology ›Distance to a nursing home
14.5 mi
in the top 5.8% nationally
Lower is healthier
ST74thUS94thDefinition & source ›
The distance in miles from this ZIP’s edge to the nearest Medicare- or Medicaid-certified nursing home.
Full methodology ›Lithium in drinking water
68 µg/L
in the top 6.7% nationally
Lower is healthier
ST97thUS93rdDefinition & 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 ›Obesity
27.3%
in the bottom 9.8% nationally
Lower is healthier
ST7thUS10thDefinition & source ›
The estimated share of adults with obesity, defined as a body-mass index of 30 or higher.
Full methodology ›The read
Overall, Ephraim, Utah (ZIP 84627) lands in the top 40% healthiest ZIPs nationally (12,864th) and the bottom 32% of Utah (192nd).
A number of measures pull each way for this area: modeled high cholesterol rests in the bottom 1.7% nationally, and humid heat stands in the bottom 1.4% nationally. Modeled high blood pressure lies in the bottom 2.3% nationally, and air-toxics cancer risk lands in the bottom 2.8% nationally. Distance to a Superfund site sits in the top 5.1% nationally, and modeled obesity is in the bottom 9.8% nationally. Set against that, distance to a community health center settles in the top 2.1% nationally, outer-floodplain exposure resides in the top 4.5% nationally, and distance to a nursing home registers in the top 5.8% nationally. Lithium in drinking water rests in the top 6.7% nationally.
Set beside the nearby areas, outer-floodplain exposure runs far higher than the surrounding ZIPs on this measure. A note on the terms: air-toxics cancer risk is a modeled EPA estimate of added lifetime cancer risk from breathing outdoor air, per million people. Distance to a Superfund site is an abandoned or uncontrolled hazardous-waste site the EPA has identified for cleanup. Lithium in drinking water is a natural metal that dissolves into some groundwater and has no federal drinking-water limit yet. For a healthier nearby comparison, ZIP 84642, just across the boundary, ranks better 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
Chronic Disease Burden
healthier than 92%
21%
Environmental Hazard
healthier than 93%
14%
Risk Behavior
healthier than 95%
11%
About typical
Social Need / SDOH
healthier than 56%
16%
Disability
healthier than 57%
7%
Climate / Disaster Risk
healthier than 54%
5%
Holding it back
Preventive Care
healthier than 5%
13%
Mental Health
healthier than 9%
8%
Healthcare Access
in the bottom 0.6%
5%
Lifting this score
Chronic Disease Burden
healthier than 70%
21%
Environmental Hazard
healthier than 84%
14%
About typical
Risk Behavior
healthier than 46%
11%
Holding it back
Social Need / SDOH
healthier than 14%
16%
Preventive Care
healthier than 14%
13%
Mental Health
healthier than 9%
8%
Disability
healthier than 32%
7%
Climate / Disaster Risk
healthier than 14%
5%
Healthcare Access
healthier than 1%
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
84623
Utahshares a border
Score 50.71
Closest healthier
84642
Utahshares a border
Score 53.24
Similar health profile
80649
Colorado92% similar profile
Score 47.72
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 | 20.8% | 18.5–23.2 |
| High blood pressure among adults | 23.9% | 21.1–26.9 |
| Cancer (non-skin) or melanoma among adults | 6.4% | 5.8–7.0 |
| Current asthma among adults | 11.5% | 10.1–13.0 |
| Coronary heart disease among adults | 5.0% | 4.4–5.5 |
| Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease among adults | 5.4% | 4.6–6.1 |
| Depression among adults | 28.1% | 24.4–32.1 |
| Diagnosed diabetes among adults | 8.5% | 7.3–9.7 |
| High cholesterol among adults who have ever been screened | 26.9% | 23.8–30.2 |
| Obesity among adults | 27.3% | 22.1–32.9 |
| Stroke among adults | 2.7% | 2.4–2.9 |
| All teeth lost among adults aged >=65 years | 14.6% | 12.0–17.6 |
PreventionCDC PLACES 2022 / 2023 · BRFSS
| Measure | Crude prevalence | 95% CI |
|---|---|---|
| Current lack of health insurance among adults aged 18-64 years | 10.6% | 8.6–12.9 |
| Taking medicine to control high blood pressure among adults with high blood pressure | 65.0% | 62.1–67.8 |
