ZIP code
86406
in Lake Havasu City, ArizonaPopulation 25,067
51.65/ 100
Ranked #13,912 of 32,066 US ZIPs (top 43%)
Ranked #174 of 394 Arizona ZIPs (top 44%)
Ranked #1 of 24 Lake Havasu City-Kingman, AZ ZIPs (top 4.2%)
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
122 days/year
in the top 0.7% nationally
Lower is healthier
ST63rdUS99thDefinition & source ›
The average number of days per year with a modeled daily high of at least 95 °F.
Full methodology ›Lithium in drinking water
96 µg/L
in the top 2.6% nationally
Lower is healthier
ST78thUS97thDefinition & 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
93.7 mi
in the top 4.0% nationally
Higher is healthier
ST90thUS96thDefinition & 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 ›Mammography
66.7%
in the bottom 5.0% nationally
Higher is healthier
ST37thUS5thDefinition & source ›
The estimated share of women aged 50–74 who had a mammogram within the past two years.
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 ›Loneliness
28.2%
in the bottom 8.4% nationally
Lower is healthier
ST22ndUS8thDefinition & source ›
The estimated share of adults who report feeling lonely.
Full methodology ›The read
ZIP 86406, one of several in Lake Havasu City, Arizona, by its overall standing, sits in the top 43% healthiest ZIPs nationally (13,912th) and the top 44% of Arizona (174th).
The profile opens balanced, with readings on either hand: modeled industrial-pollution burden lands at the national minimum, distance to a Superfund site is in the top 4.0% nationally, and modeled loneliness resides in the bottom 8.4% nationally. Distance to a nursing home rests at the national minimum, shared with about 27% of ZIPs. By contrast, modeled extreme heat lies in the top 0.7% nationally, and lithium in drinking water sits in the top 2.6% nationally. Modeled mammography settles in the bottom 5.0% nationally, and tree cover registers at the national minimum. Modeled hearing disability stands in the top 10.9% nationally, and PFAS in drinking water lands in the top 12.9% nationally.
Held up against its neighbors, park land runs far higher than the surrounding ZIPs on this measure. Defined in plain terms, 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. The nearest ZIP ranking healthier overall is ZIP 85320, about 41 miles away.
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 76%
16%
Environmental Hazard
healthier than 99%
14%
Risk Behavior
healthier than 64%
11%
Mental Health
healthier than 91%
8%
Healthcare Access
healthier than 77%
5%
Holding it back
Chronic Disease Burden
healthier than 25%
21%
Preventive Care
healthier than 33%
13%
Disability
healthier than 40%
7%
Climate / Disaster Risk
healthier than 15%
5%
Lifting this score
Social Need / SDOH
healthier than 71%
16%
Environmental Hazard
healthier than 84%
14%
Preventive Care
healthier than 69%
13%
Mental Health
healthier than 77%
8%
Healthcare Access
healthier than 75%
5%
About typical
Risk Behavior
healthier than 42%
11%
Disability
healthier than 53%
7%
Holding it back
Chronic Disease Burden
healthier than 37%
21%
Climate / Disaster Risk
healthier than 27%
5%
Lifting this score
Chronic Disease Burden
healthier than 87%
21%
Social Need / SDOH
healthier than 91%
16%
Preventive Care
in the top 0.00%
13%
Risk Behavior
healthier than 96%
11%
Mental Health
healthier than 80%
8%
Disability
in the top 0.00%
7%
Healthcare Access
healthier than 87%
5%
About typical
Environmental Hazard
healthier than 52%
14%
Holding it back
Climate / Disaster Risk
healthier than 26%
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 98.5 (top 10%); chronic-disease standing 25.2 — 73 points apart, cleaner on the environment than it is on chronic illness.
