Return to Home Mortality > Table

Death Rates Table

Data Options

Death Rate Report for Iowa by County

All Cancer Sites, 2018-2022

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

Sorted by Name
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
Iowa N/A Yes 44.7 (43.6, 45.7) N/A 1,535 falling falling trend -1.5 (-1.6, -1.4)
United States N/A Yes 45.0 (44.9, 45.1) N/A 161,722 falling falling trend -2.1 (-2.4, -1.9)
Wright County Rural Yes 44.2 (28.8, 65.5) 59 (3, 96) 6 stable stable trend -1.0 (-2.8, 0.8)
Woodbury County Urban Yes 51.5 (45.5, 58.2) 32 (10, 65) 56 stable stable trend -0.7 (-1.3, 0.0)
Winneshiek County Rural Yes 25.5 (16.5, 38.4) 95 (56, 96) 6 falling falling trend -2.6 (-3.9, -1.3)
Winnebago County Rural Yes 32.9 (19.6, 53.0) 91 (12, 96) 4
*
*
Webster County Rural Yes 46.9 (37.2, 58.6) 46 (9, 88) 18 falling falling trend -1.1 (-2.0, -0.3)
Wayne County Rural Yes 60.0 (35.7, 95.9) 13 (1, 95) 4 stable stable trend -1.7 (-3.5, 0.1)
Washington County Urban Yes 45.6 (33.5, 60.9) 53 (7, 94) 11 stable stable trend 0.0 (-1.7, 6.5)
Warren County Urban Yes 34.3 (27.6, 42.2) 87 (42, 95) 19 falling falling trend -1.8 (-2.7, -0.9)
Wapello County Rural Yes 62.1 (51.1, 74.9) 11 (1, 53) 25 falling falling trend -1.1 (-1.8, -0.3)
Van Buren County Rural Yes 60.2 (37.2, 93.4) 12 (1, 94) 5
*
*
Union County Rural Yes 67.5 (47.7, 93.4) 6 (1, 75) 9 stable stable trend -0.7 (-2.2, 0.9)
Tama County Rural Yes 55.0 (39.9, 74.3) 20 (1, 88) 10 stable stable trend -0.7 (-2.1, 0.8)
Story County Urban Yes 33.8 (27.9, 40.7) 90 (53, 95) 25 falling falling trend -1.5 (-2.2, -0.8)
Sioux County Rural Yes 24.4 (17.2, 33.5) 96 (70, 96) 8 falling falling trend -2.3 (-3.8, -0.9)
Shelby County Rural Yes 35.7 (22.4, 55.3) 82 (12, 96) 5 falling falling trend -2.1 (-3.9, -0.5)
Scott County Urban Yes 43.3 (39.1, 47.8) 61 (32, 78) 85 falling falling trend -6.5 (-14.1, -1.6)
Sac County Rural Yes 44.3 (27.7, 68.6) 58 (2, 96) 5 stable stable trend -0.4 (-2.3, 1.8)
Ringgold County Rural Yes 67.0 (40.3, 108.6) 7 (1, 94) 4 stable stable trend 1.4 (-0.9, 4.3)
Poweshiek County Rural Yes 31.6 (21.1, 46.2) 93 (28, 96) 7 falling falling trend -26.5 (-52.2, -1.5)
Pottawattamie County Urban Yes 54.1 (47.7, 61.2) 24 (7, 57) 57 falling falling trend -1.4 (-1.9, -1.0)
Polk County Urban Yes 45.6 (43.0, 48.4) 52 (33, 69) 230 falling falling trend -1.7 (-2.0, -1.5)
Pocahontas County Rural Yes 53.6 (32.4, 85.4) 25 (1, 96) 5 stable stable trend -1.6 (-4.1, 0.6)
Plymouth County Rural Yes 37.4 (27.6, 50.0) 78 (21, 96) 11 falling falling trend -2.3 (-3.8, -0.9)
Palo Alto County Rural Yes 71.9 (49.4, 102.2) 2 (1, 77) 8 stable stable trend -0.7 (-2.2, 0.8)
Page County Rural Yes 44.9 (31.9, 62.4) 55 (6, 95) 9 stable stable trend -1.5 (-3.3, 0.2)
Osceola County Rural Yes 40.0 (22.0, 69.6) 71 (2, 96) 3
*
*
O'Brien County Rural Yes 50.4 (34.6, 71.3) 37 (1, 94) 8 falling falling trend -1.4 (-2.8, -0.1)
Muscatine County Rural Yes 47.9 (39.1, 58.3) 44 (9, 83) 22 falling falling trend -1.3 (-2.3, -0.3)
Montgomery County Rural Yes 65.7 (45.9, 92.2) 8 (1, 81) 8 stable stable trend -1.3 (-2.7, 0.0)
Monroe County Rural Yes 42.0 (24.5, 68.7) 66 (2, 96) 4 falling falling trend -19.1 (-42.8, -1.2)
