Return to Home Mortality > Table

Death Rates Table

Data Options

Death Rate Report for Iowa by County

Lung & Bronchus, 2018-2022

All Races (includes 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 25.1?
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
Iowa N/A No 35.0 (34.2, 35.8) N/A 1,499 falling falling trend -4.5 (-6.1, -3.6)
United States N/A No 32.4 (32.3, 32.5) N/A 136,831 falling falling trend -4.3 (-4.4, -4.1)
Van Buren County Rural No 63.4 (43.9, 90.0) 1 (1, 69) 7 stable stable trend 1.4 (-0.3, 3.4)
Howard County Rural No 36.8 (24.0, 54.9) 40 (2, 97) 5 stable stable trend 1.0 (-0.7, 2.9)
Ringgold County Rural No 41.8 (22.9, 72.6) 19 (1, 98) 3 stable stable trend 0.8 (-1.2, 2.9)
Clarke County Rural No 50.9 (35.7, 71.4) 5 (1, 84) 7 stable stable trend 0.7 (-1.0, 2.7)
Greene County Rural No 50.7 (35.3, 71.8) 6 (1, 82) 8 stable stable trend 0.6 (-1.1, 2.5)
Louisa County Rural No 42.9 (29.3, 61.6) 18 (1, 93) 7 stable stable trend 0.6 (-0.8, 2.2)
Appanoose County Rural No 41.4 (30.0, 56.8) 20 (1, 89) 9 stable stable trend 0.5 (-1.1, 2.2)
Palo Alto County Rural No 62.6 (45.6, 85.0) 2 (1, 46) 10 stable stable trend 0.5 (-1.1, 2.1)
Cherokee County Rural No 34.8 (24.4, 49.4) 49 (3, 95) 8 stable stable trend 0.2 (-1.4, 1.9)
Franklin County Rural Yes 19.8 (11.1, 33.9) 96 (32, 98) 3 stable stable trend 0.2 (-2.0, 2.3)
Plymouth County Rural No 32.2 (24.3, 42.1) 60 (10, 95) 12 stable stable trend 0.1 (-1.3, 1.7)
Sac County Rural No 27.1 (16.3, 43.5) 81 (9, 98) 4 stable stable trend 0.1 (-1.8, 1.9)
Poweshiek County Rural No 35.6 (26.4, 47.6) 44 (5, 92) 11 stable stable trend 0.0 (-1.3, 1.4)
O'Brien County Rural No 33.1 (22.7, 47.1) 55 (5, 97) 8 stable stable trend -0.1 (-1.6, 1.5)
Washington County Urban No 33.0 (24.7, 43.6) 57 (10, 94) 11 stable stable trend -0.1 (-1.2, 1.1)
Adair County Rural No 30.6 (18.5, 49.6) 69 (3, 98) 4 stable stable trend -0.2 (-2.1, 1.6)
Monona County Rural No 45.3 (31.8, 64.4) 12 (1, 87) 7 stable stable trend -0.2 (-1.7, 1.3)
Page County Rural No 52.1 (39.9, 67.5) 4 (1, 56) 13 stable stable trend -0.2 (-1.4, 1.2)
Decatur County Rural No 37.4 (22.7, 59.3) 38 (1, 98) 4 stable stable trend -0.3 (-2.2, 1.6)
Monroe County Rural No 31.5 (18.6, 51.4) 65 (3, 98) 4 stable stable trend -0.3 (-1.7, 1.2)
Butler County Rural No 32.2 (22.0, 46.2) 61 (6, 97) 7 stable stable trend -0.4 (-2.0, 1.2)
Cedar County Rural No 35.0 (25.8, 47.0) 48 (5, 95) 10 stable stable trend -0.4 (-1.8, 1.1)
Emmet County Rural No 35.5 (23.6, 52.8) 45 (3, 98) 6 stable stable trend -0.4 (-2.1, 1.4)
Tama County Rural No 36.1 (26.3, 48.8) 41 (4, 93) 9 stable stable trend -0.4 (-1.5, 0.7)
Fremont County Rural No 52.9 (34.9, 78.7) 3 (1, 85) 6 stable stable trend -0.5 (-1.9, 0.9)
Union County Rural No 48.2 (34.6, 66.1) 9 (1, 77) 9 stable stable trend -0.5 (-1.8, 0.8)
Grundy County Urban No 27.0 (17.6, 40.5) 82 (14, 98) 5 stable stable trend -0.6 (-2.2, 1.1)
Shelby County Rural Yes 24.7 (15.8, 37.9) 86 (20, 98) 5 stable stable trend -0.6 (-2.2, 1.1)
Boone County Urban No 43.4 (34.1, 54.6) 16 (2, 73) 16 stable stable trend -0.7 (-1.9, 0.5)
Buchanan County Rural No 40.6 (30.6, 53.2) 24 (2, 85) 11 stable stable trend -0.7 (-1.7, 0.3)
