ZIP code
96145
in Tahoe City, CaliforniaPopulation 3,441
66.42/ 100
Ranked #1,471 of 32,066 US ZIPs (top 4.6%)
Ranked #207 of 1,719 California ZIPs (top 12.1%)
Ranked #2 of 122 Sacramento-Roseville-Folsom, CA ZIPs (top 1.7%)
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.
Fine-particle (PM2.5) exceedance
6.4%
in the top 0.7% nationally
Lower is healthier
ST92ndUS99thDefinition & source ›
The share of days in the year when modeled fine-particle (PM2.5) pollution was above the EPA’s daily limit of 35 micrograms per cubic meter.
Full methodology ›Grocery access
0.63 per 1,000 residents
in the top 1.0% nationally
Higher is healthier
ST99thUS99thDefinition & source ›
The number of full supermarkets 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. ZipVitals’s food-access signal is derived from these in-ZIP densities — it is not USDA’s food-desert designation, which measures distance to the nearest supermarket. Where a leg is missing, a ZIP reads “not determinable,” never “not a food desert.”
Full methodology ›Food insecurity
6.0%
in the bottom 1.5% nationally
Lower is healthier
ST2ndUS1stDefinition & source ›
The estimated share of adults who experienced food insecurity in the past 12 months.
Full methodology ›Utility shut-off threat
3.6%
in the bottom 2.0% nationally
Lower is healthier
ST6thUS2ndDefinition & source ›
The estimated share of adults whose household was threatened with a utility shut-off in the past 12 months.
Full methodology ›Park land
48.2%
in the top 2.6% nationally
Higher is healthier
ST92ndUS97thDefinition & source ›
The share of this ZIP’s land area that is public parkland.
Full methodology ›Lack of transportation
4.3%
in the bottom 2.6% nationally
Lower is healthier
ST4thUS3rdDefinition & source ›
The estimated share of adults who lacked reliable transportation in the past 12 months.
Full methodology ›Humid extreme heat
5.2 days/year
in the bottom 3.3% nationally
Lower is healthier
ST8thUS3rdDefinition & 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 ›Housing insecurity
6.2%
in the bottom 3.3% nationally
Lower is healthier
ST4thUS3rdDefinition & source ›
The estimated share of adults who experienced housing insecurity in the past 12 months.
Full methodology ›Recreation access
1.3 per 1,000 residents
in the top 5.4% nationally
Higher is healthier
ST91stUS95thDefinition & 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 ›Obesity
26.3%
in the bottom 7.8% nationally
Lower is healthier
ST34thUS8thDefinition & source ›
The estimated share of adults with obesity, defined as a body-mass index of 30 or higher.
Full methodology ›The read
Tahoe City, California (ZIP 96145), overall, ranks in the top 4.6% healthiest ZIPs nationally (1,471st) and the top 12.1% of California (207th).
This area's measures are easy to read as a mixed set: grocery is in the top 1.0% nationally, modeled food insecurity sits in the bottom 1.5% nationally, and modeled utility shutoff lands in the bottom 2.0% nationally. Park land lies in the top 2.6% nationally, modeled transportation stands in the bottom 2.6% nationally, and modeled humid heat rests in the bottom 3.3% nationally. Modeled housing insecurity registers in the bottom 3.3% nationally, and recreation resides in the top 5.4% nationally. Modeled obesity settles in the bottom 7.8% nationally. Set against that, modeled fine-particle is in the top 0.7% nationally.
