Return to Home Mortality > Table

Death Rates Table

Data Options

Death Rate Report for Iowa by County

All Cancer Sites, 2016-2020

All Races (includes Hispanic), Both Sexes, Ages <65

Sorted by Rate
County
 sort alphabetically by name ascending
Met Healthy People Objective of 122.7?
Age-Adjusted Death Rate
deaths per 100,000
(95% Confidence Interval)
 sort by rate ascending
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
Iowa Yes 47.1 (46.0, 48.2) N/A 1,617 falling falling trend -3.3 (-5.9, -0.6)
United States Yes 47.3 (47.2, 47.4) N/A 168,038 falling falling trend -2.3 (-2.6, -2.0)
Union County Yes 82.6 (60.4, 110.8) 1 (1, 51) 10 stable stable trend -0.4 (-1.8, 1.0)
Clarke County Yes 79.3 (55.6, 110.3) 2 (1, 63) 8 stable stable trend -0.8 (-3.2, 1.6)
Wayne County Yes 73.6 (45.4, 113.7) 3 (1, 93) 5 stable stable trend -1.2 (-2.9, 0.5)
Tama County Yes 71.5 (54.6, 92.4) 4 (1, 59) 14 stable stable trend -0.6 (-2.0, 0.8)
Palo Alto County Yes 71.3 (49.0, 101.4) 5 (1, 86) 8 stable stable trend -1.3 (-2.7, 0.2)
Montgomery County Yes 70.8 (49.6, 99.0) 6 (1, 81) 8 stable stable trend -1.1 (-2.4, 0.3)
Sac County Yes 69.8 (48.5, 98.6) 7 (1, 80) 8 stable stable trend 0.1 (-1.6, 1.9)
Cass County Yes 69.2 (50.0, 94.1) 8 (1, 79) 10 stable stable trend -0.5 (-1.7, 0.7)
Ringgold County Yes 69.0 (43.2, 108.6) 9 (1, 95) 5 stable stable trend 1.7 (-0.6, 4.1)
Louisa County Yes 67.1 (47.5, 92.7) 10 (1, 89) 8 stable stable trend -0.6 (-2.1, 0.9)
Decatur County Yes 63.5 (39.3, 97.7) 11 (1, 95) 5 stable stable trend -1.6 (-3.4, 0.4)
Adair County Yes 62.6 (40.2, 94.8) 12 (1, 95) 6 stable stable trend 0.5 (-0.9, 2.0)
Wapello County Yes 60.7 (50.0, 73.3) 13 (2, 64) 25 falling falling trend -1.2 (-1.9, -0.4)
Emmet County Yes 60.7 (38.8, 90.9) 14 (1, 95) 6 stable stable trend -0.7 (-2.3, 1.0)
Monroe County Yes 60.6 (39.0, 91.2) 15 (1, 96) 5 stable stable trend -0.5 (-2.0, 1.0)
Keokuk County Yes 60.5 (40.7, 87.3) 16 (1, 93) 7 stable stable trend -0.4 (-2.0, 1.3)
Muscatine County Yes 59.9 (50.0, 71.2) 17 (4, 61) 28 falling falling trend -1.1 (-2.0, -0.2)
Butler County Yes 58.5 (42.7, 79.1) 18 (1, 89) 10 falling falling trend -1.3 (-2.5, -0.1)
Van Buren County Yes 58.4 (35.4, 92.0) 19 (1, 97) 5
*
*
Hardin County Yes 58.1 (43.5, 76.7) 20 (1, 85) 13 falling falling trend -1.7 (-2.8, -0.6)
Pottawattamie County Yes 57.2 (50.6, 64.5) 21 (8, 55) 60 falling falling trend -1.4 (-1.8, -1.0)
Cherokee County Yes 57.0 (38.8, 81.8) 22 (1, 95) 8 stable stable trend -0.9 (-2.4, 0.7)
Woodbury County Yes 56.9 (50.5, 64.0) 23 (8, 58) 61 stable stable trend -0.6 (-1.1, 0.0)
Kossuth County Yes 56.7 (40.5, 77.9) 24 (1, 92) 10 stable stable trend -1.1 (-2.5, 0.3)
Pocahontas County Yes 56.4 (35.0, 88.6) 25 (1, 96) 5 stable stable trend -1.5 (-3.5, 0.5)
Madison County Yes 55.9 (41.6, 74.1) 26 (2, 90) 11 stable stable trend 0.0 (-1.2, 1.2)
Davis County Yes 54.5 (34.0, 83.2) 27 (1, 97) 5
*
*
Mills County Yes 54.4 (39.4, 74.0) 28 (3, 93) 10 stable stable trend -1.3 (-2.6, 0.1)
Clayton County Yes 54.4 (39.8, 73.2) 29 (3, 92) 12 stable stable trend -0.8 (-1.9, 0.4)
Hamilton County Yes 53.5 (38.6, 72.9) 30 (3, 94) 10 stable stable trend -1.2 (-2.3, 0.0)
Lee County Yes 53.2 (43.3, 64.9) 31 (6, 80) 23 falling falling trend -1.9 (-2.6, -1.1)
