Return to Home Mortality > Table

Death Rates Table

Data Options
Comparison Options

Death Rate Report for Minnesota by County

All Cancer Sites, 2019-2023

White Non-Hispanic, Both Sexes, All Ages

Sorted by CI*Rank

County
 sort alphabetically by name ascending
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
Norman County Rural No 197.6 (158.8, 244.6) 1 (1, 67) 19 stable stable trend -0.4 (-2.0, 1.1)
Pipestone County Rural No 196.8 (164.2, 235.1) 2 (1, 56) 27 stable stable trend 0.1 (-1.5, 1.7)
Big Stone County Rural No 192.7 (149.7, 246.1) 3 (1, 80) 17 stable stable trend 5.9 (-2.5, 21.7)
Mille Lacs County Urban No 192.3 (171.7, 215.0) 4 (1, 29) 66 stable stable trend -0.1 (-1.1, 0.9)
Kittson County Rural No 187.9 (143.4, 244.9) 5 (1, 85) 14 stable stable trend 0.9 (-1.1, 2.9)
Wadena County Rural No 184.8 (159.2, 213.9) 6 (1, 54) 39 stable stable trend 0.2 (-0.9, 1.4)
Grant County Rural No 178.7 (140.6, 225.4) 7 (1, 84) 16 stable stable trend 0.5 (-0.9, 2.0)
Traverse County Rural No 178.1 (131.9, 241.4) 8 (1, 87) 11 stable stable trend -0.5 (-2.6, 1.7)
Watonwan County Rural No 177.1 (145.2, 215.3) 9 (1, 80) 26 stable stable trend 0.3 (-1.4, 1.9)
Pennington County Rural No 176.8 (150.0, 207.5) 10 (1, 68) 33 stable stable trend -0.6 (-2.2, 0.9)
Clearwater County Rural No 175.9 (142.4, 215.9) 11 (1, 81) 20 stable stable trend 0.1 (-1.3, 1.4)
Faribault County Rural No 173.4 (149.3, 201.2) 12 (1, 70) 40 stable stable trend 0.5 (-0.4, 1.4)
Pine County Rural No 171.2 (154.0, 190.1) 13 (2, 55) 77 stable stable trend -0.9 (-1.8, 0.0)
Brown County Rural No 167.9 (149.4, 188.3) 14 (2, 65) 67 stable stable trend -0.3 (-1.2, 0.6)
Chippewa County Rural No 167.6 (141.6, 198.0) 15 (1, 81) 32 stable stable trend 0.2 (-1.1, 1.4)
Carlton County Urban No 166.8 (150.5, 184.7) 16 (3, 62) 79 stable stable trend -0.9 (-1.9, 0.1)
Chisago County Urban No 166.4 (152.7, 181.1) 17 (4, 56) 114 falling falling trend -7.6 (-12.4, -0.4)
Yellow Medicine County Rural No 165.5 (134.5, 202.4) 18 (1, 85) 22 stable stable trend -0.8 (-2.3, 0.6)
Sherburne County Urban No 164.0 (151.9, 176.8) 19 (6, 53) 146 stable stable trend -0.6 (-1.4, 0.3)
Fillmore County Urban No 163.4 (144.2, 184.9) 20 (3, 74) 56 stable stable trend -0.3 (-1.0, 0.5)
Waseca County Rural No 162.3 (140.3, 187.2) 21 (2, 79) 41 stable stable trend -0.7 (-2.2, 0.7)
Le Sueur County Urban No 161.9 (143.9, 181.8) 22 (4, 71) 61 stable stable trend 0.1 (-1.2, 4.7)
Goodhue County Rural No 160.9 (147.4, 175.5) 23 (7, 63) 111 stable stable trend -0.3 (-0.9, 0.3)
Polk County Urban No 160.6 (143.5, 179.3) 24 (4, 74) 69 stable stable trend -0.3 (-1.4, 0.8)
Kanabec County Rural No 160.0 (138.0, 185.1) 25 (3, 82) 40 stable stable trend -1.3 (-2.7, 0.0)
Renville County Rural No 159.5 (136.0, 186.7) 26 (2, 82) 36 falling falling trend -1.3 (-2.6, -0.1)
Cottonwood County Rural No 158.1 (132.7, 188.2) 27 (2, 85) 30 stable stable trend 0.1 (-1.0, 1.2)
Morrison County Rural No 158.1 (142.3, 175.2) 28 (5, 73) 79 falling falling trend -0.9 (-1.8, -0.1)