Ranked #857 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
85344
Arizonashares a border
Score 40.85
Closest healthier
85320
Arizonaabout 41 mi away
Score 58.51
Similar health profile
66078
Kansas98% similar profile
Score 50.27
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 | 33.5% | 30.5–36.5 |
| High blood pressure among adults | 41.2% | 37.8–44.7 |
| Cancer (non-skin) or melanoma among adults | 13.2% | 12.1–14.5 |
| Current asthma among adults | 10.8% | 9.6–12.0 |
| Coronary heart disease among adults | 9.1% | 8.3–10.0 |
| Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease among adults | 9.7% | 8.7–10.7 |
| Depression among adults | 18.7% | 16.2–21.4 |
| Diagnosed diabetes among adults | 12.7% | 11.2–14.4 |
| High cholesterol among adults who have ever been screened | 42.4% | 38.8–46.1 |
| Obesity among adults | 30.5% | 26.0–35.4 |
| Stroke among adults | 4.7% | 4.3–5.1 |
| All teeth lost among adults aged >=65 years | 14.2% | 11.9–16.7 |
PreventionCDC PLACES 2022 / 2023 · BRFSS
| Measure | Crude prevalence | 95% CI |
|---|---|---|
| Current lack of health insurance among adults aged 18-64 years | 9.1% | 7.9–10.4 |
| Taking medicine to control high blood pressure among adults with high blood pressure | 79.7% | 76.8–82.3 |
| Visits to doctor for routine checkup within the past year among adults | 76.8% | 73.7–79.7 |
| Cholesterol screening among adults | 89.0% | 87.7–90.3 |
| Colorectal cancer screening among adults aged 45–75 years | 64.0% | 59.5–67.9 |
| Visited dentist or dental clinic in the past year among adults | 60.3% | 56.9–63.4 |
| Mammography use among women aged 50-74 years | 66.7% | 59.7–72.7 |
Health Risk BehaviorsCDC PLACES 2022 / 2023 · BRFSS
| Measure | Crude prevalence | 95% CI |
|---|---|---|
| Binge drinking among adults | 14.3% | 12.1–16.8 |
| Current cigarette smoking among adults | 13.5% | 11.8–15.3 |
| No leisure-time physical activity among adults | 25.4% | 22.3–28.8 |
| Short sleep duration among adults | 37.2% | 32.7–41.5 |
Health StatusCDC PLACES 2023 · BRFSS
| Measure | Crude prevalence | 95% CI |
|---|---|---|
| Fair or poor self-rated health status among adults | 19.0% | 16.9–21.2 |
| Frequent mental distress among adults | 13.8% | 12.3–15.4 |
| Frequent physical distress among adults | 14.9% | 13.4–16.5 |
DisabilityCDC PLACES 2023 · BRFSS
| Measure | Crude prevalence | 95% CI |
|---|---|---|
| Cognitive disability among adults | 12.7% | 11.3–14.1 |
| Any disability among adults | 34.6% | 31.3–38.0 |
| Hearing disability among adults | 10.8% | 9.7–11.8 |
| Independent living disability among adults | 8.0% | 7.2–8.8 |
| Mobility disability among adults | 17.7% | 15.9–19.7 |
| Self-care disability among adults | 4.2% | 3.9–4.6 |
| Vision disability among adults | 5.5% | 5.0–5.9 |
Health-Related Social NeedsCDC PLACES 2023 · BRFSS
| Measure | Crude prevalence | 95% CI |
|---|---|---|
| Lack of social and emotional support among adults | 25.7% | 22.6–28.9 |
| Food insecurity in the past 12 months among adults | 10.9% | 9.5–12.6 |
| Received food stamps in the past 12 months among adults | 7.9% | 6.8–9.1 |
| Housing insecurity in the past 12 months among adults | 8.2% | 7.1–9.5 |
| Lack of reliable transportation in the past 12 months among adults | 6.2% | 5.5–6.9 |
| Loneliness among adults | 28.2% | 24.6–31.9 |
| Utility services shut-off threat in the past 12 months among adults | 5.4% | 4.7–6.2 |
Community & economyCensus ACS 5-Year · 2024 release · observed
| Measure | Value | US median (p10–p90) | AZ median (p10–p90) |
|---|---|---|---|
| Poverty rate | 10.9% | 10.6% (3.1–25.8%) n=32,364 | 12.8% (4.6–36.9%) n=396 |
| Uninsured 18–64 | 17.4% | 9.0% (1.5–24.3%) n=32,286 | 14.0% (5.0–32.9%) n=394 |
| No HS diploma (25+) | 6.9% | 7.9% (1.8–20.7%) n=32,505 | 9.3% (2.0–25.9%) n=397 |
| Bachelor's or higher (25+) | 18.3% | 23.3% (9.2–53.6%) n=32,505 | 23.8% (6.0–53.1%) n=397 |
| Unemployment rate (16+) | 6.5% | 3.9% (0.0–9.8%) n=32,274 | 4.8% (0.0–14.3%) n=395 |
| Households without a vehicle | 2.8% | 3.9% (0.0–12.5%) n=32,322 | 3.7% (0.0–14.3%) n=394 |
| Broadband subscription | 90.5% | 89.3% (75.1–97.1%) n=32,322 | 90.4% (57.1–97.2%) n=394 |
| Housing cost burden (≥30% income) | 28.0% | 23.7% (10.6–40.0%) n=32,322 | 25.5% (8.5–37.5%) n=394 |
| Homeownership rate | 77.6% | 78.7% (51.7–94.0%) n=32,322 | 76.3% (44.6–92.8%) n=394 |
| Crowded housing (>1 per room) | 1.9% | 1.3% (0.0–6.3%) n=32,322 | 3.3% (0.0–15.7%) n=394 |
| Foreign-born population | 7.0% | 2.6% (0.0–18.6%) n=32,553 | 7.6% (0.0–20.4%) n=397 |
| Single-parent households | 68.6% | 53.6% (37.3–74.1%) n=32,087 | 51.4% (30.6–79.7%) n=388 |
| Population 65+ | 37.4% | 19.4% (10.8–33.6%) n=32,553 | 19.0% (8.0–46.8%) n=397 |
| Median age | 58.3 yr | 42.2 yr (33.0–56.3) n=32,292 | 40.9 yr (30.0–62.5) n=394 |
| Median household income | $77,506 | $72,070 ($46,039–$118,707) n=30,318 | $69,137 ($39,000–$114,111) n=371 |
| Median home value | $476,600 | $222,200 ($100,300–$579,820) n=30,049 | $326,300 ($73,560–$591,760) n=363 |
| Median gross rent | $1,320 | $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