ZIP code
86403
in Lake Havasu City, ArizonaPopulation 18,295
46.25/ 100
Ranked #21,039 of 32,066 US ZIPs (bottom 34%)
Ranked #256 of 394 Arizona ZIPs (bottom 35%)
Ranked #6 of 24 Lake Havasu City-Kingman, AZ ZIPs (top 25%)
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.
Industrial-pollution burden
at the national minimum
Lower is healthier
ST1stUS1stDefinition & 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 ›Dry extreme heat
120 days/year
in the top 0.8% nationally
Lower is healthier
ST61stUS99thDefinition & source ›
The average number of days per year with a modeled daily high of at least 95 °F.
Full methodology ›Physician access
5.1 per 1,000 residents
in the top 1.2% nationally
Higher is healthier
ST99thUS99thDefinition & source ›
The number of physicians’ 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 ›Mammography
64.8%
in the bottom 2.7% nationally
Higher is healthier
ST29thUS3rdDefinition & source ›
The estimated share of women aged 50–74 who had a mammogram within the past two years.
Full methodology ›Lithium in drinking water
96 µg/L
in the top 2.7% nationally
Lower is healthier
ST77thUS97thDefinition & 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 ›Distance to a Superfund site
116.1 mi
in the top 2.9% nationally
Higher is healthier
ST97thUS97thDefinition & 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 ›Dental provider access
1.3 per 1,000 residents
in the top 3.3% nationally
Higher is healthier
ST96thUS97thDefinition & 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 ›Recreation access
1.5 per 1,000 residents
in the top 3.4% nationally
Higher is healthier
ST95thUS97thDefinition & source ›
The number of places for physical recreation — gyms, sports, and fitness venues — 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 ›Outpatient-care access
0.67 per 1,000 residents
in the top 4.3% nationally
Higher is healthier
ST94thUS96thDefinition & source ›
The number of outpatient clinics 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 ›Tree cover
0.00%
at the national minimum
Higher is healthier
ST1stUS1stDefinition & source ›
The share of this ZIP’s land area covered by forest.
Full methodology ›The read
On the composite measure, ZIP 86403, one of several in Lake Havasu City, Arizona stands in the bottom 34% nationally (21,039th) and the bottom 35% of Arizona (256th).
The weightiest signals in the profile are worth naming up front: modeled extreme heat settles in the top 0.8% nationally, and mammography rests in the bottom 2.7% nationally. Lithium in drinking water lands in the top 2.7% nationally, and modeled tree cover settles at the national minimum. More positively, modeled industrial-pollution burden rests at the national minimum, physicians lands in the top 1.2% nationally, and distance to a Superfund site settles in the top 2.9% nationally. Dental providers rests in the top 3.3% nationally, recreation lands in the top 3.4% nationally, and outpatient settles in the top 4.3% nationally.
Set beside the wider area around it, physicians 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. Lithium in drinking water is a natural metal that dissolves into some groundwater and has no federal drinking-water limit yet. Distance to a Superfund site is an abandoned or uncontrolled hazardous-waste site the EPA has identified for cleanup. ZIP 86404, 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. Compare it against the US, this state and the Lake Havasu City-Kingman, AZ metro area.
Compared with the ZIP codes measured across all nine scoring domains — not with all US ZIP codes.
Lifting this score
Social Need / SDOH
healthier than 80%
16%
Environmental Hazard
in the top 1.0%
14%
Mental Health
healthier than 83%
8%
Healthcare Access
healthier than 82%
5%
About typical
Risk Behavior
healthier than 41%
11%
Holding it back
Chronic Disease Burden
healthier than 22%
21%
Preventive Care
healthier than 14%
13%
Disability
healthier than 26%
7%
Climate / Disaster Risk
healthier than 2%
5%
Lifting this score
Social Need / SDOH
healthier than 72%
16%
Environmental Hazard
healthier than 87%
14%
Healthcare Access
healthier than 78%
5%
About typical
Preventive Care
healthier than 48%
13%
Mental Health
healthier than 58%
8%
Holding it back
Chronic Disease Burden
healthier than 34%
21%
Risk Behavior
healthier than 27%
11%
Disability
healthier than 37%
7%
Climate / Disaster Risk
healthier than 2%
5%
Lifting this score
Chronic Disease Burden
healthier than 83%
21%
Social Need / SDOH
healthier than 96%
16%
Environmental Hazard
healthier than 70%
14%
Risk Behavior
healthier than 70%
11%
Disability
healthier than 74%
7%
Healthcare Access
healthier than 96%
5%
About typical
Preventive Care
healthier than 57%
13%
Mental Health
healthier than 43%
8%
Holding it back
Climate / Disaster Risk
healthier than 4%
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
One of our published findings lists 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.