Monona County Rural Yes 31.9 (17.5, 55.0) 92 (13, 96) 3 stable stable trend -1.8 (-4.0, 0.4)
Mitchell County Rural Yes 41.2 (27.0, 61.8) 69 (6, 96) 6 falling falling trend -2.4 (-4.0, -0.9)
Mills County Urban Yes 52.0 (36.3, 72.8) 30 (1, 93) 8 stable stable trend -1.1 (-2.5, 0.4)
Marshall County Rural Yes 43.3 (34.8, 53.5) 60 (16, 90) 20 falling falling trend -1.9 (-2.9, -1.0)
Marion County Rural Yes 54.6 (44.0, 67.3) 21 (3, 76) 20 falling falling trend -1.9 (-3.0, -0.7)
Mahaska County Rural Yes 48.7 (36.3, 64.3) 43 (4, 91) 12 stable stable trend -0.9 (-1.8, 0.2)
Madison County Urban Yes 53.6 (39.6, 71.5) 26 (2, 87) 10 stable stable trend -0.3 (-1.4, 1.0)
Lyon County Rural Yes 50.4 (33.6, 73.1) 36 (1, 95) 6 stable stable trend -1.3 (-3.1, 0.6)
Lucas County Rural Yes 42.6 (27.0, 65.9) 65 (4, 96) 5 falling falling trend -2.1 (-3.9, -0.5)
Louisa County Rural Yes 63.8 (43.7, 90.5) 9 (1, 87) 7 stable stable trend -0.3 (-1.9, 1.4)
Linn County Urban Yes 42.0 (38.4, 45.9) 67 (39, 80) 104 falling falling trend -1.5 (-2.0, -1.1)
Lee County Rural Yes 46.0 (36.8, 57.2) 49 (12, 90) 19 falling falling trend -1.9 (-2.7, -1.1)
Kossuth County Rural Yes 51.6 (36.3, 71.8) 31 (2, 93) 9 stable stable trend -1.1 (-2.6, 0.2)
Keokuk County Rural Yes 59.1 (38.9, 86.8) 14 (1, 92) 6 stable stable trend -0.3 (-1.8, 1.4)
Jones County Urban Yes 37.1 (26.7, 50.9) 79 (19, 96) 9 falling falling trend -9.5 (-39.6, -1.2)
Johnson County Urban Yes 33.9 (29.5, 38.8) 89 (62, 95) 44 falling falling trend -2.1 (-2.7, -1.4)
Jefferson County Rural Yes 38.0 (25.3, 55.7) 76 (11, 96) 6 falling falling trend -1.8 (-3.5, -0.1)
Jasper County Urban Yes 45.6 (36.6, 56.4) 54 (12, 88) 19 falling falling trend -1.3 (-2.3, -0.4)
Jackson County Rural Yes 46.4 (34.0, 62.3) 47 (6, 93) 11 falling falling trend -1.5 (-2.7, -0.3)
Iowa County Rural Yes 48.7 (35.4, 66.1) 42 (3, 93) 10 falling falling trend -1.8 (-3.1, -0.4)
Ida County Rural Yes 40.8 (23.8, 67.7) 70 (3, 96) 4
*
*
Humboldt County Rural Yes 34.7 (21.0, 55.5) 85 (11, 96) 4
*
*
Howard County Rural Yes 41.5 (25.2, 65.5) 68 (3, 96) 5 stable stable trend -1.1 (-3.0, 1.0)
Henry County Rural Yes 50.0 (37.6, 65.7) 40 (3, 90) 12 stable stable trend -1.2 (-2.4, 0.2)
Harrison County Urban Yes 39.1 (26.6, 56.2) 73 (10, 96) 7 falling falling trend -2.0 (-3.3, -0.7)
Hardin County Rural Yes 55.2 (40.7, 73.8) 19 (1, 88) 11 falling falling trend -1.6 (-2.7, -0.6)
Hancock County Rural Yes 39.6 (24.2, 62.0) 72 (5, 96) 5 falling falling trend -2.2 (-4.2, -0.4)
Hamilton County Rural Yes 44.8 (31.5, 62.6) 56 (5, 94) 9 falling falling trend -1.6 (-2.9, -0.4)
Guthrie County Urban Yes 37.6 (22.7, 59.6) 77 (6, 96) 5 stable stable trend -0.9 (-2.6, 0.7)
Grundy County Urban Yes 29.2 (17.5, 46.6) 94 (28, 96) 4 stable stable trend -1.2 (-3.4, 1.0)
Greene County Rural Yes 67.7 (45.0, 98.9) 4 (1, 88) 7 stable stable trend 0.5 (-1.3, 2.5)
Fremont County Rural Yes 54.2 (32.2, 87.2) 23 (1, 96) 5 stable stable trend 2.7 (-1.4, 18.8)
Franklin County Rural Yes 53.5 (35.1, 79.0) 27 (1, 94) 6 stable stable trend 0.0 (-1.5, 1.6)
Floyd County Rural Yes 52.2 (38.0, 70.8) 29 (2, 91) 10 falling falling trend -2.1 (-3.4, -1.0)
Fayette County Rural Yes 51.0 (37.3, 68.5) 34 (3, 91) 11 falling falling trend -1.8 (-3.1, -0.6)
