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), Male, All Ages

Sorted by Ruralurban

County
 sort alphabetically by name ascending
2023 Rural-Urban Continuum Codes Φ
 sort by rural urban ascending
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 No 179.2 (176.4, 182.0) N/A 3,362 falling falling trend -2.2 (-3.9, -1.2)
United States N/A No 173.2 (173.0, 173.5) N/A 317,428 falling falling trend -1.8 (-1.8, -1.8)
Benton County Urban No 159.2 (132.8, 189.6) 85 (20, 99) 27 falling falling trend -1.7 (-2.4, -1.0)
Black Hawk County Urban No 189.5 (175.3, 204.6) 39 (16, 73) 137 falling falling trend -1.0 (-1.4, -0.5)
Boone County Urban No 206.7 (175.1, 242.5) 19 (2, 79) 32 falling falling trend -1.0 (-2.8, -0.4)
Bremer County Urban No 180.6 (151.5, 213.9) 49 (8, 96) 28 falling falling trend -1.4 (-2.3, -0.6)
Dallas County Urban No 142.0 (126.0, 159.4) 95 (60, 99) 60 falling falling trend -2.9 (-4.9, -2.1)
Dubuque County Urban No 170.3 (155.4, 186.3) 74 (31, 90) 100 falling falling trend -1.7 (-2.1, -1.2)
Grundy County Urban No 190.0 (150.5, 237.6) 38 (2, 97) 16 stable stable trend -1.0 (-2.2, 0.2)
Guthrie County Urban No 178.8 (138.7, 228.6) 61 (4, 99) 15 stable stable trend -0.8 (-1.8, 0.1)
Harrison County Urban No 178.8 (142.8, 222.0) 60 (6, 99) 18 falling falling trend -1.9 (-2.7, -1.2)
Jasper County Urban No 179.2 (156.2, 204.8) 58 (13, 91) 45 falling falling trend -1.2 (-1.8, -0.5)
Johnson County Urban No 135.5 (122.6, 149.3) 97 (76, 99) 87 falling falling trend -6.4 (-12.0, -2.5)
Jones County Urban No 148.3 (121.9, 179.4) 92 (29, 99) 23 falling falling trend -2.1 (-2.8, -1.4)
Linn County Urban No 168.0 (157.8, 178.6) 76 (45, 87) 213 falling falling trend -1.7 (-2.0, -1.4)
Madison County Urban No 243.9 (199.8, 295.1) 3 (1, 66) 23 stable stable trend -1.1 (-2.3, 0.0)
Mills County Urban No 180.3 (142.8, 225.4) 51 (4, 98) 17 stable stable trend -1.0 (-2.3, 0.5)
Polk County Urban No 190.6 (182.3, 199.2) 36 (21, 61) 426 falling falling trend -1.3 (-1.6, -1.1)
Pottawattamie County Urban No 212.6 (195.2, 231.1) 16 (4, 49) 117 falling falling trend -1.1 (-1.5, -0.6)
Scott County Urban No 180.5 (168.5, 193.1) 50 (25, 79) 178 falling falling trend -1.4 (-1.8, -1.0)
Story County Urban No 142.4 (126.3, 160.0) 93 (60, 99) 59 falling falling trend -4.9 (-11.6, -1.9)
Warren County Urban No 161.1 (140.6, 183.8) 80 (31, 98) 47 falling falling trend -1.4 (-2.0, -0.7)
Washington County Urban No 137.0 (110.8, 167.9) 96 (39, 99) 20 falling falling trend -10.1 (-23.7, -1.3)
Woodbury County Urban No 179.3 (163.2, 196.5) 57 (20, 86) 97 falling falling trend -1.3 (-1.7, -0.9)
Adair County Rural No 142.3 (101.6, 196.6) 94 (14, 99) 8 stable stable trend -0.5 (-1.7, 0.7)
Adams County Rural No 179.9 (111.1, 280.1) 52 (1, 99) 5 stable stable trend -1.0 (-2.4, 0.3)
Allamakee County Rural No 179.8 (143.1, 223.8) 53 (5, 98) 19 stable stable trend -1.0 (-2.2, 0.1)
Appanoose County Rural No 176.0 (140.4, 219.4) 67 (6, 99) 17 stable stable trend -0.8 (-2.0, 0.4)
Audubon County Rural No 181.8 (127.4, 255.4) 47 (1, 99) 8 stable stable trend -1.0 (-2.9, 0.8)
Buchanan County Rural No 184.6 (151.8, 222.7) 43 (5, 97) 23 falling falling trend -1.4 (-2.2, -0.6)
Buena Vista County Rural No 160.2 (128.6, 197.3) 84 (15, 99) 19 falling falling trend -1.8 (-2.7, -1.0)
Butler County Rural No 176.3 (141.4, 218.2) 66 (6, 98) 19 falling falling trend -1.7 (-2.7, -0.7)
