Return to Home Mortality > Table

Death Rates Table

Data Options
Comparison Options

Death Rate Report by State

Oral Cavity & Pharynx, 2019-2023

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

Sorted by Recentaapc

State
 sort alphabetically by name ascending
Met Healthy People Objective of ***?
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
United States *** 2.7 (2.6, 2.7) N/A 11,277 rising rising trend 0.8 (0.5, 1.1)
District of Columbia *** 2.1 (1.7, 2.7) 44 (17, 51) 14 falling falling trend -3.0 (-4.7, -1.5)
North Dakota *** 1.9 (1.5, 2.3) 50 (33, 51) 17 falling falling trend -2.6 (-4.1, -1.2)
Puerto Rico *** 2.2 (2.0, 2.4) N/A 119 stable stable trend -2.2 (-6.0, 1.7)
Pennsylvania *** 2.6 (2.5, 2.7) 33 (25, 40) 473 stable stable trend -1.5 (-5.3, 2.0)
New Jersey *** 1.9 (1.8, 2.0) 49 (44, 51) 232 falling falling trend -1.3 (-1.9, -0.8)
Rhode Island *** 1.9 (1.6, 2.3) 48 (38, 51) 29 stable stable trend -0.9 (-2.0, 0.3)
Idaho *** 2.5 (2.2, 2.8) 35 (16, 46) 58 stable stable trend -0.8 (-1.4, 0.0)
Connecticut *** 1.9 (1.8, 2.1) 47 (42, 51) 96 stable stable trend -0.6 (-1.7, 0.5)
Hawaii *** 2.8 (2.4, 3.1) 25 (4, 42) 55 stable stable trend -0.5 (-1.5, 0.5)
New York *** 2.1 (2.1, 2.2) 43 (40, 48) 565 falling falling trend -0.5 (-0.9, -0.2)
Florida *** 2.7 (2.6, 2.8) 30 (20, 34) 908 stable stable trend -0.2 (-0.6, 1.4)
Mississippi *** 3.5 (3.2, 3.8) 1 (1, 10) 131 stable stable trend -0.2 (-1.1, 0.8)
Louisiana *** 3.4 (3.2, 3.6) 3 (1, 12) 194 stable stable trend -0.1 (-0.7, 0.6)
Washington *** 2.9 (2.7, 3.0) 18 (7, 31) 269 stable stable trend -0.1 (-0.6, 0.4)
California *** 2.5 (2.4, 2.5) 39 (32, 42) 1,136 stable stable trend 0.0 (-0.4, 1.5)
Tennessee *** 3.2 (3.0, 3.3) 6 (2, 19) 282 stable stable trend 0.0 (-0.4, 0.5)
Alabama *** 3.1 (2.9, 3.3) 10 (3, 25) 205 stable stable trend 0.1 (-0.6, 0.8)
South Dakota *** 2.4 (2.0, 2.8) 40 (11, 50) 28 stable stable trend 0.1 (-1.2, 1.6)
Utah *** 1.7 (1.5, 1.9) 51 (46, 51) 49 stable stable trend 0.1 (-0.8, 1.2)
Colorado *** 2.1 (1.9, 2.2) 45 (40, 50) 140 stable stable trend 0.3 (-0.4, 1.1)
South Carolina *** 3.1 (2.9, 3.2) 11 (3, 25) 217 stable stable trend 0.3 (-0.4, 3.2)
Arkansas *** 3.2 (2.9, 3.4) 7 (1, 25) 125 stable stable trend 0.4 (-0.3, 1.1)
Delaware *** 2.8 (2.4, 3.3) 20 (2, 42) 40 stable stable trend 0.4 (-0.9, 1.8)
Michigan *** 2.7 (2.6, 2.9) 27 (15, 34) 375 stable stable trend 0.4 (-0.1, 0.9)
Georgia *** 2.8 (2.7, 2.9) 23 (12, 32) 347 stable stable trend 0.6 (0.0, 2.6)
Virginia *** 2.5 (2.3, 2.6) 38 (28, 43) 266 rising rising trend 0.6 (0.1, 2.2)
