Return to Home Mortality > Table

Death Rates Table

Data Options
Comparison Options

Death Rate Report for Minnesota by County

Liver & Bile Duct, 2019-2023

All Races (includes 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 ***?
 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
Mille Lacs County Urban *** 10.3 (5.9, 16.9) 1 (1, 25) 3
*
*
Freeborn County Rural *** 8.2 (4.8, 13.3) 2 (1, 27) 4
*
*
Chisago County Urban *** 7.4 (4.8, 11.0) 3 (1, 26) 5
*
*
Ramsey County Urban *** 7.3 (6.4, 8.3) 4 (2, 15) 47 rising rising trend 2.0 (0.7, 3.5)
Clay County Urban *** 7.2 (4.6, 10.7) 5 (1, 26) 4
*
*
Mower County Rural *** 7.0 (4.1, 11.2) 6 (1, 27) 3 stable stable trend 2.3 (-0.2, 5.3)
Steele County Rural *** 7.0 (4.2, 11.2) 7 (1, 27) 3 rising rising trend 5.4 (2.7, 9.8)
Anoka County Urban *** 6.8 (5.7, 8.1) 8 (2, 20) 29 rising rising trend 2.3 (1.0, 4.1)
Stearns County Urban *** 6.8 (5.2, 8.8) 9 (1, 24) 12
*
*
Otter Tail County Rural *** 6.7 (4.6, 9.8) 10 (1, 26) 6 rising rising trend 3.0 (0.2, 6.7)
Winona County Rural *** 6.5 (4.0, 10.3) 11 (1, 27) 4
*
*
Isanti County Urban *** 6.5 (3.7, 10.8) 12 (1, 27) 3
*
*
Itasca County Rural *** 6.4 (4.1, 9.8) 13 (1, 27) 5
*
*
Goodhue County Rural *** 6.1 (3.7, 9.6) 14 (1, 27) 4
*
*
Dakota County Urban *** 6.0 (5.1, 7.0) 15 (5, 23) 31 stable stable trend 2.0 (0.0, 4.7)
Hennepin County Urban *** 5.7 (5.1, 6.3) 16 (8, 23) 83 stable stable trend 0.7 (-0.1, 1.6)
Crow Wing County Rural *** 5.5 (3.8, 7.9) 17 (3, 27) 6 stable stable trend 0.7 (-1.7, 3.4)
Wright County Urban *** 5.4 (3.9, 7.3) 18 (4, 27) 8
*
*
St. Louis County Urban *** 5.4 (4.3, 6.8) 19 (6, 27) 16 stable stable trend 0.7 (-1.4, 2.9)
Douglas County Rural *** 5.4 (3.0, 9.1) 20 (2, 27) 3
*
*
Washington County Urban *** 5.3 (4.2, 6.5) 21 (8, 27) 17 stable stable trend 1.1 (-0.7, 3.5)
Scott County Urban *** 5.1 (3.6, 7.1) 22 (5, 27) 7 stable stable trend 1.9 (-0.8, 6.0)
Olmsted County Urban *** 5.0 (3.8, 6.7) 23 (7, 27) 10 stable stable trend 0.2 (-2.1, 3.2)
Rice County Rural *** 4.7 (2.8, 7.5) 24 (3, 27) 3
*
*
Sherburne County Urban *** 4.6 (2.9, 7.0) 25 (5, 27) 4 stable stable trend 0.3 (-3.3, 5.1)
Carver County Urban *** 4.3 (2.8, 6.4) 26 (8, 27) 5
*
*
Blue Earth County Urban *** 4.2 (2.3, 6.9) 27 (6, 27) 3
*
*
Aitkin County Rural ***
*
*
3 or fewer
*
*
Becker County Rural ***
*
*
3 or fewer
*
*
Beltrami County Rural ***
*
*
3 or fewer
*
*
Benton County Urban ***
*
*
3 or fewer
*
*
Big Stone County Rural ***
*
*
3 or fewer
*
*
Brown County Rural ***
*
*
3 or fewer
*
*
Carlton County Urban ***
*
*
3 or fewer
*
*
Cass County Rural ***
*
*
3 or fewer
*
*
Chippewa County Rural ***
*
*
3 or fewer
*
*
Clearwater County Rural ***
*
*
3 or fewer
*
*
Cook County Rural ***
*
*
3 or fewer
*
*
Cottonwood County Rural ***
*
*
3 or fewer
*
*
Dodge County Urban ***
*
*
3 or fewer
*
*
Faribault County Rural ***
*
*
3 or fewer
*
*
Fillmore County Urban ***
*
*
3 or fewer
*
*
Grant County Rural ***
*
*
3 or fewer
*
*
Houston County Urban ***
*
*
3 or fewer
*
*
Hubbard County Rural ***
*
*
3 or fewer
*
*
Jackson County Rural ***
*
*
3 or fewer
*
*
Kanabec County Rural ***
*
*
3 or fewer
*
*
Kandiyohi 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
*
*
Le Sueur County Urban ***
*
*
3 or fewer
*
*
Lincoln County Rural ***
*
*
3 or fewer
*
*
Lyon County Rural ***
*
*
3 or fewer
*
*
Mahnomen County Rural ***
*
*
3 or fewer
*
*
Marshall County Rural ***
*
*
3 or fewer
*
*
Martin County Rural ***
*
*
3 or fewer
*
*
McLeod County Rural ***
*
*
3 or fewer
*
*
Meeker County Rural ***
*
*
3 or fewer
*
*
Morrison County Rural ***
*
*
3 or fewer
*
*
Murray County Rural ***
*
*
3 or fewer
*
*
Nicollet County Urban ***
*
*
3 or fewer
*
*
Nobles County Rural ***
*
*
3 or fewer
*
*
Norman County Rural ***
*
*
3 or fewer
*
*
Pennington County Rural ***
*
*
3 or fewer
*
*
Pine County Rural ***
*
*
3 or fewer
*
*
Pipestone County Rural ***
*
*
3 or fewer
*
*
Polk County Urban ***
*
*
3 or fewer
*
*
Pope County Rural ***
*
*
3 or fewer
*
*
Red Lake County Rural ***
*
*
3 or fewer
*
*
Redwood County Rural ***
*
*
3 or fewer
*
*
Renville County Rural ***
*
*
3 or fewer
*
*
Rock County Urban ***
*
*
3 or fewer
*
*
Roseau County Rural ***
*
*
3 or fewer
*
*
Sibley County Rural ***
*
*
3 or fewer
*
*
Stevens County Rural ***
*
*
3 or fewer
*
*
Swift County Rural ***
*
*
3 or fewer
*
*
Todd County Rural ***
*
*
3 or fewer
*
*
Traverse County Rural ***
*
*
3 or fewer
*
*
Wabasha County Urban ***
*
*
3 or fewer
*
*
Wadena County Rural ***
*
*
3 or fewer
*
*
Waseca County Rural ***
*
*
3 or fewer
*
*
Watonwan County Rural ***
*
*
3 or fewer
*
*
Wilkin County Rural ***
*
*
3 or fewer
*
*
Yellow Medicine County Rural ***
*
*
3 or fewer
*
*

Notes:
Created by statecancerprofiles.cancer.gov on 03/22/2026 9:45 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.

⋔ 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 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