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, Ages 65+

Sorted by CI*Rank

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 913.5 (907.0, 920.1) N/A 15,445 falling falling trend -1.1 (-1.5, -1.0)
United States N/A No 844.0 (842.9, 845.1) N/A 441,232 falling falling trend -1.6 (-1.8, -1.5)
Kalkaska County Urban No 1,296.1 (1,117.0, 1,495.0) 1 (1, 27) 41 stable stable trend -0.1 (-0.9, 0.9)
Baraga County Rural No 1,241.5 (1,014.0, 1,504.3) 2 (1, 61) 21 stable stable trend -0.1 (-1.1, 0.8)
Montmorency County Rural No 1,192.8 (1,011.7, 1,396.7) 3 (1, 62) 32 stable stable trend -0.1 (-1.0, 0.9)
Oscoda County Rural No 1,149.0 (949.4, 1,377.6) 4 (1, 74) 24 stable stable trend -0.1 (-1.2, 1.0)
Chippewa County Rural No 1,136.2 (1,023.1, 1,258.4) 5 (1, 38) 75 stable stable trend -0.4 (-1.0, 0.2)
Clare County Rural No 1,135.6 (1,023.5, 1,256.5) 6 (1, 38) 78 stable stable trend -0.4 (-0.8, 0.1)
Luce County Rural No 1,132.0 (891.1, 1,417.9) 7 (1, 80) 15 stable stable trend -1.0 (-2.3, 0.5)
Crawford County Rural No 1,123.6 (966.0, 1,299.5) 8 (1, 66) 37 stable stable trend -0.3 (-0.9, 0.4)
Schoolcraft County Rural No 1,100.1 (904.5, 1,325.3) 9 (1, 78) 23 stable stable trend -0.1 (-0.9, 0.7)
Lake County Rural No 1,081.8 (918.0, 1,266.3) 10 (1, 71) 33 falling falling trend -1.4 (-2.2, -0.5)
Iosco County Rural No 1,063.3 (958.5, 1,176.4) 11 (2, 59) 76 falling falling trend -0.8 (-1.4, -0.2)
Mecosta County Rural No 1,058.8 (953.8, 1,172.1) 12 (2, 60) 77 stable stable trend -0.3 (-0.7, 0.2)
Hillsdale County Rural No 1,055.2 (959.7, 1,157.5) 13 (3, 56) 92 stable stable trend -0.4 (-0.9, 0.1)
Ogemaw County Rural No 1,050.9 (928.2, 1,185.2) 14 (1, 69) 54 falling falling trend -1.1 (-1.8, -0.2)
Calhoun County Urban No 1,043.2 (984.3, 1,104.7) 15 (5, 39) 239 falling falling trend -0.7 (-1.1, -0.3)
Ontonagon County Rural No 1,036.1 (845.2, 1,256.8) 16 (1, 81) 21 stable stable trend -0.7 (-1.6, 0.2)
Cass County Urban No 1,023.5 (936.4, 1,116.4) 17 (4, 63) 106 falling falling trend -0.7 (-1.2, -0.2)
Muskegon County Urban No 1,016.9 (965.1, 1,070.8) 18 (7, 46) 297 falling falling trend -0.6 (-0.8, -0.3)
Isabella County Rural No 1,016.8 (918.1, 1,123.1) 19 (4, 67) 80 stable stable trend -0.7 (-1.4, 0.1)
Alpena County Rural No 1,012.2 (907.3, 1,125.8) 20 (3, 70) 69 falling falling trend -0.8 (-1.3, -0.2)
Gladwin County Rural No 1,010.6 (902.0, 1,128.7) 21 (3, 72) 65 stable stable trend -0.7 (-1.3, 0.0)
Mason County Rural No 1,003.1 (897.1, 1,118.1) 22 (3, 72) 67 falling falling trend -0.8 (-1.4, -0.1)
Montcalm County Urban No 1,002.0 (919.4, 1,090.0) 23 (5, 66) 111 falling falling trend -0.8 (-1.2, -0.3)
Manistee County Rural No 999.0 (890.4, 1,117.1) 24 (4, 74) 63 falling falling trend -1.0 (-1.4, -0.5)
Alcona County Rural No 996.9 (852.8, 1,158.2) 25 (2, 79) 35 falling falling trend -0.9 (-1.4, -0.3)
Gratiot County Rural No 989.4 (887.9, 1,099.4) 26 (4, 73) 70 stable stable trend -0.3 (-0.8, 0.3)
