Return to Home Mortality > Table

Death Rates Table

Data Options
Comparison Options

Death Rate Report for Michigan 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
Michigan N/A No 158.1 (157.0, 159.2) N/A 17,709 falling falling trend -1.0 (-1.1, -1.0)
United States N/A No 151.2 (151.0, 151.4) N/A 464,032 falling falling trend -1.1 (-1.3, -1.0)
Iosco County Rural No 208.7 (188.4, 231.2) 1 (1, 24) 97 stable stable trend 0.2 (-0.9, 1.2)
Oscoda County Rural No 208.7 (175.7, 247.8) 2 (1, 59) 32 stable stable trend 0.3 (-1.6, 2.2)
Kalkaska County Urban No 208.3 (183.2, 236.4) 3 (1, 41) 55 stable stable trend -0.3 (-1.3, 0.8)
Montmorency County Rural No 205.3 (174.0, 242.3) 4 (1, 60) 37 stable stable trend -0.4 (-2.0, 1.2)
Lake County Rural No 199.0 (169.0, 234.3) 5 (1, 69) 37 stable stable trend 0.0 (-1.2, 1.2)
Roscommon County Rural No 198.7 (178.6, 221.2) 6 (1, 38) 94 stable stable trend 0.1 (-0.8, 1.1)
Clare County Rural No 197.8 (179.9, 217.3) 7 (1, 37) 100 stable stable trend -0.7 (-1.5, 0.0)
Crawford County Rural No 192.9 (167.6, 221.9) 8 (1, 68) 47 stable stable trend 0.0 (-0.9, 0.9)
Ogemaw County Rural No 189.1 (168.2, 212.4) 9 (1, 61) 69 falling falling trend -0.8 (-1.4, -0.1)
Gladwin County Rural No 186.9 (168.2, 207.5) 10 (1, 59) 85 stable stable trend -0.2 (-1.5, 1.1)
Alcona County Rural No 185.7 (158.6, 218.3) 11 (1, 75) 43 stable stable trend 0.2 (-0.7, 1.1)
Calhoun County Urban No 185.0 (175.2, 195.2) 12 (5, 39) 286 falling falling trend -0.5 (-0.9, -0.2)
Isabella County Rural No 183.9 (168.2, 200.8) 13 (2, 56) 107 stable stable trend -0.8 (-1.9, 0.2)
Hillsdale County Rural No 183.2 (168.5, 199.1) 14 (3, 56) 121 stable stable trend -0.1 (-0.8, 0.6)
Osceola County Rural No 183.1 (162.7, 205.7) 15 (1, 69) 63 stable stable trend -0.6 (-1.3, 0.0)
Luce County Rural No 182.9 (145.6, 229.6) 16 (1, 82) 18 stable stable trend -1.4 (-3.3, 0.5)
Chippewa County Rural No 181.3 (162.9, 201.6) 17 (2, 67) 77 stable stable trend 0.2 (-0.7, 1.1)
Schoolcraft County Rural No 180.6 (149.9, 218.4) 18 (1, 80) 26 stable stable trend -0.2 (-1.6, 1.2)
Alpena County Rural No 180.2 (163.1, 199.1) 19 (2, 66) 89 stable stable trend -0.3 (-0.9, 0.3)
Gratiot County Rural No 179.1 (162.6, 196.9) 20 (3, 65) 91 stable stable trend -0.1 (-0.9, 0.8)
Mason County Rural No 178.8 (160.8, 198.6) 21 (2, 69) 83 stable stable trend -0.2 (-8.2, 6.4)
Montcalm County Urban No 177.9 (165.1, 191.5) 22 (5, 60) 151 falling falling trend -0.7 (-1.4, -0.1)
Newaygo County Rural No 177.9 (163.4, 193.4) 23 (4, 64) 121 falling falling trend -1.0 (-1.7, -0.4)
Arenac County Rural No 177.1 (152.5, 205.2) 24 (1, 77) 44 stable stable trend -1.1 (-2.2, 0.0)
Sanilac County Rural No 175.8 (160.7, 192.1) 25 (5, 68) 110 stable stable trend -0.3 (-1.2, 0.5)
Houghton County Rural No 174.8 (157.5, 193.6) 26 (4, 72) 80 stable stable trend -0.6 (-1.2, 0.1)
Mecosta County Rural No 174.2 (158.1, 191.6) 27 (5, 71) 94 falling falling trend -10.3 (-16.3, -5.0)
