Return to Home Mortality > Table

Death Rates Table

Data Options
Comparison Options

Death Rate Report for Indiana by County

All Cancer Sites, 2019-2023

All Races (includes Hispanic), Male, All Ages

Sorted by Name

County
 sort alphabetically by name descending
2023 Rural-Urban Continuum Codes Φ
 sort by rural urban descending
Met Healthy People Objective of 122.7?
Age-Adjusted Death Rate
deaths per 100,000
(95% Confidence Interval)
 sort by rate descending
CI*Rank ⋔
(95% Confidence Interval)
 sort by CI rank descending
Average Annual Count
 sort by count descending
Recent Trend
Recent 5-Year Trend in Death Rates
(95% Confidence Interval)
 sort by trend descending
Adams County Rural No 214.9 (185.6, 247.4) 30 (3, 85) 40 stable stable trend -0.2 (-1.1, 0.7)
Allen County Urban No 195.1 (186.1, 204.4) 57 (35, 76) 378 falling falling trend -1.2 (-1.6, -0.7)
Bartholomew County Urban No 184.3 (166.8, 203.2) 73 (31, 91) 85 falling falling trend -1.7 (-2.6, -0.8)
Benton County Urban No 251.3 (191.9, 324.0) 5 (1, 90) 13 stable stable trend -0.3 (-2.2, 1.5)
Blackford County Rural No 229.5 (185.1, 282.4) 15 (1, 90) 19 stable stable trend -0.6 (-2.1, 1.0)
Boone County Urban No 178.7 (158.6, 200.6) 81 (31, 92) 62 falling falling trend -2.0 (-2.9, -1.0)
Brown County Urban No 201.2 (165.6, 243.8) 51 (3, 92) 25 stable stable trend -1.3 (-3.0, 0.5)
Carroll County Urban No 171.5 (141.6, 206.5) 88 (19, 92) 24 stable stable trend -1.4 (-2.9, 0.0)
Cass County Rural No 208.8 (182.5, 238.0) 40 (5, 87) 48 falling falling trend -1.4 (-2.1, -0.7)
Clark County Urban No 209.6 (193.4, 226.9) 37 (11, 72) 137 falling falling trend -1.9 (-2.4, -1.3)
Clay County Urban No 223.1 (191.1, 259.2) 24 (2, 84) 37 falling falling trend -1.4 (-2.7, -0.1)
Clinton County Rural No 211.5 (182.0, 244.5) 36 (4, 88) 39 stable stable trend -0.6 (-2.0, 0.8)
Crawford County Rural No 188.0 (142.8, 244.3) 63 (2, 92) 14 falling falling trend -26.1 (-41.8, -2.8)
Daviess County Rural No 185.7 (157.0, 218.2) 67 (11, 92) 32 falling falling trend -1.4 (-2.6, -0.2)
DeKalb County Rural No 180.2 (156.1, 207.1) 79 (24, 92) 43 stable stable trend -1.0 (-2.4, 0.5)
Dearborn County Urban No 227.7 (203.5, 254.3) 21 (3, 64) 71 falling falling trend -1.2 (-2.2, -0.2)
Decatur County Rural No 217.4 (184.3, 254.9) 28 (2, 89) 32 stable stable trend -0.7 (-1.7, 0.2)
Delaware County Urban No 209.2 (193.3, 226.3) 39 (13, 70) 133 falling falling trend -1.1 (-1.8, -0.3)
Dubois County Rural No 178.3 (155.0, 204.3) 82 (28, 92) 45 stable stable trend -1.2 (-2.6, 0.2)
Elkhart County Urban No 180.9 (169.4, 193.1) 77 (48, 90) 192 falling falling trend -1.3 (-1.7, -0.9)
Fayette County Rural No 227.9 (194.1, 266.2) 20 (1, 82) 34 stable stable trend -0.8 (-2.1, 0.4)
Floyd County Urban No 208.2 (188.7, 229.2) 42 (10, 78) 91 falling falling trend -1.2 (-1.8, -0.6)
Fountain County Rural No 297.2 (253.0, 347.6) 1 (1, 26) 34 stable stable trend 0.1 (-1.2, 1.6)
Franklin County Urban No 219.0 (185.1, 257.8) 26 (2, 87) 32 stable stable trend -1.4 (-2.7, 0.1)
Fulton County Rural No 241.4 (203.9, 284.1) 7 (1, 76) 32 stable stable trend -0.8 (-1.8, 0.2)
Gibson County Rural No 175.8 (149.8, 205.2) 84 (27, 92) 34 falling falling trend -2.1 (-3.7, -0.6)
