Death Rates Table
County
|
Met Healthy People Objective of ***? |
Age-Adjusted Death Rate† deaths per 100,000 (95% Confidence Interval) 
|
CI*Rank⋔ (95% Confidence Interval) 
|
Average Annual Count
|
Recent Trend |
Recent 5-Year Trend‡ in Death Rates (95% Confidence Interval)
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| West Virginia | *** | 180.2 (177.9, 182.6) | N/A | 4,688 |
falling 
|
-1.1 (-1.2, -1.0) |
| United States | *** | 152.4 (152.3, 152.6) | N/A | 598,381 |
falling
|
-2.1 (-2.3, -1.8) |
| Logan County | *** | 243.3 (223.2, 265.0) | 1 (1, 8) | 116 |
falling
|
-0.9 (-1.4, -0.3) |
| McDowell County | *** | 231.5 (206.5, 259.2) | 2 (1, 14) | 67 |
stable 
|
-0.5 (-1.0, 0.0) |
| Lewis County | *** | 224.0 (197.6, 253.4) | 3 (1, 26) | 54 |
stable
|
-0.3 (-0.8, 0.2) |
| Boone County | *** | 214.1 (191.1, 239.3) | 4 (1, 30) | 68 |
falling
|
-1.3 (-1.9, -0.8) |
| Mingo County | *** | 213.3 (190.7, 238.1) | 5 (1, 30) | 70 |
falling
|
-0.7 (-1.2, -0.2) |
| Lincoln County | *** | 211.9 (188.1, 238.1) | 6 (1, 33) | 61 |
falling
|
-0.6 (-1.2, -0.1) |
| Roane County | *** | 210.7 (183.6, 241.4) | 7 (1, 41) | 46 |
stable
|
-0.3 (-0.9, 0.4) |
| Fayette County | *** | 206.1 (190.3, 223.0) | 8 (2, 28) | 135 |
falling
|
-0.5 (-0.8, -0.1) |
| Clay County | *** | 204.7 (169.8, 245.4) | 9 (1, 49) | 26 |
falling
|
-1.4 (-2.1, -0.7) |
| Wyoming County | *** | 202.3 (179.3, 227.6) | 10 (1, 41) | 62 |
stable
|
-0.4 (-1.0, 0.1) |
| Webster County | *** | 200.8 (167.2, 240.3) | 11 (1, 50) | 28 |
stable
|
0.2 (-0.5, 1.0) |
| Pleasants County | *** | 195.6 (159.1, 239.0) | 12 (1, 54) | 21 |
stable
|
-0.2 (-1.3, 1.0) |
| Morgan County | *** | 193.7 (170.8, 219.3) | 13 (2, 47) | 56 |
stable
|
-0.5 (-1.1, 0.2) |
| Mercer County | *** | 189.3 (176.3, 203.1) | 14 (7, 39) | 171 |
falling
|
-0.5 (-0.9, -0.2) |
| Hampshire County | *** | 188.0 (167.5, 210.8) | 15 (4, 48) | 66 |
stable
|
-0.4 (-1.1, 0.3) |
| Raleigh County | *** | 187.7 (176.1, 200.1) | 16 (8, 40) | 205 |
falling
|
-0.7 (-1.0, -0.3) |
| Berkeley County | *** | 186.6 (175.8, 197.9) | 17 (8, 40) | 240 |
falling
|
-1.1 (-1.5, -0.7) |
| Gilmer County | *** | 186.5 (150.9, 229.0) | 18 (1, 54) | 19 |
stable
|
-0.4 (-1.4, 0.6) |
| Marion County | *** | 185.5 (172.0, 199.9) | 19 (7, 44) | 148 |
falling
|
-0.7 (-1.1, -0.2) |
| Harrison County | *** | 185.4 (173.2, 198.2) | 20 (8, 42) | 181 |
falling
|
-0.9 (-1.2, -0.5) |
| Mineral County | *** | 183.6 (164.8, 204.3) | 21 (5, 49) | 73 |
falling
|
-0.7 (-1.2, -0.1) |
| Tucker County | *** | 182.8 (148.4, 224.4) | 22 (1, 54) | 22 |
stable
|
-0.9 (-1.8, 0.1) |
| Wood County | *** | 182.3 (171.7, 193.6) | 23 (10, 43) | 227 |
falling
|
-0.7 (-1.0, -0.3) |
| Jefferson County | *** | 181.7 (167.3, 197.2) | 24 (8, 47) | 124 |
falling
|
-1.0 (-1.6, -0.5) |
| Nicholas County | *** | 181.5 (162.0, 203.0) | 25 (6, 50) | 69 |
falling
|
-1.0 (-1.5, -0.5) |
| Monroe County | *** | 181.3 (156.5, 209.6) | 26 (4, 52) | 41 |
stable
|
-0.4 (-1.0, 0.3) |
| Cabell County | *** | 180.7 (170.1, 191.8) | 27 (11, 44) | 229 |
falling
|
-1.0 (-1.3, -0.8) |
| Barbour County | *** | 179.6 (155.4, 206.8) | 28 (4, 53) | 42 |
falling
|
-0.8 (-1.5, -0.1) |
| Ohio County | *** | 176.7 (162.0, 192.6) | 29 (10, 49) | 117 |
falling
|
-1.4 (-1.7, -1.0) |
| Tyler County | *** | 176.4 (145.9, 212.6) | 30 (3, 55) | 25 |
falling
|
-1.2 (-2.0, -0.4) |
| Greenbrier County | *** | 176.4 (160.7, 193.5) | 31 (9, 50) | 100 |
falling
|
-1.1 (-1.5, -0.7) |
| Summers County | *** | 176.1 (150.8, 205.1) | 32 (4, 54) | 38 |
falling
|
-1.1 (-1.8, -0.4) |
| Mason County | *** | 175.1 (156.8, 195.2) | 33 (8, 52) | 71 |
