Return to Home Mortality > Table

Death Rates Table

Data Options

Death Rate Report for Florida by County

All Cancer Sites, 2018-2022

Black 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
Florida N/A No 150.6 (148.7, 152.5) N/A 5,018 falling falling trend -1.7 (-2.0, -0.9)
United States 6 N/A No 168.6 (168.1, 169.2) N/A 70,631 falling falling trend -2.0 (-2.1, -2.0)
Union County Rural No 567.3 (437.6, 722.7) 1 (1, 1) 17 stable stable trend 0.6 (-0.4, 1.8)
DeSoto County Rural No 282.4 (201.4, 383.1) 2 (2, 28) 9 falling falling trend -1.7 (-3.1, -0.4)
Washington County Urban No 222.3 (147.5, 319.6) 3 (2, 57) 7 stable stable trend -1.3 (-3.2, 0.7)
Gulf County Rural No 219.6 (139.9, 330.0) 4 (2, 59) 5 stable stable trend -1.2 (-3.2, 0.7)
Okeechobee County Rural No 214.5 (138.0, 315.9) 5 (2, 59) 5 falling falling trend -3.0 (-4.9, -1.1)
Hendry County Rural No 208.6 (151.2, 280.6) 6 (2, 55) 9 stable stable trend -1.1 (-2.7, 0.6)
Levy County Urban No 206.7 (151.8, 275.8) 7 (2, 53) 10 falling falling trend -1.8 (-3.2, -0.4)
Hamilton County Rural No 203.9 (148.3, 274.0) 8 (2, 55) 9 stable stable trend -1.4 (-2.9, 0.1)
Calhoun County Rural No 202.7 (121.7, 320.0) 9 (2, 60) 4
*
*
Jackson County Rural No 198.9 (167.6, 234.6) 10 (3, 39) 30 stable stable trend -0.7 (-1.5, 0.1)
Hardee County Rural No 195.2 (115.2, 309.6) 11 (2, 60) 4 falling falling trend -3.4 (-5.4, -1.4)
Nassau County Urban No 194.4 (149.9, 248.7) 12 (2, 54) 13 stable stable trend -1.4 (-3.1, 0.5)
Putnam County Rural No 192.2 (158.8, 230.7) 13 (3, 45) 25 falling falling trend -2.5 (-11.2, -1.5)
Escambia County Urban No 183.9 (169.8, 198.8) 14 (6, 29) 134 falling falling trend -1.7 (-2.1, -1.3)
Walton County Urban No 181.5 (123.9, 256.0) 15 (2, 59) 7 stable stable trend -1.6 (-3.3, 0.1)
Gadsden County Urban No 175.8 (154.2, 199.6) 16 (5, 45) 51 falling falling trend -1.8 (-2.4, -1.1)
Columbia County Rural No 175.4 (142.8, 213.2) 17 (4, 52) 22 falling falling trend -1.4 (-2.2, -0.5)
Martin County Urban No 174.7 (137.3, 219.3) 18 (3, 56) 16 falling falling trend -1.6 (-2.4, -0.7)
Citrus County Urban No 173.2 (131.0, 225.8) 19 (3, 56) 12 falling falling trend -1.8 (-3.0, -0.3)
Alachua County Urban No 172.7 (156.1, 190.6) 20 (8, 42) 85 falling falling trend -2.2 (-6.7, -1.6)
Duval County Urban No 172.2 (165.0, 179.5) 21 (11, 31) 472 falling falling trend -1.9 (-2.1, -1.6)
Hillsborough County Urban No 172.0 (163.7, 180.7) 22 (11, 33) 350 falling falling trend -2.1 (-2.3, -1.8)
Indian River County Urban No 171.7 (142.0, 205.8) 23 (5, 53) 25 falling falling trend -2.3 (-3.2, -1.4)
Pinellas County Urban No 170.4 (159.2, 182.1) 24 (10, 37) 182 falling falling trend -1.8 (-2.1, -1.3)
Sarasota County Urban No 166.2 (143.6, 191.4) 25 (7, 50) 40 falling falling trend -2.0 (-2.7, -1.3)
Highlands County Urban No 164.9 (133.8, 201.4) 26 (6, 56) 21 falling falling trend -2.2 (-3.1, -1.2)
Bay County Urban No 162.4 (136.9, 191.1) 27 (7, 54) 31 falling falling trend -2.6 (-3.5, -1.6)
Volusia County Urban No 161.6 (147.2, 177.0) 28 (12, 47) 96 falling falling trend -2.3 (-2.8, -1.8)
Jefferson County Urban No 160.6 (119.9, 212.2) 29 (4, 59) 11 stable stable trend -1.4 (-2.9, 0.1)
Madison County Rural No 159.6 (123.3, 204.2) 30 (5, 58) 14 stable stable trend -1.5 (-3.0, 0.1)
Leon County Urban No 158.7 (145.2, 173.0) 31 (14, 48) 110 falling falling trend -1.8 (-2.2, -1.4)