Isanti County Urban No 157.8 (142.5, 174.4) 29 (7, 72) 81 stable stable trend -0.3 (-1.2, 0.6)
Lake County Rural No 157.1 (131.9, 186.8) 30 (2, 85) 31 stable stable trend -0.7 (-1.9, 0.4)
Wabasha County Urban No 156.9 (138.1, 177.9) 31 (4, 81) 54 stable stable trend -1.0 (-2.1, 0.1)
Nobles County Rural No 155.8 (132.5, 183.0) 32 (3, 84) 36 stable stable trend 0.0 (-1.1, 1.1)
Rock County Urban No 155.7 (127.5, 189.2) 33 (2, 86) 22 stable stable trend -0.9 (-2.2, 0.4)
Itasca County Rural No 155.1 (142.2, 169.0) 34 (9, 72) 118 falling falling trend -1.3 (-1.8, -0.7)
Lyon County Rural No 155.0 (135.5, 176.8) 35 (5, 83) 49 stable stable trend -0.5 (-1.8, 0.7)
Benton County Urban No 153.5 (137.3, 171.2) 36 (7, 76) 68 falling falling trend -1.6 (-2.4, -0.8)
Pope County Rural No 153.3 (127.7, 183.3) 37 (3, 86) 28 stable stable trend -0.7 (-1.8, 0.4)
Wilkin County Rural No 152.5 (117.9, 195.5) 38 (1, 87) 14 stable stable trend -1.1 (-3.0, 0.7)
Mahnomen County Rural No 151.9 (105.3, 217.8) 39 (1, 87) 8 stable stable trend -1.4 (-3.4, 0.3)
Wright County Urban No 151.8 (142.7, 161.3) 40 (15, 66) 217 stable stable trend -0.6 (-1.2, 0.0)
Aitkin County Rural No 151.4 (131.1, 175.0) 41 (6, 84) 52 stable stable trend 0.0 (-0.8, 2.4)
Meeker County Rural No 150.9 (132.8, 171.0) 42 (7, 83) 53 stable stable trend -0.8 (-1.6, 0.0)
Martin County Rural No 150.5 (131.5, 172.1) 43 (7, 83) 51 stable stable trend -0.5 (-1.6, 0.6)
Winona County Rural No 148.4 (134.8, 163.2) 44 (13, 80) 94 falling falling trend -1.0 (-1.7, -0.4)
Lincoln County Rural No 148.4 (114.4, 191.4) 45 (1, 87) 15 stable stable trend -1.2 (-2.6, 0.2)
Red Lake County Rural No 148.3 (107.2, 203.1) 46 (1, 87) 9 stable stable trend -0.7 (-2.9, 1.5)
St. Louis County Urban No 147.4 (141.0, 154.0) 47 (28, 68) 428 falling falling trend -1.5 (-1.9, -1.1)
Redwood County Rural No 146.8 (124.5, 172.6) 48 (6, 86) 33 falling falling trend -1.2 (-2.2, -0.3)
Crow Wing County Rural No 146.5 (136.2, 157.6) 49 (20, 77) 162 falling falling trend -1.8 (-5.4, -1.1)
Lake of the Woods County Rural No 146.4 (104.9, 202.9) 50 (1, 87) 9 stable stable trend -1.6 (-3.2, 0.1)
Stearns County Urban No 146.0 (138.0, 154.4) 51 (27, 73) 260 falling falling trend -0.6 (-1.0, -0.3)
Rice County Rural No 145.8 (133.6, 159.0) 52 (18, 81) 110 falling falling trend -1.5 (-2.1, -1.0)
Sibley County Rural No 145.7 (122.3, 172.7) 53 (7, 86) 29 stable stable trend -0.9 (-2.2, 0.3)
Houston County Urban No 145.5 (125.7, 168.0) 54 (9, 86) 43 stable stable trend -0.3 (-1.3, 0.8)
Otter Tail County Rural No 145.4 (134.4, 157.2) 55 (20, 78) 149 falling falling trend -1.0 (-1.8, -0.3)
Freeborn County Rural No 144.7 (128.9, 162.2) 56 (14, 85) 70 stable stable trend -0.7 (-1.4, 0.0)
Kandiyohi County Rural No 144.0 (130.0, 159.5) 57 (17, 83) 85 falling falling trend -0.8 (-1.4, -0.2)
Mower County Rural No 143.7 (129.1, 159.9) 58 (15, 84) 76 falling falling trend -1.2 (-2.2, -0.3)
