Return to Home Mortality > Table

Death Rates Table

Data Options

Death Rate Report for Indiana 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
Indiana N/A No 167.9 (166.5, 169.2) N/A 12,327 falling falling trend -1.1 (-1.2, -1.1)
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)
Wabash County Rural No 186.9 (169.3, 206.1) 23 (2, 77) 91 stable stable trend 0.3 (-0.5, 4.5)
Greene County Rural No 204.5 (185.6, 225.1) 6 (1, 45) 90 stable stable trend 0.2 (-0.4, 0.7)
Benton County Urban No 187.7 (153.6, 228.0) 22 (1, 91) 22 stable stable trend -0.1 (-1.0, 0.7)
Jay County Rural No 179.2 (156.5, 204.5) 33 (2, 89) 47 stable stable trend -0.1 (-0.9, 0.6)
Union County Rural No 177.7 (141.3, 221.7) 40 (1, 92) 17 stable stable trend -0.1 (-1.2, 1.0)
Clinton County Rural No 182.5 (163.7, 203.2) 29 (3, 82) 72 stable stable trend -0.2 (-0.7, 0.4)
Fountain County Rural No 229.4 (202.8, 259.0) 1 (1, 29) 56 stable stable trend -0.2 (-0.9, 0.4)
Orange County Rural No 206.6 (182.8, 233.1) 3 (1, 52) 58 stable stable trend -0.2 (-0.8, 0.4)
Adams County Rural No 165.4 (147.9, 184.6) 62 (15, 90) 68 stable stable trend -0.3 (-0.9, 0.3)
Franklin County Urban No 176.4 (155.5, 199.7) 41 (4, 89) 55 stable stable trend -0.3 (-1.0, 0.5)
Grant County Rural No 198.3 (184.8, 212.7) 10 (2, 42) 170 stable stable trend -0.3 (-0.7, 0.1)
Henry County Rural No 198.1 (182.9, 214.3) 11 (1, 50) 132 stable stable trend -0.3 (-0.6, 0.1)
Pulaski County Rural No 204.5 (175.1, 238.2) 7 (1, 78) 38 stable stable trend -0.3 (-1.0, 0.5)
Pike County Rural No 188.8 (160.3, 221.5) 20 (1, 89) 33 stable stable trend -0.4 (-1.3, 0.6)
Putnam County Rural No 196.8 (178.9, 216.1) 13 (1, 57) 92 stable stable trend -0.4 (-0.8, 0.1)
Randolph County Rural No 186.8 (166.8, 208.9) 24 (2, 81) 68 stable stable trend -0.4 (-1.0, 0.3)
Wells County Urban No 167.4 (149.0, 187.7) 60 (11, 90) 63 stable stable trend -0.4 (-1.1, 0.3)
Jefferson County Rural No 194.9 (176.3, 215.1) 15 (1, 64) 85 stable stable trend -0.5 (-1.0, 0.1)
Blackford County Rural No 202.0 (173.9, 234.2) 8 (1, 75) 38 stable stable trend -0.6 (-1.2, 0.1)
Crawford County Rural No 174.7 (145.8, 208.6) 46 (1, 91) 28 stable stable trend -0.6 (-1.4, 0.2)
DeKalb County Rural No 169.3 (153.6, 186.2) 55 (14, 89) 90 falling falling trend -0.6 (-1.0, -0.1)
Decatur County Rural No 178.4 (158.2, 200.6) 37 (4, 87) 59 stable stable trend -0.6 (-1.2, 0.0)
Fayette County Rural No 198.9 (177.0, 223.1) 9 (1, 66) 64 falling falling trend -0.6 (-1.1, -0.1)
Fulton County Rural No 192.2 (169.0, 218.0) 16 (1, 82) 53 falling falling trend -0.6 (-1.1, -0.1)
Huntington County Rural No 180.7 (164.0, 198.8) 30 (5, 81) 90 falling falling trend -0.6 (-1.1, -0.2)
Lawrence County Rural No 183.2 (168.4, 199.1) 27 (5, 71) 119 falling falling trend -0.6 (-1.0, -0.2)
Martin County Rural No 175.4 (145.4, 210.6) 45 (2, 91) 26 stable stable trend -0.6 (-1.7, 0.4)
Noble County Rural No 175.6 (159.9, 192.6) 44 (9, 84) 97 falling falling trend -0.6 (-1.1, -0.1)
Rush County Rural No 198.0 (172.5, 226.5) 12 (1, 78) 46 stable stable trend -0.6 (-1.2, 0.0)
Scott County Rural No 220.5 (197.0, 246.1) 2 (1, 30) 68 stable stable trend -0.6 (-1.3, 0.1)
