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), Female, All Ages

Sorted by Rate

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 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 N/A No 128.4 (126.3, 130.6) N/A 2,960 falling falling trend -1.2 (-1.5, -1.0)
United States N/A No 126.4 (126.2, 126.6) N/A 285,526 falling falling trend -1.3 (-1.4, -1.1)
Van Buren County Rural No 194.2 (143.2, 259.9) 1 (1, 65) 11 stable stable trend 0.4 (-1.1, 2.0)
Palo Alto County Rural No 192.2 (147.5, 248.4) 2 (1, 62) 15 stable stable trend 23.1 (-0.2, 39.3)
Appanoose County Rural No 165.1 (132.3, 205.6) 3 (1, 76) 19 stable stable trend 0.6 (-0.6, 1.8)
Wapello County Rural No 162.5 (140.5, 187.2) 4 (1, 51) 42 stable stable trend -0.5 (-1.1, 0.1)
Clarke County Rural No 162.3 (119.4, 216.5) 5 (1, 88) 11 stable stable trend 0.1 (-1.4, 1.7)
Adair County Rural No 162.0 (118.2, 219.5) 6 (1, 93) 11 stable stable trend 0.2 (-0.7, 1.0)
Howard County Rural No 161.3 (122.7, 210.2) 7 (1, 86) 13 stable stable trend -0.1 (-1.3, 1.1)
Montgomery County Rural No 161.3 (122.6, 209.9) 8 (1, 86) 13 falling falling trend -26.0 (-34.9, -16.1)
Woodbury County Urban No 161.1 (147.4, 175.7) 9 (2, 33) 107 stable stable trend -0.2 (-0.7, 0.3)
Ida County Rural No 159.5 (115.9, 217.5) 10 (1, 95) 10 stable stable trend -0.4 (-2.0, 1.1)
Mahaska County Rural No 157.8 (131.3, 188.8) 11 (1, 67) 28 stable stable trend 0.1 (-0.6, 0.9)
Tama County Rural No 155.7 (124.5, 193.1) 12 (1, 83) 20 stable stable trend -0.3 (-1.1, 0.5)
Clayton County Rural No 153.8 (124.1, 189.5) 13 (1, 81) 23 stable stable trend -0.8 (-1.9, 0.3)
Mitchell County Rural No 152.9 (119.0, 195.8) 14 (1, 88) 15 stable stable trend -1.0 (-2.5, 0.4)
Clinton County Rural No 147.2 (129.8, 166.7) 15 (3, 65) 55 stable stable trend -0.6 (-1.1, 0.0)
Louisa County Rural No 146.4 (110.1, 192.5) 16 (1, 96) 12 stable stable trend -1.0 (-2.6, 0.6)
Ringgold County Rural No 145.9 (96.6, 217.7) 17 (1, 98) 6 stable stable trend 0.6 (-1.1, 2.2)
Pottawattamie County Urban No 145.5 (132.6, 159.4) 18 (5, 54) 99 falling falling trend -0.9 (-3.9, -0.3)
Chickasaw County Rural No 144.8 (108.8, 190.2) 19 (1, 96) 13 stable stable trend -0.9 (-2.2, 0.4)
Marion County Rural No 144.1 (123.3, 167.8) 20 (3, 73) 38 stable stable trend 0.0 (-0.7, 0.7)
Monona County Rural No 143.4 (106.5, 191.5) 21 (1, 96) 12 stable stable trend -0.7 (-1.8, 0.4)
Cass County Rural No 143.2 (113.9, 179.7) 22 (1, 90) 18 stable stable trend -0.5 (-1.4, 0.4)
Lee County Rural No 142.0 (122.3, 164.6) 23 (4, 74) 40 falling falling trend -1.0 (-1.7, -0.4)
Hardin County Rural No 141.3 (113.7, 174.7) 24 (2, 90) 22 falling falling trend -1.1 (-1.9, -0.3)
Boone County Urban No 140.8 (117.5, 167.9) 25 (2, 85) 28 stable stable trend -0.5 (-1.3, 0.3)
Muscatine County Rural No 140.4 (121.6, 161.4) 26 (5, 77) 43 stable stable trend -0.6 (-1.4, 0.3)
Cherokee County Rural No 139.4 (108.7, 178.3) 27 (1, 93) 16 stable stable trend -0.8 (-1.6, 0.1)
Jefferson County Rural No 138.5 (109.9, 174.0) 28 (2, 93) 19 stable stable trend -0.7 (-1.5, 0.1)
Polk County Urban No 138.2 (132.1, 144.6) 29 (17, 51) 396 falling falling trend -0.8 (-1.1, -0.6)
Mills County Urban No 138.1 (106.5, 177.1) 30 (1, 96) 14 stable stable trend -0.8 (-1.8, 0.2)
Jasper County Urban No 137.7 (118.1, 159.9) 31 (5, 82) 40 falling falling trend -0.9 (-1.5, -0.2)