Measured against the nearby ZIPs, grocery runs far higher than the surrounding ZIPs on this measure. Defined simply, fine-particle is fine airborne particles about one-thirtieth the width of a hair, counted on modeled days above the EPA standard. Humid heat is a modeled heat-stress measure combining temperature, humidity, sun, and wind to gauge heat on the body outdoors. ZIP 96140, just across the boundary, comes out healthier 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. Compare it against the US, this state and the Sacramento-Roseville-Folsom, CA 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 90%
21%
Social Need / SDOH
healthier than 91%
16%
Preventive Care
healthier than 83%
13%
Risk Behavior
healthier than 95%
11%
Mental Health
healthier than 77%
8%
Disability
healthier than 95%
7%
Climate / Disaster Risk
healthier than 91%
5%
Holding it back
Environmental Hazard
healthier than 25%
14%
Healthcare Access
healthier than 35%
5%
Lifting this score
Chronic Disease Burden
healthier than 71%
21%
Social Need / SDOH
healthier than 86%
16%
Preventive Care
healthier than 92%
13%
Risk Behavior
healthier than 89%
11%
Mental Health
healthier than 74%
8%
Disability
healthier than 94%
7%
Climate / Disaster Risk
healthier than 80%
5%
About typical
Environmental Hazard
healthier than 56%
14%
Holding it back
Healthcare Access
healthier than 22%
5%
Lifting this score
Chronic Disease Burden
healthier than 82%
21%
Social Need / SDOH
healthier than 92%
16%
Environmental Hazard
healthier than 90%
14%
Preventive Care
healthier than 93%
13%
Risk Behavior
healthier than 96%
11%
Mental Health
healthier than 88%
8%
Disability
healthier than 98%
7%
Climate / Disaster Risk
healthier than 86%
5%
Holding it back
Healthcare Access
healthier than 24%
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.
Heavy environment, light chronic burden
Where the environment and chronic illness point in opposite directions
Environmental-hazard standing 24.9; chronic-disease standing 90.1 (top 10%) — 65 points apart, heavier on the environment than it is on chronic illness.
Ranked #15,942 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
96140
Californiashares a border
Score 68.71
Closest healthier
89402
Nevadaabout 4.3 mi away
Score 70.90
Similar health profile
55090
Minnesota100% similar profile
Score 67.13
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 | 23.8% | 20.9–26.9 |
| High blood pressure among adults | 30.4% | 26.7–34.3 |
| Cancer (non-skin) or melanoma among adults | 9.8% | 8.9–10.8 |
| Current asthma among adults | 9.8% | 8.7–11.1 |
| Coronary heart disease among adults | 5.1% | 4.5–5.7 |
| Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease among adults | 4.2% | 3.6–4.8 |
| Depression among adults | 22.1% | 18.9–25.7 |
| Diagnosed diabetes among adults | 7.9% | 6.7–9.1 |
| High cholesterol among adults who have ever been screened | 35.5% | 31.6–39.7 |
| Obesity among adults | 26.3% | 20.8–32.7 |
| Stroke among adults | 2.5% | 2.3–2.8 |
| All teeth lost among adults aged >=65 years | 5.4% | 4.3–6.8 |
PreventionCDC PLACES 2022 / 2023 · BRFSS
| Measure | Crude prevalence | 95% CI |
|---|---|---|
| Current lack of health insurance among adults aged 18-64 years | 3.4% | 2.8–4.1 |
| Taking medicine to control high blood pressure among adults with high blood pressure | 72.3% | 68.6–75.7 |
| Visits to doctor for routine checkup within the past year among adults | 74.8% | 70.9–78.4 |
| Cholesterol screening among adults | 90.2% | 88.7–91.5 |
| Colorectal cancer screening among adults aged 45–75 years | 69.5% | 64.9–73.8 |
| Visited dentist or dental clinic in the past year among adults | 74.4% | 71.5–77.2 |
