Return to Home Mortality > Table

Death Rates Table

Data Options

Death Rate Report for Minnesota by County

All Cancer Sites, 2018-2022

All Races (includes Hispanic), Both Sexes, Ages <65

Sorted by Name
County
 sort alphabetically by name descending
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
Minnesota N/A Yes 39.2 (38.5, 39.9) N/A 2,444 falling falling trend -1.9 (-2.0, -1.8)
United States N/A Yes 45.0 (44.9, 45.1) N/A 161,722 falling falling trend -2.1 (-2.4, -1.9)
Aitkin County Rural Yes 50.0 (34.4, 71.3) 16 (1, 78) 9 stable stable trend 2.6 (-1.9, 24.7)
Anoka County Urban Yes 38.3 (35.6, 41.2) 59 (35, 71) 160 falling falling trend -1.9 (-2.2, -1.6)
Becker County Rural Yes 41.2 (32.4, 51.9) 47 (8, 78) 17 falling falling trend -1.4 (-2.6, -0.2)
Beltrami County Rural Yes 47.1 (38.0, 57.7) 26 (4, 70) 21 stable stable trend -0.9 (-1.7, 0.1)
Benton County Urban Yes 38.1 (30.4, 47.4) 60 (13, 78) 17 falling falling trend -2.7 (-3.5, -1.8)
Blue Earth County Urban Yes 36.4 (29.7, 44.2) 66 (21, 78) 22 stable stable trend -0.3 (-2.1, 3.9)
Brown County Rural Yes 51.9 (39.5, 67.1) 12 (1, 72) 14 stable stable trend -0.6 (-1.8, 0.5)
Carlton County Urban Yes 39.5 (31.3, 49.4) 54 (11, 78) 18 falling falling trend -2.2 (-3.0, -1.3)
Carver County Urban Yes 30.8 (26.4, 35.7) 76 (53, 79) 37 falling falling trend -2.5 (-3.2, -1.7)
Cass County Rural Yes 47.4 (36.6, 60.6) 25 (2, 75) 17 falling falling trend -1.1 (-2.0, -0.1)
Chippewa County Rural Yes 55.9 (37.9, 79.9) 5 (1, 78) 7 stable stable trend -0.4 (-1.9, 1.3)
Chisago County Urban Yes 42.1 (35.3, 50.1) 45 (11, 75) 29 falling falling trend -2.2 (-3.0, -1.3)
Clay County Urban Yes 36.2 (29.6, 43.7) 67 (22, 79) 22 falling falling trend -1.4 (-2.3, -0.4)
Clearwater County Rural Yes 54.2 (33.5, 83.6) 7 (1, 79) 5 stable stable trend -0.3 (-2.0, 1.6)
Cottonwood County Rural Yes 32.3 (19.0, 52.3) 74 (6, 79) 4 falling falling trend -2.5 (-4.5, -0.6)
Crow Wing County Rural Yes 42.9 (36.2, 50.7) 40 (10, 72) 35 falling falling trend -1.5 (-2.3, -0.6)
Dakota County Urban Yes 35.9 (33.5, 38.4) 69 (45, 74) 176 falling falling trend -2.2 (-2.6, -1.8)
Dodge County Urban Yes 35.9 (25.5, 49.6) 68 (10, 79) 8 falling falling trend -1.8 (-3.2, -0.2)
Douglas County Rural Yes 36.8 (29.1, 46.3) 64 (16, 79) 18 falling falling trend -1.5 (-2.6, -0.3)
Faribault County Rural Yes 48.9 (34.2, 68.6) 19 (1, 78) 9 stable stable trend -0.6 (-2.1, 0.8)
Fillmore County Urban Yes 44.1 (32.3, 59.1) 36 (3, 78) 11 falling falling trend -1.2 (-2.2, -0.1)
Freeborn County Rural Yes 48.4 (37.9, 61.2) 21 (2, 72) 17 stable stable trend -0.9 (-1.9, 0.1)
Goodhue County Rural Yes 39.7 (32.2, 48.5) 53 (13, 78) 23 falling falling trend -2.4 (-3.3, -1.4)
Grant County Rural Yes 56.6 (31.5, 94.8) 4 (1, 79) 3 stable stable trend -0.4 (-2.2, 1.5)
