Return to Home Mortality > Table

Death Rates Table

Data Options

Death Rate Report for Colorado by County

All Cancer Sites, 2018-2022

White Non-Hispanic, Both Sexes, 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 ascending
Colorado N/A No 127.3 (125.9, 128.7) N/A 6,584 falling falling trend -1.6 (-1.8, -1.5)
United States 6 N/A No 151.3 (151.1, 151.5) N/A 463,400 falling falling trend -1.3 (-1.5, -1.1)
Lincoln County Rural No 176.3 (134.3, 229.8) 6 (1, 46) 13 stable stable trend 1.6 (-0.6, 14.1)
Cheyenne County Rural No 231.3 (152.6, 346.4) 1 (1, 47) 6 stable stable trend 0.1 (-1.8, 2.1)
Huerfano County Rural No 198.0 (155.0, 255.1) 3 (1, 27) 20 stable stable trend 0.0 (-1.3, 1.5)
Las Animas County Rural No 153.3 (127.2, 185.7) 14 (3, 43) 27 stable stable trend 0.0 (-0.9, 1.0)
Baca County Rural No 215.3 (161.3, 286.2) 2 (1, 27) 13 stable stable trend -0.1 (-1.5, 1.1)
Alamosa County Rural No 142.6 (111.6, 180.5) 24 (3, 54) 15 stable stable trend -0.2 (-1.0, 0.7)
Morgan County Rural No 161.5 (140.1, 185.7) 10 (3, 31) 45 stable stable trend -0.2 (-1.0, 0.6)
Rio Blanco County Rural No 161.0 (120.8, 211.3) 11 (1, 52) 11 stable stable trend -0.2 (-1.4, 1.0)
Yuma County Rural No 151.5 (120.2, 189.8) 16 (2, 50) 18 stable stable trend -0.2 (-1.0, 0.6)
Delta County Rural No 161.6 (145.3, 179.8) 9 (3, 26) 84 stable stable trend -0.3 (-0.9, 0.4)
Moffat County Rural No 162.0 (131.9, 197.4) 8 (2, 44) 22 stable stable trend -0.3 (-1.3, 0.8)
Logan County Rural No 144.9 (124.2, 168.6) 21 (5, 44) 38 stable stable trend -0.5 (-1.1, 0.1)
Crowley County Rural No 136.3 (91.7, 200.2) 28 (2, 59) 6 stable stable trend -0.6 (-2.5, 1.4)
Prowers County Rural No 187.2 (152.6, 228.9) 5 (1, 28) 22 stable stable trend -0.7 (-1.7, 0.3)
Pueblo County Urban No 159.9 (150.7, 169.6) 12 (5, 21) 245 falling falling trend -0.7 (-1.0, -0.4)
Park County Urban Yes 111.9 (91.0, 137.0) 46 (17, 57) 27 stable stable trend -0.9 (-2.3, 0.8)
Rio Grande County Rural No 143.8 (112.1, 183.9) 23 (3, 54) 16 stable stable trend -0.9 (-1.8, 0.1)
Bent County Rural Yes 122.3 (84.4, 176.9) 36 (4, 60) 7 stable stable trend -1.0 (-2.7, 0.6)
Chaffee County Rural Yes 116.8 (99.8, 136.7) 41 (19, 55) 37 stable stable trend -1.0 (-2.0, 0.0)
Fremont County Rural No 148.2 (135.2, 162.4) 18 (7, 33) 104 falling falling trend -1.0 (-1.4, -0.6)
Otero County Rural No 164.8 (138.4, 195.9) 7 (2, 35) 31 falling falling trend -1.0 (-1.7, -0.2)
Saguache County Rural No 126.8 (91.3, 177.5) 32 (4, 58) 10 stable stable trend -1.0 (-2.8, 1.3)
Washington County Rural No 152.4 (112.8, 204.2) 15 (1, 54) 11 stable stable trend -1.0 (-2.7, 0.6)
Conejos County Rural No 156.6 (110.2, 218.5) 13 (1, 55) 8 stable stable trend -1.1 (-2.6, 0.6)
Phillips County Rural No 144.5 (100.3, 205.1) 22 (2, 57) 10 stable stable trend -1.1 (-2.5, 0.2)
Sedgwick County Rural No 148.2 (99.2, 226.5) 19 (1, 59) 7 stable stable trend -1.1 (-2.8, 0.4)
El Paso County Urban No 137.8 (133.5, 142.1) 26 (16, 32) 836 falling falling trend -1.2 (-1.4, -1.0)
Montezuma County Rural No 136.9 (119.0, 157.5) 27 (8, 47) 48 falling falling trend -1.2 (-1.7, -0.7)
Arapahoe County Urban No 125.4 (121.0, 129.9) 33 (25, 42) 657 falling falling trend -1.3 (-1.5, -1.1)
Larimer County Urban Yes 120.1 (115.1, 125.2) 38 (29, 47) 466 falling falling trend -1.3 (-1.6, -1.1)
Montrose County Rural Yes 118.2 (106.1, 131.7) 39 (23, 53) 80 falling falling trend -1.3 (-1.9, -0.7)
Grand County Rural Yes 99.9 (78.5, 125.8) 52 (24, 60) 18 stable stable trend -1.4 (-2.7, 0.2)
Mesa County Urban No 137.8 (130.4, 145.5) 25 (15, 34) 280 falling falling trend -1.4 (-1.7, -1.2)
Custer County Rural Yes 111.4 (76.7, 161.0) 47 (6, 60) 10 stable stable trend -1.5 (-2.9, 0.4)
Summit County Rural Yes 72.0 (56.3, 90.7) 58 (51, 60) 19 stable stable trend -1.5 (-3.0, 0.6)
Boulder County 8 Urban Yes 115.7 (110.4, 121.2) 42 (32, 50) 380 falling falling trend -1.7 (-2.2, -1.2)