| Visits to doctor for routine checkup within the past year among adults | 68.6% | 64.3–72.5 |
| Cholesterol screening among adults | 73.2% | 69.7–76.5 |
| Colorectal cancer screening among adults aged 45–75 years | 59.7% | 54.5–64.8 |
| Visited dentist or dental clinic in the past year among adults | 65.6% | 62.1–69.0 |
| Mammography use among women aged 50-74 years | 68.7% | 60.1–76.5 |
Health Risk BehaviorsCDC PLACES 2022 / 2023 · BRFSS
| Measure | Crude prevalence | 95% CI |
|---|---|---|
| Binge drinking among adults | 12.2% | 9.9–14.7 |
| Current cigarette smoking among adults | 8.7% | 7.2–10.3 |
| No leisure-time physical activity among adults | 18.1% | 14.9–21.6 |
| Short sleep duration among adults | 35.5% | 30.0–41.4 |
Health StatusCDC PLACES 2023 · BRFSS
| Measure | Crude prevalence | 95% CI |
|---|---|---|
| Fair or poor self-rated health status among adults | 16.5% | 14.1–19.0 |
| Frequent mental distress among adults | 19.8% | 17.1–22.4 |
| Frequent physical distress among adults | 12.5% | 10.9–14.1 |
DisabilityCDC PLACES 2023 · BRFSS
| Measure | Crude prevalence | 95% CI |
|---|---|---|
| Cognitive disability among adults | 18.5% | 15.9–21.3 |
| Any disability among adults | 32.0% | 27.7–36.5 |
| Hearing disability among adults | 7.0% | 6.2–7.8 |
| Independent living disability among adults | 9.0% | 7.7–10.3 |
| Mobility disability among adults | 10.6% | 9.1–12.1 |
| Self-care disability among adults | 3.2% | 2.9–3.6 |
| Vision disability among adults | 5.0% | 4.4–5.5 |
Health-Related Social NeedsCDC PLACES 2023 · BRFSS
| Measure | Crude prevalence | 95% CI |
|---|---|---|
| Lack of social and emotional support among adults | 19.2% | 16.2–22.7 |
| Food insecurity in the past 12 months among adults | 15.2% | 12.4–18.6 |
| Received food stamps in the past 12 months among adults | 8.5% | 6.9–10.6 |
| Housing insecurity in the past 12 months among adults | 11.4% | 9.5–13.6 |
| Lack of reliable transportation in the past 12 months among adults | 9.4% | 7.9–11.1 |
| Loneliness among adults | 34.6% | 30.0–39.7 |
| Utility services shut-off threat in the past 12 months among adults | 8.1% | 6.8–9.6 |
Community & economyCensus ACS 5-Year · 2024 release · observed
| Measure | Value | US median (p10–p90) | UT median (p10–p90) |
|---|---|---|---|
| Poverty rate | 16.4% | 10.6% (3.1–25.8%) n=32,364 | 7.0% (1.0–21.5%) n=283 |
| Uninsured 18–64 | 10.7% | 9.0% (1.5–24.3%) n=32,286 | 10.1% (2.9–25.0%) n=281 |
| No HS diploma (25+) | 3.5% | 7.9% (1.8–20.7%) n=32,505 | 5.4% (0.0–15.0%) n=284 |
| Bachelor's or higher (25+) | 39.6% | 23.3% (9.2–53.6%) n=32,505 | 28.5% (10.8–53.1%) n=284 |
| Unemployment rate (16+) | 10.0% | 3.9% (0.0–9.8%) n=32,274 | 2.9% (0.0–8.7%) n=281 |
| Households without a vehicle | 3.8% | 3.9% (0.0–12.5%) n=32,322 | 2.0% (0.0–7.7%) n=283 |
| Broadband subscription | 80.6% | 89.3% (75.1–97.1%) n=32,322 | 93.3% (78.4–98.3%) n=283 |
| Housing cost burden (≥30% income) | 28.5% | 23.7% (10.6–40.0%) n=32,322 | 21.1% (7.6–35.3%) n=283 |
| Homeownership rate | 51.1% | 78.7% (51.7–94.0%) n=32,322 | 81.5% (52.0–96.8%) n=283 |
| Crowded housing (>1 per room) | 4.6% | 1.3% (0.0–6.3%) n=32,322 | 2.0% (0.0–7.6%) n=283 |
| Foreign-born population | 8.4% | 2.6% (0.0–18.6%) n=32,553 | 3.2% (0.0–11.8%) n=284 |
| Single-parent households | 54.2% | 53.6% (37.3–74.1%) n=32,087 | 49.8% (37.3–72.7%) n=281 |
| Population 65+ | 11.8% | 19.4% (10.8–33.6%) n=32,553 | 15.3% (7.9–29.1%) n=284 |
| Median age | 22.4 yr | 42.2 yr (33.0–56.3) n=32,292 | 35.9 yr (27.6–52.1) n=283 |
| Median household income | $72,875 | $72,070 ($46,039–$118,707) n=30,318 | $82,344 ($52,938–$126,884) n=260 |
| Median home value | $427,800 | $222,200 ($100,300–$579,820) n=30,049 | $402,500 ($229,220–$651,780) n=259 |
| Median gross rent | $917 | $1,021 ($677–$1,912) n=25,670 | $1,321 ($834–$1,911) n=198 |
Life expectancyNCHS / RWJF USALEEP · model-based
| Measure | Value | US median (p10–p90) | UT median (p10–p90) |
|---|---|---|---|
| Life expectancy at birth | 80.7 yr ± 1.58 | 78.9 yr (74.7–82.8) n=31,308 | 80.7 yr (77.0–85.3) n=277 |
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 1.58 years of 80.7, 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