Return to Home Mortality > Table

Death Rates Table

Data Options
Comparison Options

Death Rate Report for Minnesota by County

Colon & Rectum, 2019-2023

All Races (includes Hispanic), Both Sexes, All Ages

Sorted by Rate

County
 sort alphabetically by name ascending
2023 Rural-Urban Continuum Codes Φ
 sort by rural urban descending
Met Healthy People Objective of 8.9?
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
Minnesota N/A No 11.4 (11.1, 11.8) N/A 804 stable stable trend -1.9 (-2.4, 0.1)
United States N/A No 12.9 (12.8, 12.9) N/A 52,648 falling falling trend -0.8 (-1.5, -0.4)
Steele County Rural Yes 8.2 (5.1, 12.7) 62 (22, 62) 4 falling falling trend -2.5 (-4.8, -0.4)
Morrison County Rural Yes 8.4 (5.2, 13.1) 61 (20, 62) 4 falling falling trend -4.8 (-7.8, -2.5)
Sherburne County Urban Yes 8.4 (5.9, 11.6) 60 (27, 62) 8 falling falling trend -3.4 (-5.3, -1.5)
Olmsted County Urban Yes 8.8 (7.1, 10.9) 59 (35, 62) 18 falling falling trend -2.7 (-4.8, -0.6)
Scott County Urban Yes 8.9 (6.8, 11.4) 58 (30, 62) 12 falling falling trend -3.5 (-5.2, -1.8)
Dakota County Urban No 9.3 (8.2, 10.6) 57 (38, 61) 47 falling falling trend -6.6 (-13.0, -3.2)
St. Louis County Urban No 9.5 (7.9, 11.3) 56 (32, 62) 28 falling falling trend -3.2 (-4.7, -1.8)
Martin County Rural No 9.9 (5.9, 16.4) 55 (10, 62) 3 stable stable trend -0.7 (-4.4, 3.3)
Mower County Rural No 10.0 (6.7, 14.5) 54 (16, 62) 6 stable stable trend -1.6 (-3.5, 0.3)
Clay County Urban No 10.0 (6.9, 14.0) 53 (16, 62) 7 falling falling trend -2.4 (-4.9, -0.2)
McLeod County Rural No 10.0 (6.7, 14.8) 52 (14, 62) 5 falling falling trend -2.8 (-4.6, -1.1)
Washington County Urban No 10.1 (8.6, 11.8) 51 (28, 61) 31 falling falling trend -2.8 (-3.8, -1.7)
Hennepin County Urban No 10.1 (9.4, 10.9) 50 (37, 58) 146 falling falling trend -2.5 (-3.2, -1.9)
Crow Wing County Rural No 10.3 (7.3, 14.2) 49 (16, 62) 9 stable stable trend -1.4 (-3.2, 0.4)
Winona County Rural No 10.9 (7.6, 15.4) 48 (12, 62) 7 falling falling trend -2.2 (-4.5, -0.1)
Wabasha County Urban No 11.1 (6.3, 18.5) 47 (5, 62) 3 stable stable trend -2.3 (-5.6, 0.6)
Carver County Urban No 11.2 (8.5, 14.3) 46 (15, 61) 12 stable stable trend -2.1 (-4.1, 0.3)
Cass County Rural No 11.3 (7.0, 17.4) 45 (7, 62) 5 falling falling trend -3.8 (-7.1, -1.0)
Anoka County Urban No 11.4 (9.9, 13.0) 44 (22, 55) 47 falling falling trend -2.8 (-4.1, -1.3)
Itasca County Rural No 11.4 (8.1, 15.9) 43 (10, 62) 8 falling falling trend -3.0 (-5.8, -0.6)
Stearns County Urban No 11.5 (9.3, 14.0) 42 (17, 59) 20 stable stable trend -1.5 (-3.4, 0.5)
Nicollet County Urban No 11.5 (7.4, 17.2) 41 (7, 62) 5 falling falling trend -3.5 (-7.0, -0.3)
Isanti County Urban No 11.5 (7.6, 16.7) 40 (7, 62) 5
*
*
Mille Lacs County Urban No 11.5 (6.9, 18.2) 39 (6, 62) 4 stable stable trend -1.8 (-5.7, 1.6)
Ramsey County Urban No 11.9 (10.7, 13.2) 38 (21, 50) 74 stable stable trend 5.8 (-0.9, 10.7)
Wright County Urban No 12.1 (9.7, 14.9) 37 (14, 59) 17 falling falling trend -2.8 (-4.3, -1.3)
Goodhue County Rural No 12.2 (8.7, 16.7) 36 (8, 62) 8 stable stable trend -1.5 (-4.1, 1.1)
Todd County Rural No 12.3 (8.0, 18.7) 35 (5, 62) 5 falling falling trend -3.4 (-6.9, -0.7)
Le Sueur County Urban No 12.3 (7.4, 19.3) 34 (4, 62) 4 stable stable trend -0.1 (-3.1, 3.1)
Blue Earth County Urban No 12.4 (9.0, 16.6) 33 (9, 62) 9 stable stable trend -2.0 (-4.6, 0.6)
Chisago County Urban No 12.5 (8.9, 17.0) 32 (7, 61) 8
*
*
Rice County Rural No 12.5 (9.2, 16.6) 31 (8, 61) 9 falling falling trend -3.8 (-6.2, -1.7)
Nobles County Rural No 12.8 (7.3, 20.9) 30 (3, 62) 3 stable stable trend -0.8 (-4.0, 2.2)
