Return to Home Mortality > Table

Death Rates Table

Data Options
Comparison Options

Death Rate Report for Michigan 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 descending
Michigan N/A No 137.8 (136.5, 139.0) N/A 10,015 falling falling trend -1.0 (-1.1, -0.9)
United States N/A No 126.3 (126.1, 126.6) N/A 287,034 falling falling trend -1.1 (-1.2, -1.0)
Lapeer County Urban No 135.9 (123.2, 149.6) 59 (15, 78) 91 falling falling trend -7.2 (-13.1, -0.9)
Gogebic County Rural Yes 114.0 (89.0, 146.1) 78 (16, 82) 16 falling falling trend -4.9 (-19.5, -2.4)
Macomb County Urban No 139.7 (135.6, 143.9) 50 (33, 61) 917 falling falling trend -3.7 (-5.5, -1.2)
Mackinac County Rural Yes 119.6 (92.5, 155.9) 77 (9, 82) 14 falling falling trend -2.8 (-4.5, -1.3)
Clinton County Urban Yes 106.3 (94.7, 119.2) 81 (67, 82) 62 falling falling trend -2.0 (-2.8, -1.2)
Iron County Rural No 142.9 (111.2, 183.6) 45 (1, 82) 17 stable stable trend -1.8 (-4.4, 0.5)
Livingston County Urban Yes 120.9 (112.6, 129.7) 75 (52, 80) 170 falling falling trend -1.7 (-5.8, -1.1)
Schoolcraft County Rural No 128.3 (95.0, 174.1) 69 (2, 82) 10 stable stable trend -1.7 (-3.6, 0.1)
Wayne County Urban No 144.6 (141.5, 147.7) 41 (25, 52) 1,750 falling falling trend -1.6 (-3.3, -1.4)
Oakland County Urban Yes 122.1 (118.8, 125.3) 72 (62, 78) 1,151 falling falling trend -1.4 (-1.6, -1.2)
Ogemaw County Rural No 165.6 (138.3, 197.7) 8 (1, 73) 30 falling falling trend -1.3 (-2.4, -0.3)
Washtenaw County Urban No 123.5 (117.0, 130.3) 70 (55, 79) 280 falling falling trend -1.3 (-1.7, -1.0)
Barry County Urban No 138.4 (122.9, 155.4) 55 (11, 78) 61 falling falling trend -1.2 (-2.1, -0.3)
Dickinson County Rural Yes 108.3 (89.7, 130.5) 80 (44, 82) 25 stable stable trend -1.2 (-2.6, 0.0)
Genesee County Urban No 147.5 (141.2, 153.9) 36 (16, 53) 448 falling falling trend -1.2 (-1.6, -0.7)
Leelanau County Urban Yes 98.2 (80.6, 120.2) 82 (62, 82) 25 falling falling trend -1.2 (-2.3, -0.1)
Monroe County Urban No 139.3 (129.7, 149.6) 51 (19, 71) 165 falling falling trend -1.2 (-1.7, -0.7)
Antrim County Rural Yes 122.7 (100.7, 149.1) 71 (13, 82) 26 stable stable trend -1.1 (-2.5, 0.3)
Branch County Rural No 137.2 (119.0, 157.7) 56 (8, 79) 43 falling falling trend -1.1 (-2.1, -0.1)
Newaygo County Rural No 151.0 (133.2, 170.8) 24 (3, 71) 56 falling falling trend -1.1 (-2.0, -0.3)
Saginaw County Urban No 139.2 (130.4, 148.4) 52 (21, 70) 207 falling falling trend -1.1 (-1.7, -0.5)
St. Clair County Urban No 148.8 (139.0, 159.1) 26 (10, 60) 183 falling falling trend -1.1 (-1.7, -0.5)
St. Joseph County Rural No 138.8 (123.2, 156.0) 54 (9, 78) 61 falling falling trend -1.1 (-1.9, -0.3)
Kalamazoo County Urban No 135.2 (127.2, 143.5) 60 (29, 72) 227 falling falling trend -1.0 (-1.8, -0.3)
Kent County Urban No 128.6 (123.6, 133.8) 68 (50, 75) 507 falling falling trend -1.0 (-1.3, -0.6)
Luce County Rural No 180.7 (128.5, 252.6) 2 (1, 81) 9 stable stable trend -1.0 (-3.6, 1.6)
Midland County Urban No 129.3 (117.2, 142.5) 67 (27, 79) 88 falling falling trend -1.0 (-1.8, -0.2)
Arenac County Rural No 143.8 (114.1, 180.3) 42 (1, 82) 18 stable stable trend -0.9 (-2.5, 0.6)
Benzie County Urban Yes 120.7 (94.9, 152.5) 76 (8, 82) 18 stable stable trend -0.9 (-2.5, 0.5)
Cheboygan County Rural No 141.1 (119.2, 167.0) 47 (3, 80) 34 stable stable trend -0.9 (-2.3, 0.4)
