During rounds, you prepare to enter the room of a child who was hospitalized overnight for an asthma exacerbation. You review the chart, taking careful notice of the documented history and the physical examination. You also quickly glance at the child' s zip code. This may not be a routine aspect of your care, but this particular zip code stands out. You know that it includes blocks with dilapidated housing conditions, limited access to pharmacies, and unreliable bus routes. You wonder whether this is the reality faced by your patient. This prompts you to more deeply consider your management plans for this child' s hospitalization and for their eventual transition to home. How could or should you think about this child' s zip code in relation to their medical and social needs? Is it a proxy for their own risks or a reflection of their surroundings? Or is it both? With studies in which measures of a child' s neighborhood are linked to adverse postdischarge outcomes 1 and to patient-level social and financial risks themselves, 2 it is becoming increasingly relevant to consider how to interpret and then use such measures during clinical care. As hospitalists grapple with such scenarios and questions, they may begin by considering the extent to which place-based measures, or "geomarkers," 3 may or may not serve as proxies for patient-level social, economic, and environmental risks.