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), 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
Michigan N/A No 138.2 (137.0, 139.4) N/A 10,022 falling falling trend -1.2 (-1.4, -1.1)
United States N/A No 126.4 (126.2, 126.6) N/A 285,526 falling falling trend -1.3 (-1.4, -1.1)
Luce County Rural No 214.1 (153.4, 295.5) 1 (1, 75) 10 stable stable trend -0.4 (-1.9, 1.1)
Montmorency County Rural No 193.0 (148.7, 250.1) 2 (1, 71) 18 stable stable trend -0.1 (-1.3, 1.1)
Kalkaska County Urban No 184.7 (151.6, 223.9) 3 (1, 65) 24 stable stable trend 0.3 (-0.6, 1.3)
Alcona County Rural No 177.1 (141.7, 223.8) 4 (1, 71) 21 stable stable trend -0.2 (-1.0, 0.7)
Iosco County Rural No 173.4 (147.7, 203.2) 5 (1, 59) 43 falling falling trend -0.8 (-1.5, -0.1)
Clare County Rural No 168.6 (145.5, 194.9) 6 (1, 59) 44 stable stable trend -0.4 (-1.1, 0.4)
Chippewa County Rural No 168.2 (145.7, 193.8) 7 (1, 61) 43 stable stable trend 0.1 (-0.4, 0.7)
Gratiot County Rural No 166.9 (145.3, 191.1) 8 (1, 59) 47 stable stable trend 0.0 (-0.6, 0.7)
Isabella County Rural No 164.2 (144.9, 185.6) 9 (1, 58) 56 stable stable trend 0.1 (-0.7, 1.0)
Lake County Rural No 162.3 (125.1, 209.8) 10 (1, 80) 17 stable stable trend -1.1 (-2.1, 0.0)
Ogemaw County Rural No 160.3 (134.0, 191.4) 11 (1, 75) 31 falling falling trend -1.3 (-2.1, -0.5)
Hillsdale County Rural No 159.3 (140.2, 180.5) 12 (2, 64) 55 stable stable trend -0.3 (-1.0, 0.3)
Mecosta County Rural No 159.1 (138.7, 182.2) 13 (2, 66) 47 stable stable trend -0.1 (-0.9, 0.7)
Calhoun County Urban No 157.2 (145.9, 169.2) 14 (5, 50) 153 falling falling trend -0.7 (-1.0, -0.4)
Crawford County Rural No 157.1 (126.9, 194.9) 15 (1, 78) 20 stable stable trend 0.0 (-1.0, 1.1)
Alpena County Rural No 156.7 (134.9, 181.8) 16 (2, 72) 42 stable stable trend -0.5 (-1.2, 0.2)
Tuscola County Rural No 156.4 (139.4, 175.2) 17 (3, 65) 67 stable stable trend -0.4 (-1.1, 0.3)
Roscommon County Rural No 155.8 (131.8, 184.5) 18 (1, 76) 38 stable stable trend 0.0 (-0.9, 0.9)
Arenac County Rural No 154.9 (124.1, 192.5) 19 (1, 79) 20 stable stable trend -0.7 (-1.5, 0.1)
Gladwin County Rural No 154.2 (131.0, 181.4) 20 (2, 77) 37 stable stable trend -0.7 (-1.3, 0.1)
Baraga County Rural No 152.7 (112.4, 206.6) 21 (1, 82) 10 stable stable trend 0.1 (-1.4, 1.7)
Iron County Rural No 152.5 (119.8, 194.2) 22 (1, 80) 19 stable stable trend -1.2 (-2.6, 0.2)
Manistee County Rural No 152.2 (129.3, 179.3) 23 (2, 77) 36 stable stable trend -0.5 (-1.1, 0.0)
Sanilac County Rural No 152.2 (132.9, 173.9) 24 (3, 72) 50 stable stable trend -0.3 (-1.0, 0.3)
Genesee County Urban No 151.4 (145.1, 157.9) 25 (12, 48) 460 falling falling trend -1.2 (-2.6, -0.8)
Muskegon County Urban No 150.0 (140.2, 160.3) 26 (9, 58) 187 falling falling trend -0.6 (-0.9, -0.3)
St. Clair County Urban No 149.5 (139.7, 160.0) 27 (9, 59) 183 falling falling trend -1.7 (-5.6, -0.9)
