Return to Home Mortality > Table

Death Rates Table

Data Options
Comparison Options

Death Rate Report for Alabama by County

All Cancer Sites, 2019-2023

All Races (includes Hispanic), Female, All Ages

Sorted by Recentaapc

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 ascending
Alabama N/A No 133.2 (131.5, 135.0) N/A 4,793 falling falling trend -1.1 (-1.2, -1.0)
United States N/A No 126.3 (126.1, 126.6) N/A 287,034 falling falling trend -1.1 (-1.2, -1.0)
Houston County Urban No 132.7 (121.3, 145.0) 42 (14, 62) 105 stable stable trend 5.5 (-0.6, 10.8)
Etowah County Urban No 151.3 (139.1, 164.3) 13 (3, 41) 121 stable stable trend 2.8 (-0.8, 4.9)
Greene County Urban No 155.6 (111.8, 212.7) 7 (1, 67) 9 stable stable trend 1.0 (-1.2, 3.2)
Sumter County Rural No 124.0 (90.3, 166.8) 57 (1, 67) 10 stable stable trend 0.9 (-1.8, 3.6)
Cherokee County Rural No 168.1 (142.3, 197.8) 3 (1, 47) 33 stable stable trend 0.4 (-0.9, 1.8)
Clarke County Rural No 180.0 (152.7, 211.3) 1 (1, 30) 34 stable stable trend 0.4 (-1.0, 1.7)
Geneva County Urban No 125.8 (104.4, 150.7) 53 (7, 67) 26 stable stable trend 0.2 (-1.7, 2.1)
Crenshaw County Rural No 168.1 (133.8, 209.7) 2 (1, 62) 17 stable stable trend 0.1 (-1.5, 1.8)
Conecuh County Rural No 141.7 (108.3, 183.6) 25 (1, 67) 14 stable stable trend -0.1 (-2.1, 1.9)
Fayette County Rural No 148.8 (119.0, 184.8) 15 (1, 66) 19 stable stable trend -0.1 (-1.6, 1.5)
Monroe County Rural No 132.4 (107.5, 162.1) 43 (3, 67) 21 stable stable trend -0.1 (-1.8, 1.6)
Wilcox County Rural No 131.1 (96.5, 175.3) 47 (1, 67) 10 stable stable trend -0.2 (-2.6, 2.1)
Clay County Rural No 127.3 (99.2, 162.2) 50 (3, 67) 15 stable stable trend -0.3 (-1.9, 1.3)
Russell County Urban No 162.9 (145.0, 182.6) 4 (1, 37) 62 stable stable trend -0.3 (-1.2, 0.5)
Washington County Rural No 139.0 (109.9, 174.6) 29 (1, 67) 16 stable stable trend -0.3 (-2.0, 1.4)
Escambia County Rural No 154.8 (133.9, 178.4) 8 (1, 56) 42 stable stable trend -0.4 (-1.3, 0.5)
Talladega County Rural No 148.0 (134.2, 162.9) 17 (3, 50) 89 stable stable trend -0.4 (-1.3, 0.4)
Bullock County Rural No 143.7 (106.0, 192.3) 23 (1, 67) 10 stable stable trend -0.5 (-2.8, 1.7)
Jackson County Rural No 154.5 (137.5, 173.2) 9 (1, 47) 65 stable stable trend -0.5 (-1.3, 0.3)
Pike County Rural No 145.9 (122.9, 172.2) 19 (1, 64) 30 stable stable trend -0.5 (-1.7, 0.8)
Walker County Urban No 148.6 (133.5, 165.2) 16 (2, 51) 75 stable stable trend -0.5 (-1.2, 0.2)
Choctaw County Rural Yes 121.1 (94.4, 154.9) 60 (5, 67) 14 stable stable trend -0.6 (-2.0, 0.7)
Blount County Urban No 138.2 (122.7, 155.3) 30 (5, 62) 60 stable stable trend -0.7 (-1.9, 0.6)
Calhoun County Urban No 147.9 (136.2, 160.5) 18 (4, 46) 125 falling falling trend -0.7 (-1.3, -0.2)
Franklin County Rural No 158.1 (135.1, 184.2) 6 (1, 55) 35 stable stable trend -0.7 (-1.8, 0.5)
Covington County Rural No 153.3 (134.1, 174.9) 11 (1, 55) 50 stable stable trend -0.8 (-2.3, 0.6)
DeKalb County Rural No 136.2 (121.8, 152.0) 32 (7, 63) 68 stable stable trend -0.8 (-1.8, 0.2)
Pickens County Urban No 150.8 (123.5, 183.3) 14 (1, 65) 22 stable stable trend -0.8 (-2.0, 0.3)
Colbert County Urban No 130.2 (115.5, 146.4) 48 (12, 65) 60 falling falling trend -0.9 (-1.7, -0.2)
Elmore County Urban No 134.1 (121.1, 148.3) 39 (10, 62) 80 stable stable trend -0.9 (-1.7, 0.1)
Limestone County Urban Yes 120.3 (108.9, 132.7) 61 (28, 66) 84 stable stable trend -0.9 (-1.8, 0.1)
Cleburne County Rural No 161.4 (129.7, 199.4) 5 (1, 62) 19 stable stable trend -1.0 (-3.0, 1.0)