Monroe County Rural No 137.1 (97.6, 190.1) 32 (1, 98) 8 stable stable trend 0.1 (-1.2, 1.4)
Buchanan County Rural No 136.8 (111.5, 166.9) 33 (3, 91) 21 stable stable trend -1.2 (-2.3, 0.0)
Washington County Urban No 136.8 (111.9, 166.1) 34 (3, 91) 24 stable stable trend 0.2 (-0.7, 1.1)
Osceola County Rural No 135.3 (91.8, 196.2) 35 (1, 98) 7 stable stable trend 0.7 (-1.1, 2.7)
Des Moines County Rural No 133.6 (115.5, 154.1) 36 (7, 84) 43 stable stable trend -0.3 (-1.1, 0.5)
Wayne County Rural No 132.7 (89.8, 191.9) 37 (1, 98) 7 stable stable trend -0.9 (-2.2, 0.4)
Sac County Rural No 132.6 (98.5, 177.1) 38 (1, 98) 12 stable stable trend -0.4 (-1.6, 0.7)
Henry County Rural No 131.1 (106.1, 161.2) 39 (4, 94) 21 stable stable trend -0.8 (-1.7, 0.2)
Wright County Rural No 131.1 (100.1, 170.2) 40 (2, 97) 15 stable stable trend -0.7 (-1.9, 0.3)
Allamakee County Rural No 130.4 (100.9, 167.2) 41 (3, 97) 15 stable stable trend -0.8 (-1.9, 0.4)
Floyd County Rural No 130.4 (103.4, 163.5) 42 (4, 96) 18 falling falling trend -1.4 (-2.3, -0.6)
Scott County Urban No 130.2 (121.1, 139.8) 43 (21, 71) 159 falling falling trend -5.2 (-11.1, -1.1)
Greene County Rural No 130.0 (94.5, 176.9) 44 (2, 98) 11 stable stable trend -0.4 (-1.8, 0.9)
Fremont County Rural No 129.3 (88.1, 186.7) 45 (1, 98) 7 stable stable trend -0.6 (-2.2, 0.9)
Franklin County Rural No 129.2 (95.7, 172.7) 46 (2, 98) 11 stable stable trend 0.2 (-1.1, 1.4)
Harrison County Urban No 128.5 (100.1, 163.8) 47 (3, 96) 15 falling falling trend -1.2 (-2.1, -0.3)
Keokuk County Rural No 128.4 (93.5, 174.1) 48 (2, 98) 10 stable stable trend -0.2 (-1.5, 1.1)
Dubuque County Urban No 128.1 (116.4, 140.8) 49 (18, 77) 98 falling falling trend -1.2 (-1.7, -0.8)
Benton County Urban No 127.1 (105.2, 152.9) 50 (6, 93) 25 falling falling trend -1.2 (-2.1, -0.4)
Linn County Urban No 126.5 (118.6, 134.9) 51 (27, 74) 201 falling falling trend -1.5 (-2.8, -1.0)
O'Brien County Rural No 125.3 (96.1, 161.7) 52 (3, 97) 16 stable stable trend -0.6 (-2.0, 0.7)
Lucas County Rural No 125.2 (90.2, 172.1) 53 (2, 98) 9 stable stable trend -0.6 (-1.7, 0.5)
Page County Rural No 125.1 (99.8, 156.9) 54 (5, 96) 18 falling falling trend -1.0 (-1.8, -0.2)
Audubon County Rural No 124.9 (85.3, 182.0) 55 (1, 98) 7 stable stable trend -0.8 (-2.6, 0.9)
Butler County Rural No 124.8 (97.1, 159.4) 56 (4, 97) 16 falling falling trend -1.0 (-2.0, -0.1)
Black Hawk County Urban No 124.5 (114.0, 135.8) 57 (25, 81) 113 falling falling trend -6.9 (-12.3, -1.1)
Union County Rural No 124.0 (93.4, 162.8) 58 (3, 98) 12 falling falling trend -1.2 (-2.4, -0.1)
Emmet County Rural No 123.3 (89.9, 167.7) 59 (2, 98) 11 stable stable trend 0.1 (-1.2, 1.4)
Hamilton County Rural No 122.9 (95.8, 156.5) 60 (6, 97) 16 falling falling trend -1.2 (-2.2, -0.2)
Marshall County Rural No 122.7 (105.3, 142.6) 61 (15, 91) 37 falling falling trend -1.2 (-1.9, -0.4)
Cerro Gordo County Rural Yes 122.2 (105.7, 141.0) 62 (16, 91) 48 falling falling trend -1.5 (-2.2, -0.9)
Jackson County Rural Yes 121.4 (97.4, 150.5) 63 (7, 96) 20 stable stable trend -0.9 (-1.8, 0.0)
Pocahontas County Rural Yes 120.9 (83.4, 173.3) 64 (1, 98) 8 falling falling trend -2.1 (-3.6, -0.8)
Webster County Rural Yes 120.4 (102.5, 141.1) 65 (17, 93) 36 falling falling trend -1.0 (-1.7, -0.3)
Grundy County Urban Yes 120.2 (92.0, 156.1) 66 (6, 97) 13 stable stable trend 0.5 (-0.7, 1.8)
