County profile
Washington County, Vermont Community Health Profile
Environmental risk, disease burden, provider access, and SDOH scores for community health needs assessment and service line planning. Fused from EPA, CDC, CMS, and Census data into a single free view.
Opportunity Score
Env
14
−36 vs scale midpoint
Disease
36
−14 vs scale midpoint
Provider
14
−37 vs scale midpoint
SDOH
38
−12 vs scale midpoint
Specific health risk patterns
No specific risk patterns triggered in Washington County; 1 is close to the threshold
1 signal near threshold: Runoff Burden (65)
8 signals evaluated. See all signal methodologies →
Where Washington County stands
Fewer than two displayed scores reach the screening threshold
Washington County, Vermont has these published scores: Environmental Risk 14.4/100; Disease Burden 36.1/100; Provider Gap 13.5/100; SDOH Composite 37.9/100. None of the published scores reach the screening threshold of 70. The SDOH Composite summarizes social and economic conditions. Reviewing its underlying measures can help identify which conditions warrant closer local assessment. These weighted scores support screening and comparison; a score of 70 does not mean that 70% of counties have lower scores.
Methodology: when three or more of the four major health-risk areas (pollution, chronic disease, doctor access, social and economic conditions) have displayed scores of at least 70/100, we call the pattern “multi-pillar convergence.” The scoring approach and citations live on the methodology page.
Risk profile
Washington County compared to Vermont
Four scores on a 0–100 scale. Higher values indicate greater relative burden or need within each measure. The reference line at 50 marks the scale midpoint.
Environmental Risk (14), Disease Burden (36), Provider Gap (14), and SDOH Composite (38) are at or below the scale midpoint of 50/100.
- Washington County
- Vermont state mean
- Scale midpoint (50)
- Signal threshold (70)
Current Conditions
Today's air quality, fires, and weather alerts
Live operational data for Washington County: real-time AQI from EPA AirNow, active fires from NIFC, and any National Weather Service advisories. Updated daily.
Environmental Factors
Air, water, and exposure indicators
Top environmental indicators for Washington County with state and national benchmarks. Full profile covers 40+ metrics on the platform.
These indicators describe environmental conditions and potential exposure. They are not a complete record of environmental incidents in Washington County and do not establish the cause of an individual illness. Check each measure's source and reporting period in the data-source reference and review the scoring methods.
| Indicator | Washington County | VT avg | US avg |
|---|---|---|---|
PM2.5 (annual mean) EPA AQS / EJSCREEN | 5.4 µg/m³ ▼ -5.2% vs VT | 5.7 | 7.4 |
Ozone EPA AQS / EJSCREEN | 51.9 ppb -0.2% vs VT | 52.0 | 57.1 |
Traffic Proximity EJSCREEN | 126,016 index ▲ +12% vs VT | 112,337 | 291,320 |
Superfund Proximity EPA EJSCREEN | 0.00 score ▼ -100% vs VT | 0.13 | 0.16 |
Drinking Water Violations EPA EJSCREEN | 0.62 score ▲ +78% vs VT | 0.35 | 3.39 |
PFAS in sampled water systems
EPA UCMR5 observations for systems associated with these counties through reported service ZIP codes. These results are displayed separately and do not contribute to the Environmental Risk score.
Loading sampled-system observations…
How Superfund proximity contributes
The 2024 EJSCREEN proximity indicator is 0.0000. It uses distances to proposed/final National Priorities List and Superfund Alternative Approach sites within 10 km. This is proximity context, not a measurement of heavy-metal exposure or illness.
The score without this component is 15.4; with it, 14.4. Its effective weight is 6.56%. The difference reflects methodology, not changed local conditions.
Component weights, scaling and limitationsWildfire-Attributable Air Quality
Smoke PM2.5 the EPA doesn't count
Stanford peer-reviewed wildfire-attributable PM2.5 for Washington County. The EPA classifies wildfire smoke as "exceptional events" and excludes it from official AQS monitoring; Childs/Burke fills that gap with daily county-level data.
