Return to Home Mortality > Table

Death Rates Table

Data Options

Death Rate Report for Minnesota by County

Colon & Rectum, 2018-2022

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

Sorted by Count

County
sort alphabetically by name ascending 		2023 Rural-Urban Continuum Codes Φ
sort by rural urban descending 		Met Healthy People Objective of 8.9?
 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 ascending 		Recent Trend
 Recent 5-Year Trend ‡ in Death Rates
(95% Confidence Interval)
sort by trend descending
Minnesota N/A No 11.4 (11.1, 11.8) N/A 802 falling falling trend -2.4 (-2.6, -2.2)
United States N/A No 12.9 (12.8, 12.9) N/A 52,325 falling falling trend -1.2 (-1.7, -0.8)
Hennepin County Urban No 10.2 (9.4, 11.0) 46 (32, 52) 146 falling falling trend -2.5 (-2.9, -2.2)
Ramsey County Urban No 11.3 (10.1, 12.6) 37 (20, 49) 69 falling falling trend -2.6 (-3.1, -2.1)
Dakota County Urban No 9.4 (8.2, 10.7) 51 (33, 56) 47 falling falling trend -3.0 (-7.9, -2.3)
Anoka County Urban No 11.4 (10.0, 13.0) 36 (18, 51) 47 falling falling trend -2.2 (-3.0, -1.2)
Washington County Urban No 10.4 (8.8, 12.1) 44 (22, 55) 32 falling falling trend -2.8 (-3.5, -2.1)
St. Louis County Urban No 9.9 (8.3, 11.8) 48 (25, 56) 29 falling falling trend -2.3 (-3.1, -1.6)
Stearns County Urban No 11.1 (9.0, 13.6) 38 (16, 55) 21 falling falling trend -1.7 (-2.7, -0.6)
Olmsted County Urban Yes 8.3 (6.6, 10.4) 57 (34, 57) 17 falling falling trend -2.8 (-4.0, -1.6)
Wright County Urban No 11.0 (8.6, 13.7) 41 (14, 56) 16 falling falling trend -2.9 (-3.9, -1.9)
Carver County Urban No 12.5 (9.6, 15.9) 30 (7, 55) 14 falling falling trend -2.7 (-4.0, -1.1)
Otter Tail County Rural No 13.7 (10.3, 17.9) 23 (4, 54) 13 falling falling trend -1.9 (-3.2, -0.8)
Scott County Urban No 9.4 (7.2, 12.1) 50 (21, 57) 13 falling falling trend -3.3 (-4.4, -1.9)
Crow Wing County Rural No 12.6 (9.4, 16.6) 29 (5, 55) 12 falling falling trend -2.5 (-3.6, -1.4)
Douglas County Rural No 16.7 (12.5, 22.2) 8 (1, 43) 11 stable stable trend -1.4 (-2.8, 0.1)
Goodhue County Rural No 13.7 (10.1, 18.5) 22 (4, 54) 10 falling falling trend -2.5 (-4.0, -1.0)
Blue Earth County Urban No 12.1 (8.8, 16.3) 32 (7, 56) 9 falling falling trend -2.2 (-3.6, -0.8)
Chisago County Urban No 13.8 (10.1, 18.6) 20 (3, 54) 9
*
*
Itasca County Rural No 12.2 (8.7, 16.8) 31 (5, 57) 9 falling falling trend -2.7 (-4.4, -1.1)
Rice County Rural No 11.0 (7.9, 15.0) 40 (10, 57) 9 falling falling trend -2.6 (-3.7, -1.6)
Kandiyohi County Rural No 13.8 (9.8, 19.0) 21 (3, 55) 9 falling falling trend -2.1 (-3.4, -0.9)
Sherburne County Urban Yes 8.8 (6.3, 12.0) 54 (20, 57) 8 falling falling trend -3.5 (-4.8, -2.2)
Beltrami County Rural No 14.4 (10.3, 19.8) 17 (2, 55) 8 falling falling trend -2.8 (-4.4, -1.2)
Freeborn County Rural No 13.9 (9.9, 19.5) 19 (3, 55) 8 stable stable trend -1.1 (-16.6, 10.7)
Polk County Urban No 18.2 (12.7, 25.4) 4 (1, 44) 8 falling falling trend -1.8 (-3.1, -0.6)
Clay County Urban No 10.4 (7.2, 14.5) 43 (10, 57) 7 falling falling trend -2.1 (-3.6, -0.8)
Brown County Rural No 15.9 (10.8, 22.9) 12 (1, 53) 7 stable stable trend -1.1 (-9.3, 8.6)
Pine County Rural No 14.9 (10.3, 21.3) 15 (2, 55) 7
*
*
Winona County Rural No 10.2 (7.0, 14.5) 47 (13, 57) 7 falling falling trend -2.6 (-3.8, -1.6)
Becker County Rural No 13.3 (9.0, 19.2) 24 (3, 57) 7 stable stable trend -1.6 (-3.2, 0.1)
Benton County Urban No 14.2 (9.7, 20.1) 18 (2, 56) 7 falling falling trend -2.5 (-4.1, -0.8)
Carlton County Urban No 12.9 (8.7, 18.5) 28 (3, 57) 6 falling falling trend -1.8 (-3.2, -0.4)
Isanti County Urban No 11.7 (7.8, 17.0) 35 (5, 57) 6