Clean environment, heavy chronic burden
Where the environment and chronic illness point in opposite directions
Environmental-hazard standing 99.0 (top 1%); chronic-disease standing 22.4 — 77 points apart, cleaner on the environment than it is on chronic illness.
Ranked #672 of the 18,187 ZIP codes this finding names, ordered by the gap from cleanest environment to heaviest chronic burden, highest first.
Nearby & similar ZIPs
Editorially selected — see how this ZIP compares to nearby and similar places.
Nearby
86404
Arizonashares a border
Score 49.71
Closest healthier
86406
Arizonashares a border
Score 51.65
Similar health profile
32922
Florida97% similar profile
Score 48.63
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 | 32.3% | 29.5–35.3 |
| High blood pressure among adults | 40.6% | 37.2–44.1 |
| Cancer (non-skin) or melanoma among adults | 11.9% | 10.9–13.0 |
| Current asthma among adults | 11.1% | 9.9–12.4 |
| Coronary heart disease among adults | 9.3% | 8.4–10.2 |
| Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease among adults | 10.6% | 9.5–11.7 |
| Depression among adults | 19.6% | 17.1–22.3 |
| Diagnosed diabetes among adults | 13.3% | 11.7–15.1 |
| High cholesterol among adults who have ever been screened | 41.3% | 37.8–44.9 |
| Obesity among adults | 32.3% | 27.6–37.2 |
| Stroke among adults | 4.9% | 4.5–5.3 |
| All teeth lost among adults aged >=65 years | 17.7% | 14.9–20.6 |
PreventionCDC PLACES 2022 / 2023 · BRFSS
| Measure | Crude prevalence | 95% CI |
|---|---|---|
| Current lack of health insurance among adults aged 18-64 years | 12.1% | 10.7–13.7 |
| Taking medicine to control high blood pressure among adults with high blood pressure | 78.4% | 75.5–81.0 |
| Visits to doctor for routine checkup within the past year among adults | 74.8% | 71.5–77.8 |
| Cholesterol screening among adults | 86.4% | 84.7–87.8 |
| Colorectal cancer screening among adults aged 45–75 years | 60.6% | 56.1–64.7 |
| Visited dentist or dental clinic in the past year among adults | 55.6% | 52.1–58.7 |
| Mammography use among women aged 50-74 years | 64.8% | 57.8–71.2 |
Health Risk BehaviorsCDC PLACES 2022 / 2023 · BRFSS
| Measure | Crude prevalence | 95% CI |
|---|---|---|
| Binge drinking among adults | 14.8% | 12.5–17.4 |
| Current cigarette smoking among adults | 15.5% | 13.6–17.6 |
| No leisure-time physical activity among adults | 27.9% | 24.5–31.5 |
| Short sleep duration among adults | 38.7% | 34.1–43.2 |
Health StatusCDC PLACES 2023 · BRFSS
| Measure | Crude prevalence | 95% CI |
|---|---|---|
| Fair or poor self-rated health status among adults | 21.7% | 19.4–24.1 |
| Frequent mental distress among adults | 15.1% | 13.6–16.9 |
| Frequent physical distress among adults | 15.9% | 14.3–17.7 |
DisabilityCDC PLACES 2023 · BRFSS
| Measure | Crude prevalence | 95% CI |
|---|---|---|
| Cognitive disability among adults | 14.7% | 13.2–16.3 |
| Any disability among adults | 36.7% | 33.3–40.3 |
| Hearing disability among adults | 10.8% | 9.7–11.9 |
