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), 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
Michigan N/A No 186.8 (185.2, 188.4) N/A 11,047 falling falling trend -1.5 (-1.5, -1.4)
United States N/A No 173.2 (173.0, 173.5) N/A 317,428 falling falling trend -1.8 (-1.8, -1.8)
Barry County Urban No 175.8 (156.5, 196.9) 70 (22, 82) 68 falling falling trend -1.0 (-1.6, -0.3)
Bay County Urban No 198.5 (183.5, 214.5) 33 (10, 69) 139 falling falling trend -1.5 (-1.8, -1.2)
Benzie County Urban No 172.4 (142.5, 207.9) 73 (11, 83) 27 falling falling trend -1.5 (-2.5, -0.4)
Berrien County Urban No 187.5 (175.5, 200.1) 53 (23, 74) 193 falling falling trend -1.5 (-1.8, -1.1)
Calhoun County Urban No 222.0 (207.1, 237.7) 11 (3, 34) 177 falling falling trend -1.0 (-1.4, -0.6)
Cass County Urban No 202.3 (181.6, 225.0) 28 (6, 73) 77 falling falling trend -1.1 (-1.7, -0.4)
Clinton County Urban No 172.2 (155.2, 190.6) 74 (31, 82) 80 falling falling trend -1.4 (-1.9, -0.9)
Eaton County Urban No 180.6 (166.2, 196.0) 63 (27, 79) 125 falling falling trend -1.1 (-1.5, -0.5)
Genesee County Urban No 198.0 (189.9, 206.4) 34 (18, 56) 477 falling falling trend -1.4 (-1.7, -1.2)
Grand Traverse County Urban No 168.7 (153.9, 184.6) 77 (38, 82) 103 falling falling trend -1.6 (-2.2, -1.0)
Ingham County Urban No 190.5 (179.6, 201.8) 45 (22, 71) 249 falling falling trend -1.4 (-1.7, -1.0)
Ionia County Urban No 189.7 (169.0, 212.3) 47 (9, 80) 68 falling falling trend -1.2 (-1.7, -0.7)
Jackson County Urban No 204.9 (192.2, 218.2) 27 (11, 59) 207 falling falling trend -1.3 (-1.6, -0.9)
Kalamazoo County Urban No 182.6 (172.2, 193.6) 61 (32, 74) 241 falling falling trend -1.4 (-1.7, -1.1)
Kalkaska County Urban No 273.1 (229.6, 322.8) 1 (1, 29) 33 stable stable trend -0.6 (-1.5, 0.5)
Kent County Urban No 186.6 (179.7, 193.8) 54 (33, 68) 585 stable stable trend -0.2 (-1.3, 2.7)
Lapeer County Urban No 187.8 (171.3, 205.6) 51 (17, 77) 108 falling falling trend -1.4 (-1.9, -0.7)
Leelanau County Urban No 135.0 (113.5, 160.8) 83 (68, 83) 32 falling falling trend -1.3 (-1.9, -0.6)
Livingston County Urban No 177.5 (166.5, 189.1) 67 (37, 78) 212 falling falling trend -1.8 (-2.2, -1.3)
Macomb County Urban No 191.8 (186.3, 197.5) 42 (29, 60) 967 falling falling trend -1.4 (-1.6, -1.3)
Midland County Urban No 173.7 (158.0, 190.6) 72 (31, 82) 94 stable stable trend 1.9 (0.0, 6.3)
Monroe County Urban No 201.2 (188.2, 214.9) 30 (12, 63) 193 falling falling trend -1.3 (-1.7, -0.8)
Montcalm County Urban No 217.1 (196.8, 239.1) 16 (3, 55) 91 falling falling trend -1.2 (-1.8, -0.7)
Muskegon County Urban No 214.1 (201.2, 227.6) 19 (6, 42) 223 falling falling trend -1.0 (-1.3, -0.7)
Oakland County Urban No 160.9 (156.6, 165.2) 79 (69, 82) 1,164 falling falling trend -1.8 (-1.9, -1.6)
Ottawa County Urban No 160.4 (151.4, 169.9) 80 (65, 82) 246 falling falling trend -1.1 (-1.4, -0.8)