Jackson County Urban No 978.6 (926.8, 1,032.6) 27 (11, 58) 273 falling falling trend -0.7 (-1.1, -0.4)
Lapeer County Urban No 976.2 (906.1, 1,050.2) 28 (8, 67) 150 falling falling trend -0.7 (-1.2, -0.2)
Monroe County Urban No 974.2 (922.0, 1,028.7) 29 (11, 60) 266 falling falling trend -0.9 (-1.1, -0.6)
St. Clair County Urban No 973.3 (922.5, 1,026.2) 30 (12, 59) 282 falling falling trend -1.0 (-1.2, -0.7)
Roscommon County Rural No 972.4 (870.0, 1,083.4) 31 (5, 75) 69 stable stable trend -0.4 (-0.9, 0.2)
Houghton County Rural No 970.4 (863.8, 1,086.5) 32 (4, 77) 61 falling falling trend -0.7 (-1.2, -0.1)
Delta County Rural No 969.6 (879.1, 1,066.9) 33 (7, 73) 86 stable stable trend -0.6 (-1.1, 0.0)
Osceola County Rural No 969.0 (845.3, 1,105.7) 34 (4, 79) 45 falling falling trend -0.9 (-1.4, -0.2)
Huron County Rural No 967.5 (871.6, 1,070.9) 35 (7, 75) 76 falling falling trend -0.5 (-0.9, -0.1)
Menominee County Rural No 965.3 (853.0, 1,088.2) 36 (5, 79) 55 stable stable trend -0.3 (-0.9, 0.4)
Missaukee County Rural No 957.3 (804.0, 1,131.1) 37 (2, 82) 28 stable stable trend -0.6 (-1.5, 0.5)
Genesee County Urban No 956.8 (924.3, 990.1) 38 (20, 56) 668 falling falling trend -1.3 (-2.6, -1.0)
Tuscola County Rural No 954.9 (873.1, 1,042.3) 39 (8, 74) 102 stable stable trend -0.6 (-1.1, 0.0)
Ionia County Urban No 954.9 (865.2, 1,051.2) 40 (8, 75) 86 falling falling trend -0.7 (-1.2, -0.2)
Allegan County Rural No 952.8 (890.5, 1,018.4) 41 (11, 69) 180 falling falling trend -0.8 (-1.1, -0.4)
Iron County Rural No 951.1 (808.2, 1,111.9) 42 (3, 81) 33 falling falling trend -1.2 (-1.9, -0.5)
Van Buren County Rural No 944.6 (870.0, 1,023.9) 43 (11, 73) 123 falling falling trend -0.6 (-1.1, -0.1)
Arenac County Rural No 939.5 (798.1, 1,098.4) 44 (3, 81) 33 falling falling trend -1.3 (-1.9, -0.7)
Macomb County Urban No 933.2 (911.1, 955.7) 45 (29, 60) 1,375 falling falling trend -0.8 (-1.0, -0.7)
Bay County Urban No 933.1 (874.6, 994.5) 46 (16, 72) 193 falling falling trend -0.9 (-1.2, -0.6)
Sanilac County Rural No 932.1 (842.6, 1,028.6) 47 (9, 78) 81 falling falling trend -0.9 (-1.4, -0.5)
Shiawassee County Rural No 928.4 (851.9, 1,009.8) 48 (13, 76) 111 falling falling trend -0.9 (-1.4, -0.4)
Otsego County Rural No 927.0 (810.6, 1,055.1) 49 (7, 80) 47 falling falling trend -0.9 (-1.5, -0.3)
Wayne County Urban No 925.5 (909.1, 942.1) 50 (34, 60) 2,490 falling falling trend -1.7 (-2.3, -1.2)
Branch County Rural No 923.5 (829.9, 1,024.7) 51 (10, 79) 73 stable stable trend -0.5 (-1.0, 0.1)
Ingham County Urban No 922.5 (878.8, 967.8) 52 (25, 69) 347 falling falling trend -1.0 (-1.3, -0.6)
Berrien County Urban No 917.9 (869.8, 968.0) 53 (22, 71) 277 falling falling trend -0.9 (-1.2, -0.7)
Cheboygan County Rural No 911.0 (810.3, 1,020.8) 54 (10, 80) 61 falling falling trend -0.9 (-1.4, -0.3)
Eaton County Urban No 910.6 (851.3, 972.9) 55 (22, 74) 180 falling falling trend -0.7 (-1.1, -0.2)