Gladwin County Rural No 147.7 (125.5, 173.7) 31 (2, 79) 36 stable stable trend -0.9 (-2.2, 0.3)
Lenawee County Rural No 133.1 (121.2, 145.9) 63 (21, 78) 99 falling falling trend -0.9 (-1.7, -0.2)
Tuscola County Rural No 153.9 (137.0, 172.6) 19 (3, 67) 65 stable stable trend -0.9 (-1.9, 0.2)
Calhoun County Urban No 156.2 (145.0, 168.1) 18 (4, 50) 152 falling falling trend -0.8 (-1.4, -0.3)
Houghton County Rural No 141.6 (120.7, 165.5) 46 (5, 79) 35 stable stable trend -0.8 (-1.8, 0.3)
Mason County Rural No 151.8 (128.9, 178.1) 22 (2, 77) 38 stable stable trend -0.8 (-1.9, 0.3)
Berrien County Urban No 140.7 (131.2, 150.8) 49 (17, 68) 175 falling falling trend -0.7 (-1.3, -0.1)
Cass County Urban No 147.5 (130.9, 166.1) 35 (5, 72) 61 stable stable trend -0.7 (-1.5, 0.2)
Delta County Rural No 136.9 (119.1, 157.3) 57 (8, 80) 48 stable stable trend -0.7 (-1.7, 0.3)
Jackson County Urban No 147.7 (137.6, 158.3) 33 (9, 62) 170 falling falling trend -0.7 (-1.3, -0.1)
Marquette County Rural No 132.0 (117.2, 148.3) 64 (17, 80) 63 stable stable trend -0.7 (-1.4, 0.0)
Montcalm County Urban No 147.7 (131.7, 165.2) 32 (5, 73) 66 stable stable trend -0.7 (-1.5, 0.1)
Oscoda County Rural No 166.0 (125.1, 219.6) 7 (1, 80) 13 stable stable trend -0.7 (-3.0, 1.5)
Otsego County Rural No 131.2 (109.1, 157.2) 65 (8, 82) 26 stable stable trend -0.7 (-1.9, 0.5)
Ottawa County Urban Yes 121.5 (114.5, 128.7) 74 (57, 80) 237 falling falling trend -0.7 (-1.2, -0.1)
Van Buren County Rural No 145.6 (131.2, 161.3) 40 (6, 71) 80 stable stable trend -0.7 (-1.7, 0.2)
Bay County Urban No 151.2 (139.2, 164.1) 23 (6, 62) 128 falling falling trend -0.6 (-1.2, -0.1)
Eaton County Urban No 134.7 (123.4, 146.9) 61 (21, 76) 111 stable stable trend -0.6 (-1.3, 0.2)
Emmet County Rural No 131.1 (112.1, 153.0) 66 (9, 81) 38 stable stable trend -0.6 (-1.8, 0.6)
Grand Traverse County Urban Yes 121.7 (110.5, 133.8) 73 (47, 81) 95 stable stable trend -0.6 (-1.2, 0.0)
Ingham County Urban No 140.9 (132.7, 149.4) 48 (20, 67) 235 falling falling trend -0.6 (-1.1, -0.2)
Ionia County Urban No 145.9 (129.0, 164.4) 38 (5, 75) 57 stable stable trend -0.6 (-1.5, 0.4)
Muskegon County Urban No 152.8 (142.9, 163.2) 20 (7, 55) 189 falling falling trend -0.6 (-1.0, -0.2)
Allegan County Rural No 152.0 (139.9, 165.0) 21 (5, 61) 123 stable stable trend -0.5 (-1.1, 0.3)
Clare County Rural No 163.5 (140.8, 189.4) 10 (1, 66) 42 stable stable trend -0.5 (-1.7, 0.6)
Charlevoix County Rural No 138.9 (116.5, 165.1) 53 (5, 81) 32 stable stable trend -0.4 (-1.7, 1.0)
Hillsdale County Rural No 157.9 (139.1, 178.8) 16 (2, 68) 55 stable stable trend -0.4 (-1.5, 0.7)
Osceola County Rural No 148.4 (123.9, 177.2) 27 (2, 79) 27 stable stable trend -0.4 (-1.5, 0.9)
Presque Isle County Rural No 134.6 (105.9, 171.5) 62 (3, 82) 19 stable stable trend -0.4 (-5.9, 10.9)
Isabella County Rural No 170.5 (150.7, 192.3) 6 (1, 51) 57 stable stable trend -0.3 (-1.8, 1.3)
Kalkaska County Urban No 175.3 (143.7, 212.7) 5 (1, 67) 23 stable stable trend -0.3 (-1.8, 1.3)
Shiawassee County Rural No 148.3 (133.5, 164.6) 28 (6, 69) 78 stable stable trend -0.3 (-0.8, 0.2)
Huron County Rural No 158.0 (137.1, 181.8) 15 (1, 68) 48 stable stable trend -0.2 (-1.4, 1.1)
Manistee County Rural No 146.2 (123.6, 172.7) 37 (3, 79) 34 stable stable trend -0.2 (-1.2, 0.8)
