Return to Home Mortality > Table

Death Rates Table

Data Options

Death Rate Report for Idaho by County

All Cancer Sites, 2018-2022

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 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
Idaho N/A No 139.1 (136.9, 141.4) N/A 3,050 falling falling trend -2.7 (-4.2, -1.6)
United States N/A No 146.0 (145.8, 146.2) N/A 602,955 falling falling trend -1.5 (-1.6, -1.4)
Butte County Urban No 185.0 (126.2, 265.1) 1 (1, 40) 7 stable stable trend -0.7 (-2.2, 0.7)
Lewis County Rural No 168.7 (122.9, 229.3) 2 (1, 40) 11 stable stable trend -0.4 (-1.6, 0.9)
Payette County Rural No 162.7 (143.9, 183.5) 3 (1, 27) 57 falling falling trend -0.9 (-1.4, -0.4)
Lincoln County Rural No 161.4 (116.5, 218.0) 4 (1, 41) 9 stable stable trend -0.6 (-2.0, 0.9)
Elmore County Rural No 157.5 (137.5, 179.5) 5 (1, 31) 47 falling falling trend -1.2 (-1.8, -0.4)
Benewah County Rural No 157.2 (129.2, 190.4) 6 (1, 36) 24 falling falling trend -5.4 (-15.9, -1.1)
Clearwater County Rural No 155.3 (129.8, 186.3) 7 (1, 36) 28 stable stable trend -0.6 (-1.5, 0.3)
Boundary County Rural No 155.3 (130.4, 184.2) 8 (1, 36) 31 stable stable trend -0.9 (-1.8, 0.2)
Shoshone County Rural No 153.7 (129.8, 181.4) 9 (1, 36) 33 falling falling trend -7.4 (-18.2, -1.4)
Bannock County Urban No 153.1 (141.7, 165.2) 10 (2, 27) 139 stable stable trend -0.6 (-1.2, 0.0)
Lemhi County Rural No 152.9 (125.8, 186.2) 11 (1, 37) 25 stable stable trend -0.9 (-1.8, 0.1)
Custer County Rural No 152.5 (115.5, 201.7) 12 (1, 40) 13 stable stable trend -0.2 (-1.3, 1.2)
Kootenai County Urban No 151.4 (144.3, 158.8) 13 (4, 23) 358 falling falling trend -4.6 (-7.7, -1.2)
Nez Perce County Urban No 151.2 (137.7, 165.9) 14 (2, 30) 97 falling falling trend -0.9 (-1.3, -0.4)
Owyhee County Urban No 150.9 (123.8, 182.4) 15 (1, 38) 23 stable stable trend -0.4 (-1.5, 0.8)
Idaho County Rural No 149.9 (131.0, 171.6) 16 (1, 35) 49 stable stable trend -0.7 (-1.3, 0.0)
Canyon County Urban No 147.8 (141.0, 155.0) 17 (5, 26) 361 falling falling trend -0.7 (-1.0, -0.3)
Adams County Rural No 146.6 (111.5, 193.7) 18 (1, 40) 14 falling falling trend -1.7 (-3.0, -0.2)
Jerome County Urban No 144.9 (123.6, 168.7) 19 (1, 38) 34 falling falling trend -1.2 (-1.8, -0.7)
Twin Falls County Urban No 143.2 (133.2, 153.9) 20 (6, 32) 155 falling falling trend -1.7 (-5.7, -0.9)
Bingham County Rural No 140.6 (126.2, 156.2) 21 (5, 36) 72 falling falling trend -0.8 (-1.3, -0.3)
Teton County Rural No 140.0 (107.6, 178.7) 22 (1, 41) 15
*
*
Minidoka County Rural No 139.5 (119.4, 162.2) 23 (3, 38) 35 falling falling trend -1.3 (-1.9, -0.7)
Washington County Rural No 139.5 (116.1, 167.3) 24 (2, 39) 27 falling falling trend -1.4 (-2.3, -0.4)
Gem County Urban No 139.4 (120.8, 160.5) 25 (3, 38) 43 falling falling trend -1.3 (-1.9, -0.6)
Latah County Rural No 138.8 (122.8, 156.4) 26 (4, 37) 57 stable stable trend -0.7 (-1.3, 0.0)
Bonner County Rural No 134.5 (122.8, 147.2) 27 (10, 37) 109 falling falling trend -6.8 (-12.3, -3.4)
Gooding County Rural No 133.2 (111.7, 157.9) 28 (3, 40) 28 falling falling trend -1.1 (-1.9, -0.3)
Ada County Urban No 131.8 (127.5, 136.2) 29 (21, 35) 739 falling falling trend -1.4 (-1.6, -1.1)
Bonneville County Urban No 131.8 (122.8, 141.2) 30 (16, 37) 165 falling falling trend -1.0 (-1.4, -0.5)
Power County Rural No 130.9 (99.9, 169.0) 31 (1, 42) 12 stable stable trend -1.3 (-2.6, 0.0)
Cassia County Rural No 128.4 (109.7, 149.5) 32 (8, 40) 34 falling falling trend -1.3 (-2.3, -0.2)
Bear Lake County Rural No 127.7 (97.0, 166.4) 33 (2, 42) 12 stable stable trend -1.2 (-2.4, 0.1)
Fremont County Rural No 126.6 (103.4, 153.7) 34 (4, 41) 22 stable stable trend -0.4 (-1.1, 0.2)
Caribou County Rural Yes 120.5 (90.3, 158.3) 35 (2, 42) 11 falling falling trend -5.4 (-26.3, -0.2)
Jefferson County Urban Yes 119.0 (101.1, 139.2) 36 (15, 41) 33 falling falling trend -2.0 (-11.0, -0.5)
Franklin County Urban Yes 118.6 (95.4, 145.8) 37 (7, 42) 19 stable stable trend -0.6 (-1.7, 0.7)
Valley County Rural Yes 113.3 (91.9, 139.1) 38 (14, 42) 23 falling falling trend -2.2 (-3.3, -0.9)
Oneida County Rural Yes 110.0 (76.8, 154.9) 39 (3, 42) 7 stable stable trend -0.4 (-2.0, 1.3)
Madison County Rural Yes 99.5 (81.6, 119.8) 40 (29, 42) 22 falling falling trend -1.8 (-2.5, -1.2)
Boise County Urban Yes 96.0 (72.7, 126.6) 41 (25, 42) 14 falling falling trend -2.1 (-3.1, -0.9)
Blaine County Rural Yes 88.3 (74.6, 104.2) 42 (37, 42) 31 falling falling trend -2.4 (-3.2, -1.5)
Camas County Rural ***
*
*
3 or fewer
*
*
Clark County Rural ***
*
*
3 or fewer
*
*
Notes:
Created by statecancerprofiles.cancer.gov on 10/03/2024 10:29 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.

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