Buena Vista County Rural Yes 23.6 (15.8, 34.1) 90 (29, 98) 6 stable stable trend -0.7 (-2.1, 0.6)
Guthrie County Urban No 34.1 (23.0, 50.0) 51 (3, 97) 6 stable stable trend -0.7 (-2.4, 0.9)
Hardin County Rural No 32.1 (23.2, 44.1) 63 (9, 97) 9 stable stable trend -0.7 (-2.4, 1.0)
Kossuth County Rural No 28.4 (19.5, 40.8) 78 (13, 98) 7 stable stable trend -0.7 (-2.0, 0.7)
Floyd County Rural No 39.8 (28.9, 54.0) 25 (2, 89) 10 stable stable trend -0.8 (-1.7, 0.0)
Iowa County Rural No 32.8 (23.4, 45.3) 59 (7, 96) 8 stable stable trend -0.8 (-2.3, 0.8)
Wapello County Rural No 49.9 (41.2, 60.0) 8 (1, 46) 24 stable stable trend -0.8 (-1.7, 0.2)
Chickasaw County Rural No 38.5 (26.4, 55.0) 31 (2, 93) 7 stable stable trend -0.9 (-2.3, 0.5)
Henry County Rural No 43.8 (33.7, 56.3) 14 (2, 77) 13 stable stable trend -0.9 (-2.1, 0.3)
Humboldt County Rural No 33.0 (20.9, 50.6) 56 (4, 98) 5 stable stable trend -0.9 (-2.5, 0.6)
Keokuk County Rural No 35.2 (23.1, 52.6) 46 (2, 98) 6 stable stable trend -0.9 (-2.8, 1.1)
Carroll County Rural No 30.5 (22.7, 40.8) 71 (14, 97) 10 stable stable trend -1.1 (-2.6, 0.4)
Pocahontas County Rural No 41.2 (26.8, 62.9) 21 (1, 95) 5 stable stable trend -1.1 (-2.6, 0.3)
Clayton County Rural No 30.2 (21.9, 41.4) 72 (12, 97) 9 stable stable trend -1.2 (-2.8, 0.3)
Clinton County Rural No 45.5 (38.7, 53.4) 11 (2, 53) 32 falling falling trend -1.2 (-1.9, -0.6)
Wayne County Rural No 43.6 (25.3, 70.8) 15 (1, 98) 4 stable stable trend -1.2 (-3.3, 0.7)
Calhoun County Rural No 34.0 (22.2, 51.0) 52 (4, 98) 5 falling falling trend -1.3 (-2.6, -0.1)
Cass County Rural No 32.1 (22.8, 45.1) 62 (8, 97) 8 stable stable trend -1.3 (-2.7, 0.1)
Fayette County Rural No 32.9 (24.4, 43.9) 58 (10, 95) 11 falling falling trend -1.3 (-2.3, -0.4)
Jones County Urban No 38.1 (29.0, 49.6) 33 (4, 86) 12 falling falling trend -1.3 (-2.4, -0.2)
Hancock County Rural No 32.1 (21.5, 47.5) 64 (5, 98) 6 stable stable trend -1.4 (-2.9, 0.1)
Jackson County Rural No 38.0 (28.9, 49.7) 34 (4, 88) 12 falling falling trend -1.4 (-2.5, -0.4)
Marion County Rural No 30.6 (23.9, 38.9) 70 (20, 93) 15 falling falling trend -1.4 (-2.6, -0.1)
Warren County Urban No 31.4 (25.6, 38.2) 66 (21, 91) 21 falling falling trend -1.4 (-2.5, -0.3)
Woodbury County Urban No 43.3 (38.2, 48.9) 17 (5, 49) 54 falling falling trend -1.4 (-8.7, -0.8)
Bremer County Urban Yes 22.5 (16.0, 31.0) 92 (45, 98) 8 stable stable trend -1.5 (-3.3, 0.2)
Wright County Rural No 27.6 (18.1, 41.3) 79 (12, 98) 6 stable stable trend -1.5 (-3.2, 0.0)
Clay County Rural No 26.7 (18.5, 38.0) 83 (19, 98) 7 stable stable trend -1.6 (-3.3, 0.0)
Lucas County Rural No 40.7 (26.7, 60.8) 23 (1, 95) 6 stable stable trend -1.6 (-3.4, 0.2)
Webster County Rural No 40.8 (33.3, 49.5) 22 (5, 71) 22 falling falling trend -1.6 (-2.6, -0.8)
Black Hawk County Urban No 39.4 (35.2, 44.0) 26 (12, 59) 66 falling falling trend -1.7 (-2.3, -1.1)
Harrison County Urban No 38.9 (27.8, 53.6) 28 (2, 91) 8 falling falling trend -1.7 (-3.0, -0.6)
Mills County Urban No 34.1 (23.6, 48.4) 50 (5, 96) 7 falling falling trend -1.7 (-3.0, -0.4)
Montgomery County Rural No 33.8 (22.6, 49.8) 54 (5, 97) 6 falling falling trend -1.7 (-3.3, -0.1)