Calhoun County Rural No 193.2 (149.3, 247.3) 30 (2, 98) 14 stable stable trend -1.0 (-2.1, 0.0)
Carroll County Rural No 176.8 (147.2, 211.3) 65 (10, 97) 26 falling falling trend -0.9 (-1.7, -0.1)
Cass County Rural No 197.7 (158.2, 245.2) 25 (1, 94) 19 stable stable trend -0.6 (-1.8, 0.6)
Cedar County Rural No 179.4 (147.5, 216.9) 56 (7, 97) 24 stable stable trend -0.8 (-1.9, 0.4)
Cerro Gordo County Rural No 178.7 (157.4, 202.3) 62 (14, 89) 54 falling falling trend -1.7 (-2.2, -1.3)
Cherokee County Rural No 167.0 (130.4, 212.2) 77 (8, 99) 16 stable stable trend -0.5 (-1.9, 0.8)
Chickasaw County Rural No 191.2 (151.5, 239.3) 33 (3, 97) 17 stable stable trend -0.3 (-1.3, 0.8)
Clarke County Rural No 233.7 (182.3, 296.0) 5 (1, 86) 15 stable stable trend 0.0 (-1.3, 1.5)
Clay County Rural No 151.9 (122.1, 187.8) 89 (22, 99) 19 falling falling trend -1.1 (-2.1, -0.1)
Clayton County Rural No 186.4 (154.6, 223.9) 42 (5, 94) 26 falling falling trend -1.0 (-1.7, -0.3)
Clinton County Rural No 199.7 (177.7, 223.9) 24 (6, 74) 63 falling falling trend -1.3 (-1.9, -0.8)
Crawford County Rural No 160.2 (126.3, 200.7) 83 (10, 99) 16 falling falling trend -1.0 (-2.0, -0.1)
Davis County Rural No 220.9 (167.2, 287.0) 11 (1, 93) 12 stable stable trend 0.0 (-1.6, 1.6)
Decatur County Rural No 230.0 (173.6, 300.6) 6 (1, 93) 12 stable stable trend -0.5 (-2.0, 1.0)
Delaware County Rural No 181.1 (148.3, 219.7) 48 (6, 97) 23 falling falling trend -1.2 (-2.0, -0.5)
Des Moines County Rural No 196.2 (172.5, 222.5) 26 (6, 80) 52 falling falling trend -1.4 (-1.9, -0.9)
Dickinson County Rural No 164.4 (135.8, 198.4) 78 (16, 99) 25 falling falling trend -1.3 (-2.1, -0.5)
Emmet County Rural No 239.8 (187.6, 303.4) 4 (1, 79) 16 stable stable trend -0.3 (-1.4, 0.9)
Fayette County Rural No 164.0 (133.8, 199.5) 79 (15, 99) 22 falling falling trend -1.4 (-2.4, -0.5)
Floyd County Rural No 182.9 (149.4, 222.8) 44 (5, 96) 21 falling falling trend -1.1 (-2.0, -0.3)
Franklin County Rural No 179.7 (137.8, 231.7) 54 (3, 99) 13 stable stable trend -0.6 (-1.7, 0.5)
Fremont County Rural No 182.6 (133.4, 247.0) 45 (2, 99) 10 stable stable trend -1.4 (-2.9, 0.1)
Greene County Rural No 263.6 (208.3, 330.5) 2 (1, 59) 17 stable stable trend 0.5 (-0.7, 1.7)
Hamilton County Rural No 160.7 (127.8, 200.3) 82 (12, 99) 17 falling falling trend -2.0 (-2.8, -1.4)
Hancock County Rural No 170.4 (132.0, 218.1) 73 (6, 99) 14 falling falling trend -1.3 (-2.4, -0.2)
Hardin County Rural No 179.4 (147.3, 217.5) 55 (6, 97) 23 falling falling trend -1.2 (-2.0, -0.4)
Henry County Rural No 186.6 (154.5, 223.8) 41 (5, 95) 25 falling falling trend -1.0 (-1.8, -0.2)
Howard County Rural No 194.1 (149.4, 249.6) 29 (1, 99) 13 stable stable trend -0.7 (-1.9, 0.6)
Humboldt County Rural No 160.9 (121.5, 210.9) 81 (8, 99) 12 falling falling trend -1.8 (-3.0, -0.8)
Ida County Rural No 210.0 (158.9, 275.3) 18 (1, 97) 12 stable stable trend -0.4 (-1.6, 0.9)
Iowa County Rural No 223.9 (185.3, 268.8) 9 (1, 78) 25 stable stable trend -0.5 (-1.4, 0.5)
Jackson County Rural No 192.8 (160.9, 230.0) 31 (4, 92) 27 falling falling trend -1.1 (-2.1, -0.2)
Jefferson County Rural No 149.3 (117.5, 188.0) 91 (20, 99) 17 stable stable trend -1.1 (-2.1, 0.1)
Keokuk County Rural No 196.2 (151.5, 251.2) 27 (2, 98) 14 falling falling trend -1.1 (-2.1, -0.1)
Kossuth County Rural No 151.1 (120.9, 187.9) 90 (22, 99) 19 falling falling trend -1.4 (-2.3, -0.5)
Lee County Rural No 190.1 (165.4, 217.8) 37 (8, 85) 45 falling falling trend -1.9 (-2.9, -1.3)
