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), 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 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 No 122.8 (121.2, 124.5) N/A 4,745 falling falling trend -1.3 (-1.4, -1.2)
United States N/A No 126.4 (126.2, 126.6) N/A 285,526 falling falling trend -1.3 (-1.4, -1.1)
Cook County Rural Yes 97.8 (62.6, 153.5) 86 (6, 86) 6 falling falling trend -2.3 (-4.5, -0.1)
Carver County Urban Yes 104.7 (93.2, 117.3) 85 (48, 86) 63 falling falling trend -1.3 (-1.9, -0.6)
Marshall County Rural Yes 105.0 (72.8, 148.9) 84 (6, 86) 8 stable stable trend -0.9 (-2.2, 0.3)
Roseau County Rural Yes 106.3 (81.0, 138.4) 83 (12, 86) 13 falling falling trend -1.8 (-2.5, -1.1)
Koochiching County Rural Yes 106.3 (82.4, 138.2) 82 (11, 86) 14 falling falling trend -1.2 (-2.2, -0.1)
Nicollet County Urban Yes 107.3 (88.8, 128.9) 81 (20, 86) 26 falling falling trend -3.2 (-13.1, -1.5)
Blue Earth County Urban Yes 111.1 (96.8, 127.0) 80 (27, 86) 47 falling falling trend -2.1 (-9.1, -1.3)
Otter Tail County Rural Yes 113.0 (99.9, 127.7) 79 (26, 85) 62 falling falling trend -1.0 (-1.5, -0.4)
Redwood County Rural Yes 114.5 (87.7, 148.0) 78 (6, 86) 14 stable stable trend -0.5 (-1.2, 0.3)
Dakota County Urban Yes 114.9 (109.3, 120.8) 77 (46, 80) 321 falling falling trend -1.7 (-3.4, -1.4)
Scott County Urban Yes 114.9 (104.3, 126.4) 76 (31, 84) 89 falling falling trend -1.5 (-2.1, -0.7)
Crow Wing County Rural Yes 115.0 (102.4, 129.0) 75 (24, 85) 68 falling falling trend -1.2 (-1.8, -0.6)
McLeod County Rural Yes 115.0 (97.3, 135.3) 74 (16, 86) 33 stable stable trend -0.5 (-1.2, 0.2)
Olmsted County Urban Yes 115.5 (106.5, 125.2) 73 (34, 83) 129 stable stable trend 5.4 (-1.4, 9.6)
Nobles County Rural Yes 115.7 (91.3, 145.0) 72 (7, 86) 17 stable stable trend -0.5 (-1.5, 0.4)
Todd County Rural Yes 116.2 (94.1, 142.6) 71 (10, 86) 23 falling falling trend -1.2 (-2.1, -0.4)
Norman County Rural Yes 116.3 (78.6, 169.9) 70 (3, 86) 7 stable stable trend -1.4 (-3.5, 0.4)
Dodge County Urban Yes 116.4 (91.4, 146.6) 69 (8, 86) 15 stable stable trend 0.1 (-0.9, 1.4)
Pope County Rural Yes 117.5 (87.5, 156.9) 68 (4, 86) 12 falling falling trend -1.3 (-2.5, -0.2)
Clay County Urban Yes 117.8 (102.4, 134.9) 67 (17, 85) 45 stable stable trend -1.1 (-6.8, 0.0)
Jackson County Rural Yes 117.9 (83.3, 163.7) 66 (3, 86) 10 stable stable trend -0.3 (-1.9, 1.2)
Hennepin County Urban Yes 118.1 (114.6, 121.6) 65 (45, 74) 944 falling falling trend -1.7 (-2.2, -1.5)
Lac qui Parle County Rural Yes 119.0 (81.0, 173.5) 64 (2, 86) 8 stable stable trend -0.1 (-1.7, 1.5)
Becker County Rural Yes 119.2 (101.4, 139.8) 63 (13, 86) 34 stable stable trend -0.7 (-1.4, 0.1)
Houston County Urban Yes 119.8 (95.8, 149.0) 62 (6, 86) 19 falling falling trend -0.8 (-1.5, -0.1)
Kanabec County Rural Yes 121.4 (95.1, 154.0) 61 (5, 86) 16 falling falling trend -1.7 (-2.9, -0.4)
Washington County Urban Yes 121.6 (114.2, 129.3) 60 (27, 76) 211 falling falling trend -1.2 (-1.5, -0.8)