Saginaw County Urban No 195.0 (183.7, 206.8) 36 (18, 66) 235 falling falling trend -1.5 (-1.9, -1.2)
St. Clair County Urban No 194.5 (182.3, 207.4) 38 (17, 69) 206 falling falling trend -1.5 (-1.8, -1.2)
Washtenaw County Urban No 152.4 (144.1, 161.0) 81 (72, 83) 270 falling falling trend -1.8 (-2.1, -1.5)
Wayne County Urban No 191.5 (187.4, 195.7) 44 (31, 58) 1,772 falling falling trend -2.3 (-3.6, -1.9)
Alcona County Rural No 196.0 (159.1, 243.6) 35 (2, 83) 24 falling falling trend -1.3 (-2.0, -0.5)
Alger County Rural No 149.5 (111.3, 199.0) 82 (14, 83) 11 falling falling trend -2.1 (-3.1, -1.1)
Allegan County Rural No 185.2 (170.4, 200.9) 57 (21, 77) 129 falling falling trend -1.3 (-1.7, -0.8)
Alpena County Rural No 212.0 (185.1, 242.2) 22 (2, 72) 48 falling falling trend -1.3 (-1.9, -0.6)
Antrim County Rural No 179.3 (153.4, 209.5) 65 (11, 83) 37 falling falling trend -1.5 (-2.2, -0.9)
Arenac County Rural No 194.8 (159.4, 237.1) 37 (3, 82) 26 falling falling trend -1.4 (-2.2, -0.7)
Baraga County Rural No 253.7 (199.4, 320.1) 2 (1, 72) 16 stable stable trend -0.6 (-1.6, 0.4)
Branch County Rural No 201.5 (177.9, 227.4) 29 (4, 75) 58 falling falling trend -1.0 (-1.7, -0.3)
Charlevoix County Rural No 174.5 (149.8, 202.9) 71 (15, 83) 38 falling falling trend -1.7 (-2.6, -0.8)
Cheboygan County Rural No 185.1 (159.2, 215.0) 58 (8, 82) 42 falling falling trend -1.1 (-1.7, -0.5)
Chippewa County Rural No 221.9 (195.8, 250.9) 12 (1, 62) 54 falling falling trend -0.8 (-1.5, -0.1)
Clare County Rural No 246.2 (218.2, 277.5) 3 (1, 29) 62 falling falling trend -1.0 (-1.5, -0.3)
Crawford County Rural No 236.8 (198.0, 283.1) 6 (1, 68) 29 stable stable trend 1.3 (-0.9, 10.9)
Delta County Rural No 200.5 (177.0, 226.6) 32 (5, 75) 58 falling falling trend -1.2 (-1.8, -0.5)
Dickinson County Rural No 178.2 (152.3, 207.9) 66 (12, 83) 36 falling falling trend -1.2 (-1.8, -0.5)
Emmet County Rural No 176.2 (153.3, 202.1) 69 (16, 83) 46 stable stable trend -0.8 (-7.0, 4.4)
Gladwin County Rural No 224.5 (195.3, 257.5) 8 (1, 61) 49 falling falling trend -0.9 (-1.5, -0.2)
Gogebic County Rural No 164.1 (133.2, 201.6) 78 (13, 83) 22 falling falling trend -1.7 (-2.6, -0.9)
Gratiot County Rural No 191.9 (168.2, 218.1) 41 (8, 80) 49 falling falling trend -0.9 (-1.6, -0.3)
Hillsdale County Rural No 223.7 (199.8, 249.8) 10 (1, 59) 70 falling falling trend -0.9 (-1.5, -0.2)
Houghton County Rural No 215.8 (188.3, 246.5) 18 (2, 71) 47 stable stable trend 3.3 (-1.0, 10.1)
Huron County Rural No 181.4 (158.4, 207.5) 62 (13, 82) 49 falling falling trend -1.0 (-1.6, -0.4)
Iosco County Rural No 224.3 (196.8, 255.6) 9 (1, 62) 54 falling falling trend -1.2 (-2.0, -0.4)
Iron County Rural No 206.8 (166.2, 256.7) 25 (1, 82) 23 falling falling trend -1.6 (-2.4, -0.9)
Isabella County Rural No 207.1 (182.8, 233.7) 24 (3, 72) 58 falling falling trend -1.5 (-2.2, -0.8)
Keweenaw County Rural No 177.4 (107.4, 306.3) 68 (1, 83) 4 stable stable trend -1.8 (-4.1, 0.6)