Louisa County Rural No 188.6 (144.3, 242.9) 40 (2, 99) 13 stable stable trend -0.6 (-2.0, 0.9)
Lucas County Rural No 210.0 (163.5, 267.8) 17 (1, 97) 14 stable stable trend -0.7 (-1.7, 0.5)
Lyon County Rural No 200.3 (157.2, 252.3) 23 (1, 96) 15 stable stable trend 0.2 (-1.8, 10.6)
Mahaska County Rural No 178.3 (147.4, 214.1) 63 (8, 97) 24 stable stable trend -0.7 (-1.3, 0.0)
Marion County Rural No 195.5 (169.1, 225.1) 28 (5, 84) 41 falling falling trend -0.8 (-1.3, -0.3)
Marshall County Rural No 191.1 (166.8, 218.0) 34 (7, 85) 46 falling falling trend -1.5 (-2.2, -0.8)
Mitchell County Rural No 158.0 (120.5, 205.0) 86 (8, 99) 13 stable stable trend -0.9 (-2.0, 0.2)
Monona County Rural No 182.0 (139.7, 235.7) 46 (3, 99) 13 falling falling trend -1.6 (-2.8, -0.6)
Monroe County Rural No 215.7 (160.8, 284.7) 12 (1, 96) 11 stable stable trend 0.2 (-1.2, 1.7)
Montgomery County Rural No 224.8 (177.4, 282.4) 8 (1, 86) 16 stable stable trend -0.4 (-1.3, 0.5)
Muscatine County Rural No 177.9 (154.4, 204.0) 64 (12, 93) 44 falling falling trend -1.3 (-2.0, -0.6)
O'Brien County Rural No 175.2 (139.2, 218.5) 68 (5, 99) 18 falling falling trend -1.3 (-2.1, -0.5)
Osceola County Rural No 168.7 (121.5, 231.8) 75 (4, 99) 9 falling falling trend -1.7 (-2.8, -0.6)
Page County Rural No 192.6 (157.5, 234.1) 32 (3, 94) 22 stable stable trend -0.6 (-1.6, 0.4)
Palo Alto County Rural No 229.9 (179.9, 291.1) 7 (1, 86) 15 falling falling trend -1.1 (-2.1, -0.2)
Plymouth County Rural No 174.9 (146.5, 207.5) 69 (10, 97) 28 falling falling trend -0.9 (-1.7, -0.2)
Pocahontas County Rural No 213.1 (161.7, 278.8) 15 (1, 94) 13 stable stable trend -0.5 (-1.6, 0.6)
Poweshiek County Rural No 170.7 (140.1, 206.9) 71 (12, 98) 23 stable stable trend -0.9 (-1.8, 0.0)
Ringgold County Rural No 273.3 (201.0, 367.4) 1 (1, 79) 10 stable stable trend 1.1 (-0.5, 2.8)
Sac County Rural No 157.1 (118.3, 206.3) 87 (8, 99) 12 stable stable trend -1.0 (-2.1, 0.0)
Shelby County Rural No 171.3 (134.7, 216.4) 70 (7, 99) 16 stable stable trend -0.8 (-1.9, 0.3)
Sioux County Rural No 134.4 (112.3, 159.7) 98 (61, 99) 27 falling falling trend -1.3 (-1.9, -0.6)
Tama County Rural No 190.6 (155.7, 231.7) 35 (3, 95) 22 stable stable trend -0.7 (-1.5, 0.2)
Taylor County Rural No 179.0 (127.4, 247.5) 59 (1, 99) 8 stable stable trend -0.6 (-1.7, 0.4)
Union County Rural No 223.9 (178.5, 278.1) 10 (1, 84) 18 stable stable trend -0.7 (-1.6, 0.3)
Van Buren County Rural No 213.9 (162.2, 279.3) 13 (1, 97) 12 stable stable trend 0.0 (-1.2, 1.3)
Wapello County Rural No 213.2 (185.6, 243.9) 14 (2, 72) 45 falling falling trend -1.1 (-1.9, -0.4)
Wayne County Rural No 200.6 (145.5, 272.1) 22 (1, 99) 9 stable stable trend -0.7 (-2.0, 0.5)
Webster County Rural No 203.9 (178.2, 232.5) 20 (4, 75) 48 falling falling trend -1.1 (-1.7, -0.5)
Winnebago County Rural No 202.3 (157.7, 256.8) 21 (1, 95) 15 stable stable trend -0.6 (-1.7, 0.5)
Winneshiek County Rural No 123.6 (99.5, 152.7) 99 (70, 99) 19 falling falling trend -1.8 (-2.9, -0.8)
Worth County Rural No 170.7 (124.8, 230.4) 72 (3, 99) 9 falling falling trend -1.3 (-2.6, -0.1)
Wright County Rural No 152.8 (119.2, 194.2) 88 (16, 99) 15 falling falling trend -2.3 (-4.3, -1.7)
Notes:
Created by statecancerprofiles.cancer.gov on 12/05/2024 5:36 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.


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