Return to Home Mortality > Table

Death Rates Table

Data Options
Comparison Options

Death Rate Report for Iowa by County

Lung & Bronchus, 2019-2023

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

Sorted by Name

County
 sort alphabetically by name descending
2023 Rural-Urban Continuum Codes Φ
 sort by rural urban descending
Met Healthy People Objective of 25.1?
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
Adair County Rural No 27.0 (15.9, 45.0) 78 (6, 95) 3 stable stable trend -2.0 (-5.5, 1.1)
Allamakee County Rural No 32.7 (22.2, 47.1) 52 (4, 95) 7 stable stable trend -0.7 (-3.8, 2.2)
Appanoose County Rural No 37.7 (26.7, 52.7) 27 (2, 91) 8 falling falling trend -2.7 (-14.5, -0.2)
Audubon County Rural No 32.9 (19.3, 55.6) 51 (1, 95) 3
*
*
Benton County Urban No 30.7 (23.2, 40.2) 59 (13, 92) 11 stable stable trend -1.4 (-3.1, 0.2)
Black Hawk County Urban No 38.6 (34.4, 43.1) 24 (10, 55) 65 falling falling trend -4.0 (-8.0, -2.4)
Boone County Urban No 46.3 (36.8, 57.7) 10 (1, 61) 17 stable stable trend -1.4 (-3.4, 0.6)
Bremer County Urban Yes 19.3 (13.4, 27.2) 94 (56, 95) 7 stable stable trend -2.3 (-5.1, 0.3)
Buchanan County Rural No 36.7 (27.3, 48.5) 29 (4, 88) 10 falling falling trend -5.9 (-26.4, -1.6)
Buena Vista County Rural Yes 23.2 (15.4, 33.6) 90 (26, 95) 6 falling falling trend -2.1 (-4.4, -0.1)
Butler County Rural No 34.8 (24.2, 49.1) 42 (3, 93) 7 stable stable trend -0.1 (-2.9, 2.6)
Calhoun County Rural No 34.2 (22.6, 50.9) 46 (3, 95) 5 falling falling trend -2.3 (-4.2, -0.8)
Carroll County Rural No 28.6 (21.0, 38.5) 72 (18, 95) 9 stable stable trend -1.5 (-3.4, 4.8)
Cass County Rural No 32.5 (23.0, 45.5) 53 (6, 94) 7 stable stable trend -1.6 (-3.7, 0.4)
Cedar County Rural No 31.3 (22.5, 42.8) 57 (9, 94) 8 stable stable trend -1.6 (-4.0, 0.7)
Cerro Gordo County Rural No 29.1 (23.7, 35.6) 68 (26, 91) 21 falling falling trend -3.1 (-4.4, -1.9)
Cherokee County Rural No 33.7 (23.4, 48.2) 48 (4, 94) 7 stable stable trend -0.9 (-3.5, 1.7)
Chickasaw County Rural No 35.8 (24.8, 51.1) 37 (3, 94) 7 falling falling trend -2.2 (-4.1, -0.4)
Clarke County Rural No 52.2 (36.4, 73.5) 4 (1, 70) 7 stable stable trend 0.6 (-2.2, 3.9)
Clay County Rural Yes 24.1 (16.6, 34.5) 89 (25, 95) 6 falling falling trend -6.3 (-24.3, -3.8)
Clayton County Rural No 27.8 (19.8, 38.6) 77 (17, 95) 8 stable stable trend -1.9 (-5.0, 1.0)
Clinton County Rural No 44.9 (38.1, 52.7) 11 (2, 49) 31 falling falling trend -1.4 (-2.4, -0.3)
Crawford County Rural Yes 22.1 (14.2, 33.3) 91 (27, 95) 5 falling falling trend -3.1 (-6.6, -0.2)
Dallas County Urban Yes 24.5 (20.4, 29.3) 86 (50, 94) 25 falling falling trend -3.7 (-5.1, -2.3)
Davis County Rural No 34.9 (21.9, 53.7) 41 (2, 95) 4
*
*
Decatur County Rural No 36.5 (21.8, 58.4) 31 (1, 95) 4 stable stable trend -1.0 (-4.3, 2.2)
Delaware County Rural No 28.7 (20.4, 39.9) 70 (13, 95) 8 falling falling trend -2.3 (-4.5, -0.2)
Des Moines County Rural No 43.6 (36.4, 52.0) 13 (2, 52) 26 falling falling trend -2.0 (-3.4, -0.8)
Dickinson County Rural No 26.6 (19.3, 36.6) 81 (23, 95) 9 falling falling trend -2.4 (-4.8, -0.2)
Dubuque County Urban No 28.9 (25.1, 33.2) 69 (36, 87) 41 falling falling trend -4.3 (-13.5, -3.0)
