ZIP code
98855
in Tonasket, WashingtonPopulation 5,857
44.38/ 100
Ranked #23,047 of 32,066 US ZIPs (bottom 28%)
Ranked #528 of 581 Washington ZIPs (bottom 9.2%)
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
in the bottom 0.2% nationally
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 ›Fine-particle (PM2.5) exceedance
3.2%
in the top 2.1% nationally
Lower is healthier
ST95thUS98thDefinition & 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 ›Park land
32%
in the top 4.4% nationally
Higher is healthier
ST93rdUS96thDefinition & source ›
The share of this ZIP’s land area that is public parkland.
Full methodology ›Mammography
66.9%
in the bottom 5.3% nationally
Higher is healthier
ST11thUS5thDefinition & source ›
The estimated share of women aged 50–74 who had a mammogram within the past two years.
Full methodology ›Arsenic in groundwater
21%
in the top 6.0% nationally
Lower is healthier
ST91stUS94thDefinition & source ›
The modeled probability that untreated groundwater in this area — the source private wells draw on — exceeds the federal arsenic limit of 10 micrograms per liter.
A modeled likelihood for untreated groundwater, the source drawn on by private wells, which are federally unregulated. It is not a measurement of treated water delivered by a public system, and it is not a test of any individual well.
Full methodology ›Air-toxics cancer risk
18.3 per million
in the bottom 6.8% nationally
Lower is healthier
ST8thUS7thDefinition & 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 ›Natural-disaster risk
in the top 8.1% nationally
Lower is healthier
ST71stUS92ndDefinition & source ›
This area’s national rank on its single highest non-flood natural hazard — such as wildfire, tornado, or earthquake — in FEMA’s modeled National Risk Index; flooding is shown separately.
Full methodology ›Elder-services access
0.16 per 1,000 residents
in the top 9.1% nationally
Higher is healthier
ST91stUS91stDefinition & source ›
The number of services for older adults and people with disabilities 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 ›Hearing disability
11.0%
in the top 9.4% nationally
Lower is healthier
ST94thUS91stDefinition & source ›
The estimated share of adults who are deaf or have serious difficulty hearing.
Full methodology ›Grocery access
0.16 per 1,000 residents
in the top 10.1% nationally
Higher is healthier
ST94thUS90thDefinition & 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 ›The read
Tonasket, Washington (ZIP 98855), by its composite score, sits in the bottom 28% nationally (23,047th) and the bottom 9.2% of Washington (528th), based on limited data; treat as directional.
The measures that matter most for this area lead the way: modeled fine-particle stands in the top 2.1% nationally, and mammography registers in the bottom 5.3% nationally. Modeled arsenic settles in the top 6.0% nationally, and disaster risk sits in the top 8.1% nationally. Modeled hearing disability lies in the top 9.4% nationally. On the better side, modeled industrial-pollution burden rests in the bottom 0.2% nationally, and park land resides in the top 4.4% nationally. Distance to an emergency room is at the national minimum, shared with about 11% of ZIPs. Modeled air-toxics cancer risk lands in the bottom 6.8% nationally, and elder services stands in the top 9.1% nationally.
Next to the surrounding area, park land runs far higher than the surrounding ZIPs on this measure. For anyone unfamiliar, industrial-pollution burden is the EPA's modeled screening score weighting industrial chemical releases by their toxicity and how many people live nearby. Fine-particle is fine airborne particles about one-thirtieth the width of a hair, counted on modeled days above the EPA standard. Arsenic is a natural groundwater contaminant, here a modeled estimate of the chance private-well levels exceed a benchmark. For a healthier comparison close by, see ZIP 98819, 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.
Compared with the ZIP codes measured across all nine scoring domains — not with all US ZIP codes.
Lifting this score
Risk Behavior
healthier than 74%
11%
Climate / Disaster RiskPartial
healthier than 87%
5%
Healthcare Access
in the top 0.00%
5%
About typical
Mental Health
healthier than 43%
8%
Holding it back
Chronic Disease Burden
healthier than 21%
21%
Social Need / SDOH
healthier than 31%
16%
Environmental Hazard
healthier than 11%
14%
Preventive Care
healthier than 19%
13%
Disability
healthier than 20%
7%
Lifting this score
Mental Health
healthier than 65%
8%
Healthcare Access
in the top 0.00%
5%
About typical
Climate / Disaster RiskPartial
healthier than 54%
5%
Holding it back
Chronic Disease Burden
healthier than 8%
21%
Social Need / SDOH
healthier than 4%
16%
Environmental Hazard
healthier than 13%
14%
Preventive Care
healthier than 34%
13%
Risk Behavior
healthier than 28%