Missaukee County Rural No 172.8 (148.5, 200.6) 28 (2, 80) 38 stable stable trend -0.6 (-2.1, 0.9)
Muskegon County Urban No 172.8 (164.5, 181.5) 29 (11, 55) 344 falling falling trend -0.7 (-1.1, -0.3)
Tuscola County Rural No 172.8 (159.6, 186.9) 30 (7, 68) 136 falling falling trend -0.9 (-1.5, -0.2)
Baraga County Rural No 172.7 (139.8, 213.4) 31 (1, 83) 20 stable stable trend 0.1 (-1.5, 1.8)
Bay County Urban No 170.9 (161.3, 181.0) 32 (12, 63) 255 falling falling trend -0.9 (-1.2, -0.6)
Shiawassee County Rural No 170.4 (158.4, 183.2) 33 (10, 68) 159 falling falling trend -0.7 (-1.3, -0.1)
Jackson County Urban No 170.3 (162.2, 178.8) 34 (13, 60) 346 falling falling trend -0.9 (-1.3, -0.4)
Cass County Urban No 169.5 (155.9, 184.1) 35 (8, 70) 124 stable stable trend -0.7 (-1.5, 1.4)
St. Clair County Urban No 169.5 (161.7, 177.7) 36 (16, 59) 377 falling falling trend -1.1 (-1.4, -0.8)
Monroe County Urban No 168.1 (160.1, 176.5) 37 (16, 62) 349 falling falling trend -1.1 (-1.4, -0.7)
Ionia County Urban No 168.1 (154.6, 182.5) 38 (9, 72) 121 falling falling trend -0.7 (-1.3, -0.1)
Cheboygan County Rural No 167.7 (150.3, 187.0) 39 (5, 75) 78 stable stable trend -0.6 (-1.5, 0.3)
Iron County Rural No 166.7 (140.8, 197.3) 40 (2, 82) 37 stable stable trend -1.4 (-3.0, 0.1)
Delta County Rural No 166.0 (151.3, 182.0) 41 (10, 75) 104 stable stable trend -0.6 (-1.2, 0.0)
Allegan County Rural No 165.8 (156.3, 175.8) 42 (16, 68) 242 falling falling trend -0.8 (-1.3, -0.3)
Huron County Rural No 165.6 (150.0, 182.7) 43 (9, 75) 93 stable stable trend -0.7 (-1.5, 0.0)
Genesee County Urban No 165.5 (160.0, 171.1) 44 (23, 60) 730 falling falling trend -1.2 (-1.5, -0.9)
Lenawee County Rural No 165.4 (155.3, 176.1) 45 (15, 69) 214 falling falling trend -0.6 (-1.2, -0.1)
Manistee County Rural No 165.2 (147.7, 184.8) 46 (7, 79) 73 falling falling trend -7.1 (-11.3, -2.8)
Van Buren County Rural No 164.7 (152.8, 177.4) 47 (14, 73) 156 falling falling trend -1.8 (-5.5, -1.0)
St. Joseph County Rural No 164.6 (151.7, 178.5) 48 (12, 73) 127 falling falling trend -1.1 (-1.7, -0.5)
Wexford County Rural No 164.3 (147.8, 182.3) 49 (8, 78) 78 stable stable trend -0.4 (-1.5, 0.7)
Menominee County Rural No 163.5 (145.6, 183.5) 50 (8, 80) 67 stable stable trend -0.3 (-1.4, 0.8)
Oceana County Rural No 161.5 (143.1, 182.1) 51 (7, 81) 62 stable stable trend 0.0 (-0.9, 0.9)
Macomb County Urban No 160.8 (157.3, 164.4) 52 (38, 64) 1,664 falling falling trend -1.1 (-1.3, -0.9)
Saginaw County Urban No 159.8 (152.1, 167.9) 53 (29, 73) 346 stable stable trend 2.6 (-1.4, 5.4)
Lapeer County Urban No 159.8 (149.5, 170.7) 54 (20, 74) 195 falling falling trend -1.1 (-1.7, -0.5)
Ingham County Urban No 159.8 (152.6, 167.2) 55 (30, 71) 394 falling falling trend -0.6 (-0.8, -0.4)
Berrien County Urban No 159.7 (151.7, 168.2) 56 (27, 72) 317 falling falling trend -0.7 (-1.2, -0.3)
