Return to Home Mortality > Table

Death Rates Table

Data Options

Death Rate Report for Michigan by County

All Cancer Sites, 2018-2022

All Races (includes Hispanic), Both Sexes, 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 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
Michigan N/A No 158.3 (157.3, 159.3) N/A 21,068 falling falling trend -1.3 (-1.4, -1.2)
United States N/A No 146.0 (145.8, 146.2) N/A 602,955 falling falling trend -1.5 (-1.6, -1.4)
Leelanau County Urban Yes 115.4 (101.2, 131.6) 83 (73, 83) 57 falling falling trend -1.6 (-2.2, -0.9)
Keweenaw County Rural No 131.6 (85.9, 206.0) 82 (1, 83) 6 falling falling trend -2.0 (-3.6, -0.2)
Clinton County Urban No 134.2 (124.3, 144.8) 81 (65, 83) 140 falling falling trend -1.4 (-1.8, -1.0)
Washtenaw County Urban No 134.7 (129.6, 140.0) 80 (71, 83) 545 falling falling trend -1.5 (-1.7, -1.3)
Gogebic County Rural No 135.7 (116.2, 158.6) 79 (31, 83) 38 falling falling trend -3.7 (-11.8, -1.6)
Ottawa County Urban No 137.0 (131.5, 142.7) 78 (68, 82) 478 falling falling trend -0.9 (-1.1, -0.7)
Oakland County Urban No 137.3 (134.7, 139.8) 77 (71, 82) 2,311 falling falling trend -1.6 (-2.5, -1.5)
Grand Traverse County Urban No 140.1 (131.3, 149.5) 76 (60, 82) 198 falling falling trend -1.3 (-1.7, -0.9)
Dickinson County Rural No 140.2 (124.3, 157.9) 75 (32, 83) 61 falling falling trend -1.2 (-1.7, -0.7)
Alger County Rural No 144.9 (118.1, 177.4) 74 (10, 83) 22 falling falling trend -1.1 (-1.9, -0.3)
Benzie County Urban No 145.0 (125.5, 167.4) 73 (18, 83) 47 falling falling trend -1.4 (-2.1, -0.6)
Livingston County Urban No 146.2 (139.5, 153.1) 72 (54, 80) 381 falling falling trend -1.6 (-1.8, -1.3)
Presque Isle County Rural No 146.5 (125.0, 171.9) 71 (13, 83) 41 falling falling trend -1.2 (-1.8, -0.6)
Antrim County Rural No 147.6 (130.9, 166.5) 70 (22, 83) 64 falling falling trend -1.5 (-2.0, -1.0)
Mackinac County Rural No 148.1 (125.0, 175.7) 69 (11, 83) 32 falling falling trend -1.8 (-2.6, -1.0)
Midland County Urban No 150.6 (140.7, 161.0) 68 (36, 79) 183 rising rising trend 2.1 (0.6, 4.8)
Ontonagon County Rural No 150.8 (124.2, 187.3) 67 (5, 83) 24 stable stable trend -0.9 (-2.0, 0.1)
Marquette County Rural No 151.5 (140.2, 163.6) 66 (30, 80) 142 falling falling trend -0.9 (-1.3, -0.4)
Barry County Urban No 151.8 (139.9, 164.4) 65 (28, 81) 129 falling falling trend -1.0 (-1.4, -0.5)
Kent County Urban No 151.8 (147.7, 156.0) 64 (52, 74) 1,084 falling falling trend -1.1 (-1.2, -0.9)
Emmet County Rural No 152.2 (137.6, 168.2) 63 (22, 82) 86 stable stable trend -0.6 (-1.2, 1.3)
Eaton County Urban No 154.9 (146.1, 164.3) 62 (31, 75) 239 falling falling trend -0.8 (-1.2, -0.4)
Kalamazoo County Urban No 155.3 (149.0, 161.9) 61 (39, 73) 470 falling falling trend -1.1 (-1.4, -0.8)
Oceana County Rural No 157.1 (139.8, 176.2) 60 (12, 82) 65 falling falling trend -0.8 (-1.3, -0.1)
Saginaw County Urban No 157.7 (150.9, 164.7) 59 (33, 72) 433 falling falling trend -1.2 (-1.4, -1.0)