Emmet County Rural No 35.2 (23.2, 52.6) 38 (2, 95) 5 stable stable trend -2.1 (-5.3, 0.8)
Fayette County Rural No 36.0 (27.0, 47.5) 35 (5, 88) 11 falling falling trend -2.1 (-3.8, -0.6)
Floyd County Rural No 39.9 (29.0, 54.2) 22 (1, 88) 9 stable stable trend -0.3 (-1.6, 1.1)
Franklin County Rural No 27.9 (17.2, 43.7) 75 (7, 95) 4 stable stable trend -0.6 (-4.4, 2.8)
Fremont County Rural No 62.6 (42.8, 90.1) 1 (1, 53) 7 stable stable trend -1.4 (-3.5, 0.7)
Greene County Rural No 42.2 (28.5, 61.6) 15 (1, 90) 6 stable stable trend -0.9 (-3.7, 1.8)
Grundy County Urban No 31.2 (20.7, 45.8) 58 (5, 95) 5 stable stable trend -2.1 (-5.1, 0.6)
Guthrie County Urban No 35.2 (24.0, 51.1) 39 (3, 94) 6 stable stable trend -2.3 (-5.6, 0.6)
Hamilton County Rural No 30.2 (21.0, 42.8) 63 (9, 95) 7 stable stable trend -1.8 (-4.1, 0.3)
Hancock County Rural No 30.5 (20.1, 45.6) 61 (6, 95) 5 falling falling trend -2.6 (-5.1, -0.4)
Hardin County Rural No 30.4 (21.8, 41.9) 62 (10, 95) 8 falling falling trend -2.5 (-4.9, -0.3)
Harrison County Urban No 36.3 (25.8, 50.2) 32 (3, 91) 8 falling falling trend -4.6 (-12.5, -2.2)
Henry County Rural No 48.7 (38.1, 61.8) 7 (1, 57) 14 stable stable trend -0.4 (-2.6, 1.9)
Howard County Rural No 34.3 (22.0, 52.1) 45 (3, 95) 5 stable stable trend -0.6 (-3.5, 2.2)
Humboldt County Rural No 28.6 (17.1, 45.8) 71 (6, 95) 4 stable stable trend -0.3 (-3.6, 3.0)
Ida County Rural No 43.2 (27.7, 65.9) 14 (1, 93) 5
*
*
Iowa County Rural No 31.7 (22.4, 44.1) 56 (7, 94) 8 stable stable trend -1.7 (-4.4, 0.9)
Jackson County Rural No 40.1 (30.7, 51.9) 21 (3, 80) 12 stable stable trend -0.9 (-2.5, 0.8)
Jasper County Urban No 36.0 (29.3, 44.0) 36 (7, 81) 20 falling falling trend -5.3 (-15.9, -3.3)
Jefferson County Rural Yes 24.8 (16.4, 36.6) 85 (22, 95) 6 stable stable trend -1.9 (-4.3, 0.4)
Johnson County Urban Yes 21.2 (18.0, 24.8) 92 (72, 95) 31 falling falling trend -4.8 (-6.6, -3.9)
Jones County Urban No 38.9 (29.7, 50.5) 23 (3, 82) 12 falling falling trend -2.2 (-3.9, -0.6)
Keokuk County Rural No 30.1 (19.4, 45.9) 64 (7, 95) 5 falling falling trend -2.8 (-5.7, -0.1)
Kossuth County Rural No 25.5 (17.5, 36.8) 84 (22, 95) 7 falling falling trend -2.6 (-4.5, -0.8)
Lee County Rural No 34.5 (27.7, 42.7) 44 (11, 84) 18 falling falling trend -2.5 (-4.8, -0.4)
Linn County Urban No 34.7 (31.7, 37.9) 43 (23, 64) 103 falling falling trend -2.8 (-3.8, -2.4)
Louisa County Rural No 49.2 (34.6, 68.6) 6 (1, 79) 7 stable stable trend -0.5 (-2.9, 1.8)
Lucas County Rural No 41.2 (26.7, 61.8) 19 (1, 92) 5 stable stable trend -1.2 (-4.1, 1.5)
Lyon County Rural Yes 24.4 (15.1, 37.9) 87 (18, 95) 4
*
*
Madison County Urban No 33.4 (23.3, 46.6) 50 (4, 94) 7 stable stable trend -1.8 (-3.8, 0.3)
Mahaska County Rural No 41.4 (31.8, 53.2) 18 (2, 77) 13 falling falling trend -4.8 (-21.5, -1.6)
Marion County Rural No 33.5 (26.6, 42.0) 49 (11, 88) 16 falling falling trend -2.7 (-4.8, -0.8)
Marshall County Rural No 34.9 (28.3, 42.8) 40 (10, 82) 19 falling falling trend -2.2 (-3.9, -0.7)
Mills County Urban No 29.8 (20.2, 43.1) 66 (7, 95) 6 falling falling trend -2.2 (-4.2, -0.2)