Des Moines County Yes 52.6 (43.2, 63.6) 32 (8, 81) 24 stable stable trend -0.8 (-1.7, 0.0)
Jasper County Yes 52.5 (42.7, 64.1) 33 (7, 85) 22 falling falling trend -1.3 (-2.1, -0.4)
Washington County Yes 52.4 (39.4, 68.6) 34 (4, 90) 13 stable stable trend -0.8 (-1.8, 0.3)
Clinton County Yes 52.1 (43.7, 61.9) 35 (9, 77) 30 falling falling trend -1.0 (-1.8, -0.2)
Monona County Yes 51.6 (32.1, 79.9) 36 (1, 97) 5 stable stable trend -1.3 (-3.0, 0.4)
Calhoun County Yes 51.4 (32.9, 77.4) 37 (1, 97) 6 stable stable trend -0.4 (-2.2, 1.4)
Fremont County Yes 51.2 (30.6, 82.4) 38 (1, 97) 5 falling falling trend -2.7 (-4.9, -0.4)
Scott County Yes 51.0 (46.5, 56.0) 39 (18, 65) 98 falling falling trend -1.4 (-1.8, -0.9)
Fayette County Yes 50.8 (37.5, 67.7) 40 (4, 93) 12 falling falling trend -1.9 (-3.0, -0.7)
Henry County Yes 50.8 (38.1, 66.7) 41 (5, 94) 12 stable stable trend -1.0 (-2.3, 0.3)
Osceola County Yes 50.5 (28.5, 84.8) 42 (1, 97) 4
*
*
Harrison County Yes 49.9 (35.2, 69.3) 43 (4, 95) 9 falling falling trend -1.6 (-2.5, -0.6)
Audubon County Yes 49.8 (30.2, 81.9) 44 (1, 97) 4 stable stable trend -1.4 (-3.3, 0.6)
Marion County Yes 49.7 (39.6, 61.8) 45 (9, 90) 18 falling falling trend -2.1 (-3.0, -1.1)
Grundy County Yes 49.7 (33.9, 71.0) 46 (3, 96) 7 stable stable trend -0.8 (-2.6, 1.1)
Cerro Gordo County Yes 49.3 (40.3, 59.9) 47 (11, 86) 25 falling falling trend -1.5 (-2.4, -0.6)
Wright County Yes 49.0 (32.2, 71.8) 48 (2, 97) 6 stable stable trend -0.5 (-2.1, 1.1)
Webster County Yes 48.9 (39.1, 60.5) 49 (9, 90) 20 falling falling trend -1.1 (-1.9, -0.3)
Franklin County Yes 48.1 (31.7, 71.4) 50 (3, 97) 6 stable stable trend -0.2 (-1.7, 1.4)
Chickasaw County Yes 48.0 (31.4, 70.8) 51 (3, 97) 6 stable stable trend -1.3 (-3.0, 0.5)
Allamakee County Yes 47.8 (31.8, 69.3) 52 (4, 96) 7 stable stable trend -0.1 (-2.0, 1.9)
Mahaska County Yes 47.4 (35.3, 62.6) 53 (8, 93) 12 stable stable trend -0.7 (-1.8, 0.3)
Black Hawk County Yes 46.9 (41.6, 52.8) 54 (26, 79) 62 falling falling trend -1.5 (-2.0, -0.9)
Humboldt County Yes 45.4 (28.3, 70.2) 55 (3, 97) 5
*
*
Polk County Yes 45.4 (42.7, 48.2) 56 (39, 74) 225 falling falling trend -1.8 (-2.0, -1.5)
Floyd County Yes 45.1 (32.1, 62.4) 57 (9, 96) 9 falling falling trend -2.6 (-3.8, -1.4)
Linn County Yes 45.0 (41.1, 49.1) 58 (36, 79) 108 falling falling trend -1.6 (-2.0, -1.1)
Dickinson County Yes 44.8 (32.0, 61.9) 59 (8, 96) 10 stable stable trend -1.4 (-3.0, 0.2)
Worth County Yes 44.8 (25.7, 73.8) 60 (2, 97) 4 stable stable trend -1.3 (-3.3, 0.6)
Greene County Yes 44.2 (27.7, 68.6) 61 (4, 97) 5 stable stable trend -0.8 (-2.5, 1.0)
Lyon County Yes 44.2 (29.1, 65.0) 62 (5, 97) 6 stable stable trend -1.5 (-3.1, 0.2)
Jackson County Yes 44.1 (32.0, 59.9) 63 (9, 96) 10 stable stable trend -1.2 (-2.5, 0.0)
Carroll County Yes 43.9 (32.0, 59.3) 64 (11, 96) 10 stable stable trend -1.6 (-3.3, 0.1)
Jefferson County Yes 43.7 (30.6, 61.2) 65 (6, 97) 9 falling falling trend -2.0 (-3.5, -0.4)
Jones County Yes 43.7 (32.3, 58.3) 66 (12, 95) 11 stable stable trend -0.6 (-1.9, 0.8)
Warren County Yes 43.1 (35.4, 52.1) 67 (23, 92) 23 falling falling trend -1.5 (-2.4, -0.6)