Grant County Rural No 242.4 (220.8, 265.6) 6 (1, 41) 99 falling falling trend -0.8 (-1.5, -0.1)
Greene County Rural No 237.0 (207.5, 269.8) 11 (1, 66) 50 stable stable trend -0.9 (-2.0, 0.2)
Hamilton County Urban No 148.4 (139.6, 157.5) 92 (86, 92) 233 falling falling trend -1.7 (-2.2, -1.0)
Hancock County Urban No 185.5 (168.0, 204.3) 69 (31, 90) 87 falling falling trend -1.4 (-2.0, -0.8)
Harrison County Urban No 213.7 (187.7, 242.5) 33 (3, 86) 54 falling falling trend -1.4 (-2.5, -0.2)
Hendricks County Urban No 172.3 (159.5, 185.9) 87 (54, 91) 147 falling falling trend -1.6 (-2.1, -1.0)
Henry County Rural No 237.5 (213.6, 263.5) 9 (2, 53) 75 stable stable trend -0.7 (-1.5, 0.1)
Howard County Urban No 214.5 (196.6, 233.7) 31 (8, 69) 110 falling falling trend -1.0 (-1.8, -0.1)
Huntington County Rural No 229.1 (199.9, 261.6) 17 (2, 76) 48 stable stable trend -0.3 (-1.4, 0.7)
Jackson County Rural No 211.9 (186.8, 239.5) 35 (5, 84) 54 falling falling trend -4.0 (-7.0, -2.3)
Jasper County Urban No 187.9 (161.6, 217.5) 64 (14, 92) 39 falling falling trend -1.5 (-2.9, -0.1)
Jay County Rural No 217.8 (180.5, 260.8) 27 (1, 90) 25 stable stable trend -1.3 (-3.1, 0.4)
Jefferson County Rural No 260.0 (227.5, 296.1) 3 (1, 42) 52 stable stable trend -0.1 (-1.4, 1.2)
Jennings County Rural No 228.7 (196.6, 264.9) 18 (1, 80) 39 falling falling trend -1.6 (-2.9, -0.2)
Johnson County Urban No 190.6 (177.0, 204.9) 61 (30, 86) 156 falling falling trend -1.3 (-1.8, -0.8)
Knox County Rural No 212.0 (184.4, 242.8) 34 (4, 86) 45 falling falling trend -1.0 (-1.9, -0.1)
Kosciusko County Rural No 184.1 (166.5, 203.1) 74 (32, 91) 86 stable stable trend -1.1 (-2.4, 0.1)
LaGrange County Rural No 186.5 (159.3, 217.1) 65 (16, 92) 36 stable stable trend -1.1 (-2.2, 0.1)
LaPorte County Urban No 190.6 (175.7, 206.6) 60 (28, 88) 131 falling falling trend -6.0 (-9.3, -2.1)
Lake County Urban No 185.7 (178.4, 193.2) 68 (51, 83) 520 falling falling trend -2.2 (-3.6, -0.7)
Lawrence County Rural No 200.7 (178.3, 225.4) 53 (10, 88) 62 falling falling trend -1.4 (-2.1, -0.7)
Madison County Urban No 203.4 (189.2, 218.4) 49 (19, 76) 161 falling falling trend -1.2 (-1.7, -0.8)
Marion County Urban No 208.7 (202.1, 215.4) 41 (24, 56) 858 falling falling trend -1.6 (-2.0, -1.3)
Marshall County Rural No 184.5 (162.2, 209.2) 72 (22, 91) 51 falling falling trend -1.8 (-2.6, -1.0)
Martin County Rural No 193.5 (148.9, 248.6) 58 (2, 92) 13 stable stable trend -0.6 (-3.1, 2.0)
Miami County Rural No 203.5 (177.1, 232.8) 48 (6, 89) 45 falling falling trend -7.7 (-12.7, -0.8)
Monroe County Urban No 166.8 (152.6, 182.0) 90 (60, 92) 106 falling falling trend -1.9 (-2.4, -1.5)
Montgomery County Rural No 177.1 (153.5, 203.4) 83 (29, 92) 43 falling falling trend -1.9 (-2.9, -1.0)
Morgan County Urban No 205.7 (186.0, 227.1) 44 (12, 80) 90 falling falling trend -1.5 (-2.4, -0.6)
Newton County Urban No 207.6 (168.5, 254.1) 43 (2, 92) 21 falling falling trend -2.2 (-3.9, -0.5)
Noble County Rural No 189.1 (165.5, 215.1) 62 (19, 91) 52 falling falling trend -11.2 (-18.2, -2.7)
Ohio County Urban No 172.8 (124.2, 238.7) 86 (3, 92) 9 stable stable trend -1.8 (-3.5, 0.1)
Orange County Rural No 228.0 (191.9, 269.6) 19 (1, 84) 30 falling falling trend -1.6 (-2.9, -0.4)