Story County Urban Yes 120.0 (106.4, 134.9) 67 (23, 89) 61 falling falling trend -0.8 (-1.3, -0.2)
Davis County Rural Yes 119.1 (80.9, 170.1) 68 (2, 98) 7 stable stable trend -0.8 (-2.3, 0.7)
Kossuth County Rural Yes 118.5 (91.5, 152.5) 69 (5, 98) 16 falling falling trend -1.3 (-2.4, -0.4)
Dickinson County Rural Yes 115.3 (91.9, 144.3) 70 (8, 98) 21 stable stable trend -0.8 (-1.7, 0.1)
Buena Vista County Rural Yes 113.6 (88.4, 144.2) 71 (10, 98) 16 stable stable trend -0.5 (-1.6, 0.4)
Cedar County Rural Yes 113.3 (89.7, 142.4) 72 (12, 98) 17 falling falling trend -1.1 (-2.0, -0.2)
Carroll County Rural Yes 113.1 (91.7, 139.1) 73 (16, 98) 22 stable stable trend -0.8 (-1.9, 0.3)
Warren County Urban Yes 112.7 (97.3, 130.0) 74 (28, 96) 40 stable stable trend -1.1 (-8.4, 0.2)
Lyon County Rural Yes 112.5 (82.4, 151.3) 75 (5, 98) 11 stable stable trend -1.0 (-2.3, 0.2)
Delaware County Rural Yes 111.9 (88.8, 140.4) 76 (13, 98) 17 stable stable trend -0.5 (-1.5, 0.5)
Jones County Urban Yes 111.4 (88.1, 139.8) 77 (15, 98) 18 stable stable trend -0.8 (-1.7, 0.1)
Worth County Rural Yes 111.2 (76.1, 160.3) 78 (4, 98) 7 stable stable trend -1.3 (-2.7, 0.0)
Poweshiek County Rural Yes 111.0 (87.8, 139.5) 79 (15, 98) 18 falling falling trend -3.4 (-15.9, -1.3)
Fayette County Rural Yes 110.8 (87.9, 139.0) 80 (12, 98) 20 falling falling trend -1.3 (-2.3, -0.2)
Bremer County Urban Yes 110.6 (89.8, 135.5) 81 (20, 98) 22 stable stable trend 1.1 (-0.2, 3.2)
Decatur County Rural Yes 110.4 (77.1, 157.1) 82 (5, 98) 8 stable stable trend -0.6 (-1.9, 0.8)
Madison County Urban Yes 108.8 (83.1, 140.7) 83 (13, 98) 13 stable stable trend -1.1 (-2.2, 0.0)
Iowa County Rural Yes 108.3 (83.7, 138.9) 84 (16, 98) 15 falling falling trend -1.2 (-2.1, -0.3)
Winnebago County Rural Yes 106.8 (80.2, 142.2) 85 (13, 98) 11 stable stable trend -0.4 (-1.7, 0.9)
Plymouth County Rural Yes 106.2 (86.1, 130.2) 86 (26, 98) 21 falling falling trend -1.7 (-2.5, -0.9)
Crawford County Rural Yes 105.9 (80.3, 137.9) 87 (16, 98) 12 falling falling trend -1.4 (-2.5, -0.5)
Calhoun County Rural Yes 105.5 (75.1, 146.7) 88 (9, 98) 9 stable stable trend -0.8 (-2.1, 0.5)
Humboldt County Rural Yes 104.4 (74.9, 144.4) 89 (10, 98) 9 falling falling trend -1.2 (-2.4, -0.2)
Winneshiek County Rural Yes 102.0 (80.5, 128.6) 90 (27, 98) 18 falling falling trend -1.3 (-2.3, -0.4)
Hancock County Rural Yes 101.3 (72.2, 140.2) 91 (12, 98) 10 stable stable trend -1.1 (-2.3, 0.2)
Dallas County Urban Yes 100.3 (88.6, 113.1) 92 (59, 98) 55 falling falling trend -2.0 (-2.5, -1.5)
Johnson County Urban Yes 99.9 (90.1, 110.4) 93 (65, 97) 80 falling falling trend -9.7 (-16.3, -1.8)
Guthrie County Urban Yes 99.6 (72.3, 136.4) 94 (18, 98) 10 stable stable trend -0.7 (-2.0, 0.6)
Clay County Rural Yes 94.6 (72.2, 123.0) 95 (33, 98) 14 falling falling trend -1.4 (-2.5, -0.3)
Shelby County Rural Yes 89.2 (65.2, 121.6) 96 (36, 98) 11 falling falling trend -3.5 (-17.6, -1.2)
Sioux County Rural Yes 87.2 (70.8, 106.7) 97 (64, 98) 22 falling falling trend -1.3 (-2.1, -0.4)
Taylor County Rural Yes 82.1 (49.8, 132.4) 98 (20, 98) 4 stable stable trend -0.1 (-2.1, 1.6)
Adams County Rural ***
*
*
3 or fewer
*
*
Notes:
Created by statecancerprofiles.cancer.gov on 12/09/2024 8:37 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.


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