Menominee County Rural No 145.8 (122.5, 173.2) 39 (3, 78) 31 stable stable trend -0.2 (-2.6, 2.2)
Baraga County Rural Yes 109.7 (77.7, 154.9) 79 (7, 82) 7 stable stable trend -0.1 (-2.7, 2.6)
Crawford County Rural No 163.0 (131.2, 202.4) 11 (1, 79) 20 stable stable trend -0.1 (-1.8, 1.5)
Mecosta County Rural No 150.7 (130.9, 172.9) 25 (3, 74) 45 stable stable trend -0.1 (-1.4, 1.3)
Missaukee County Rural No 143.4 (113.1, 180.5) 43 (2, 82) 16 stable stable trend -0.1 (-1.7, 1.5)
Wexford County Rural No 148.0 (126.7, 172.3) 30 (3, 78) 37 stable stable trend -0.1 (-1.6, 1.5)
Chippewa County Rural No 157.5 (135.6, 182.5) 17 (1, 71) 40 stable stable trend 0.0 (-1.1, 1.1)
Montmorency County Rural No 198.3 (155.7, 252.7) 1 (1, 64) 18 stable stable trend 0.1 (-1.9, 1.9)
Iosco County Rural No 177.1 (150.7, 207.8) 3 (1, 53) 43 stable stable trend 0.2 (-0.9, 1.3)
Roscommon County Rural No 161.1 (135.9, 190.9) 13 (1, 73) 38 stable stable trend 0.2 (-0.9, 1.3)
Sanilac County Rural No 148.2 (129.5, 169.4) 29 (3, 75) 50 stable stable trend 0.2 (-0.9, 1.2)
Ontonagon County Rural No 147.6 (112.0, 204.3) 34 (1, 82) 11 stable stable trend 0.3 (-2.3, 3.0)
Gratiot County Rural No 164.7 (143.4, 188.5) 9 (1, 63) 46 stable stable trend 0.4 (-0.6, 1.4)
Alcona County Rural No 177.0 (141.2, 223.5) 4 (1, 75) 21 stable stable trend 0.6 (-0.7, 1.9)
Alger County Rural No 142.9 (102.3, 197.8) 44 (1, 82) 9 stable stable trend 0.6 (-1.6, 2.7)
Oceana County Rural No 136.0 (113.4, 162.5) 58 (5, 81) 27 stable stable trend 0.7 (-0.7, 2.1)
Lake County Rural No 162.1 (125.5, 208.5) 12 (1, 80) 16 stable stable trend 1.2 (-1.1, 7.9)
Alpena County Rural No 160.0 (137.6, 185.7) 14 (1, 69) 42 rising rising trend 2.0 (0.1, 8.5)
Keweenaw County Rural ***
*
*
3 or fewer
*
*

Notes:
Created by statecancerprofiles.cancer.gov on 03/21/2026 7:41 am.

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

Trend
Rising when 95% confidence interval of average annual percent change is above 0.
Stable when 95% confidence interval of average annual percent change includes 0.
Falling when 95% confidence interval of average annual percent change is below 0.


† 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+).

The Healthy People 2030 goals are based on rates adjusted using different methods but the differences should be minimal.

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

The US Population Data File is used with mortality data.

‡ The Average Annual Percent Change (AAPC) is based on the APCs calculated by Joinpoint. Due to data availability issues, the time period used in the calculation of the joinpoint regression model may differ for selected counties.

⋔ 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.

Healthy People 2030 Objectives provided by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

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 has been suppressed to ensure confidentiality and stability of rate estimates. Counts are suppressed if fewer than 16 records were reported in a specific area-sex-race category.

If an average count of 3 is shown, the total number of cases for the time period is 16 or more which exceeds suppression threshold (but is rounded to 3).

Data for United States does not include Puerto Rico.

Return to Top