Lake County Rural No 229.8 (190.4, 277.1) 7 (1, 76) 27 falling falling trend -12.0 (-20.1, -5.7)
Lenawee County Rural No 200.9 (184.9, 218.0) 31 (9, 68) 125 falling falling trend -1.0 (-1.4, -0.7)
Luce County Rural No 183.1 (132.6, 251.4) 59 (1, 83) 9 falling falling trend -1.9 (-3.2, -0.6)
Mackinac County Rural No 188.8 (151.0, 235.9) 49 (2, 83) 19 falling falling trend -1.8 (-3.1, -0.6)
Manistee County Rural No 192.2 (166.2, 222.1) 40 (7, 81) 42 falling falling trend -1.7 (-2.4, -1.0)
Marquette County Rural No 180.2 (162.4, 199.5) 64 (23, 81) 80 falling falling trend -1.0 (-1.4, -0.5)
Mason County Rural No 221.5 (193.4, 253.2) 13 (1, 63) 49 falling falling trend -0.9 (-1.6, -0.2)
Mecosta County Rural No 218.0 (191.3, 247.6) 15 (2, 69) 54 falling falling trend -0.9 (-1.5, -0.2)
Menominee County Rural No 182.8 (156.8, 212.8) 60 (11, 83) 37 falling falling trend -1.3 (-2.0, -0.4)
Missaukee County Rural No 205.1 (167.4, 249.6) 26 (1, 82) 23 stable stable trend -1.1 (-2.5, 0.4)
Montmorency County Rural No 220.5 (176.8, 275.4) 14 (1, 80) 21 falling falling trend -1.2 (-2.3, -0.2)
Newaygo County Rural No 189.7 (168.7, 212.9) 46 (9, 79) 65 falling falling trend -1.1 (-1.6, -0.5)
Oceana County Rural No 191.8 (164.5, 222.9) 43 (5, 81) 38 falling falling trend -0.9 (-1.4, -0.3)
Ogemaw County Rural No 216.0 (185.6, 251.2) 17 (1, 73) 41 falling falling trend -1.2 (-1.9, -0.5)
Ontonagon County Rural No 169.2 (128.4, 230.9) 76 (4, 83) 13 falling falling trend -1.9 (-3.2, -0.6)
Osceola County Rural No 212.3 (180.9, 248.0) 20 (2, 75) 35 falling falling trend -1.0 (-1.7, -0.2)
Oscoda County Rural No 243.4 (194.1, 304.9) 5 (1, 73) 19 stable stable trend -0.4 (-1.6, 0.8)
Otsego County Rural No 187.9 (159.6, 220.3) 50 (7, 82) 34 falling falling trend -1.3 (-2.2, -0.2)
Presque Isle County Rural No 171.2 (137.6, 213.0) 75 (8, 83) 23 falling falling trend -1.2 (-2.0, -0.3)
Roscommon County Rural No 212.1 (184.6, 243.9) 21 (2, 74) 54 stable stable trend -0.5 (-1.1, 0.1)
Sanilac County Rural No 208.1 (184.9, 233.7) 23 (3, 71) 64 falling falling trend -1.2 (-1.6, -0.7)
Schoolcraft County Rural No 246.0 (194.8, 310.2) 4 (1, 76) 18 stable stable trend -0.1 (-1.0, 0.8)
Shiawassee County Rural No 187.5 (168.6, 208.1) 52 (12, 80) 78 falling falling trend -1.3 (-1.9, -0.7)
St. Joseph County Rural No 189.0 (169.2, 210.5) 48 (12, 79) 71 falling falling trend -1.6 (-2.2, -1.1)
Tuscola County Rural No 193.5 (173.4, 215.5) 39 (9, 78) 74 falling falling trend -1.2 (-1.9, -0.4)
Van Buren County Rural No 186.6 (168.8, 205.7) 55 (15, 79) 89 falling falling trend -1.2 (-1.6, -0.8)
Wexford County Rural No 186.0 (161.0, 214.0) 56 (10, 82) 43 falling falling trend -1.2 (-1.8, -0.5)
Notes:
Created by statecancerprofiles.cancer.gov on 12/02/2024 9:45 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.


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