Jackson County Urban No 149.1 (138.9, 159.8) 28 (10, 59) 173 falling falling trend -0.7 (-1.1, -0.3)
Oscoda County Rural No 148.3 (109.6, 200.2) 29 (1, 82) 12 stable stable trend -0.7 (-2.0, 0.6)
Mason County Rural No 148.2 (126.3, 173.5) 30 (3, 78) 38 stable stable trend -0.7 (-1.5, 0.1)
Alger County Rural No 147.8 (108.5, 201.0) 31 (1, 82) 11 stable stable trend 0.0 (-1.2, 1.2)
Charlevoix County Rural No 147.7 (124.4, 175.0) 32 (2, 79) 34 stable stable trend -0.4 (-1.1, 0.3)
Bay County Urban No 147.7 (135.8, 160.4) 33 (8, 64) 126 falling falling trend -0.4 (-0.8, -0.1)
Montcalm County Urban No 146.9 (131.1, 164.3) 34 (6, 72) 67 falling falling trend -0.9 (-1.3, -0.4)
Cass County Urban No 146.8 (130.3, 165.2) 35 (5, 73) 61 falling falling trend -0.8 (-1.3, -0.3)
Shiawassee County Rural No 146.5 (131.8, 162.7) 36 (6, 72) 77 falling falling trend -0.7 (-1.1, -0.4)
Huron County Rural No 145.8 (126.0, 168.5) 37 (4, 77) 45 stable stable trend -0.4 (-1.0, 0.2)
Wayne County Urban No 145.7 (142.6, 148.9) 38 (23, 50) 1,767 falling falling trend -1.7 (-2.1, -1.4)
Lapeer County Urban No 145.4 (132.3, 159.5) 39 (8, 70) 97 stable stable trend -1.0 (-4.9, 0.0)
Allegan County Rural No 144.2 (132.5, 156.7) 40 (10, 67) 118 falling falling trend -0.7 (-1.2, -0.2)
Berrien County Urban No 144.1 (134.5, 154.3) 41 (13, 64) 180 falling falling trend -0.8 (-1.2, -0.5)
Van Buren County Rural No 144.0 (129.8, 159.6) 42 (8, 72) 80 falling falling trend -0.7 (-1.2, -0.1)
Menominee County Rural No 143.8 (121.3, 170.4) 43 (2, 79) 32 stable stable trend 0.2 (-0.9, 1.3)
Macomb County Urban No 143.2 (139.1, 147.5) 44 (26, 56) 938 falling falling trend -0.7 (-0.9, -0.6)
Ionia County Urban No 143.0 (126.3, 161.5) 45 (7, 76) 55 falling falling trend -0.8 (-1.4, -0.2)
Wexford County Rural No 142.5 (121.8, 166.3) 46 (4, 79) 36 stable stable trend -0.2 (-1.2, 0.8)
Newaygo County Rural No 142.4 (124.9, 161.8) 47 (6, 78) 52 falling falling trend -1.0 (-1.6, -0.3)
Osceola County Rural No 141.7 (117.8, 169.9) 48 (3, 80) 26 stable stable trend -0.8 (-1.5, 0.1)
Monroe County Urban No 141.2 (131.4, 151.6) 49 (17, 68) 165 falling falling trend -1.0 (-1.3, -0.7)
Delta County Rural No 141.2 (122.9, 162.0) 50 (8, 78) 49 falling falling trend -0.8 (-1.5, -0.2)
Houghton County Rural No 140.3 (119.2, 164.4) 51 (5, 80) 34 falling falling trend -0.9 (-1.7, -0.2)
Ingham County Urban No 140.1 (131.9, 148.6) 52 (20, 67) 232 falling falling trend -0.8 (-1.1, -0.5)
Ontonagon County Rural No 139.8 (104.6, 198.8) 53 (1, 82) 11 stable stable trend -0.1 (-1.3, 1.3)
Kalamazoo County Urban No 137.9 (129.8, 146.4) 54 (24, 69) 229 falling falling trend -0.9 (-1.2, -0.6)
St. Joseph County Rural No 136.9 (121.2, 154.1) 55 (11, 78) 60 falling falling trend -0.8 (-1.3, -0.3)
Otsego County Rural No 136.7 (113.6, 163.7) 56 (5, 81) 27 stable stable trend -0.9 (-1.6, 0.0)