Hennepin County Urban Yes 35.7 (34.2, 37.2) 70 (51, 73) 477 falling falling trend -2.2 (-2.4, -2.1)
Houston County Urban Yes 43.8 (31.7, 59.6) 38 (2, 79) 10 falling falling trend -2.2 (-3.5, -0.9)
Hubbard County Rural Yes 52.4 (39.7, 68.4) 11 (1, 70) 14 stable stable trend -0.7 (-2.0, 0.6)
Isanti County Urban Yes 37.7 (30.0, 46.9) 63 (16, 79) 18 stable stable trend -1.1 (-2.2, 0.2)
Itasca County Rural Yes 50.0 (41.1, 60.4) 17 (3, 62) 27 falling falling trend -1.2 (-1.8, -0.5)
Jackson County Rural Yes 45.5 (27.9, 70.9) 31 (1, 79) 5 stable stable trend -1.0 (-3.1, 1.0)
Kanabec County Rural Yes 44.1 (31.2, 61.1) 37 (2, 79) 9 falling falling trend -2.1 (-3.5, -0.6)
Kandiyohi County Rural Yes 44.7 (36.0, 55.0) 35 (5, 74) 21 falling falling trend -1.7 (-2.7, -0.7)
Kittson County Rural Yes 62.6 (33.3, 110.6) 3 (1, 79) 3
*
*
Koochiching County Rural Yes 28.2 (17.8, 44.6) 79 (21, 79) 5 falling falling trend -2.6 (-4.4, -0.9)
Lake County Rural Yes 51.5 (34.2, 75.8) 13 (1, 78) 7 falling falling trend -1.6 (-3.1, -0.2)
Le Sueur County Urban Yes 41.2 (31.6, 53.1) 48 (6, 78) 14 falling falling trend -1.4 (-2.6, -0.1)
Lincoln County Rural Yes 64.5 (37.6, 105.0) 1 (1, 79) 4
*
*
Lyon County Rural Yes 40.3 (29.4, 54.0) 51 (5, 79) 10 stable stable trend -1.1 (-2.3, 0.1)
Marshall County Rural Yes 49.6 (32.0, 74.8) 18 (1, 79) 6
*
*
Martin County Rural Yes 45.8 (33.1, 62.2) 28 (2, 78) 11 stable stable trend -1.3 (-2.7, 0.1)
McLeod County Rural Yes 38.6 (30.3, 48.7) 57 (12, 79) 16 stable stable trend -1.2 (-2.4, 0.1)
Meeker County Rural Yes 36.8 (26.9, 49.7) 65 (10, 79) 11 falling falling trend -1.6 (-2.8, -0.4)
Mille Lacs County Urban Yes 48.1 (36.8, 62.0) 22 (2, 76) 14 falling falling trend -1.6 (-2.4, -0.7)
Morrison County Rural Yes 62.9 (51.9, 75.9) 2 (1, 29) 26 stable stable trend 2.6 (-0.3, 16.6)
Mower County Rural Yes 39.1 (31.0, 48.8) 55 (11, 78) 18 falling falling trend -1.9 (-2.9, -1.0)
Murray County Rural Yes 29.1 (16.2, 50.9) 78 (9, 79) 3 stable stable trend -0.7 (-3.4, 2.4)
Nicollet County Urban Yes 34.6 (26.1, 45.1) 73 (19, 79) 12 falling falling trend -1.7 (-2.8, -0.5)
Nobles County Rural Yes 38.6 (27.5, 52.8) 56 (6, 79) 9 falling falling trend -1.7 (-2.7, -0.7)
Norman County Rural Yes 45.5 (26.1, 75.9) 32 (1, 79) 4
*
*
Olmsted County Urban Yes 37.8 (33.6, 42.4) 62 (28, 76) 63 rising rising trend 8.2 (1.8, 12.7)
Otter Tail County Rural Yes 45.2 (37.7, 53.8) 33 (6, 70) 32 falling falling trend -1.6 (-2.5, -0.6)
Pennington County Rural Yes 53.1 (37.0, 74.3) 10 (1, 77) 8 stable stable trend -0.7 (-2.4, 1.0)
Pine County Rural Yes 42.5 (33.4, 53.8) 42 (6, 77) 17 falling falling trend -2.2 (-3.1, -1.2)
Pipestone County Rural Yes 53.2 (35.6, 77.9) 9 (1, 78) 6 stable stable trend -0.9 (-2.7, 0.9)
Polk County Urban Yes 47.4 (37.4, 59.5) 24 (2, 74) 17 falling falling trend -1.9 (-3.0, -1.0)
