Return to Home Mortality > Table

Death Rates Table

Data Options
Comparison Options

Death Rate Report by State

Liver & Bile Duct, 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 *** 6.6 (6.6, 6.7) N/A 28,750 falling falling trend -0.3 (-0.5, -0.1)
New Mexico *** 8.0 (7.5, 8.5) 5 (2, 11) 238 falling falling trend -5.9 (-10.1, -1.4)
District of Columbia *** 8.2 (7.2, 9.2) 3 (1, 18) 57 falling falling trend -3.5 (-8.2, -0.8)
Nevada *** 6.4 (6.0, 6.8) 26 (15, 39) 253 stable stable trend -3.5 (-8.7, 1.2)
Michigan *** 6.0 (5.8, 6.2) 35 (28, 42) 834 stable stable trend -3.4 (-7.3, 0.8)
Oklahoma *** 7.7 (7.4, 8.1) 8 (3, 13) 390 stable stable trend -2.3 (-7.5, 2.7)
New York *** 5.2 (5.1, 5.4) 47 (44, 51) 1,397 falling falling trend -2.2 (-2.8, -1.7)
Mississippi *** 8.1 (7.7, 8.5) 4 (2, 11) 310 stable stable trend -1.9 (-5.4, 0.7)
Puerto Rico *** 6.8 (6.4, 7.1) N/A 366 stable stable trend -1.7 (-5.3, 2.1)
Hawaii *** 7.6 (7.1, 8.2) 10 (3, 19) 162 stable stable trend -1.6 (-6.7, 0.2)
Indiana *** 6.3 (6.1, 6.6) 28 (19, 37) 551 stable stable trend -1.6 (-4.0, 1.9)
Colorado *** 5.6 (5.3, 5.8) 44 (36, 49) 384 stable stable trend -1.4 (-5.1, 1.0)
Maryland *** 6.2 (5.9, 6.4) 32 (21, 40) 491 stable stable trend -1.1 (-2.2, 0.3)
New Jersey *** 5.6 (5.4, 5.8) 43 (37, 47) 679 stable stable trend -1.1 (-3.6, 0.2)
California *** 7.5 (7.4, 7.6) 11 (6, 12) 3,545 falling falling trend -1.0 (-1.6, -0.6)
Delaware *** 6.4 (5.9, 7.1) 25 (11, 43) 97 stable stable trend -1.0 (-6.6, 1.3)
Florida *** 6.1 (6.0, 6.2) 34 (27, 39) 2,109 falling falling trend -1.0 (-2.4, -0.2)
North Carolina *** 6.8 (6.6, 7.0) 18 (13, 24) 940 stable stable trend -0.7 (-1.8, 0.4)
Ohio *** 6.3 (6.1, 6.4) 30 (22, 37) 1,013 stable stable trend -0.6 (-2.7, 0.7)
Massachusetts *** 6.2 (6.0, 6.5) 31 (21, 38) 590 stable stable trend -0.3 (-1.2, 0.5)
Kansas *** 6.1 (5.8, 6.5) 33 (20, 43) 231 stable stable trend -0.2 (-6.1, 2.5)
Pennsylvania *** 6.5 (6.3, 6.6) 22 (18, 31) 1,217 stable stable trend -0.2 (-3.4, 1.3)
Illinois *** 6.5 (6.3, 6.7) 24 (19, 32) 1,044 stable stable trend -0.1 (-2.5, 1.0)
Louisiana *** 8.9 (8.6, 9.2) 1 (1, 3) 535 stable stable trend -0.1 (-4.1, 1.6)
Alabama *** 7.2 (6.9, 7.5) 12 (8, 19) 495 stable stable trend 0.0 (-3.9, 1.6)
Arizona *** 6.5 (6.2, 6.7) 23 (17, 33) 649 stable stable trend 0.0 (-2.4, 1.1)
Tennessee *** 7.1 (6.8, 7.3) 13 (10, 20) 651 stable stable trend 0.0 (-3.9, 1.7)