Fillmore County Urban No 12.9 (7.8, 20.5) 29 (3, 62) 4 falling falling trend -4.2 (-11.7, -2.1)
Freeborn County Rural No 12.9 (8.9, 18.5) 28 (5, 62) 7 stable stable trend -1.6 (-4.9, 1.5)
Otter Tail County Rural No 13.3 (9.9, 17.6) 27 (7, 58) 12 stable stable trend 3.2 (-2.3, 19.8)
Carlton County Urban No 13.5 (9.3, 19.2) 26 (4, 62) 6 stable stable trend -0.6 (-2.9, 1.8)
Beltrami County Rural No 13.6 (9.5, 18.9) 25 (4, 61) 7 stable stable trend -2.2 (-5.3, 0.7)
Benton County Urban No 13.7 (9.3, 19.5) 24 (3, 62) 6 stable stable trend -1.1 (-4.3, 2.2)
Houston County Urban No 14.0 (8.7, 22.2) 23 (2, 62) 4
*
*
Renville County Rural No 14.3 (8.1, 24.0) 22 (1, 62) 3 falling falling trend -3.4 (-6.0, -1.3)
Sibley County Rural No 14.4 (8.1, 24.3) 21 (1, 62) 3
*
*
Becker County Rural No 14.4 (9.8, 20.6) 20 (3, 61) 7 stable stable trend -0.8 (-3.8, 2.1)
Hubbard County Rural No 14.7 (9.1, 22.9) 19 (1, 62) 5 stable stable trend 0.1 (-3.8, 4.2)
Kandiyohi County Rural No 15.1 (10.8, 20.6) 18 (3, 58) 9 stable stable trend -0.6 (-3.1, 1.8)
Jackson County Rural No 16.0 (9.0, 28.0) 17 (1, 62) 3 stable stable trend -1.2 (-5.5, 3.0)
Aitkin County Rural No 16.0 (9.4, 26.6) 16 (1, 62) 5 stable stable trend 0.5 (-2.3, 3.4)
Brown County Rural No 16.1 (11.0, 23.0) 15 (2, 58) 7 stable stable trend -1.3 (-4.0, 1.2)
Meeker County Rural No 16.1 (10.4, 24.2) 14 (1, 60) 5 stable stable trend -1.5 (-4.6, 1.4)
Dodge County Urban No 16.4 (9.9, 25.6) 13 (1, 62) 4 stable stable trend 0.5 (-3.5, 5.6)
Cottonwood County Rural No 16.4 (9.7, 27.4) 12 (1, 62) 3 stable stable trend -1.6 (-5.0, 1.4)
Pine County Rural No 16.6 (11.6, 23.4) 11 (1, 56) 7
*
*
Douglas County Rural No 17.0 (12.8, 22.5) 10 (1, 43) 11 stable stable trend -0.9 (-3.1, 1.4)
Pennington County Rural No 17.1 (9.9, 28.2) 9 (1, 62) 3
*
*
Wadena County Rural No 17.9 (10.2, 29.5) 8 (1, 62) 3 stable stable trend 1.5 (-2.4, 5.4)
Redwood County Rural No 18.0 (10.9, 28.7) 7 (1, 62) 4
*
*
Waseca County Rural No 18.3 (11.8, 27.7) 6 (1, 56) 5
*
*
Polk County Urban No 19.2 (13.4, 26.7) 5 (1, 47) 8 stable stable trend -0.3 (-2.6, 2.1)
Chippewa County Rural No 20.9 (11.7, 34.9) 4 (1, 62) 3 stable stable trend 0.4 (-2.8, 3.7)
Lyon County Rural No 22.2 (15.2, 31.5) 3 (1, 39) 6
*
*
Faribault County Rural No 22.6 (14.4, 34.5) 2 (1, 51) 5 stable stable trend 1.4 (-2.2, 5.1)
Yellow Medicine County Rural No 25.2 (14.1, 42.2) 1 (1, 60) 3
*
*
Big Stone County Rural ***
*
*
3 or fewer
*
*
Clearwater County Rural ***
*
*
3 or fewer
*
*
Cook County Rural ***
*
*
3 or fewer
*
*
Grant County Rural ***
*
*
3 or fewer
*
*
Kanabec County Rural ***
*
*
3 or fewer
*
*
Kittson County Rural ***
*
*
3 or fewer
*
*
Koochiching County Rural ***
*
*
3 or fewer
*
*
Lac qui Parle County Rural ***
*
*
3 or fewer
*
*
Lake County Rural ***
*
*
3 or fewer
*
*
Lake of the Woods County Rural ***
*
*
3 or fewer
*
*
Lincoln County Rural ***
*
*
3 or fewer
*
*
Mahnomen County Rural ***
*
*
3 or fewer
*
*
Marshall County Rural ***
*
*
3 or fewer
*
*
Murray County Rural ***
*
*
3 or fewer
*
*
Norman County Rural ***
*
*
3 or fewer
*
*
Pipestone County Rural ***
*
*
3 or fewer
*
*
Pope County Rural ***
*
*
3 or fewer
*
*
Red Lake County Rural ***
*
*
3 or fewer
*
*
Rock County Urban ***
*
*
3 or fewer
*
*
Roseau County Rural ***
*
*
3 or fewer
*
*
Stevens County Rural ***
*
*
3 or fewer
*
*
Swift County Rural ***
*
*
3 or fewer
*
*
Traverse County Rural ***
*
*
3 or fewer
*
*
Watonwan County Rural ***
*
*
3 or fewer
*
*
Wilkin County Rural ***
*
*
3 or fewer
*
*

Notes:
Created by statecancerprofiles.cancer.gov on 03/23/2026 11:41 am.

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 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