Okaloosa County Urban No 157.8 (129.4, 190.2) 32 (7, 56) 26 falling falling trend -2.1 (-3.1, -0.9)
Osceola County Urban No 157.4 (139.0, 177.6) 33 (11, 51) 57 stable stable trend 1.2 (-0.3, 7.9)
Marion County Urban No 154.9 (140.3, 170.7) 34 (15, 50) 85 rising rising trend 5.7 (0.3, 12.0)
Orange County Urban No 154.2 (147.0, 161.6) 35 (23, 46) 377 stable stable trend -0.8 (-1.7, 2.1)
Polk County Urban No 153.9 (143.3, 165.0) 36 (20, 48) 167 falling falling trend -2.1 (-2.5, -1.7)
Lake County Urban No 153.9 (137.8, 171.4) 37 (14, 52) 70 falling falling trend -2.3 (-2.8, -1.8)
Seminole County Urban No 153.3 (138.2, 169.4) 38 (16, 51) 80 falling falling trend -1.9 (-2.5, -1.3)
Taylor County Rural No 152.4 (104.1, 215.7) 39 (3, 60) 7 falling falling trend -3.4 (-4.6, -2.3)
Manatee County Urban No 151.3 (133.0, 171.3) 40 (14, 54) 53 falling falling trend -2.6 (-3.2, -1.8)
Miami-Dade County Urban No 149.9 (144.8, 155.3) 41 (28, 46) 663 falling falling trend -2.0 (-2.2, -1.8)
Flagler County Urban No 148.4 (124.8, 175.9) 42 (10, 56) 30 falling falling trend -1.8 (-2.7, -0.6)
Hernando County Urban No 145.8 (117.9, 178.5) 43 (11, 59) 20 falling falling trend -1.8 (-2.9, -0.4)
St. Johns County Urban No 145.8 (120.1, 175.3) 44 (11, 58) 24 falling falling trend -3.1 (-3.9, -2.3)
Brevard County Urban No 144.5 (132.4, 157.4) 45 (25, 53) 111 falling falling trend -1.7 (-2.1, -1.1)
Santa Rosa County Urban No 140.8 (102.6, 187.3) 46 (6, 60) 11 stable stable trend -1.6 (-2.9, 0.0)
Wakulla County Urban No 136.6 (85.9, 204.7) 47 (4, 60) 5
*
*
St. Lucie County Urban No 135.0 (123.5, 147.3) 48 (34, 56) 106 falling falling trend -2.6 (-3.1, -2.0)
Broward County Urban No 133.0 (128.6, 137.6) 49 (42, 55) 719 falling falling trend -1.7 (-2.0, -1.0)
Lee County Urban No 132.5 (119.9, 146.1) 50 (34, 57) 83 falling falling trend -2.7 (-3.2, -2.1)
Palm Beach County Urban No 127.6 (121.5, 133.9) 51 (44, 57) 350 falling falling trend -2.7 (-2.9, -2.4)
Monroe County Rural No 126.9 (83.2, 184.1) 52 (7, 60) 6 falling falling trend -3.8 (-5.4, -2.5)
Suwannee County Rural No 124.3 (86.9, 172.8) 53 (10, 60) 7 falling falling trend -2.2 (-3.4, -1.1)
Clay County Urban No 123.6 (101.8, 148.4) 54 (28, 60) 26 falling falling trend -3.0 (-3.9, -1.7)
Pasco County Urban Yes 121.5 (103.4, 141.8) 55 (37, 60) 36 falling falling trend -2.7 (-3.6, -1.5)
Sumter County Urban Yes 118.2 (88.1, 155.7) 56 (21, 60) 11 falling falling trend -1.8 (-3.0, -0.3)
Bradford County Rural Yes 116.3 (75.1, 171.1) 57 (11, 60) 5 stable stable trend -1.9 (-3.9, 0.2)
Baker County Urban Yes 112.5 (65.9, 179.2) 58 (7, 60) 4 falling falling trend -3.7 (-5.8, -1.7)
Collier County Urban Yes 101.0 (84.1, 120.2) 59 (50, 60) 26 stable stable trend -2.5 (-3.7, 3.3)
Charlotte County Urban Yes 93.5 (74.0, 117.3) 60 (51, 60) 17 falling falling trend -3.6 (-5.1, -2.0)
Dixie County Rural ***
*
*
3 or fewer
*
*
Franklin County Rural ***
*
*
3 or fewer
*
*
Gilchrist County Urban ***
*
*
3 or fewer
*
*
Glades County Rural ***
*
*
3 or fewer
*
*
Holmes County Rural ***
*
*
3 or fewer
*
*
Lafayette County Rural ***
*
*
3 or fewer
*
*
Liberty County Rural ***
*
*
3 or fewer
*
*
Notes:
Created by statecancerprofiles.cancer.gov on 11/06/2024 12:35 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 (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.

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