Kent County Urban No 903.6 (875.2, 932.6) 56 (37, 69) 790 falling falling trend -0.8 (-1.0, -0.7)
Lenawee County Rural No 899.7 (838.5, 964.3) 57 (22, 77) 164 falling falling trend -2.9 (-7.3, -0.9)
Charlevoix County Rural No 899.6 (796.1, 1,012.8) 58 (9, 81) 56 falling falling trend -1.0 (-1.6, -0.4)
Emmet County Rural No 895.3 (800.3, 998.4) 59 (12, 80) 66 falling falling trend -0.9 (-1.3, -0.4)
Kalamazoo County Urban No 894.4 (852.3, 938.0) 60 (33, 73) 346 falling falling trend -1.0 (-1.3, -0.6)
Barry County Urban No 891.8 (812.4, 976.6) 61 (20, 80) 96 stable stable trend -0.8 (-1.4, 0.0)
St. Joseph County Rural No 888.9 (809.3, 974.2) 62 (17, 80) 94 falling falling trend -1.5 (-6.2, -0.9)
Livingston County Urban No 885.7 (839.4, 933.8) 63 (33, 75) 285 falling falling trend -1.5 (-1.8, -1.1)
Newaygo County Rural No 880.9 (796.8, 971.4) 64 (17, 81) 82 falling falling trend -1.1 (-1.6, -0.5)
Saginaw County Urban No 880.1 (837.1, 924.7) 65 (37, 76) 319 falling falling trend -1.1 (-1.4, -0.9)
Wexford County Rural No 879.0 (778.0, 989.3) 66 (14, 81) 56 falling falling trend -5.3 (-12.4, -0.9)
Marquette County Rural No 875.3 (801.4, 954.2) 67 (22, 80) 107 falling falling trend -0.8 (-1.2, -0.3)
Oceana County Rural No 869.7 (760.4, 990.3) 68 (12, 82) 47 stable stable trend -0.5 (-1.2, 0.3)
Mackinac County Rural No 850.7 (708.4, 1,013.1) 69 (9, 83) 26 falling falling trend -2.0 (-3.0, -1.0)
Presque Isle County Rural No 845.7 (721.0, 985.7) 70 (12, 83) 33 falling falling trend -0.8 (-1.5, -0.1)
Midland County Urban No 835.7 (772.8, 902.4) 71 (40, 81) 133 stable stable trend 2.5 (-0.6, 8.2)
Grand Traverse County Urban No 828.0 (769.4, 889.7) 72 (47, 81) 153 falling falling trend -1.1 (-1.6, -0.7)
Dickinson County Rural No 824.0 (721.4, 937.0) 73 (23, 83) 48 falling falling trend -1.0 (-1.6, -0.4)
Oakland County Urban No 823.8 (806.4, 841.6) 74 (64, 79) 1,739 falling falling trend -1.5 (-2.1, -1.3)
Clinton County Urban No 822.8 (753.9, 896.2) 75 (42, 82) 107 falling falling trend -1.1 (-1.5, -0.7)
Antrim County Rural No 809.4 (710.1, 918.6) 76 (31, 83) 49 falling falling trend -1.7 (-2.3, -1.1)
Ottawa County Urban No 806.1 (768.9, 844.6) 77 (65, 81) 358 falling falling trend -0.8 (-1.0, -0.5)
Washtenaw County Urban No 804.3 (769.5, 840.2) 78 (64, 81) 412 falling falling trend -1.3 (-1.6, -1.0)
Gogebic County Rural No 766.1 (646.7, 900.9) 79 (29, 83) 30 falling falling trend -1.4 (-2.2, -0.7)
Alger County Rural No 759.1 (598.3, 949.2) 80 (14, 83) 16 falling falling trend -1.3 (-2.4, -0.2)
Benzie County Urban No 708.0 (603.3, 825.5) 81 (60, 83) 33 falling falling trend -1.7 (-2.8, -0.6)
Leelanau County Urban No 700.3 (612.9, 796.5) 82 (66, 83) 47 falling falling trend -1.4 (-1.9, -0.8)
Keweenaw County Rural No 661.6 (419.1, 994.0) 83 (6, 83) 5 falling falling trend -2.3 (-3.8, -0.9)
Notes:
Created by statecancerprofiles.cancer.gov on 10/22/2024 4:00 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