Shelby County Urban No 171.0 (156.2, 187.0) 52 (13, 86) 103 stable stable trend -0.6 (-1.2, 0.0)
Tipton County Urban No 170.6 (146.9, 197.5) 54 (4, 91) 39 stable stable trend -0.6 (-1.3, 0.1)
Whitley County Urban No 189.6 (171.8, 209.0) 17 (2, 73) 87 stable stable trend -0.6 (-1.0, 0.0)
Clay County Urban No 183.5 (163.8, 205.3) 26 (3, 82) 66 falling falling trend -0.7 (-1.3, -0.1)
Delaware County Urban No 175.8 (165.6, 186.6) 43 (14, 72) 233 falling falling trend -0.7 (-1.0, -0.5)
Knox County Rural No 183.1 (166.1, 201.6) 28 (4, 79) 89 falling falling trend -0.7 (-1.1, -0.4)
LaGrange County Rural No 164.3 (146.8, 183.4) 64 (13, 90) 66 falling falling trend -0.7 (-1.2, -0.1)
Perry County Rural No 162.1 (140.4, 186.5) 69 (8, 91) 42 stable stable trend -0.7 (-1.5, 0.2)
Switzerland County Rural No 188.0 (155.2, 226.3) 21 (1, 90) 24 stable stable trend -0.7 (-1.8, 0.4)
Vigo County Urban No 189.0 (178.0, 200.5) 18 (6, 52) 233 falling falling trend -0.7 (-1.0, -0.3)
White County Rural No 179.0 (159.2, 201.0) 35 (4, 87) 64 falling falling trend -0.7 (-1.3, -0.2)
Bartholomew County Urban No 168.6 (156.9, 181.0) 58 (21, 85) 161 falling falling trend -0.8 (-1.3, -0.3)
Carroll County Urban No 151.4 (131.7, 173.7) 87 (27, 92) 45 falling falling trend -0.8 (-1.4, -0.1)
Harrison County Urban No 173.3 (157.3, 190.7) 48 (10, 86) 91 falling falling trend -0.8 (-1.3, -0.2)
Howard County Urban No 180.0 (168.6, 192.2) 31 (9, 71) 195 falling falling trend -0.8 (-1.1, -0.4)
Kosciusko County Rural No 166.9 (155.4, 179.1) 61 (23, 87) 165 falling falling trend -0.8 (-1.1, -0.4)
Madison County Urban No 173.6 (164.5, 183.2) 47 (20, 74) 283 falling falling trend -0.8 (-1.1, -0.6)
St. Joseph County Urban No 169.0 (162.1, 176.1) 56 (31, 76) 485 falling falling trend -0.8 (-1.0, -0.7)
Sullivan County Urban No 178.1 (155.9, 203.0) 38 (3, 89) 48 falling falling trend -0.8 (-1.4, -0.2)
Vermillion County Urban No 205.4 (178.2, 235.9) 4 (1, 65) 44 stable stable trend -0.8 (-1.5, 0.0)
Daviess County Rural No 158.5 (140.7, 178.0) 78 (22, 91) 60 falling falling trend -0.9 (-1.3, -0.4)
Dearborn County Urban No 179.3 (164.8, 194.9) 32 (7, 79) 119 falling falling trend -0.9 (-1.5, -0.4)
Dubois County Rural No 144.1 (130.1, 159.3) 90 (54, 92) 81 falling falling trend -0.9 (-1.4, -0.4)
Elkhart County Urban No 155.2 (147.7, 163.1) 84 (56, 89) 333 falling falling trend -0.9 (-1.3, -0.7)
Hancock County Urban No 154.6 (143.6, 166.4) 86 (45, 91) 150 falling falling trend -0.9 (-1.3, -0.5)
Jennings County Rural No 204.7 (183.3, 228.0) 5 (1, 54) 71 falling falling trend -0.9 (-4.9, -0.4)
Morgan County Urban No 178.6 (166.4, 191.6) 36 (11, 75) 167 stable stable trend -0.9 (-3.3, 0.0)
Allen County Urban No 159.8 (154.0, 165.8) 76 (49, 86) 604 falling falling trend -1.0 (-1.2, -0.9)
Cass County Rural No 170.8 (154.3, 188.9) 53 (10, 89) 83 falling falling trend -1.0 (-1.4, -0.5)
Jasper County Urban No 163.4 (146.5, 181.8) 67 (16, 90) 72 falling falling trend -1.0 (-1.6, -0.3)
Johnson County Urban No 163.0 (154.6, 171.7) 68 (37, 86) 291 falling falling trend -1.0 (-1.2, -0.7)
Marshall County Rural No 159.2 (144.6, 175.0) 77 (26, 90) 93 falling falling trend -1.0 (-1.4, -0.6)
