Return to Home Mortality > Table

Death Rates Table

Data Options

Death Rate Report for Wisconsin by County

Colon & Rectum, 2018-2022

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

Sorted by Recentaapc
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 descending
Recent Trend
Recent 5-Year Trend in Death Rates
(95% Confidence Interval)
 sort by trend descending
Wisconsin N/A No 11.7 (11.3, 12.1) N/A 887 falling falling trend -2.1 (-2.5, -1.6)
United States N/A No 12.9 (12.8, 12.9) N/A 52,325 falling falling trend -1.2 (-1.7, -0.8)
Polk County Rural No 10.0 (6.9, 14.2) 50 (11, 62) 7 falling falling trend -14.9 (-32.2, -4.4)
Green County Urban No 9.3 (5.9, 14.0) 57 (11, 62) 5 falling falling trend -5.9 (-16.9, -3.8)
Door County Rural Yes 8.6 (5.7, 13.2) 60 (17, 62) 6 falling falling trend -4.1 (-5.5, -2.9)
Fond du Lac County Urban No 10.2 (7.9, 13.0) 49 (15, 62) 14 falling falling trend -3.6 (-4.6, -2.8)
Jefferson County Rural No 10.4 (7.8, 13.5) 46 (14, 62) 11 falling falling trend -3.5 (-4.7, -2.5)
Eau Claire County Urban No 10.2 (7.9, 13.1) 47 (17, 62) 13 falling falling trend -3.3 (-4.3, -2.4)
La Crosse County Urban No 11.1 (8.7, 13.9) 40 (12, 61) 16 falling falling trend -3.2 (-4.4, -2.3)
Trempealeau County Rural Yes 6.9 (3.9, 11.7) 62 (24, 62) 3 falling falling trend -3.2 (-5.5, -1.4)
Brown County Urban No 10.2 (8.6, 12.0) 48 (23, 60) 32 falling falling trend -3.1 (-3.7, -2.5)
Dane County Urban No 9.2 (8.1, 10.3) 58 (37, 61) 55 falling falling trend -3.1 (-3.8, -2.4)
Douglas County Urban No 12.7 (8.9, 17.8) 25 (4, 61) 8 falling falling trend -3.1 (-4.7, -1.7)
Marathon County Urban No 9.8 (7.9, 12.1) 54 (22, 62) 19 falling falling trend -3.1 (-4.0, -2.4)
Sheboygan County Urban No 10.8 (8.6, 13.5) 41 (14, 61) 18 falling falling trend -3.1 (-3.9, -2.2)
Chippewa County Urban No 12.0 (9.0, 15.8) 32 (7, 61) 11 falling falling trend -3.0 (-4.6, -1.5)
St. Croix County Urban No 11.1 (8.4, 14.5) 39 (9, 61) 12 falling falling trend -3.0 (-4.3, -1.6)
Vernon County Urban No 12.8 (8.3, 19.1) 22 (2, 62) 6 falling falling trend -3.0 (-4.9, -1.5)
Manitowoc County Rural No 10.5 (7.9, 13.7) 44 (12, 61) 13 falling falling trend -2.9 (-3.8, -2.0)
Oconto County Urban No 10.7 (7.3, 15.6) 42 (6, 62) 6 falling falling trend -2.9 (-4.4, -1.6)
Waukesha County Urban No 9.9 (8.7, 11.1) 53 (31, 60) 57 falling falling trend -2.8 (-3.3, -2.3)
Marinette County Rural No 11.9 (8.4, 16.6) 33 (5, 61) 8 falling falling trend -2.7 (-4.1, -1.5)
Sawyer County Rural No 9.6 (5.6, 16.7) 56 (7, 62) 4 falling falling trend -2.7 (-4.3, -1.1)
Dunn County Rural Yes 7.9 (4.8, 12.3) 61 (21, 62) 4 falling falling trend -2.6 (-4.1, -1.3)
Winnebago County Urban No 9.1 (7.3, 11.2) 59 (28, 62) 19 falling falling trend -2.6 (-3.7, -1.6)
Crawford County Rural No 13.7 (7.8, 23.0) 18 (1, 62) 4 falling falling trend -2.5 (-4.9, -0.6)
Ozaukee County Urban No 9.9 (7.7, 12.7) 51 (18, 62) 14 falling falling trend -2.5 (-3.8, -1.2)
Racine County Urban No 11.5 (9.6, 13.6) 38 (14, 57) 28 falling falling trend -2.5 (-3.4, -1.7)
Walworth County Rural No 11.5 (9.1, 14.4) 37 (10, 59) 17 falling falling trend -2.5 (-3.5, -1.5)
Kenosha County Urban No 11.9 (9.8, 14.3) 34 (11, 56) 24 falling falling trend -2.4 (-3.2, -1.6)
Columbia County Urban No 13.6 (10.1, 18.2) 19 (3, 59) 10 falling falling trend -2.3 (-3.6, -1.1)