*
*
Faribault County Rural No 26.8 (17.2, 40.4) 1 (1, 29) 6 stable stable trend 0.2 (-1.9, 2.2)
McLeod County Rural No 9.7 (6.5, 14.3) 49 (11, 57) 6 falling falling trend -2.9 (-4.4, -1.5)
Mower County Rural No 9.3 (6.2, 13.7) 52 (12, 57) 6 falling falling trend -3.5 (-5.2, -2.3)
Steele County Rural No 10.8 (7.2, 15.9) 42 (7, 57) 6 falling falling trend -3.1 (-4.5, -1.8)
Meeker County Rural No 17.7 (11.5, 26.5) 5 (1, 54) 6 falling falling trend -2.1 (-4.0, -0.4)
Lyon County Rural No 17.5 (11.3, 26.0) 6 (1, 55) 5
*
*
Nicollet County Urban No 11.7 (7.6, 17.4) 34 (4, 57) 5 falling falling trend -3.1 (-5.0, -1.3)
Martin County Rural No 12.9 (8.4, 19.9) 26 (3, 57) 5 falling falling trend -2.1 (-4.2, -0.4)
Cass County Rural No 11.1 (6.9, 17.2) 39 (4, 57) 5 falling falling trend -2.9 (-4.8, -1.2)
Aitkin County Rural No 15.9 (9.2, 26.7) 10 (1, 57) 5 falling falling trend -2.0 (-3.9, -0.1)
Hubbard County Rural No 14.6 (8.9, 23.0) 16 (1, 57) 5 stable stable trend -1.3 (-3.3, 0.7)
Morrison County Rural Yes 8.8 (5.5, 13.6) 55 (15, 57) 5 falling falling trend -3.3 (-5.5, -1.3)
Waseca County Rural No 16.8 (10.4, 26.1) 7 (1, 56) 4
*
*
Chippewa County Rural No 21.8 (12.5, 35.7) 2 (1, 54) 4 stable stable trend -0.7 (-2.6, 1.1)
Dodge County Urban No 16.6 (10.0, 25.9) 9 (1, 56) 4
*
*
Fillmore County Urban No 12.9 (7.6, 21.0) 27 (2, 57) 4 falling falling trend -2.5 (-4.3, -1.0)
Houston County Urban No 13.0 (7.9, 21.1) 25 (2, 57) 4
*
*
Sibley County Rural No 19.3 (11.5, 30.8) 3 (1, 55) 4
*
*
Mille Lacs County Urban No 11.9 (7.0, 19.1) 33 (3, 57) 4 falling falling trend -2.7 (-4.8, -0.9)
Renville County Rural No 15.5 (9.2, 25.5) 13 (1, 57) 4 falling falling trend -2.3 (-4.1, -0.8)
Wabasha County Urban No 10.3 (6.1, 16.9) 45 (6, 57) 4 stable stable trend -1.7 (-3.6, 0.3)
Todd County Rural Yes 8.5 (5.0, 14.0) 56 (13, 57) 4 falling falling trend -2.5 (-4.5, -0.8)
Le Sueur County Urban No 9.1 (5.3, 15.0) 53 (8, 57) 3 falling falling trend -2.1 (-4.0, -0.4)
Redwood County Rural No 15.1 (8.3, 25.7) 14 (1, 57) 3
*
*
Pennington County Rural No 15.9 (9.0, 26.6) 11 (1, 57) 3
*
*
Big Stone County Rural ***
*
*
3 or fewer
*
*
Clearwater County Rural ***
*
*
3 or fewer
*
*
Cook County Rural ***
*
*
3 or fewer
*
*
Cottonwood County Rural ***
*
*
3 or fewer
*
*
Grant County Rural ***
*
*
3 or fewer
*
*
Jackson County Rural ***
*
*
3 or fewer
*
*
Kanabec County Rural ***
*
*
3 or fewer
*
*
Kittson County Rural ***
*
*
3 or fewer
*
*
Koochiching County Rural ***
*
*
3 or fewer
*
*
Lac qui Parle County Rural ***
*
*
3 or fewer
*
*
Lake County Rural ***
*
*
3 or fewer
*
*
Lake of the Woods County Rural ***
*
*
3 or fewer
*
*
Lincoln County Rural ***
*
*
3 or fewer
*
*
Mahnomen County Rural ***
*
*
3 or fewer
*
*
Marshall County Rural ***
*
*
3 or fewer
*
*
Murray County Rural ***
*
*
3 or fewer
*
*
Nobles County Rural ***
*
*
3 or fewer
*
*
Norman County Rural ***
*
*
3 or fewer
*
*
Pipestone County Rural ***
*
*
3 or fewer
*
*
Pope County Rural ***
*
*
3 or fewer
*
*
Red Lake County Rural ***
*
*
3 or fewer
*
*
Rock County Urban ***
*
*
3 or fewer
*
*
Roseau County Rural ***
*
*
3 or fewer
*
*
Stevens County Rural ***
*
*
3 or fewer
*
*
Swift County Rural ***
*
*
3 or fewer
*
*
Traverse County Rural ***
*
*
3 or fewer
*
*
Wadena County Rural ***
*
*
3 or fewer
*
*
Watonwan County Rural ***
*
*
3 or fewer
*
*
Wilkin County Rural ***
*
*
3 or fewer
*
*
Yellow Medicine County Rural ***
*
*
3 or fewer
*
*
Notes:
Created by statecancerprofiles.cancer.gov on 12/11/2024 11:45 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.

* 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