Owen County Urban No 216.4 (181.8, 256.1) 29 (2, 89) 31 stable stable trend -1.5 (-3.3, 0.3)
Parke County Rural No 186.2 (150.4, 228.7) 66 (7, 92) 20 falling falling trend -2.1 (-3.6, -0.6)
Perry County Rural No 192.3 (158.8, 231.2) 59 (6, 92) 24 stable stable trend -1.3 (-2.9, 0.3)
Pike County Rural No 205.2 (163.2, 255.8) 45 (1, 92) 17 stable stable trend -1.3 (-3.3, 0.6)
Porter County Urban No 175.2 (163.2, 187.9) 85 (54, 91) 175 falling falling trend -1.7 (-2.4, -0.9)
Posey County Urban No 205.0 (173.8, 240.6) 46 (4, 91) 33 stable stable trend -1.0 (-2.1, 0.2)
Pulaski County Rural No 232.4 (188.0, 285.1) 13 (1, 87) 20 stable stable trend 0.0 (-1.5, 1.7)
Putnam County Rural No 238.8 (210.3, 270.1) 8 (1, 58) 54 stable stable trend -0.8 (-1.9, 0.4)
Randolph County Rural No 254.1 (220.2, 292.1) 4 (1, 49) 41 stable stable trend -0.3 (-1.5, 0.9)
Ripley County Rural No 181.9 (154.2, 213.5) 76 (13, 92) 32 stable stable trend -2.4 (-16.7, 0.5)
Rush County Rural No 236.8 (195.9, 284.3) 12 (1, 85) 25 stable stable trend -0.9 (-2.3, 0.5)
Scott County Rural No 261.5 (223.5, 304.3) 2 (1, 54) 37 falling falling trend -1.5 (-2.9, -0.1)
Shelby County Urban No 200.4 (176.7, 226.5) 55 (11, 88) 56 stable stable trend -1.3 (-2.7, 0.1)
Spencer County Rural No 180.3 (149.0, 216.8) 78 (13, 92) 25 falling falling trend -2.2 (-3.5, -0.9)
St. Joseph County Urban No 201.8 (191.3, 212.6) 50 (25, 71) 295 stable stable trend 1.8 (-1.5, 4.3)
Starke County Rural No 222.6 (190.6, 259.0) 25 (2, 84) 37 stable stable trend -1.1 (-2.4, 0.3)
Steuben County Rural No 196.6 (171.7, 224.5) 56 (13, 90) 48 falling falling trend -1.7 (-3.0, -0.3)
Sullivan County Urban No 214.3 (179.2, 254.5) 32 (2, 89) 27 falling falling trend -1.5 (-2.5, -0.4)
Switzerland County Rural No 200.6 (154.1, 257.9) 54 (1, 92) 13 falling falling trend -2.6 (-4.3, -1.0)
Tippecanoe County Urban No 182.7 (169.0, 197.3) 75 (41, 89) 137 falling falling trend -1.9 (-2.6, -1.2)
Tipton County Urban No 169.9 (136.8, 209.7) 89 (17, 92) 19 falling falling trend -1.9 (-3.2, -0.6)
Union County Rural No 229.9 (168.4, 307.8) 14 (1, 92) 10 stable stable trend -1.5 (-3.4, 0.5)
Vanderburgh County Urban No 204.3 (191.7, 217.6) 47 (20, 72) 209 falling falling trend -1.5 (-2.1, -0.9)
Vermillion County Urban No 229.3 (187.0, 278.8) 16 (1, 88) 22 stable stable trend -0.4 (-2.5, 1.6)
Vigo County Urban No 237.2 (219.1, 256.5) 10 (2, 42) 135 falling falling trend -1.2 (-2.2, -0.3)
Wabash County Rural No 226.1 (198.0, 257.4) 22 (2, 75) 49 stable stable trend -0.4 (-1.4, 0.6)
Warren County Urban No 158.3 (117.1, 211.6) 91 (14, 92) 10 falling falling trend -3.2 (-6.2, -0.3)
Warrick County Urban No 185.1 (165.9, 206.0) 70 (28, 90) 72 falling falling trend -2.1 (-2.8, -1.3)
Washington County Urban No 224.0 (192.3, 259.8) 23 (2, 84) 38 stable stable trend -1.0 (-2.1, 0.1)
Wayne County Rural No 201.1 (181.9, 222.0) 52 (15, 85) 84 falling falling trend -1.7 (-2.4, -1.0)
Wells County Urban No 185.0 (156.3, 217.8) 71 (13, 92) 31 stable stable trend -0.4 (-1.6, 0.9)
White County Rural No 209.6 (179.2, 244.2) 38 (4, 89) 36 falling falling trend -1.6 (-2.8, -0.5)
Whitley County Urban No 179.6 (154.2, 208.3) 80 (22, 92) 39 falling falling trend -1.8 (-2.9, -0.8)