| Independent living disability among adults | 9.2% | 8.3–10.2 |
| Mobility disability among adults | 19.0% | 17.0–21.0 |
| Self-care disability among adults | 4.9% | 4.5–5.4 |
| Vision disability among adults | 6.5% | 5.9–7.1 |
Health-Related Social NeedsCDC PLACES 2023 · BRFSS
| Measure | Crude prevalence | 95% CI |
|---|---|---|
| Lack of social and emotional support among adults | 26.9% | 23.7–30.3 |
| Food insecurity in the past 12 months among adults | 14.8% | 12.9–16.9 |
| Received food stamps in the past 12 months among adults | 11.4% | 9.9–13.1 |
| Housing insecurity in the past 12 months among adults | 10.7% | 9.3–12.2 |
| Lack of reliable transportation in the past 12 months among adults | 7.9% | 7.1–8.9 |
| Loneliness among adults | 29.5% | 25.8–33.4 |
| Utility services shut-off threat in the past 12 months among adults | 7.1% | 6.2–8.1 |
Community & economyCensus ACS 5-Year · 2024 release · observed
| Measure | Value | US median (p10–p90) | AZ median (p10–p90) |
|---|---|---|---|
| Poverty rate | 18.4% | 10.6% (3.1–25.8%) n=32,364 | 12.8% (4.6–36.9%) n=396 |
| Uninsured 18–64 | 9.2% | 9.0% (1.5–24.3%) n=32,286 | 14.0% (5.0–32.9%) n=394 |
| No HS diploma (25+) | 8.8% | 7.9% (1.8–20.7%) n=32,505 | 9.3% (2.0–25.9%) n=397 |
| Bachelor's or higher (25+) | 17.8% | 23.3% (9.2–53.6%) n=32,505 | 23.8% (6.0–53.1%) n=397 |
| Unemployment rate (16+) | 3.8% | 3.9% (0.0–9.8%) n=32,274 | 4.8% (0.0–14.3%) n=395 |
| Households without a vehicle | 5.7% | 3.9% (0.0–12.5%) n=32,322 | 3.7% (0.0–14.3%) n=394 |
| Broadband subscription | 89.2% | 89.3% (75.1–97.1%) n=32,322 | 90.4% (57.1–97.2%) n=394 |
| Housing cost burden (≥30% income) | 35.5% | 23.7% (10.6–40.0%) n=32,322 | 25.5% (8.5–37.5%) n=394 |
| Homeownership rate | 62.9% | 78.7% (51.7–94.0%) n=32,322 | 76.3% (44.6–92.8%) n=394 |
| Crowded housing (>1 per room) | 4.2% | 1.3% (0.0–6.3%) n=32,322 | 3.3% (0.0–15.7%) n=394 |
| Foreign-born population | 6.5% | 2.6% (0.0–18.6%) n=32,553 | 7.6% (0.0–20.4%) n=397 |
| Single-parent households | 62.0% | 53.6% (37.3–74.1%) n=32,087 | 51.4% (30.6–79.7%) n=388 |
| Population 65+ | 31.6% | 19.4% (10.8–33.6%) n=32,553 | 19.0% (8.0–46.8%) n=397 |
| Median age | 51.9 yr | 42.2 yr (33.0–56.3) n=32,292 | 40.9 yr (30.0–62.5) n=394 |
| Median household income | $58,967 | $72,070 ($46,039–$118,707) n=30,318 | $69,137 ($39,000–$114,111) n=371 |
| Median home value | $363,000 | $222,200 ($100,300–$579,820) n=30,049 | $326,300 ($73,560–$591,760) n=363 |
| Median gross rent | $1,182 | $1,021 ($677–$1,912) n=25,670 | $1,303 ($683–$2,093) n=323 |
Life expectancyNCHS / RWJF USALEEP · model-based
| Measure | Value | US median (p10–p90) | AZ median (p10–p90) |
|---|---|---|---|
| Life expectancy unavailable for this ZIP — fewer than 80% of the census tracts that make it up could be matched across the 2010→2020 tract-boundary revision, so no value is published rather than an unreliable one. See how coverage gaps are handled. | |||
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