Wabasha County Urban Yes 121.9 (99.1, 149.2) 59 (6, 86) 22 stable stable trend -0.8 (-1.6, 0.0)
Anoka County Urban Yes 122.6 (116.1, 129.5) 58 (28, 74) 270 falling falling trend -1.2 (-1.5, -0.8)
Mower County Rural No 123.0 (105.2, 143.3) 57 (10, 84) 38 stable stable trend -0.8 (-1.6, 0.0)
Freeborn County Rural No 123.0 (103.9, 145.3) 56 (8, 85) 34 falling falling trend -0.7 (-1.2, -0.1)
Swift County Rural No 123.1 (89.0, 168.1) 55 (3, 86) 11 falling falling trend -2.0 (-3.2, -0.8)
Rock County Urban No 123.2 (91.0, 165.4) 54 (3, 86) 11 stable stable trend -0.5 (-1.9, 1.0)
Lake County Rural No 123.3 (92.9, 163.4) 53 (3, 86) 13 falling falling trend -1.6 (-2.7, -0.6)
Sherburne County Urban No 123.5 (109.7, 138.5) 52 (14, 82) 61 falling falling trend -1.2 (-1.9, -0.4)
Aitkin County Rural No 124.2 (98.0, 157.5) 51 (4, 86) 21 falling falling trend -1.2 (-2.0, -0.3)
Stevens County Rural No 124.6 (85.7, 175.9) 50 (2, 86) 8 stable stable trend -0.4 (-1.8, 1.0)
Yellow Medicine County Rural No 124.8 (90.7, 169.7) 49 (2, 86) 10 stable stable trend -0.2 (-1.5, 1.0)
Steele County Rural No 125.1 (106.6, 146.2) 48 (8, 84) 35 falling falling trend -1.0 (-1.6, -0.3)
Beltrami County Rural No 125.6 (107.3, 146.3) 47 (8, 84) 37 falling falling trend -1.1 (-1.9, -0.2)
Carlton County Urban No 125.7 (106.9, 147.3) 46 (8, 84) 34 stable stable trend -0.7 (-1.8, 0.4)
Kandiyohi County Rural No 126.3 (108.9, 146.0) 45 (9, 83) 42 falling falling trend -0.8 (-1.5, -0.2)
Stearns County Urban No 126.5 (116.5, 137.3) 44 (17, 74) 124 falling falling trend -0.6 (-0.9, -0.2)
St. Louis County Urban No 127.0 (118.9, 135.7) 43 (20, 69) 203 falling falling trend -2.5 (-7.2, -1.2)
Brown County Rural No 127.2 (105.9, 152.4) 42 (7, 85) 30 falling falling trend -0.9 (-1.6, -0.3)
Goodhue County Rural No 127.3 (111.4, 145.2) 41 (10, 82) 49 falling falling trend -1.2 (-1.8, -0.6)
Hubbard County Rural No 127.5 (103.7, 156.1) 40 (4, 85) 24 stable stable trend -1.0 (-2.0, 0.0)
Wright County Urban No 127.9 (116.8, 139.9) 39 (15, 74) 99 stable stable trend -0.6 (-1.1, 0.0)
Grant County Rural No 128.6 (84.2, 191.3) 38 (1, 86) 6 stable stable trend 0.2 (-1.3, 1.7)
Lyon County Rural No 129.1 (105.2, 157.1) 37 (4, 85) 23 stable stable trend 0.2 (-0.6, 1.1)
Winona County Rural No 129.4 (112.0, 148.9) 36 (7, 82) 44 falling falling trend -0.8 (-1.4, -0.2)
Cottonwood County Rural No 129.4 (98.5, 168.9) 35 (3, 86) 14 stable stable trend -0.4 (-1.4, 0.6)
Ramsey County Urban No 129.6 (124.2, 135.3) 34 (20, 57) 456 falling falling trend -1.5 (-1.8, -1.3)
Cass County Rural No 130.3 (109.8, 154.3) 33 (6, 83) 34 stable stable trend -0.8 (-1.7, 0.1)
Le Sueur County Urban No 131.6 (109.5, 157.2) 32 (4, 84) 26 stable stable trend -0.6 (-1.1, 0.0)
Renville County Rural No 131.8 (102.2, 168.5) 31 (2, 86) 16 stable stable trend -0.3 (-1.1, 0.6)
Meeker County Rural No 131.9 (108.9, 159.1) 30 (4, 84) 25 falling falling trend -0.8 (-1.4, -0.1)