Wayne County Urban No 159.6 (156.4, 162.8) 57 (41, 66) 1,997 falling falling trend -1.7 (-3.1, -1.4)
Charlevoix County Rural No 158.0 (141.0, 177.0) 58 (11, 81) 71 stable stable trend -0.7 (-1.6, 0.1)
Branch County Rural No 157.9 (143.4, 173.5) 59 (16, 80) 93 falling falling trend -1.0 (-1.6, -0.3)
Midland County Urban No 157.2 (146.9, 168.0) 60 (26, 76) 185 rising rising trend 2.1 (0.8, 4.6)
Emmet County Rural No 156.5 (141.1, 173.3) 61 (14, 81) 83 falling falling trend -0.7 (-1.3, -0.1)
Barry County Urban No 154.3 (142.1, 167.4) 62 (25, 79) 126 falling falling trend -1.5 (-2.0, -0.9)
Eaton County Urban No 153.7 (144.3, 163.5) 63 (33, 77) 213 falling falling trend -1.2 (-3.7, -0.7)
Marquette County Rural No 153.6 (141.9, 166.1) 64 (29, 80) 138 falling falling trend -1.0 (-1.8, -0.3)
Otsego County Rural No 152.3 (134.7, 172.0) 65 (16, 82) 58 stable stable trend -1.0 (-1.9, 0.0)
Kalamazoo County Urban No 152.0 (145.4, 158.9) 66 (47, 76) 409 falling falling trend -1.2 (-1.6, -0.7)
Kent County Urban No 151.6 (147.2, 156.2) 67 (54, 75) 934 falling falling trend -0.9 (-1.1, -0.7)
Alger County Rural No 149.9 (120.9, 185.8) 68 (4, 83) 21 stable stable trend -0.6 (-2.2, 0.9)
Antrim County Rural No 149.8 (132.7, 169.0) 69 (20, 82) 64 falling falling trend -1.1 (-1.8, -0.4)
Presque Isle County Rural No 149.5 (127.5, 175.7) 70 (12, 83) 41 stable stable trend -0.3 (-5.4, 6.4)
Ontonagon County Rural No 148.0 (121.6, 184.7) 71 (6, 83) 22 stable stable trend -0.8 (-2.6, 1.0)
Livingston County Urban No 147.5 (140.7, 154.6) 72 (53, 79) 380 falling falling trend -1.4 (-1.8, -1.0)
Mackinac County Rural No 145.2 (119.9, 176.7) 73 (10, 83) 27 falling falling trend -2.1 (-3.5, -0.9)
Benzie County Urban No 144.2 (124.1, 167.1) 74 (17, 83) 44 falling falling trend -1.3 (-2.4, -0.1)
Grand Traverse County Urban No 141.7 (132.7, 151.2) 75 (60, 82) 196 falling falling trend -0.9 (-1.3, -0.4)
Gogebic County Rural No 140.9 (120.0, 165.6) 76 (24, 83) 38 falling falling trend -4.5 (-9.3, -2.8)
Dickinson County Rural No 140.6 (124.7, 158.4) 77 (39, 83) 61 falling falling trend -1.3 (-2.2, -0.5)
Ottawa County Urban No 139.9 (134.1, 145.8) 78 (67, 82) 463 falling falling trend -0.8 (-1.1, -0.3)
Oakland County Urban No 138.8 (135.9, 141.7) 79 (70, 81) 1,874 falling falling trend -1.4 (-1.6, -1.2)
Keweenaw County Rural No 138.2 (91.1, 214.5) 80 (1, 83) 6 stable stable trend -1.8 (-4.4, 0.9)
Washtenaw County Urban No 132.5 (126.9, 138.4) 81 (73, 83) 441 falling falling trend -1.6 (-1.9, -1.2)
Clinton County Urban No 131.1 (121.1, 141.8) 82 (69, 83) 132 falling falling trend -1.6 (-2.2, -0.9)
Leelanau County Urban Yes 117.6 (103.2, 134.4) 83 (73, 83) 56 falling falling trend -1.0 (-1.9, -0.1)

Notes:
Created by statecancerprofiles.cancer.gov on 03/22/2026 11:04 pm.

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 for United States does not include Puerto Rico.

Return to Top