Source: Childs et al, Environmental Science & Technology 2022 (Harvard Dataverse 10.7910/DVN/DJVMTV). Latest year shipped: 2020. Burke et al, Nature 2023 estimate that the EPA AQS network undercounts wildfire-attributable PM2.5 by 10–30% in fire-affected counties. Coverage is CONUS only. Full methodology →
Outage Burden
When the grid goes dark
DOE/ORNL EAGLE-I customer-hours-out for Washington County in 2024. The fraction is population-normalized via the Maximum Customer Count denominator (Brelsford et al, Sci Data 2024) so it's directly comparable across counties of any size.
Source: DOE/ORNL EAGLE-I (figshare 10.6084/m9.figshare.24237376). Latest year shipped: 2024. Coverage: 3,050 of 3,222 US counties; AK and some sparsely-served rural counties may have no data. Full methodology →
Severe Weather History
Recorded storm events and damages
NOAA NCEI Storm Events Database for Washington County, 2010–2026. Cumulative + last 5 years of recorded weather events with deaths, injuries, and damages.
Source: NOAA NCEI Storm Events Database (full history rollup). NOAA buckets ~50 raw event_type strings into 8 health-relevant categories. Coverage: 3,107 of 3,222 US counties; the absent are typically Alaska boroughs and territories where NOAA codes events as forecast zones rather than counties. Full methodology →
Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations
Livestock density and federal-permit confidence
USDA Census of Agriculture (vintage 2022) animal-unit totals for Washington County, normalized to land area and ranked nationally. Animal Units (AU) follow the EPA federal definition under 40 CFR §122.23.
Source: USDA Census of Agriculture 2022 (head counts) + EPA 40 CFR §122.23 (animal-unit conversion). The CAFO composite deliberately omits NPDES facility counts because federal coverage averages ~32% nationally per EPA-IG and is heavily state-skewed — adding it as a numerator would systematically bias the index toward delegated states. Full methodology →
Pesticide Use
USGS Pesticide National Synthesis
Annual pesticide application rollup for Washington County from the USGS Pesticide National Synthesis Project. Most recent year on file: 2019. Mass figures use the EPest_HIGH estimate (the conservative-against-undercounting framing); EPest_LOW is also retained on the underlying data.
- 1.GLYPHOSATE716 kg
- 2.METOLACHLOR & METOLACHLOR-S714 kg
- 3.ATRAZINE585 kg
- 4.METOLACHLOR372 kg
- 5.METOLACHLOR-S341 kg
Source: USGS Pesticide National Synthesis Project (2019). USGS PNSP nationally; year 2019 is preliminary; 2018 unavailable; 2020+ not released. Update reliability medium-low. Full methodology →
Health Outcomes
Chronic disease prevalence
CDC PLACES model-based prevalence estimates for adults in Washington County. Full profile covers 15+ health outcomes plus mortality on the platform.
| Condition | Washington County | VT avg | US avg |
|---|---|---|---|
Current Asthma % of adults with current asthma | 10.7% ▼ -4.3% vs VT | 11.2% | 10.6% |
COPD % of adults with diagnosed COPD | 6.3% ▼ -12% vs VT | 7.2% | 8.6% |
Diabetes % of adults with diagnosed diabetes | 8.9% ▼ -6.9% vs VT | 9.6% | 13.7% |
Coronary Heart Disease % of adults with CHD | 6.1% ▼ -11% vs VT | 6.9% | 7.9% |
Depression % of adults ever diagnosed with depression | 27.6% ▲ +4.9% vs VT | 26.3% | 23.1% |
Frequent Mental Distress % of adults with 14+ poor mental health days/month | 15.5% ▼ -2.9% vs VT | 16.0% | 17.2% |
Vulnerable Medicare Population
Who needs the grid to stay alive
Medicare beneficiaries in Washington County who depend on electricity for dialysis, oxygen, or other powered medical equipment. From the HHS emPOWER program, which CMS publishes monthly so emergency managers know who to find first when the power goes out.
| Population | Count | Per 1,000 Medicare |
|---|---|---|
Total Medicare beneficiaries Denominator | 15,826 | — |
Electricity-dependent (any DME) Ventilators, oxygen concentrators, IV pumps, motorized wheelchairs | 489 | 30.9 ▼ -17% vs VT |
Dialysis-dependent ESRD beneficiaries needing in-center or home dialysis | ≤10 | 0.70 ▼ -76% vs VT |
Oxygen-dependent Home oxygen concentrators (outage-vulnerable) | 166 | 10.5 ▼ -33% vs VT |
Source: HHS emPOWER Map (ArcGIS county layer), September 2026. Counts of 1–10 are masked as “≤10” per HHS privacy rules; per-1,000 rates are derived and still respect the privacy floor. Full methodology →
Provider Supply
Specialty physician density per 100,000 residents
Active providers in Washington County from the CMS National Plan and Provider Enumeration System (NPPES). Compared to the U.S. average for each specialty. Adjacency adjustment is applied separately in the Provider Gap pillar score.