Emmet County Rural Yes 69.1 (46.6, 99.5) 3 (1, 84) 7 stable stable trend -0.1 (-1.8, 1.5)
Dubuque County Urban Yes 38.6 (33.3, 44.7) 75 (40, 91) 42 falling falling trend -1.9 (-2.5, -1.4)
Dickinson County Rural Yes 46.0 (32.8, 63.4) 50 (5, 95) 10 falling falling trend -1.6 (-3.0, -0.1)
Des Moines County Rural Yes 52.4 (42.9, 63.7) 28 (5, 76) 23 falling falling trend -0.8 (-1.6, -0.1)
Delaware County Rural Yes 34.0 (23.3, 48.6) 88 (24, 96) 8 falling falling trend -2.0 (-3.5, -0.6)
Decatur County Rural Yes 58.5 (36.0, 90.8) 16 (1, 95) 5 stable stable trend -1.0 (-3.2, 1.1)
Davis County Rural Yes 76.0 (50.6, 109.8) 1 (1, 80) 6
*
*
Dallas County Urban Yes 35.7 (30.5, 41.6) 83 (49, 94) 34 falling falling trend -2.2 (-2.9, -1.3)
Crawford County Rural Yes 38.7 (26.4, 55.2) 74 (10, 96) 7 falling falling trend -1.4 (-2.7, -0.1)
Clinton County Rural Yes 54.5 (45.6, 64.7) 22 (5, 68) 30 falling falling trend -1.1 (-2.0, -0.2)
Clayton County Rural Yes 56.0 (40.8, 75.6) 17 (1, 87) 11 stable stable trend -0.7 (-1.7, 0.4)
Clay County Rural Yes 34.8 (23.6, 50.1) 84 (16, 96) 7 falling falling trend -1.7 (-2.9, -0.4)
Clarke County Rural Yes 67.7 (46.2, 96.4) 5 (1, 86) 7 stable stable trend -1.1 (-3.5, 1.5)
Chickasaw County Rural Yes 55.6 (37.1, 80.7) 18 (1, 92) 7 stable stable trend -0.8 (-2.6, 1.1)
Cherokee County Rural Yes 45.8 (30.1, 67.9) 51 (3, 96) 7 stable stable trend -1.0 (-2.7, 0.7)
Cerro Gordo County Rural Yes 51.0 (41.6, 62.0) 35 (7, 79) 25 falling falling trend -1.6 (-2.5, -0.7)
Cedar County Rural Yes 43.1 (31.1, 58.7) 63 (9, 95) 10 stable stable trend -0.5 (-1.6, 0.7)
Cass County Rural Yes 59.1 (41.7, 82.1) 15 (1, 89) 9 stable stable trend -0.8 (-2.1, 0.6)
Carroll County Rural Yes 34.5 (24.6, 47.6) 86 (25, 96) 9 stable stable trend -1.7 (-3.4, 0.0)
Calhoun County Rural Yes 50.3 (31.5, 76.8) 38 (1, 96) 5 stable stable trend -0.8 (-2.8, 1.2)
Butler County Rural Yes 47.9 (32.8, 68.1) 45 (3, 94) 7 falling falling trend -1.4 (-2.8, -0.1)
Buena Vista County Rural Yes 36.6 (25.4, 51.3) 81 (14, 96) 8 stable stable trend -1.5 (-3.3, 0.3)
Buchanan County Rural Yes 37.0 (26.3, 51.0) 80 (17, 96) 9 falling falling trend -2.1 (-3.6, -0.7)
Bremer County Urban Yes 43.3 (31.7, 57.8) 62 (10, 94) 10 stable stable trend 17.5 (-1.9, 31.7)
Boone County Urban Yes 46.1 (35.4, 59.4) 48 (8, 92) 14 stable stable trend -1.0 (-2.2, 0.2)
Black Hawk County Urban Yes 44.4 (39.2, 50.2) 57 (27, 80) 57 falling falling trend -1.6 (-2.1, -1.1)
Benton County Urban Yes 42.9 (32.4, 55.9) 64 (11, 94) 13 falling falling trend -1.8 (-2.8, -0.6)
Audubon County Rural Yes 62.2 (37.9, 99.3) 10 (1, 94) 5 stable stable trend -1.0 (-3.1, 1.1)
Appanoose County Rural Yes 49.5 (34.7, 69.8) 41 (3, 94) 8 stable stable trend -1.2 (-2.9, 0.5)
Allamakee County Rural Yes 50.2 (33.6, 72.5) 39 (2, 94) 7 stable stable trend -0.4 (-2.3, 1.5)
Adair County Rural Yes 51.4 (31.8, 80.4) 33 (1, 96) 5 stable stable trend 0.1 (-1.5, 1.8)
Adams County Rural ***
*
*
3 or fewer
*
*
Taylor County Rural ***
*
*
3 or fewer
*
*
Worth County Rural ***
*
*
3 or fewer
*
*
Notes:
Created by statecancerprofiles.cancer.gov on 10/14/2024 7:12 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.

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