Otsego County Rural No 158.5 (140.6, 178.4) 58 (10, 81) 61 falling falling trend -1.0 (-1.5, -0.3)
Cheboygan County Rural No 158.5 (142.0, 177.0) 57 (13, 80) 76 falling falling trend -1.1 (-1.6, -0.4)
Lenawee County Rural No 158.7 (149.2, 168.6) 56 (26, 73) 223 falling falling trend -0.9 (-1.2, -0.7)
St. Joseph County Rural No 158.7 (146.4, 171.8) 55 (20, 77) 130 falling falling trend -1.1 (-1.5, -0.8)
Charlevoix County Rural No 158.8 (141.9, 177.5) 54 (11, 81) 72 falling falling trend -1.0 (-1.4, -0.5)
Menominee County Rural No 160.7 (143.7, 179.8) 53 (10, 80) 69 stable stable trend -0.6 (-1.2, 0.0)
Ingham County Urban No 160.9 (154.3, 167.6) 52 (28, 68) 480 falling falling trend -0.8 (-1.1, -0.1)
Huron County Rural No 161.0 (146.0, 177.4) 51 (13, 77) 94 falling falling trend -0.7 (-1.1, -0.4)
Allegan County Rural No 161.6 (152.4, 171.2) 50 (22, 71) 247 falling falling trend -1.0 (-1.3, -0.6)
Shiawassee County Rural No 161.8 (150.3, 174.0) 49 (17, 73) 155 falling falling trend -1.0 (-1.3, -0.7)
Berrien County Urban No 162.0 (154.5, 169.7) 48 (24, 68) 373 falling falling trend -1.1 (-1.4, -0.8)
Ionia County Urban No 162.3 (149.4, 176.1) 47 (15, 74) 123 falling falling trend -1.0 (-1.4, -0.5)
Van Buren County Rural No 162.4 (151.3, 174.2) 46 (17, 73) 169 falling falling trend -0.9 (-1.3, -0.5)
Macomb County Urban No 162.6 (159.3, 166.0) 45 (33, 60) 1,906 falling falling trend -1.0 (-1.1, -0.9)
Wexford County Rural No 163.0 (146.8, 180.6) 44 (11, 76) 79 stable stable trend -3.1 (-8.2, 1.9)
Lapeer County Urban No 163.2 (153.0, 174.0) 43 (17, 71) 205 falling falling trend -1.0 (-1.4, -0.6)
Newaygo County Rural No 163.2 (149.8, 177.6) 42 (13, 74) 118 falling falling trend -1.0 (-1.5, -0.5)
Wayne County Urban No 164.0 (161.5, 166.5) 41 (32, 55) 3,540 falling falling trend -2.0 (-2.4, -1.7)
Branch County Rural No 164.1 (149.7, 179.6) 40 (11, 74) 101 falling falling trend -0.8 (-1.3, -0.3)
Missaukee County Rural No 165.2 (141.5, 192.2) 39 (4, 81) 38 stable stable trend -0.6 (-1.4, 0.2)
Delta County Rural No 165.4 (151.0, 181.1) 38 (9, 73) 107 falling falling trend -0.9 (-1.3, -0.5)
Monroe County Urban No 165.9 (158.1, 174.0) 37 (19, 64) 358 falling falling trend -1.1 (-1.3, -0.8)
St. Clair County Urban No 168.5 (160.9, 176.4) 36 (17, 60) 388 falling falling trend -1.1 (-1.3, -0.9)
Bay County Urban No 168.7 (159.5, 178.4) 35 (14, 63) 265 falling falling trend -0.9 (-1.1, -0.7)
Genesee County Urban No 170.3 (165.3, 175.4) 34 (19, 50) 937 falling falling trend -1.5 (-3.0, -1.1)
Manistee County Rural No 171.0 (153.7, 190.2) 33 (5, 73) 79 falling falling trend -1.1 (-1.5, -0.7)
Tuscola County Rural No 171.9 (159.0, 185.7) 32 (8, 66) 140 falling falling trend -0.7 (-1.1, -0.3)
Cass County Urban No 172.5 (159.4, 186.6) 31 (7, 68) 138 falling falling trend -0.9 (-1.3, -0.5)
Jackson County Urban No 172.5 (164.7, 180.7) 30 (13, 53) 379 falling falling trend -0.9 (-1.2, -0.6)