Coosa County Rural Yes 115.0 (84.5, 155.8) 64 (4, 67) 10 stable stable trend -1.0 (-3.5, 1.5)
Lawrence County Urban No 141.1 (120.4, 164.7) 27 (2, 64) 35 stable stable trend -1.0 (-2.3, 0.2)
Barbour County Rural No 145.4 (120.4, 174.6) 21 (1, 65) 26 stable stable trend -1.1 (-2.8, 0.4)
Bibb County Urban No 139.1 (113.2, 169.8) 28 (1, 67) 21 stable stable trend -1.1 (-2.2, 0.0)
Butler County Rural No 126.5 (101.4, 156.7) 51 (4, 67) 19 stable stable trend -1.1 (-2.9, 0.5)
Chilton County Urban No 135.4 (117.2, 155.8) 34 (4, 65) 41 stable stable trend -1.1 (-2.2, 0.1)
Coffee County Rural No 131.5 (115.2, 149.5) 45 (10, 65) 49 stable stable trend -1.1 (-2.3, 0.1)
Dale County Rural No 133.6 (116.8, 152.5) 40 (7, 65) 47 falling falling trend -1.1 (-1.7, -0.5)
Jefferson County Urban No 135.1 (130.4, 140.1) 35 (22, 50) 636 falling falling trend -1.1 (-1.4, -0.8)
Marshall County Rural No 136.8 (124.3, 150.2) 31 (9, 60) 92 falling falling trend -1.1 (-1.8, -0.5)
Mobile County Urban No 142.5 (136.2, 149.0) 24 (11, 42) 409 falling falling trend -1.1 (-1.5, -0.8)
Montgomery County Urban No 135.0 (126.7, 143.7) 37 (15, 56) 207 falling falling trend -1.1 (-1.5, -0.7)
Tallapoosa County Rural No 145.6 (126.7, 166.9) 20 (2, 61) 48 stable stable trend -1.1 (-2.3, 0.1)
Cullman County Rural No 123.9 (112.0, 136.9) 58 (22, 66) 83 falling falling trend -1.2 (-2.1, -0.3)
Henry County Urban No 124.2 (99.4, 154.4) 56 (4, 67) 19 stable stable trend -1.2 (-3.2, 0.8)
Lauderdale County Urban No 124.4 (112.8, 136.9) 54 (22, 66) 93 falling falling trend -1.2 (-2.0, -0.4)
Randolph County Rural No 132.0 (108.8, 159.5) 44 (3, 67) 24 stable stable trend -1.2 (-2.7, 0.3)
Chambers County Rural No 134.3 (114.8, 156.5) 38 (4, 66) 37 falling falling trend -1.3 (-2.1, -0.5)
Lee County Urban No 135.6 (125.1, 146.8) 33 (12, 58) 128 falling falling trend -1.3 (-2.1, -0.5)
Lowndes County Urban No 153.6 (116.4, 200.5) 10 (1, 67) 12 stable stable trend -1.3 (-3.6, 0.8)
Madison County Urban No 127.9 (121.7, 134.4) 49 (29, 60) 330 falling falling trend -1.3 (-1.7, -0.9)
Lamar County Rural No 135.1 (105.3, 172.0) 36 (1, 67) 15 stable stable trend -1.4 (-3.1, 0.1)
Autauga County Urban No 133.4 (117.8, 150.7) 41 (9, 65) 54 stable stable trend -1.5 (-2.9, 0.0)
Baldwin County Urban Yes 118.9 (111.8, 126.4) 63 (41, 65) 225 falling falling trend -1.5 (-2.0, -0.9)
Marengo County Rural Yes 110.5 (87.8, 138.1) 66 (15, 67) 17 stable stable trend -1.5 (-3.2, 0.0)
Perry County Rural No 143.9 (104.3, 195.4) 22 (1, 67) 10 stable stable trend -1.8 (-4.5, 0.6)
Macon County Urban No 126.0 (101.5, 155.7) 52 (4, 67) 20 falling falling trend -1.9 (-3.3, -0.6)
Shelby County Urban Yes 102.1 (95.0, 109.8) 67 (60, 67) 155 falling falling trend -1.9 (-2.4, -1.3)
Winston County Rural Yes 120.0 (99.0, 145.0) 62 (9, 67) 24 falling falling trend -1.9 (-3.8, -0.2)
Tuscaloosa County Urban Yes 114.1 (106.1, 122.7) 65 (46, 67) 153 falling falling trend -2.0 (-2.5, -1.6)
Hale County Urban No 151.6 (120.2, 189.6) 12 (1, 66) 17 falling falling trend -2.2 (-4.0, -0.5)
St. Clair County Urban No 124.3 (112.4, 137.2) 55 (22, 66) 83 falling falling trend -2.8 (-4.8, -1.8)
Dallas County Rural No 123.4 (105.3, 144.0) 59 (13, 67) 36 falling falling trend -4.8 (-17.6, -1.9)
Morgan County Urban No 131.2 (120.5, 142.6) 46 (16, 63) 116 falling falling trend -7.6 (-14.1, -1.0)
Marion County Rural No 141.6 (121.0, 165.2) 26 (2, 64) 35 stable stable trend -10.9 (-21.8, 0.2)

Notes:
Created by statecancerprofiles.cancer.gov on 03/27/2026 12:42 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.

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