Iowa *** 2.6 (2.4, 2.8) 32 (15, 42) 109 rising rising trend 0.7 (0.2, 1.2)
Maryland *** 2.5 (2.3, 2.7) 36 (26, 43) 192 stable stable trend 0.7 (-0.4, 5.3)
Ohio *** 3.0 (2.9, 3.1) 13 (5, 23) 476 rising rising trend 0.7 (0.4, 1.1)
Kentucky *** 3.1 (2.9, 3.4) 8 (2, 21) 184 rising rising trend 0.8 (0.3, 2.5)
Oklahoma *** 3.1 (2.9, 3.4) 9 (1, 25) 151 rising rising trend 1.0 (0.4, 1.7)
New Mexico *** 2.3 (2.1, 2.6) 41 (25, 48) 67 rising rising trend 1.1 (0.3, 2.1)
Illinois *** 2.7 (2.6, 2.8) 31 (19, 36) 436 stable stable trend 1.2 (-0.8, 4.9)
Indiana *** 2.8 (2.7, 3.0) 19 (8, 33) 240 rising rising trend 1.2 (0.6, 1.9)
North Carolina *** 2.9 (2.8, 3.1) 16 (6, 27) 397 rising rising trend 1.2 (0.2, 4.9)
Vermont *** 3.3 (2.8, 3.9) 4 (1, 35) 32 stable stable trend 1.2 (-0.4, 3.1)
Montana *** 2.7 (2.4, 3.1) 28 (3, 43) 43 rising rising trend 1.4 (0.3, 2.8)
Nebraska *** 2.7 (2.4, 3.0) 29 (6, 42) 65 rising rising trend 1.4 (0.3, 2.8)
West Virginia *** 3.2 (2.9, 3.5) 5 (1, 28) 86 rising rising trend 1.4 (0.4, 2.4)
Minnesota *** 2.5 (2.4, 2.7) 34 (23, 42) 186 rising rising trend 1.8 (1.0, 3.6)
Oregon *** 2.9 (2.7, 3.1) 17 (4, 31) 168 rising rising trend 1.8 (0.4, 6.7)
Texas *** 2.8 (2.7, 2.9) 24 (16, 32) 858 rising rising trend 1.8 (0.3, 4.5)
Arizona *** 2.3 (2.1, 2.4) 42 (36, 46) 223 rising rising trend 1.9 (0.7, 5.4)
Missouri *** 3.0 (2.9, 3.2) 12 (4, 26) 246 rising rising trend 2.1 (1.0, 5.5)
Wisconsin *** 2.8 (2.6, 3.0) 22 (9, 34) 225 rising rising trend 2.3 (0.9, 5.8)
Nevada *** 2.9 (2.7, 3.2) 15 (3, 32) 113 stable stable trend 2.4 (-0.3, 10.3)
Alaska *** 2.8 (2.2, 3.4) 26 (1, 48) 21 stable stable trend 2.5 (-0.3, 12.3)
Massachusetts *** 2.5 (2.3, 2.6) 37 (27, 43) 233 stable stable trend 3.3 (-0.1, 8.0)
New Hampshire *** 3.0 (2.6, 3.3) 14 (1, 38) 60 rising rising trend 3.7 (0.5, 13.5)
Kansas *** 2.8 (2.6, 3.1) 21 (6, 39) 104 rising rising trend 4.0 (2.2, 9.9)
Maine *** 3.5 (3.1, 3.9) 2 (1, 17) 77 rising rising trend 6.8 (1.1, 15.5)
Wyoming *** 2.0 (1.6, 2.6) 46 (24, 51) 15
*
*

Notes:
Created by statecancerprofiles.cancer.gov on 03/22/2026 6:34 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 (20 age groups: <1, 1-4, 5-9, ... , 80-84, 85-89, 90+).

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.

*** No Healthy People 2030 Objective for this cancer.

Healthy People 2030 Objectives provided by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

* 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).

Data for United States does not include Puerto Rico.

CI*Rank data for Puerto Rico is not available.

Return to Top