Garfield County Rural Yes 120.2 (107.0, 134.6) 37 (20, 52) 66 falling falling trend -1.7 (-2.2, -1.3)
Jefferson County 8 Urban No 124.3 (120.3, 128.3) 34 (26, 42) 794 falling falling trend -1.7 (-1.9, -1.4)
Kit Carson County Rural Yes 108.0 (79.5, 145.6) 51 (13, 60) 11 falling falling trend -1.7 (-2.8, -0.6)
Weld County 8 Urban No 130.7 (124.4, 137.3) 30 (20, 39) 333 falling falling trend -1.7 (-2.2, -1.1)
Douglas County Urban Yes 112.3 (107.0, 117.8) 45 (35, 52) 356 falling falling trend -1.8 (-2.1, -1.3)
La Plata County Rural Yes 110.6 (98.8, 123.5) 48 (28, 55) 71 falling falling trend -1.8 (-2.3, -1.2)
Adams County 8 Urban No 145.1 (138.9, 151.6) 20 (12, 28) 430 falling falling trend -1.9 (-2.4, -1.4)
Archuleta County Rural Yes 91.5 (72.7, 115.4) 55 (32, 60) 20 falling falling trend -1.9 (-2.9, -0.6)
Denver County Urban No 129.1 (124.2, 134.1) 31 (23, 39) 549 falling falling trend -1.9 (-4.5, -1.5)
Dolores County Rural Yes 92.3 (55.3, 157.5) 54 (10, 60) 4 stable stable trend -2.0 (-4.1, 0.2)
Elbert County Urban Yes 117.5 (99.7, 138.0) 40 (18, 55) 35 falling falling trend -2.0 (-2.7, -1.0)
Ouray County Rural Yes 108.8 (76.0, 155.7) 50 (7, 60) 9 stable stable trend -2.0 (-4.3, 0.9)
Gunnison County Rural Yes 112.6 (88.8, 141.0) 44 (15, 58) 17 falling falling trend -2.1 (-3.2, -0.7)
Teller County Urban No 122.8 (105.1, 143.2) 35 (15, 53) 44 falling falling trend -2.1 (-2.9, -1.2)
Pitkin County Rural Yes 69.1 (54.5, 87.3) 60 (52, 60) 17 falling falling trend -2.3 (-3.3, -0.9)
Clear Creek County Urban Yes 89.0 (66.8, 118.1) 56 (29, 60) 13 falling falling trend -2.4 (-3.6, -1.1)
Lake County Rural Yes 83.4 (49.9, 132.0) 57 (16, 60) 4 falling falling trend -2.4 (-4.1, -0.8)
Routt County Rural Yes 99.4 (82.3, 119.3) 53 (30, 59) 27 falling falling trend -2.4 (-3.3, -1.2)
Eagle County Rural Yes 70.8 (59.1, 84.2) 59 (53, 60) 30 falling falling trend -3.4 (-4.3, -2.1)
Broomfield County 8 Urban Yes 109.9 (99.2, 121.5) 49 (31, 55) 79 falling falling trend -5.5 (-7.1, -4.3)
Gilpin County Urban Yes 114.1 (74.4, 169.0) 43 (4, 60) 7
*
*
Jackson County Rural No 194.6 (117.5, 322.7) 4 (1, 57) 4
*
*
Kiowa County Rural No 150.6 (79.1, 269.4) 17 (1, 60) 3
*
*
San Miguel County Rural No 132.4 (92.2, 184.0) 29 (3, 58) 9
*
*
Costilla County Rural ***
*
*
3 or fewer
*
*
Hinsdale County Rural ***
*
*
3 or fewer
*
*
Mineral County Rural ***
*
*
3 or fewer
*
*
San Juan County Rural ***
*
*
3 or fewer
*
*
Notes:
Created by statecancerprofiles.cancer.gov on 12/13/2024 6:13 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 (19 age groups: <1, 1-4, 5-9, ... , 80-84, 85+). 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.

Healthy People 2030 Objectives provided by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
6 Hispanic mortality recent trend data for the United States has been excluded for the following states: Louisiana, New Hampshire, and Oklahoma. The data on Hispanic and non-Hispanic mortality for these states may be unreliable for the time period used in the generation of the recent trend (1990 - 2022) and has been excluded from the calculation of the United States recent trend. This was based on the NCHS Policy.
8 Due to data availability issues, the time period used in the calculation of the joinpoint regression model may differ for selected counties.


Φ Rural-Urban Continuum Codes provided by the USDA.

* 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).

Please note that the data comes from different sources. Due to different years of data availability, most of the trends are AAPCs based on APCs but some are APCs calculated in SEER*Stat. Please refer to the source for each graph for additional information.

Data for United States does not include Puerto Rico.

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.

Return to Top