Notes:
Created by statecancerprofiles.cancer.gov on 03/22/2026 3:40 pm.

State Cancer Registries may provide more current or more local data.

† Death data provided by the National Vital Statistics System public use data file. Death rates calculated by the National Cancer Institute using SEER*Stat. Death rates are age-adjusted to the 2000 US standard population (20 age groups: <1, 1-4, 5-9, ... , 80-84, 85-89, 90+).

Population counts for denominators are based on Census populations as modified by NCI.

The US Population Data File is used with mortality data.

⋔ Results presented with the CI*Rank statistics help show the usefulness of ranks. For example, ranks for relatively rare diseases or less populated areas may be essentially meaningless because of their large variability, but ranks for more common diseases in densely populated regions can be very useful. More information about methodology can be found on the CI*Rank website.

When displaying county information, the CI*Rank for the state is not shown because it's not comparable. To see the state CI*Rank please view the statistics at the US By State level.

Φ Rural–urban county classifications are based on the 2023 USDA Rural–Urban Continuum Codes (except for Connecticut Counties which use 2013 codes). State-level cancer rates for rural areas are calculated using cancer cases registered exclusively in rural counties, while state-level cancer rates for urban areas are calculated using cases registered exclusively in urban counties.

Data for United States does not include Puerto Rico.

Return to Top