Douglas County Rural No 132.3 (115.1, 151.9) 29 (7, 80) 48 stable stable trend -0.3 (-1.0, 0.6)
Benton County Urban No 132.3 (112.4, 154.9) 28 (5, 82) 33 falling falling trend -1.0 (-1.8, -0.1)
Rice County Rural No 132.6 (117.1, 149.7) 27 (8, 78) 57 stable stable trend -0.5 (-1.0, 0.1)
Fillmore County Urban No 132.9 (108.9, 161.6) 26 (3, 84) 25 stable stable trend -0.7 (-1.5, 0.1)
Itasca County Rural No 133.8 (117.1, 152.5) 25 (6, 78) 53 falling falling trend -1.1 (-1.7, -0.6)
Polk County Urban No 134.5 (113.5, 158.8) 24 (4, 81) 32 falling falling trend -1.0 (-1.9, -0.1)
Sibley County Rural No 134.8 (104.7, 171.9) 23 (2, 86) 15 stable stable trend -0.5 (-1.6, 0.7)
Mille Lacs County Urban No 135.5 (112.7, 162.1) 22 (3, 84) 26 falling falling trend -1.0 (-1.7, -0.2)
Isanti County Urban No 135.7 (116.6, 157.2) 21 (4, 79) 38 stable stable trend -0.1 (-1.0, 1.1)
Pine County Rural No 139.2 (118.1, 163.9) 20 (3, 80) 33 stable stable trend -0.7 (-1.4, 0.1)
Big Stone County Rural No 141.4 (93.6, 210.4) 19 (1, 86) 7 stable stable trend -1.4 (-3.2, 0.2)
Clearwater County Rural No 141.8 (100.6, 196.1) 18 (1, 86) 9 stable stable trend 0.1 (-1.4, 1.7)
Martin County Rural No 142.0 (115.8, 173.3) 17 (2, 82) 26 stable stable trend -0.4 (-1.3, 0.5)
Lincoln County Rural No 143.4 (96.5, 209.5) 16 (1, 86) 7 falling falling trend -1.9 (-3.4, -0.5)
Murray County Rural No 143.7 (108.8, 190.2) 15 (1, 86) 12 stable stable trend -0.2 (-1.6, 1.3)
Morrison County Rural No 144.3 (123.6, 167.9) 14 (2, 73) 38 stable stable trend -0.5 (-1.4, 0.4)
Wilkin County Rural No 145.3 (99.4, 208.3) 13 (1, 86) 7 stable stable trend 0.1 (-1.4, 1.7)
Traverse County Rural No 147.3 (90.6, 236.8) 12 (1, 86) 5 stable stable trend -0.6 (-2.6, 1.2)
Waseca County Rural No 148.6 (120.9, 181.5) 11 (2, 81) 21 stable stable trend -0.1 (-1.0, 1.0)
Chisago County Urban No 149.7 (132.0, 169.3) 10 (2, 59) 54 stable stable trend -1.5 (-5.1, 0.4)
Wadena County Rural No 155.5 (123.5, 194.6) 9 (1, 78) 18 stable stable trend 0.3 (-0.8, 1.5)
Chippewa County Rural No 157.0 (122.1, 200.0) 8 (1, 82) 17 rising rising trend 1.3 (0.4, 3.1)
Faribault County Rural No 157.6 (127.1, 194.9) 7 (1, 74) 21 stable stable trend 0.3 (-0.6, 1.2)
Pennington County Rural No 157.9 (123.4, 199.9) 6 (1, 82) 16 stable stable trend 0.0 (-1.3, 1.4)
Red Lake County Rural No 159.8 (99.4, 248.7) 5 (1, 86) 5
*
*
Watonwan County Rural No 164.2 (125.5, 212.2) 4 (1, 80) 14 stable stable trend -0.4 (-1.7, 0.9)
Pipestone County Rural No 164.8 (126.6, 213.2) 3 (1, 81) 14 stable stable trend 0.7 (-0.8, 2.2)
Kittson County Rural No 186.1 (123.4, 275.1) 2 (1, 85) 8 stable stable trend 0.3 (-1.6, 2.2)
Mahnomen County Rural No 237.5 (168.3, 327.6) 1 (1, 50) 8 stable stable trend 0.3 (-1.2, 1.9)
Lake of the Woods County Rural ***
*
*
3 or fewer
*
*
Notes:
Created by statecancerprofiles.cancer.gov on 11/02/2024 11:46 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.

* 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