Mitchell County Rural Yes 20.1 (11.5, 33.7) 93 (33, 95) 3 stable stable trend -2.0 (-5.5, 1.4)
Monona County Rural No 41.7 (28.6, 60.4) 17 (1, 89) 6 stable stable trend -1.2 (-4.0, 1.5)
Montgomery County Rural No 28.2 (18.1, 43.1) 73 (8, 95) 5 stable stable trend -2.0 (-5.1, 0.9)
Muscatine County Rural No 28.0 (22.2, 35.0) 74 (26, 93) 16 falling falling trend -3.6 (-5.2, -2.2)
O'Brien County Rural No 34.1 (23.8, 47.9) 47 (4, 94) 7 stable stable trend -1.6 (-3.9, 0.4)
Osceola County Rural No 38.5 (23.1, 62.3) 25 (1, 95) 3 stable stable trend -1.1 (-3.7, 1.4)
Page County Rural No 50.1 (38.2, 65.2) 5 (1, 60) 12 stable stable trend -0.1 (-2.3, 2.1)
Palo Alto County Rural No 61.1 (44.1, 83.6) 2 (1, 45) 9 stable stable trend 1.5 (-1.3, 4.6)
Plymouth County Rural No 32.3 (24.4, 42.2) 54 (10, 93) 11 stable stable trend 0.0 (-2.2, 2.4)
Pocahontas County Rural No 41.9 (27.7, 63.1) 16 (1, 91) 5 stable stable trend -1.1 (-3.2, 0.9)
Polk County Urban No 38.1 (35.8, 40.6) 26 (17, 47) 201 falling falling trend -3.9 (-5.5, -3.1)
Pottawattamie County Urban No 44.8 (39.6, 50.5) 12 (3, 37) 56 falling falling trend -1.9 (-2.8, -1.1)
Poweshiek County Rural No 36.0 (27.0, 47.7) 34 (5, 89) 11 stable stable trend 0.0 (-2.2, 2.2)
Sac County Rural No 27.8 (17.2, 43.8) 76 (6, 95) 4 stable stable trend -2.1 (-4.9, 0.5)
Scott County Urban No 36.1 (32.7, 39.9) 33 (17, 61) 84 falling falling trend -2.7 (-3.5, -1.9)
Shelby County Rural No 26.3 (17.0, 39.9) 82 (12, 95) 5 stable stable trend -1.9 (-4.8, 0.7)
Sioux County Rural Yes 17.7 (12.6, 24.5) 95 (70, 95) 8 falling falling trend -2.5 (-4.3, -0.7)
Story County Urban No 26.6 (22.0, 31.9) 80 (42, 92) 24 falling falling trend -2.6 (-4.0, -1.3)
Tama County Rural No 30.6 (21.7, 42.4) 60 (9, 95) 8 stable stable trend -1.4 (-3.1, 0.3)
Union County Rural No 47.1 (33.7, 64.8) 9 (1, 77) 8 stable stable trend -1.3 (-3.7, 0.9)
Van Buren County Rural No 56.6 (38.6, 81.6) 3 (1, 71) 6 stable stable trend -0.5 (-3.8, 2.7)
Wapello County Rural No 48.2 (39.7, 58.1) 8 (1, 46) 23 falling falling trend -2.1 (-3.3, -0.9)
Warren County Urban No 29.5 (24.0, 36.1) 67 (24, 91) 20 falling falling trend -2.2 (-3.8, -0.6)
Washington County Urban No 32.1 (24.1, 42.3) 55 (11, 92) 11 stable stable trend -0.6 (-2.2, 1.1)
Wayne County Rural No 37.0 (20.2, 62.9) 28 (1, 95) 3 stable stable trend -1.7 (-5.0, 1.1)
Webster County Rural No 36.6 (29.7, 44.8) 30 (7, 79) 20 falling falling trend -2.8 (-4.5, -1.4)
Winnebago County Rural No 30.0 (19.2, 45.6) 65 (4, 95) 5 stable stable trend 17.0 (-7.1, 40.1)
Winneshiek County Rural Yes 24.2 (17.2, 33.8) 88 (27, 95) 7 stable stable trend -2.5 (-5.2, 0.0)
Woodbury County Urban No 40.4 (35.4, 45.8) 20 (7, 53) 50 falling falling trend -1.9 (-3.1, -0.8)
Worth County Rural No 26.8 (15.2, 45.5) 79 (6, 95) 3 falling falling trend -3.7 (-6.7, -1.2)
Wright County Rural No 26.3 (16.7, 39.9) 83 (14, 95) 5 falling falling trend -3.3 (-5.9, -1.2)
Adams County Rural ***
*
*
3 or fewer
*
*
Monroe County Rural ***
*
*
3 or fewer
*
*
Ringgold County Rural ***
*
*
3 or fewer
*
*
Taylor County Rural ***
*
*
3 or fewer
*
*

Notes:
Created by statecancerprofiles.cancer.gov on 03/22/2026 2:34 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