11%
Disability
healthier than 5%
7%
“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
98819
Washingtonshares a border
Score 47.46
Closest healthier
98827
Washingtonshares a border
Score 44.64
Similar health profile
83850
Idaho95% similar profile
Score 42.94
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 | 35.4% | 32.2–38.7 |
| High blood pressure among adults | 40.6% | 36.9–44.4 |
| Cancer (non-skin) or melanoma among adults | 11.4% | 10.4–12.5 |
| Current asthma among adults | 11.6% | 10.4–13.0 |
| Coronary heart disease among adults | 10.0% | 9.0–11.0 |
| Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease among adults | 9.8% | 8.6–11.0 |
| Depression among adults | 24.5% | 21.3–27.9 |
| Diagnosed diabetes among adults | 14.2% | 12.5–16.1 |
| High cholesterol among adults who have ever been screened | 39.7% | 35.9–43.5 |
| Obesity among adults | 31.9% | 26.7–37.6 |
| Stroke among adults | 5.1% | 4.7–5.6 |
| All teeth lost among adults aged >=65 years | 15.4% | 12.7–18.2 |
PreventionCDC PLACES 2022 / 2023 · BRFSS
| Measure | Crude prevalence | 95% CI |
|---|---|---|
| Current lack of health insurance among adults aged 18-64 years | 11.3% | 9.7–13.2 |
| Taking medicine to control high blood pressure among adults with high blood pressure | 77.4% | 74.4–80.2 |
| Visits to doctor for routine checkup within the past year among adults | 74.8% | 71.5–78.1 |
| Cholesterol screening among adults | 85.0% | 83.3–86.6 |
| Colorectal cancer screening among adults aged 45–75 years | 67.1% | 62.4–71.3 |
| Visited dentist or dental clinic in the past year among adults | 56.1% | 52.5–59.7 |
| Mammography use among women aged 50-74 years | 66.9% | 58.8–74.0 |
Health Risk BehaviorsCDC PLACES 2022 / 2023 · BRFSS
| Measure | Crude prevalence | 95% CI |
|---|---|---|
| Binge drinking among adults | 13.7% | 11.4–16.2 |
| Current cigarette smoking among adults | 15.1% | 13.0–17.3 |
| No leisure-time physical activity among adults | 25.1% | 21.5–29.1 |
| Short sleep duration among adults | 33.6% | 28.6–38.6 |
Health StatusCDC PLACES 2023 · BRFSS
| Measure | Crude prevalence | 95% CI |
|---|---|---|
| Fair or poor self-rated health status among adults | 23.5% | 20.7–26.4 |
| Frequent mental distress among adults | 16.5% | 14.6–18.4 |
| Frequent physical distress among adults | 17.3% | 15.4–19.4 |
DisabilityCDC PLACES 2023 · BRFSS
| Measure | Crude prevalence | 95% CI |
|---|---|---|
| Cognitive disability among adults | 16.3% | 14.5–18.1 |
| Any disability among adults | 37.7% | 33.8–41.8 |
| Hearing disability among adults | 11.0% | 9.9–12.3 |
| Independent living disability among adults | 10.0% | 8.9–11.2 |
| Mobility disability among adults | 18.8% | 16.5–21.2 |
| Self-care disability among adults | 5.5% | 4.9–6.1 |
| Vision disability among adults | 6.7% | 6.0–7.4 |
Community & economyCensus ACS 5-Year · 2024 release · observed
| Measure | Value | US median (p10–p90) | WA median (p10–p90) |
|---|---|---|---|
| Poverty rate | 21.9% | 10.6% (3.1–25.8%) n=32,364 | 9.6% (3.5–22.3%) n=583 |
| Uninsured 18–64 | 17.8% | 9.0% (1.5–24.3%) n=32,286 | 8.2% (1.8–22.7%) n=582 |
| No HS diploma (25+) | 15.4% | 7.9% (1.8–20.7%) n=32,505 | 7.0% (1.5–16.5%) n=588 |
| Bachelor's or higher (25+) | 24.7% | 23.3% (9.2–53.6%) n=32,505 | 27.4% (12.3–59.7%) n=588 |
| Unemployment rate (16+) | 6.3% | 3.9% (0.0–9.8%) n=32,274 | 4.5% (0.0–9.7%) n=584 |
| Households without a vehicle | 4.4% | 3.9% (0.0–12.5%) n=32,322 | 3.7% (0.0–10.2%) n=580 |
| Broadband subscription | 86.2% | 89.3% (75.1–97.1%) n=32,322 | 92.7% (81.1–97.4%) n=580 |
| Housing cost burden (≥30% income) | 21.1% | 23.7% (10.6–40.0%) n=32,322 | 28.9% (14.6–40.6%) n=580 |
| Homeownership rate | 75.6% | 78.7% (51.7–94.0%) n=32,322 | 75.2% (48.2–91.7%) n=580 |
| Crowded housing (>1 per room) | 6.0% | 1.3% (0.0–6.3%) n=32,322 | 2.6% (0.0–7.9%) n=580 |
| Foreign-born population | 9.5% | 2.6% (0.0–18.6%) n=32,553 | 6.7% (0.3–27.6%) n=588 |
| Single-parent households | 62.5% | 53.6% (37.3–74.1%) n=32,087 | 54.3% (40.5–76.0%) n=574 |
| Population 65+ | 22.5% | 19.4% (10.8–33.6%) n=32,553 | 18.9% (10.3–36.9%) n=588 |
| Median age | 42.2 yr | 42.2 yr (33.0–56.3) n=32,292 | 41.0 yr (32.9–58.8) n=584 |
| Median household income | $60,179 | $72,070 ($46,039–$118,707) n=30,318 | $84,646 ($56,217–$132,145) n=547 |
| Median home value | $257,800 | $222,200 ($100,300–$579,820) n=30,049 | $452,750 ($241,540–$826,380) n=542 |
| Median gross rent | $908 | $1,021 ($677–$1,912) n=25,670 | $1,416 ($840–$2,197) n=476 |
Life expectancyNCHS / RWJF USALEEP · model-based
| Measure | Value | US median (p10–p90) | WA median (p10–p90) |
|---|---|---|---|
| Life expectancy at birth | 78.1 yr ± 0.86 | 78.9 yr (74.7–82.8) n=31,308 | 80.2 yr (77.3–83.1) n=584 |
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 0.86 years of 78.1, 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