Plymouth County Yes 42.8 (32.3, 55.9) 68 (15, 96) 12 falling falling trend -1.9 (-3.2, -0.7)
Page County Yes 42.6 (30.2, 59.5) 69 (11, 97) 9 stable stable trend -1.4 (-3.0, 0.2)
Cedar County Yes 42.6 (30.6, 58.3) 70 (11, 96) 9 stable stable trend -0.4 (-1.6, 0.8)
Poweshiek County Yes 42.4 (29.8, 59.2) 71 (11, 97) 9 stable stable trend -1.1 (-2.6, 0.4)
Appanoose County Yes 42.2 (29.5, 60.1) 72 (11, 97) 8 stable stable trend -1.2 (-3.0, 0.6)
Iowa County Yes 41.7 (29.6, 57.9) 73 (13, 97) 9 falling falling trend -2.3 (-3.5, -1.0)
Howard County Yes 41.6 (25.8, 65.0) 74 (7, 97) 5 stable stable trend -1.0 (-3.0, 1.0)
Marshall County Yes 41.5 (33.1, 51.7) 75 (22, 94) 18 falling falling trend -2.0 (-2.8, -1.2)
Shelby County Yes 41.2 (26.6, 62.2) 76 (9, 97) 6 falling falling trend -1.8 (-3.4, -0.3)
Mitchell County Yes 41.1 (26.5, 62.1) 77 (7, 97) 6 falling falling trend -2.7 (-4.2, -1.2)
Benton County Yes 40.9 (30.9, 53.5) 78 (20, 96) 13 falling falling trend -1.8 (-2.9, -0.6)
Guthrie County Yes 40.7 (25.4, 62.9) 79 (6, 97) 5 stable stable trend -0.9 (-2.4, 0.6)
Clay County Yes 40.6 (28.7, 56.5) 80 (13, 97) 9 falling falling trend -1.3 (-2.4, -0.2)
Buchanan County Yes 40.5 (29.3, 54.8) 81 (16, 97) 10 falling falling trend -1.9 (-3.2, -0.7)
Crawford County Yes 40.3 (28.3, 56.2) 82 (13, 97) 8 falling falling trend -1.4 (-2.6, -0.1)
Dubuque County Yes 39.5 (33.9, 45.7) 83 (45, 93) 41 falling falling trend -2.0 (-2.5, -1.4)
Lucas County Yes 39.5 (24.4, 62.4) 84 (7, 97) 5 falling falling trend -2.0 (-3.5, -0.5)
O'Brien County Yes 39.0 (26.1, 56.9) 85 (12, 97) 7 falling falling trend -1.7 (-3.1, -0.3)
Story County Yes 38.0 (31.7, 45.1) 86 (44, 95) 29 falling falling trend -1.4 (-2.0, -0.8)
Johnson County Yes 37.8 (33.1, 43.0) 87 (51, 94) 49 falling falling trend -2.0 (-2.6, -1.4)
Ida County Yes 37.4 (21.4, 63.4) 88 (7, 97) 4
*
*
Dallas County Yes 34.8 (29.4, 40.9) 89 (60, 96) 30 falling falling trend -2.3 (-3.1, -1.5)
Winnebago County Yes 34.8 (21.2, 55.1) 90 (14, 97) 5
*
*
Buena Vista County Yes 34.8 (24.1, 48.8) 91 (28, 97) 8 stable stable trend -1.4 (-3.0, 0.3)
Bremer County Yes 34.6 (24.8, 47.4) 92 (28, 97) 9 falling falling trend -1.9 (-3.0, -0.8)
Delaware County Yes 33.6 (22.4, 48.8) 93 (24, 97) 7 falling falling trend -2.0 (-3.3, -0.6)
Boone County Yes 32.3 (23.7, 43.4) 94 (43, 97) 10 stable stable trend -1.3 (-2.6, 0.0)
Winneshiek County Yes 29.4 (19.8, 42.8) 95 (43, 97) 7 falling falling trend -2.6 (-4.0, -1.2)
Sioux County Yes 26.3 (18.6, 36.0) 96 (67, 97) 8 falling falling trend -1.9 (-3.2, -0.6)
Hancock County Yes 24.7 (13.5, 42.8) 97 (40, 97) 3 falling falling trend -3.0 (-4.9, -1.2)
Adams County ***
*
*
3 or fewer
*
*
Taylor County ***
*
*
3 or fewer
*
*
Notes:
Created by statecancerprofiles.cancer.gov on 01/29/2023 5:17 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.

* 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.

Interpret Rankings provides insight into interpreting cancer incidence statistics. When the population size for a denominator is small, the rates may be unstable. A rate is unstable when a small change in the numerator (e.g., only one or two additional cases) has a dramatic effect on the calculated rate.

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