Local News

Here are the healthiest and unhealthiest cities in Massachusetts, according to a study

One central Massachusetts city needs to step up its health game, according to a new WalletHub study.

A view of the Boston skyline. David L Ryan/Globe Staff

May 31, 2025

1 minute to read

A recent study named the healthiest and most unhealthy cities to live in the U.S., and two Massachusetts cities made the list — but for different reasons.

According to an analysis by WalletHub, Worcester is the least healthy city in Massachusetts, ranking number 87 in the nation when it comes to healthy living. Boston did far better, coming in at number 15.

Source: WalletHub

To determine which areas prioritize residents’ well-being, WalletHub compared 182 cities across 41 key indicators of good health. Its data set ranges from the cost of a medical visit to fruit and vegetable consumption to the share of physically active adults. The list included the 150 most populated American cities plus at least two of the most populated cities in each state. Researchers focused on four key factors: health care, food, fitness, and green space.

WalletHub found that Worcester had a total score of 47, a health care rank of 46, a food rank of 112, a fitness rank of 81, and a green space rank of 95.

Boston’s total score was 58, ranking fifth for health care, 12th for food, 59th for fitness, and 49th for access to green spaces.

Topping the list was San Francisco, Calif., followed by Honolulu, Hawaii, and Seattle, Wash., while Brownsville, Texas, came in last.

Researchers said, “Location matters when it comes to health. Some places promote wellness by expanding access to nutritious food and recreational facilities. Others strive to keep healthcare costs affordable for everyone or keep parks clean and well-maintained. When a city doesn’t take care of these important issues, it can be hard to keep up good health.”