Dodge County Rural No 13.6 (10.7, 17.1) 20 (4, 53) 16 falling falling trend -2.3 (-3.3, -1.4)
Portage County Rural No 12.8 (9.4, 17.0) 23 (4, 60) 10 falling falling trend -2.3 (-3.6, -1.0)
Waushara County Rural No 12.7 (8.0, 19.7) 24 (2, 62) 5 falling falling trend -2.3 (-4.4, -0.1)
Outagamie County Urban No 11.7 (9.8, 14.0) 35 (12, 57) 26 falling falling trend -2.2 (-3.0, -1.5)
Clark County Rural No 13.5 (9.0, 19.7) 21 (2, 62) 6 falling falling trend -2.1 (-3.4, -0.9)
Milwaukee County Urban No 13.9 (12.8, 14.9) 17 (9, 31) 139 falling falling trend -2.1 (-2.5, -1.7)
Rock County Urban No 9.9 (8.0, 12.1) 52 (21, 61) 20 falling falling trend -2.1 (-3.0, -1.3)
Sauk County Rural No 13.9 (10.7, 18.0) 16 (3, 57) 13 falling falling trend -2.1 (-3.2, -1.1)
Waupaca County Rural No 10.4 (7.4, 14.4) 45 (10, 62) 8 falling falling trend -2.1 (-3.6, -0.7)
Adams County Rural No 15.7 (9.5, 25.2) 10 (1, 61) 5 falling falling trend -2.0 (-4.1, -0.1)
Jackson County Rural No 14.3 (8.9, 22.2) 15 (1, 62) 4 falling falling trend -2.0 (-3.7, -0.3)
Richland County Rural No 12.3 (7.3, 20.3) 30 (2, 62) 4 stable stable trend -2.0 (-4.1, 0.0)
Washington County Urban No 12.4 (10.2, 15.1) 27 (8, 56) 22 falling falling trend -2.0 (-2.8, -1.1)
Lincoln County Rural No 16.5 (11.6, 23.3) 8 (1, 54) 8 falling falling trend -1.9 (-3.0, -0.9)
Shawano County Rural No 14.6 (10.5, 20.0) 12 (2, 57) 9 falling falling trend -1.9 (-3.2, -0.6)
Grant County Rural No 17.4 (13.0, 23.0) 5 (1, 41) 11 falling falling trend -1.8 (-2.8, -0.8)
Monroe County Rural No 12.0 (8.3, 16.8) 31 (5, 62) 7 falling falling trend -1.8 (-3.1, -0.5)
Juneau County Rural No 16.8 (11.3, 24.2) 7 (1, 59) 7 falling falling trend -1.7 (-3.1, -0.3)
Vilas County Rural No 12.5 (8.3, 19.2) 26 (3, 62) 6 stable stable trend -1.7 (-3.6, 0.2)
Wood County Rural No 14.4 (11.4, 18.1) 14 (3, 47) 17 falling falling trend -1.7 (-2.8, -0.5)
Barron County Rural No 16.9 (12.9, 21.9) 6 (1, 42) 13 falling falling trend -1.1 (-2.0, -0.1)
Oneida County Rural No 16.2 (11.7, 22.1) 9 (1, 54) 10 stable stable trend -1.0 (-2.3, 0.4)
Marquette County Rural No 20.3 (12.7, 31.7) 3 (1, 55) 5 stable stable trend -0.2 (-2.0, 1.7)
Langlade County Rural No 22.5 (15.1, 32.6) 2 (1, 41) 7 rising rising trend 9.4 (0.7, 37.0)
Bayfield County Rural No 14.5 (8.1, 24.8) 13 (1, 62) 4
*
*
Burnett County Rural No 12.3 (7.7, 20.5) 28 (2, 62) 4
*
*
Calumet County Urban No 9.7 (6.5, 14.0) 55 (11, 62) 6
*
*
Iowa County Urban No 10.7 (6.1, 17.7) 43 (4, 62) 3
*
*
Kewaunee County Urban No 14.7 (8.7, 23.6) 11 (1, 62) 4
*
*
Lafayette County Rural No 12.3 (6.9, 20.8) 29 (2, 62) 3
*
*
Pierce County Urban No 17.5 (12.4, 24.0) 4 (1, 51) 8
*
*
Taylor County Rural No 11.6 (6.3, 19.8) 36 (2, 62) 3
*
*
Washburn County Rural No 24.4 (16.8, 35.2) 1 (1, 22) 7
*
*
Ashland County Rural ***
*
*
3 or fewer
*
*
Buffalo County Rural ***
*
*
3 or fewer
*
*
Florence County Rural ***
*
*
3 or fewer
*
*
Forest County Rural ***
*
*
3 or fewer
*
*
Green Lake County Rural ***
*
*
3 or fewer
*
*
Iron County Rural ***
*
*
3 or fewer
*
*
Menominee County Rural ***
*
*
3 or fewer
*
*
Pepin County Rural ***
*
*
3 or fewer
*
*
Price County Rural ***
*
*
3 or fewer
*
*
Rusk County Rural ***
*
*
3 or fewer
*
*
Notes:
Created by statecancerprofiles.cancer.gov on 09/20/2024 8:01 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