| Specialty | Washington County | US avg |
|---|---|---|
Primary Care Family medicine, internal medicine, general practice, pediatrics. | 148.4 per 100k ▲ +14% vs US | 130.4 |
Cardiology Cardiovascular disease, electrophysiology, interventional cardiology. | 10.0 per 100k ▼ -17% vs US | 12.1 |
Pulmonology Respiratory disease specialists — relevant to PM2.5 and wildfire smoke exposure. | 5.0 per 100k ▼ -17% vs US | 6.0 |
Psychiatry Mental health prescribers; complements behavioral health access. | 36.7 per 100k ▲ +96% vs US | 18.7 |
Oncology / Hematology Cancer specialists. | 5.0 per 100k ▼ -22% vs US | 6.4 |
Neurology Neurological disease specialists. | 10.0 per 100k ▲ +27% vs US | 7.9 |
Source: CMS National Plan and Provider Enumeration System (NPPES). Counts reflect providers with a primary practice address in Washington County; specialty is taken from the provider's primary NUCC taxonomy code.
Pro analytical view
What drives this county's scores
The flagged signals and service-line opportunities for Washington County, plus the methodology decomposition behind each score. Visible to Pro, Consultant Studio, and Enterprise tiers.
Where to focus
Pro feature
Top flagged signals + service lines are a Pro feature
See how each signal's components blend into its final score, and which signals + service lines this county should prioritize. Available on Professional, Consultant Studio, and Enterprise.
Score decomposition
Each named signal's component breakdown with weights. The bar length is the component's percentile rank; the parenthetical is its weight in the final blend.
Pro feature
Score decomposition is a Pro feature
See how each signal's components blend into its final score, and which signals + service lines this county should prioritize. Available on Professional, Consultant Studio, and Enterprise.
Tract drill-down
Census tracts inside Washington County
Pro feature
Tract-level drill-down is a Pro feature
See how each signal's components blend into its final score, and which signals + service lines this county should prioritize. Available on Professional, Consultant Studio, and Enterprise.
On the full platform
What else is available for Washington County
The page above is a subset. The free Community account unlocks the full single-county profile: every indicator, every data source, demographics, historical trends, and mortality data. Professional unlocks multi-county comparison, compound signal analysis, service line rankings, and consultant-ready PDF reports.
Full Environmental Profile
All 40+ environmental metrics including toxic releases, hazardous site proximity, PFAS detection, pesticide exposure, and climate stress indicators.
Service Line Opportunities
See how Washington County ranks for respiratory, oncology, cardiovascular, renal, endocrine, and behavioral health service line opportunity.
Multi-County Comparison
Compare Washington County side-by-side with neighboring counties across every dimension.
Trend Analysis
5-year sparklines for health outcomes, SDOH measures, and mortality rates so you can see where the county is heading, not just where it is today.
PDF Report Export
Generate a consultant-ready environmental health briefing for Washington County with methodology citations. Drops straight into a CHNA or grant application.
Nearby Counties
Counties bordering Washington County
Adjacent county profiles with their own scores and environmental health data. Source: Census Bureau County Adjacency File.
Caledonia County
Vermont
34
Below Avg
Orange County
Vermont
29
Below Avg
Lamoille County
Vermont
23
Low
Addison County
Vermont
22
Low
Chittenden County
Vermont
18
Low
Data sources: EPA AQS, EPA EJSCREEN, EPA TRI, CDC PLACES, CDC WONDER, CMS NPPES, Census ACS, County Health Rankings, NOAA ACIS, NCI State Cancer Profiles. Every score on this page is derived from publicly available federal data, fused by the Banana Analytics pipeline.
Methodology: See the full scoring methodology (v1.2.0) for weights, sensitivity analysis, and validation against county-level mortality data.
Last refreshed: September 9, 2026