Branch County Rural No 136.3 (117.8, 157.1) 57 (9, 80) 43 stable stable trend -0.7 (-1.4, 0.1)
Eaton County Urban No 135.5 (124.3, 147.6) 58 (19, 77) 114 falling falling trend -0.7 (-1.2, -0.3)
Barry County Urban No 134.6 (119.6, 151.3) 59 (14, 79) 61 falling falling trend -0.9 (-1.5, -0.3)
Cheboygan County Rural No 134.5 (114.0, 159.0) 60 (8, 81) 34 falling falling trend -1.2 (-2.0, -0.4)
Emmet County Rural No 133.3 (114.5, 155.0) 61 (9, 81) 39 falling falling trend -0.9 (-1.5, -0.1)
Midland County Urban No 132.9 (120.4, 146.5) 62 (21, 78) 89 falling falling trend -0.8 (-1.3, -0.2)
Schoolcraft County Rural No 131.6 (98.3, 177.4) 63 (2, 82) 11 stable stable trend -0.8 (-2.0, 0.4)
Saginaw County Urban No 130.9 (122.5, 139.8) 64 (35, 77) 197 falling falling trend -1.0 (-1.3, -0.6)
Missaukee County Rural No 129.3 (100.2, 165.4) 65 (3, 82) 15 stable stable trend -0.5 (-1.4, 0.5)
Lenawee County Rural No 129.0 (117.3, 141.6) 66 (30, 79) 97 falling falling trend -1.0 (-1.4, -0.5)
Marquette County Rural No 128.3 (113.7, 144.4) 67 (20, 80) 62 falling falling trend -1.0 (-1.5, -0.5)
Kent County Urban No 126.5 (121.5, 131.7) 68 (53, 77) 499 falling falling trend -1.0 (-1.2, -0.8)
Oceana County Rural No 126.4 (105.0, 151.6) 69 (12, 82) 26 stable stable trend -0.8 (-1.7, 0.2)
Washtenaw County Urban No 123.6 (117.0, 130.5) 70 (54, 79) 275 falling falling trend -1.3 (-1.5, -1.1)
Grand Traverse County Urban Yes 122.5 (111.2, 134.7) 71 (45, 81) 95 falling falling trend -1.1 (-1.6, -0.5)
Benzie County Urban Yes 122.4 (97.0, 153.8) 72 (8, 82) 20 falling falling trend -1.4 (-2.2, -0.5)
Presque Isle County Rural Yes 122.4 (96.4, 156.5) 73 (8, 82) 18 falling falling trend -1.4 (-2.6, -0.1)
Livingston County Urban Yes 122.1 (113.8, 131.0) 74 (52, 80) 169 falling falling trend -1.4 (-1.8, -1.0)
Oakland County Urban Yes 121.8 (118.6, 125.1) 75 (63, 78) 1,147 falling falling trend -1.5 (-2.2, -1.4)
Antrim County Rural Yes 121.8 (100.0, 148.1) 76 (13, 82) 27 falling falling trend -1.7 (-2.5, -0.8)
Ottawa County Urban Yes 120.9 (113.9, 128.3) 77 (56, 80) 233 falling falling trend -0.8 (-1.1, -0.5)
Gogebic County Rural Yes 113.0 (88.6, 144.5) 78 (18, 82) 16 falling falling trend -1.3 (-2.2, -0.4)
Mackinac County Rural Yes 111.2 (84.7, 147.1) 79 (13, 82) 13 falling falling trend -3.2 (-12.0, -2.0)
Dickinson County Rural Yes 108.7 (89.7, 131.4) 80 (37, 82) 25 falling falling trend -1.6 (-2.3, -0.8)
Clinton County Urban Yes 105.8 (94.0, 118.8) 81 (66, 82) 60 falling falling trend -1.5 (-2.1, -0.9)
Leelanau County Urban Yes 99.1 (80.6, 122.2) 82 (58, 82) 25 falling falling trend -2.0 (-2.8, -1.0)
Keweenaw County Rural ***
*
*
3 or fewer
*
*
Notes:
Created by statecancerprofiles.cancer.gov on 12/13/2024 2:52 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.


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