Washington *** 6.9 (6.6, 7.1) 17 (12, 24) 666 stable stable trend 0.0 (-1.3, 0.7)
Maine *** 5.1 (4.6, 5.5) 49 (40, 51) 111 stable stable trend 0.1 (-4.4, 1.3)
South Carolina *** 6.9 (6.6, 7.1) 16 (11, 25) 503 stable stable trend 0.4 (-2.8, 1.9)
Virginia *** 6.3 (6.1, 6.5) 29 (20, 37) 698 stable stable trend 0.4 (-1.1, 1.3)
Georgia *** 6.6 (6.4, 6.9) 20 (15, 28) 839 stable stable trend 0.5 (-0.9, 1.4)
Oregon *** 7.0 (6.7, 7.4) 14 (9, 22) 416 stable stable trend 0.5 (-1.2, 1.6)
Texas *** 8.5 (8.3, 8.6) 2 (1, 5) 2,694 stable stable trend 0.5 (-0.5, 1.1)
Iowa *** 5.7 (5.4, 6.0) 41 (31, 48) 245 stable stable trend 0.6 (-2.7, 2.2)
Alaska *** 7.7 (6.8, 8.7) 9 (1, 30) 57 stable stable trend 1.0 (-0.4, 2.9)
Missouri *** 6.8 (6.5, 7.0) 19 (12, 27) 566 stable stable trend 1.0 (-0.4, 1.7)
New Hampshire *** 5.4 (5.0, 5.9) 46 (32, 51) 114 rising rising trend 1.1 (0.2, 2.1)
North Dakota *** 4.8 (4.2, 5.5) 51 (38, 51) 45 rising rising trend 1.4 (0.1, 2.8)
Wisconsin *** 5.9 (5.7, 6.2) 37 (27, 44) 480 rising rising trend 1.4 (1.0, 1.9)
Connecticut *** 6.0 (5.7, 6.3) 36 (24, 44) 304 rising rising trend 1.6 (1.1, 2.2)
Arkansas *** 7.9 (7.5, 8.3) 6 (2, 11) 317 rising rising trend 1.9 (1.5, 2.4)
Vermont *** 5.5 (4.9, 6.3) 45 (21, 51) 55 rising rising trend 2.0 (0.4, 3.8)
Wyoming *** 5.7 (4.9, 6.5) 42 (17, 51) 46 rising rising trend 2.0 (0.6, 3.7)
Kentucky *** 6.9 (6.6, 7.2) 15 (10, 24) 413 rising rising trend 2.4 (1.9, 3.0)
Utah *** 5.2 (4.8, 5.6) 48 (40, 51) 157 rising rising trend 2.5 (1.8, 3.4)
Montana *** 5.8 (5.3, 6.4) 38 (21, 49) 95 rising rising trend 2.6 (1.8, 3.6)
Rhode Island *** 7.9 (7.3, 8.6) 7 (1, 16) 119 rising rising trend 2.6 (1.6, 3.6)
West Virginia *** 6.5 (6.1, 7.0) 21 (11, 38) 178 rising rising trend 2.6 (1.9, 3.5)
Idaho *** 5.7 (5.3, 6.2) 40 (26, 49) 136 rising rising trend 2.8 (2.0, 3.8)
Minnesota *** 5.7 (5.5, 6.0) 39 (33, 47) 417 stable stable trend 2.8 (-0.9, 5.7)
South Dakota *** 6.4 (5.7, 7.1) 27 (11, 46) 74 rising rising trend 2.8 (1.6, 4.3)
Nebraska *** 5.0 (4.6, 5.4) 50 (41, 51) 124 rising rising trend 5.9 (0.5, 11.7)

Notes:
Created by statecancerprofiles.cancer.gov on 03/21/2026 2:57 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 (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 for United States does not include Puerto Rico.

CI*Rank data for Puerto Rico is not available.

Return to Top