Return to Home Mortality > Table

Death Rates Table

Data Options

Death Rate Report for Idaho 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
Idaho N/A No 142.4 (140.1, 144.8) N/A 2,879 falling falling trend -2.7 (-4.3, -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)
Custer County Rural No 160.7 (121.6, 213.2) 11 (1, 40) 13 stable stable trend 0.0 (-1.2, 1.4)
Owyhee County Urban No 165.4 (133.7, 203.3) 4 (1, 38) 21 stable stable trend -0.2 (-1.3, 1.0)
Lincoln County Rural No 175.6 (123.9, 243.7) 2 (1, 40) 8 stable stable trend -0.3 (-1.8, 1.3)
Fremont County Rural No 128.2 (104.0, 156.9) 33 (6, 42) 21 stable stable trend -0.4 (-1.0, 0.3)
Oneida County Rural Yes 110.5 (76.6, 156.5) 39 (5, 42) 7 stable stable trend -0.4 (-2.0, 1.4)
Clearwater County Rural No 161.1 (134.2, 194.0) 9 (1, 36) 28 stable stable trend -0.5 (-1.4, 0.4)
Franklin County Urban Yes 121.5 (97.4, 149.9) 37 (9, 42) 18 stable stable trend -0.5 (-1.5, 0.7)
Bannock County Urban No 152.6 (140.6, 165.3) 16 (4, 30) 127 stable stable trend -0.6 (-1.1, 0.0)
Butte County Urban No 194.8 (132.1, 281.1) 1 (1, 40) 7 stable stable trend -0.6 (-2.1, 0.9)
Canyon County Urban No 155.4 (147.8, 163.3) 13 (5, 25) 329 falling falling trend -0.6 (-0.9, -0.2)
Latah County Rural No 141.5 (125.0, 159.6) 27 (6, 37) 56 stable stable trend -0.6 (-1.3, 0.1)
Lewis County Rural No 164.8 (115.4, 232.3) 6 (1, 41) 10 stable stable trend -0.6 (-2.1, 1.0)
Benewah County Rural No 162.9 (133.2, 198.5) 8 (1, 37) 23 stable stable trend -0.7 (-1.6, 0.3)
Boundary County Rural No 164.8 (138.1, 195.9) 5 (1, 34) 31 stable stable trend -0.7 (-1.6, 0.4)
Gooding County Rural No 149.3 (124.5, 178.6) 19 (1, 39) 27 stable stable trend -0.7 (-1.5, 0.2)
Idaho County Rural No 152.4 (132.8, 175.0) 17 (2, 35) 48 stable stable trend -0.7 (-1.3, 0.0)
Bingham County Rural No 144.7 (128.8, 162.1) 25 (5, 37) 64 falling falling trend -0.8 (-1.4, -0.2)
Payette County Rural No 171.8 (151.3, 194.7) 3 (1, 27) 54 falling falling trend -0.8 (-1.2, -0.3)
Twin Falls County Urban No 147.5 (136.8, 158.9) 23 (7, 33) 146 falling falling trend -0.8 (-1.1, -0.5)
Bonneville County Urban No 134.3 (124.9, 144.2) 31 (18, 37) 156 falling falling trend -0.9 (-1.4, -0.5)
Lemhi County Rural No 150.6 (123.4, 184.3) 18 (1, 39) 24 stable stable trend -0.9 (-1.8, 0.1)
Nez Perce County Urban No 152.8 (138.6, 168.2) 15 (3, 32) 91 falling falling trend -0.9 (-1.3, -0.5)
Jerome County Urban No 158.2 (133.4, 186.5) 12 (1, 36) 31 falling falling trend -1.0 (-1.6, -0.5)
Cassia County Rural No 139.0 (117.8, 163.3) 28 (5, 39) 32 stable stable trend -1.1 (-2.1, 0.0)
Elmore County Rural No 164.2 (142.5, 188.5) 7 (1, 32) 43 falling falling trend -1.1 (-1.7, -0.4)
Minidoka County Rural No 149.1 (125.5, 176.3) 21 (2, 37) 31 falling falling trend -1.1 (-1.8, -0.3)
Power County Rural No 137.4 (102.8, 182.1) 29 (1, 42) 11 stable stable trend -1.1 (-2.3, 0.1)
Bear Lake County Rural No 123.9 (93.8, 162.1) 36 (4, 42) 12 stable stable trend -1.2 (-2.4, 0.1)
Gem County Urban No 143.4 (123.8, 165.7) 26 (4, 38) 42 falling falling trend -1.2 (-1.8, -0.5)
Ada County Urban No 132.7 (128.3, 137.3) 32 (23, 37) 696 falling falling trend -1.3 (-1.6, -1.0)
Washington County Rural No 146.1 (120.5, 177.4) 24 (2, 39) 25 falling falling trend -1.3 (-2.3, -0.2)
Adams County Rural No 149.2 (112.6, 199.2) 20 (1, 41) 13 falling falling trend -1.5 (-2.7, -0.1)
Madison County Rural Yes 103.4 (84.5, 125.0) 40 (28, 42) 22 falling falling trend -1.7 (-2.4, -0.9)
Boise County Urban Yes 100.3 (75.6, 133.3) 41 (23, 42) 13 falling falling trend -1.9 (-2.9, -0.7)
Jefferson County Urban No 124.3 (105.2, 145.7) 35 (13, 41) 32 falling falling trend -1.9 (-11.1, -0.3)
Valley County Rural Yes 115.7 (93.5, 142.7) 38 (14, 42) 22 falling falling trend -2.0 (-3.2, -0.7)
Blaine County Rural Yes 94.5 (79.1, 112.7) 42 (35, 42) 30 falling falling trend -2.1 (-2.9, -1.1)
Kootenai County Urban No 153.4 (146.1, 161.0) 14 (6, 26) 347 falling falling trend -4.6 (-7.5, -1.2)
Caribou County Rural No 126.9 (95.1, 167.0) 34 (3, 42) 11 stable stable trend -5.0 (-28.8, 0.3)
Shoshone County Rural No 161.0 (135.8, 190.3) 10 (1, 35) 33 falling falling trend -6.9 (-18.4, -1.0)
Bonner County Rural No 136.6 (124.6, 149.7) 30 (12, 37) 107 falling falling trend -8.3 (-14.3, -4.0)
Teton County Rural No 148.1 (113.5, 190.0) 22 (1, 41) 14
*
*
Camas County Rural ***
*
*
3 or fewer
*
*
Clark County Rural ***
*
*
3 or fewer
*
*
Notes:
Created by statecancerprofiles.cancer.gov on 12/13/2024 8:45 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