Worth County Rural No 30.8 (18.2, 50.6) 68 (3, 98) 4 stable stable trend -1.7 (-4.0, 0.3)
Crawford County Rural Yes 20.9 (13.1, 31.9) 94 (43, 98) 5 falling falling trend -1.8 (-3.6, -0.1)
Delaware County Rural No 30.0 (21.4, 41.5) 75 (13, 98) 8 falling falling trend -1.8 (-3.0, -0.6)
Dickinson County Rural Yes 23.2 (16.6, 32.7) 91 (38, 98) 8 falling falling trend -1.8 (-3.2, -0.3)
Jasper County Urban No 38.6 (31.6, 46.8) 29 (7, 78) 22 falling falling trend -1.8 (-2.9, -0.8)
Lee County Rural No 31.3 (24.9, 39.2) 67 (19, 92) 17 falling falling trend -1.9 (-3.1, -0.9)
Madison County Urban Yes 24.7 (16.3, 36.3) 87 (25, 98) 6 falling falling trend -1.9 (-3.3, -0.6)
Hamilton County Rural No 29.3 (20.4, 41.6) 76 (11, 98) 7 falling falling trend -2.0 (-3.4, -0.7)
Pottawattamie County Urban No 45.9 (40.6, 51.7) 10 (4, 40) 57 falling falling trend -2.0 (-5.9, -1.2)
Winneshiek County Rural Yes 18.7 (12.7, 27.4) 98 (60, 98) 6 falling falling trend -2.1 (-3.5, -0.9)
Mitchell County Rural Yes 24.2 (14.7, 38.6) 89 (17, 98) 4 falling falling trend -2.2 (-4.0, -0.6)
Des Moines County Rural No 43.8 (36.6, 52.3) 13 (3, 58) 27 falling falling trend -2.3 (-12.9, -0.8)
Marshall County Rural No 37.6 (30.7, 45.9) 36 (8, 79) 21 falling falling trend -2.5 (-11.3, -1.5)
Cerro Gordo County Rural No 29.3 (23.9, 35.7) 77 (31, 92) 22 falling falling trend -2.6 (-3.3, -2.0)
Linn County Urban No 35.7 (32.6, 38.9) 43 (24, 66) 104 falling falling trend -2.9 (-4.2, -2.2)
Dallas County Urban No 25.8 (21.4, 30.8) 84 (51, 96) 25 falling falling trend -3.6 (-14.7, -2.3)
Muscatine County Rural No 33.9 (27.5, 41.6) 53 (14, 87) 20 falling falling trend -3.8 (-7.9, -2.4)
Polk County Urban No 38.6 (36.2, 41.1) 30 (18, 51) 202 falling falling trend -3.8 (-5.6, -2.8)
Story County Urban No 27.1 (22.5, 32.5) 80 (46, 95) 25 falling falling trend -4.2 (-15.2, -1.8)
Johnson County Urban Yes 20.9 (17.7, 24.6) 93 (77, 98) 31 falling falling trend -4.8 (-8.0, -3.3)
Dubuque County Urban No 30.0 (26.1, 34.5) 74 (36, 88) 42 falling falling trend -4.9 (-13.0, -2.6)
Scott County Urban No 35.8 (32.4, 39.6) 42 (21, 68) 82 falling falling trend -4.9 (-9.2, -3.0)
Mahaska County Rural No 37.8 (28.7, 49.2) 35 (4, 88) 12 falling falling trend -5.2 (-16.3, -1.3)
Sioux County Rural Yes 18.7 (13.5, 25.5) 97 (71, 98) 9 falling falling trend -7.1 (-22.3, -2.3)
Winnebago County Rural Yes 25.1 (15.8, 39.2) 85 (19, 98) 5 falling falling trend -7.5 (-18.0, -3.1)
Benton County Urban No 30.2 (22.8, 39.6) 73 (18, 96) 12 falling falling trend -12.8 (-29.4, -1.6)
Jefferson County Rural Yes 20.5 (13.2, 31.3) 95 (40, 98) 5 falling falling trend -14.8 (-44.1, -1.7)
Allamakee County Rural No 36.9 (25.5, 52.3) 39 (3, 96) 8
*
*
Audubon County Rural No 37.4 (22.1, 62.0) 37 (1, 98) 4
*
*
Davis County Rural No 38.5 (24.9, 57.8) 32 (1, 97) 5
*
*
Ida County Rural No 50.4 (33.5, 74.6) 7 (1, 86) 6
*
*
Lyon County Rural Yes 24.7 (15.4, 38.2) 88 (21, 98) 5
*
*
Osceola County Rural No 39.3 (23.9, 63.3) 27 (1, 98) 4
*
*
Taylor County Rural No 35.1 (19.4, 60.2) 47 (1, 98) 3
*
*
Adams County Rural ***
*
*
3 or fewer
*
*
Notes:
Created by statecancerprofiles.cancer.gov on 12/11/2024 5:57 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