| Mammography use among women aged 50-74 years | 81.3% | 75.0–86.5 |
Health Risk BehaviorsCDC PLACES 2022 / 2023 · BRFSS
| Measure | Crude prevalence | 95% CI |
|---|---|---|
| Binge drinking among adults | 18.5% | 15.4–22.0 |
| Current cigarette smoking among adults | 7.6% | 6.2–9.1 |
| No leisure-time physical activity among adults | 14.1% | 11.5–17.0 |
| Short sleep duration among adults | 29.1% | 24.1–34.4 |
Health StatusCDC PLACES 2023 · BRFSS
| Measure | Crude prevalence | 95% CI |
|---|---|---|
| Fair or poor self-rated health status among adults | 12.6% | 10.8–14.5 |
| Frequent mental distress among adults | 14.3% | 12.6–16.1 |
| Frequent physical distress among adults | 10.6% | 9.2–12.0 |
DisabilityCDC PLACES 2023 · BRFSS
| Measure | Crude prevalence | 95% CI |
|---|---|---|
| Cognitive disability among adults | 10.1% | 8.8–11.4 |
| Any disability among adults | 22.3% | 19.1–25.8 |
| Hearing disability among adults | 5.5% | 4.8–6.2 |
| Independent living disability among adults | 5.3% | 4.6–6.0 |
| Mobility disability among adults | 9.4% | 8.0–10.9 |
| Self-care disability among adults | 2.3% | 2.0–2.5 |
| Vision disability among adults | 2.7% | 2.4–3.0 |
Health-Related Social NeedsCDC PLACES 2023 · BRFSS
| Measure | Crude prevalence | 95% CI |
|---|---|---|
| Lack of social and emotional support among adults | 19.7% | 16.6–23.1 |
| Food insecurity in the past 12 months among adults | 6.0% | 4.8–7.3 |
| Received food stamps in the past 12 months among adults | 5.4% | 4.3–6.6 |
| Housing insecurity in the past 12 months among adults | 6.2% | 5.1–7.5 |
| Lack of reliable transportation in the past 12 months among adults | 4.3% | 3.7–5.0 |
| Loneliness among adults | 29.4% | 24.8–34.1 |
| Utility services shut-off threat in the past 12 months among adults | 3.6% | 3.0–4.3 |
Community & economyCensus ACS 5-Year · 2024 release · observed
| Measure | Value | US median (p10–p90) | CA median (p10–p90) |
|---|---|---|---|
| Poverty rate | 2.8% | 10.6% (3.1–25.8%) n=32,364 | 10.6% (4.1–24.9%) n=1,714 |
| Uninsured 18–64 | 2.6% | 9.0% (1.5–24.3%) n=32,286 | 7.7% (1.7–17.9%) n=1,704 |
| No HS diploma (25+) | 1.9% | 7.9% (1.8–20.7%) n=32,505 | 9.8% (1.4–30.9%) n=1,729 |
| Bachelor's or higher (25+) | 58.0% | 23.3% (9.2–53.6%) n=32,505 | 31.3% (9.9–68.2%) n=1,729 |
| Unemployment rate (16+) | 3.9% | 3.9% (0.0–9.8%) n=32,274 | 6.1% (0.8–12.0%) n=1,714 |
| Households without a vehicle | 2.0% | 3.9% (0.0–12.5%) n=32,322 | 4.5% (0.0–12.2%) n=1,708 |
| Broadband subscription | 96.4% | 89.3% (75.1–97.1%) n=32,322 | 93.4% (82.1–98.4%) n=1,708 |
| Housing cost burden (≥30% income) | 38.8% | 23.7% (10.6–40.0%) n=32,322 | 38.6% (24.4–50.5%) n=1,708 |
| Homeownership rate | 74.6% | 78.7% (51.7–94.0%) n=32,322 | 64.1% (31.9–86.4%) n=1,708 |
| Crowded housing (>1 per room) | 2.9% | 1.3% (0.0–6.3%) n=32,322 | 4.8% (0.0–15.9%) n=1,708 |
| Foreign-born population | 7.3% | 2.6% (0.0–18.6%) n=32,553 | 18.9% (3.0–40.4%) n=1,730 |
| Single-parent households | 53.8% | 53.6% (37.3–74.1%) n=32,087 | 48.4% (35.1–72.3%) n=1,692 |
| Population 65+ | 18.5% | 19.4% (10.8–33.6%) n=32,553 | 17.0% (9.7–35.7%) n=1,730 |
| Median age | 41.4 yr | 42.2 yr (33.0–56.3) n=32,292 | 40.1 yr (31.8–57.0) n=1,712 |
| Median household income | $112,875 | $72,070 ($46,039–$118,707) n=30,318 | $93,448 ($54,188–$159,562) n=1,584 |
| Median home value | $962,600 | $222,200 ($100,300–$579,820) n=30,049 | $659,800 ($300,520–$1,493,340) n=1,593 |
| Median gross rent | $1,892 | $1,021 ($677–$1,912) n=25,670 | $1,912 ($1,113–$2,923) n=1,461 |
Life expectancyNCHS / RWJF USALEEP · model-based
| Measure | Value | US median (p10–p90) | CA 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