Houghton County Rural No 172.6 (155.7, 191.0) 29 (5, 71) 81 falling falling trend -0.9 (-1.3, -0.4)
Osceola County Rural No 174.1 (154.6, 195.7) 28 (3, 73) 62 falling falling trend -0.8 (-1.3, -0.3)
Arenac County Rural No 175.0 (151.3, 202.2) 27 (2, 78) 45 falling falling trend -1.0 (-1.5, -0.4)
Gratiot County Rural No 176.2 (160.5, 193.1) 26 (4, 67) 96 stable stable trend -0.5 (-1.0, 0.1)
Sanilac County Rural No 176.9 (162.0, 192.9) 25 (4, 64) 115 falling falling trend -0.7 (-1.2, -0.3)
Iron County Rural No 177.2 (151.1, 207.8) 24 (1, 79) 41 falling falling trend -1.2 (-2.0, -0.6)
Montcalm County Urban No 177.3 (164.9, 190.5) 23 (6, 55) 157 falling falling trend -1.0 (-1.4, -0.6)
Muskegon County Urban No 177.7 (169.9, 185.8) 22 (9, 43) 410 falling falling trend -0.7 (-0.9, -0.5)
Mason County Rural No 178.2 (161.0, 197.1) 21 (3, 65) 87 falling falling trend -0.7 (-1.2, -0.3)
Alpena County Rural No 179.0 (162.2, 197.4) 20 (3, 66) 91 falling falling trend -0.8 (-1.2, -0.4)
Isabella County Rural No 180.0 (165.1, 195.9) 19 (3, 61) 113 stable stable trend -0.7 (-1.2, 0.0)
Roscommon County Rural No 182.8 (164.5, 203.3) 18 (2, 63) 91 stable stable trend -0.2 (-0.8, 0.3)
Mecosta County Rural No 183.1 (166.9, 200.6) 17 (2, 57) 102 falling falling trend -0.5 (-0.9, -0.1)
Calhoun County Urban No 183.9 (174.9, 193.2) 16 (5, 34) 329 falling falling trend -0.8 (-1.0, -0.5)
Schoolcraft County Rural No 185.5 (155.2, 221.9) 15 (1, 78) 29 stable stable trend -0.3 (-0.9, 0.3)
Hillsdale County Rural No 185.5 (170.8, 201.3) 14 (2, 47) 125 falling falling trend -0.6 (-1.0, -0.1)
Gladwin County Rural No 185.7 (167.3, 206.0) 13 (2, 60) 86 falling falling trend -0.7 (-1.3, -0.1)
Alcona County Rural No 185.8 (160.0, 216.9) 12 (1, 73) 45 falling falling trend -0.7 (-1.2, -0.2)
Ogemaw County Rural No 187.4 (167.2, 210.0) 11 (1, 61) 72 falling falling trend -1.1 (-1.7, -0.6)
Oscoda County Rural No 191.9 (160.7, 229.0) 10 (1, 75) 30 stable stable trend -0.4 (-1.5, 0.7)
Lake County Rural No 192.9 (166.4, 223.6) 9 (1, 65) 44 stable stable trend -0.3 (-1.7, 7.0)
Chippewa County Rural No 193.1 (176.0, 211.6) 8 (1, 40) 98 stable stable trend -0.3 (-0.8, 0.3)
Crawford County Rural No 195.2 (170.5, 223.4) 7 (1, 62) 49 stable stable trend -0.5 (-7.0, 0.9)
Iosco County Rural No 195.2 (176.6, 215.8) 6 (1, 40) 97 stable stable trend 4.4 (-0.9, 10.9)
Luce County Rural No 197.8 (158.0, 246.8) 5 (1, 78) 19 stable stable trend -1.1 (-2.1, 0.0)
Baraga County Rural No 198.8 (165.4, 238.2) 4 (1, 70) 26 stable stable trend -0.4 (-1.1, 0.4)
Clare County Rural No 205.1 (187.0, 224.7) 3 (1, 28) 105 falling falling trend -0.7 (-1.1, -0.2)
Montmorency County Rural No 205.5 (174.3, 242.4) 2 (1, 58) 39 stable stable trend -0.6 (-1.4, 0.3)
Kalkaska County Urban No 224.8 (197.9, 254.5) 1 (1, 24) 57 stable stable trend 8.1 (-0.3, 14.1)
Notes:
Created by statecancerprofiles.cancer.gov on 12/04/2024 7:20 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.


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