Posey County Urban No 159.9 (141.3, 180.5) 75 (18, 91) 57 falling falling trend -1.0 (-1.5, -0.6)
Steuben County Rural No 164.2 (148.0, 181.9) 65 (16, 91) 81 falling falling trend -1.0 (-1.5, -0.5)
Vanderburgh County Urban No 172.8 (164.8, 181.1) 49 (23, 73) 372 falling falling trend -1.0 (-1.2, -0.8)
Marion County Urban No 171.8 (167.3, 176.3) 50 (33, 66) 1,181 falling falling trend -1.1 (-1.2, -0.9)
Miami County Rural No 184.5 (166.8, 203.7) 25 (3, 79) 83 falling falling trend -1.1 (-1.9, -0.7)
Montgomery County Rural No 163.4 (147.6, 180.5) 66 (19, 90) 83 falling falling trend -1.1 (-2.0, -0.7)
Parke County Rural No 155.5 (132.8, 181.5) 82 (15, 92) 36 falling falling trend -1.1 (-1.7, -0.4)
Porter County Urban No 160.1 (152.2, 168.3) 74 (44, 88) 326 falling falling trend -1.1 (-1.4, -0.8)
Gibson County Rural No 155.0 (138.3, 173.4) 85 (26, 91) 65 falling falling trend -1.2 (-2.1, -0.5)
Washington County Urban No 179.1 (159.5, 200.5) 34 (4, 87) 65 falling falling trend -1.2 (-4.1, -0.7)
Clark County Urban No 176.3 (166.2, 186.8) 42 (16, 73) 241 falling falling trend -1.3 (-1.6, -1.0)
Floyd County Urban No 168.6 (156.9, 181.0) 57 (22, 85) 163 falling falling trend -1.3 (-1.6, -0.9)
Monroe County Urban No 145.5 (136.3, 155.1) 89 (68, 91) 198 falling falling trend -1.3 (-1.5, -1.0)
Spencer County Rural No 158.3 (137.2, 182.2) 79 (15, 92) 44 falling falling trend -1.3 (-1.8, -0.7)
Warrick County Urban No 156.2 (144.2, 169.1) 80 (39, 90) 130 falling falling trend -1.3 (-1.7, -0.8)
Boone County Urban No 160.2 (147.4, 173.9) 72 (30, 90) 119 falling falling trend -1.4 (-4.2, -1.0)
Tippecanoe County Urban No 155.2 (146.4, 164.5) 83 (50, 90) 239 falling falling trend -1.4 (-1.7, -1.1)
Brown County Urban No 155.6 (133.7, 180.9) 81 (12, 92) 40 falling falling trend -1.5 (-5.2, -0.7)
Hendricks County Urban No 148.1 (140.0, 156.6) 88 (68, 91) 259 falling falling trend -1.5 (-1.7, -1.3)
Hamilton County Urban No 126.3 (120.7, 132.0) 91 (89, 92) 404 falling falling trend -1.6 (-1.8, -1.3)
Lake County Urban No 161.4 (155.9, 167.0) 70 (49, 83) 690 falling falling trend -1.7 (-2.3, -1.4)
Wayne County Rural No 178.0 (165.4, 191.3) 39 (10, 75) 158 falling falling trend -1.7 (-8.4, -0.8)
Owen County Urban No 188.9 (166.7, 213.6) 19 (1, 81) 57 stable stable trend -1.8 (-3.4, 1.0)
Starke County Rural No 195.9 (174.2, 219.7) 14 (1, 69) 64 falling falling trend -1.8 (-7.5, -0.6)
Warren County Urban No 123.9 (98.1, 155.7) 92 (54, 92) 16 falling falling trend -1.9 (-3.1, -0.7)
Ripley County Rural No 164.6 (146.6, 184.5) 63 (13, 90) 63 falling falling trend -2.0 (-9.9, -0.8)
Newton County Urban No 171.4 (146.2, 200.4) 51 (3, 91) 35 falling falling trend -2.2 (-10.5, -1.2)
Ohio County Urban No 160.2 (127.3, 201.4) 73 (3, 92) 17 falling falling trend -2.2 (-4.4, -1.1)
LaPorte County Urban No 160.8 (151.2, 170.9) 71 (39, 88) 223 falling falling trend -2.9 (-8.0, -1.2)
Jackson County Rural No 167.5 (152.6, 183.7) 59 (15, 90) 96 falling falling trend -3.4 (-9.0, -1.2)
Notes:
Created by statecancerprofiles.cancer.gov on 12/13/2024 8:09 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.

Φ Rural-Urban Continuum Codes provided by the USDA.


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