Cass County Rural No 143.0 (127.7, 160.2) 59 (15, 84) 73 falling falling trend -1.3 (-2.0, -0.6)
Hubbard County Rural No 143.0 (125.8, 162.4) 60 (12, 86) 55 stable stable trend -0.4 (-1.3, 0.6)
Anoka County Urban No 142.6 (137.1, 148.2) 61 (37, 73) 541 falling falling trend -1.5 (-1.9, -1.2)
Steele County Rural No 142.5 (127.8, 158.8) 62 (17, 85) 71 falling falling trend -1.1 (-2.0, -0.1)
Blue Earth County Urban No 142.5 (130.2, 155.7) 63 (23, 84) 103 falling falling trend -1.1 (-1.7, -0.6)
McLeod County Rural No 141.2 (126.9, 156.8) 64 (19, 84) 75 stable stable trend -0.4 (-1.3, 0.5)
Marshall County Rural No 141.1 (113.9, 174.1) 65 (5, 87) 21 stable stable trend 0.1 (-1.4, 5.5)
Koochiching County Rural No 140.2 (118.9, 165.5) 66 (11, 87) 32 falling falling trend -1.8 (-2.9, -0.8)
Clay County Urban No 139.9 (127.3, 153.4) 67 (23, 85) 94 falling falling trend -1.1 (-1.6, -0.5)
Beltrami County Rural No 139.3 (124.6, 155.3) 68 (20, 86) 70 falling falling trend -1.2 (-2.1, -0.3)
Lac qui Parle County Rural No 138.5 (109.2, 175.3) 69 (5, 87) 18 stable stable trend -0.3 (-1.5, 0.8)
Ramsey County Urban No 138.0 (133.4, 142.8) 70 (46, 77) 727 falling falling trend -1.7 (-2.0, -1.5)
Becker County Rural No 137.8 (123.2, 153.8) 71 (24, 87) 71 falling falling trend -2.6 (-8.2, -1.3)
Douglas County Rural No 137.3 (124.7, 151.2) 72 (28, 85) 92 stable stable trend -0.9 (-1.9, 0.1)
Dodge County Urban No 135.4 (115.0, 158.6) 73 (15, 87) 32 stable stable trend -0.4 (-1.7, 1.0)
Roseau County Rural No 133.5 (112.3, 158.2) 74 (14, 87) 29 falling falling trend -1.5 (-2.9, -0.2)
Washington County Urban No 133.4 (127.5, 139.5) 75 (53, 83) 402 falling falling trend -1.6 (-2.2, -1.1)
Stevens County Rural No 133.2 (103.3, 169.7) 76 (5, 87) 15 stable stable trend -0.9 (-2.3, 0.5)
Todd County Rural No 132.1 (115.5, 150.8) 77 (26, 87) 52 falling falling trend -1.8 (-2.6, -1.0)
Dakota County Urban No 131.2 (126.5, 136.1) 78 (60, 83) 603 falling falling trend -1.7 (-2.1, -1.4)
Hennepin County Urban No 129.7 (126.8, 132.6) 79 (66, 83) 1,613 falling falling trend -1.8 (-2.1, -1.6)
Murray County Rural No 128.5 (103.7, 159.5) 80 (13, 87) 19 falling falling trend -2.0 (-3.8, -0.4)
Scott County Urban No 127.4 (118.7, 136.6) 81 (57, 87) 166 falling falling trend -2.1 (-2.6, -1.5)
Olmsted County Urban No 125.6 (118.4, 133.3) 82 (64, 87) 233 falling falling trend -1.4 (-1.9, -0.9)
Nicollet County Urban No 124.0 (109.2, 140.4) 83 (43, 87) 53 falling falling trend -2.3 (-3.3, -1.3)
Carver County Urban Yes 121.8 (112.4, 131.7) 84 (64, 87) 131 falling falling trend -1.5 (-2.1, -0.7)
Swift County Rural Yes 120.6 (96.3, 150.5) 85 (20, 87) 19 falling falling trend -14.7 (-29.0, -2.2)
Jackson County Rural Yes 120.1 (96.4, 149.0) 86 (24, 87) 20 falling falling trend -1.6 (-3.1, -0.2)
Cook County Rural Yes 106.1 (77.6, 146.4) 87 (28, 87) 11 stable stable trend -1.9 (-4.6, 0.7)

Notes:
Created by statecancerprofiles.cancer.gov on 03/23/2026 6:30 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