Pope County Rural Yes 48.0 (30.2, 72.9) 23 (1, 79) 5 stable stable trend -1.0 (-2.7, 0.7)
Ramsey County Urban Yes 41.2 (38.7, 43.8) 46 (26, 60) 226 falling falling trend -2.0 (-2.3, -1.7)
Redwood County Rural Yes 45.7 (31.8, 64.1) 30 (1, 79) 8 falling falling trend -1.2 (-2.1, -0.3)
Renville County Rural Yes 46.0 (31.7, 65.2) 27 (1, 79) 8 stable stable trend -1.3 (-2.9, 0.3)
Rice County Rural Yes 42.7 (35.8, 50.6) 41 (8, 73) 29 falling falling trend -1.8 (-2.7, -0.8)
Rock County Urban Yes 40.7 (25.5, 63.0) 50 (2, 79) 5 stable stable trend -1.6 (-3.4, 0.2)
Roseau County Rural Yes 29.7 (19.9, 43.6) 77 (21, 79) 6 stable stable trend -1.4 (-2.9, 0.2)
Scott County Urban Yes 32.1 (28.3, 36.3) 75 (50, 79) 53 falling falling trend -3.0 (-3.6, -2.2)
Sherburne County Urban Yes 35.6 (30.7, 41.1) 71 (33, 78) 39 falling falling trend -3.0 (-9.5, -2.0)
Sibley County Rural Yes 50.7 (35.0, 71.2) 15 (1, 78) 8 falling falling trend -2.2 (-8.3, -1.1)
St. Louis County Urban Yes 45.8 (41.7, 50.1) 29 (11, 51) 109 falling falling trend -1.3 (-1.9, -0.8)
Stearns County Urban Yes 42.4 (37.8, 47.5) 43 (16, 67) 66 falling falling trend -1.4 (-2.1, -0.6)
Steele County Rural Yes 43.4 (34.6, 53.8) 39 (5, 76) 18 falling falling trend -1.8 (-2.8, -0.8)
Stevens County Rural Yes 48.8 (28.6, 77.7) 20 (1, 79) 4
*
*
Swift County Rural Yes 42.1 (25.4, 66.5) 44 (1, 79) 4 falling falling trend -3.1 (-5.2, -1.4)
Todd County Rural Yes 38.3 (27.8, 51.8) 58 (8, 79) 11 falling falling trend -1.7 (-2.9, -0.6)
Wabasha County Urban Yes 38.0 (27.4, 51.9) 61 (7, 79) 10 falling falling trend -2.3 (-3.8, -0.9)
Wadena County Rural Yes 53.7 (37.9, 74.4) 8 (1, 76) 8 stable stable trend -0.8 (-2.5, 1.0)
Waseca County Rural Yes 41.1 (29.3, 56.6) 49 (4, 79) 9 falling falling trend -2.3 (-3.7, -0.9)
Washington County Urban Yes 35.1 (32.0, 38.3) 72 (45, 76) 107 falling falling trend -2.0 (-2.4, -1.4)
Watonwan County Rural Yes 51.5 (33.4, 76.1) 14 (1, 79) 6 stable stable trend -1.0 (-2.7, 0.7)
Winona County Rural Yes 45.0 (36.5, 55.0) 34 (6, 73) 22 falling falling trend -1.4 (-2.3, -0.4)
Wright County Urban Yes 39.8 (35.4, 44.7) 52 (21, 72) 60 falling falling trend -2.0 (-2.7, -1.3)
Yellow Medicine County Rural Yes 55.8 (36.3, 83.0) 6 (1, 78) 6 stable stable trend -0.2 (-2.2, 1.9)
Big Stone County Rural ***
*
*
3 or fewer
*
*
Cook County Rural ***
*
*
3 or fewer
*
*
Lac qui Parle County Rural ***
*
*
3 or fewer
*
*
Lake of the Woods County Rural ***
*
*
3 or fewer
*
*
Mahnomen County Rural ***
*
*
3 or fewer
*
*
Red Lake County Rural ***
*
*
3 or fewer
*
*
Traverse County Rural ***
*
*
3 or fewer
*
*
Wilkin County Rural ***
*
*
3 or fewer
*
*
Notes:
Created by statecancerprofiles.cancer.gov on 09/20/2024 6:53 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.

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