falling
|
-1.5 (-2.0, -1.0) |
| Wayne County | *** | 174.9 (159.9, 191.1) | 34 (11, 50) | 105 |
falling
|
-1.7 (-2.1, -1.2) |
| Kanawha County | *** | 173.4 (166.2, 180.8) | 35 (20, 47) | 470 |
falling
|
-2.8 (-4.0, -1.6) |
| Jackson County | *** | 173.3 (156.1, 192.1) | 36 (9, 52) | 77 |
falling
|
-0.9 (-1.4, -0.3) |
| Wetzel County | *** | 173.0 (150.5, 198.4) | 37 (6, 54) | 45 |
stable
|
-0.6 (-1.2, 0.1) |
| Wirt County | *** | 172.0 (133.3, 219.9) | 38 (2, 55) | 15 |
stable
|
-0.6 (-2.0, 0.7) |
| Preston County | *** | 171.8 (155.2, 189.8) | 39 (11, 52) | 82 |
falling
|
-0.8 (-1.3, -0.3) |
| Upshur County | *** | 171.4 (152.3, 192.6) | 40 (10, 53) | 61 |
falling
|
-0.9 (-1.5, -0.3) |
| Taylor County | *** | 170.2 (147.7, 195.6) | 41 (7, 54) | 43 |
falling
|
-1.5 (-2.2, -0.9) |
| Marshall County | *** | 169.8 (153.4, 187.6) | 42 (12, 52) | 84 |
falling
|
-1.0 (-1.5, -0.5) |
| Pocahontas County | *** | 169.1 (138.7, 205.4) | 43 (4, 55) | 24 |
stable
|
-0.8 (-1.8, 0.1) |
| Randolph County | *** | 168.7 (151.6, 187.4) | 44 (12, 53) | 75 |
falling
|
-0.9 (-1.5, -0.4) |
| Putnam County | *** | 166.9 (153.9, 180.9) | 45 (19, 52) | 126 |
falling
|
-1.1 (-1.5, -0.7) |
| Braxton County | *** | 162.4 (139.5, 188.6) | 46 (11, 55) | 38 |
falling
|
-1.1 (-1.9, -0.3) |
| Hancock County | *** | 161.7 (145.6, 179.4) | 47 (18, 54) | 79 |
falling
|
-1.2 (-1.7, -0.7) |
| Brooke County | *** | 161.3 (142.9, 181.8) | 48 (16, 55) | 60 |
falling
|
-1.1 (-1.7, -0.5) |
| Ritchie County | *** | 159.6 (132.2, 192.1) | 49 (8, 55) | 26 |
stable
|
-0.7 (-1.5, 0.2) |
| Hardy County | *** | 148.5 (125.4, 175.2) | 50 (17, 55) | 31 |
falling
|
-1.3 (-1.9, -0.7) |
| Monongalia County | *** | 146.3 (135.6, 157.7) | 51 (42, 55) | 146 |
falling
|
-1.5 (-2.0, -1.1) |
| Calhoun County | *** | 144.9 (116.1, 180.3) | 52 (15, 55) | 18 |
falling
|
-1.4 (-2.4, -0.3) |
| Doddridge County | *** | 142.5 (114.7, 176.4) | 53 (17, 55) | 19 |
falling
|
-1.8 (-2.7, -0.9) |
| Grant County | *** | 139.8 (116.1, 167.7) | 54 (26, 55) | 27 |
falling
|
-1.3 (-2.3, -0.3) |
| Pendleton County | *** | 129.0 (103.6, 161.2) | 55 (35, 55) | 18 |
falling
|
-1.4 (-2.5, -0.4) |
Notes:
Created by statecancerprofiles.cancer.gov on 08/19/2022 8:07 am.
State Cancer Registries may provide more current or more local data.
† 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 2020 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 1969-2018 US Population Data File is used with mortality data.
⋔ 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.
Interpret Rankings provides insight into interpreting cancer incidence statistics. When the population size for a denominator is small, the rates may be unstable. A rate is unstable when a small change in the numerator (e.g., only one or two additional cases) has a dramatic effect on the calculated rate.
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.
Created by statecancerprofiles.cancer.gov on 08/19/2022 8:07 am.
State Cancer Registries may provide more current or more local data.
† 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 2020 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 1969-2018 US Population Data File is used with mortality data.
⋔ 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.
Interpret Rankings provides insight into interpreting cancer incidence statistics. When the population size for a denominator is small, the rates may be unstable. A rate is unstable when a small change in the numerator (e.g., only one or two additional cases) has a dramatic effect on the calculated rate.
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.