Return to Home Mortality > Table

Death Rates Table

Data Options
Comparison Options

Death Rate Report by State

Melanoma of the Skin, 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 *** 2.0 (2.0, 2.0) N/A 8,224 falling falling trend -1.2 (-1.9, -0.3)
Wyoming *** 2.3 (1.8, 2.9) 19 (1, 47) 17 falling falling trend -10.1 (-26.1, -0.7)
Puerto Rico *** 0.5 (0.4, 0.6) N/A 23 stable stable trend -6.4 (-20.5, 10.3)
Mississippi *** 1.7 (1.5, 1.9) 44 (31, 49) 62 falling falling trend -5.4 (-10.4, -3.1)
Georgia *** 1.7 (1.6, 1.9) 43 (35, 48) 208 falling falling trend -4.6 (-8.4, -2.9)
Louisiana *** 1.5 (1.4, 1.7) 48 (41, 51) 82 falling falling trend -4.5 (-9.9, -2.7)
Arkansas *** 1.9 (1.7, 2.1) 36 (23, 47) 71 falling falling trend -4.1 (-7.1, -2.6)
Maine *** 2.2 (1.9, 2.5) 24 (3, 41) 45 falling falling trend -4.0 (-12.5, -1.9)
Illinois *** 1.8 (1.7, 1.9) 39 (33, 46) 284 falling falling trend -3.7 (-8.8, -2.1)
Texas *** 1.7 (1.6, 1.7) 47 (40, 48) 492 falling falling trend -3.6 (-4.8, -2.9)
Nevada *** 2.1 (1.9, 2.3) 31 (10, 40) 77 falling falling trend -3.5 (-11.6, -1.6)
New Jersey *** 1.7 (1.6, 1.8) 45 (37, 48) 200 falling falling trend -3.5 (-6.5, -2.7)
Arizona *** 2.2 (2.1, 2.4) 21 (9, 34) 213 falling falling trend -3.4 (-5.8, -2.2)
Tennessee *** 2.4 (2.3, 2.6) 8 (3, 24) 201 falling falling trend -3.3 (-6.0, -1.9)
Kansas *** 2.4 (2.2, 2.7) 9 (2, 31) 85 falling falling trend -3.2 (-10.1, -1.2)
West Virginia *** 2.6 (2.3, 2.9) 3 (1, 25) 65 falling falling trend -3.2 (-11.2, -1.0)
New Mexico *** 1.8 (1.6, 2.1) 40 (26, 48) 50 falling falling trend -3.1 (-6.6, -1.9)
Alabama *** 2.1 (1.9, 2.3) 33 (14, 38) 132 falling falling trend -3.0 (-5.6, -2.0)
Colorado *** 2.5 (2.3, 2.7) 5 (1, 22) 161 falling falling trend -2.9 (-8.0, -1.6)
Pennsylvania *** 2.2 (2.1, 2.3) 25 (16, 35) 383 falling falling trend -2.9 (-3.8, -2.3)
Idaho *** 2.9 (2.6, 3.2) 1 (1, 12) 63 falling falling trend -2.8 (-8.2, -1.1)
Missouri *** 2.4 (2.2, 2.5) 17 (4, 29) 181 falling falling trend -2.7 (-5.6, -1.8)
New York *** 1.5 (1.4, 1.5) 49 (46, 51) 375 falling falling trend -2.7 (-4.8, -0.1)
Utah *** 2.8 (2.5, 3.1) 2 (1, 15) 81 falling falling trend -2.7 (-6.0, -1.4)
Connecticut *** 1.7 (1.5, 1.8) 46 (36, 49) 80 falling falling trend -2.5 (-3.5, -1.7)
Washington *** 2.3 (2.1, 2.4) 20 (8, 33) 204 falling falling trend -2.4 (-3.9, -1.7)
Indiana *** 2.4 (2.2, 2.5) 14 (3, 26) 192 falling falling trend -2.3 (-6.8, -1.3)
Vermont *** 2.1 (1.7, 2.6) 30 (1, 48) 19 falling falling trend -2.3 (-3.8, -0.9)
Michigan *** 2.0 (1.9, 2.1) 35 (24, 39) 257 falling falling trend -2.1 (-4.8, -1.2)
Rhode Island *** 2.1 (1.8, 2.5) 29 (3, 46) 31 falling falling trend -2.1 (-3.6, -0.6)
Iowa *** 2.5 (2.3, 2.7) 6 (1, 26) 103 falling falling trend -1.9 (-6.3, -0.3)
Ohio *** 2.4 (2.3, 2.5) 10 (3, 22) 365 falling falling trend -1.9 (-3.5, -1.0)
North Dakota *** 1.8 (1.5, 2.3) 38 (7, 50) 17 stable stable trend -1.8 (-14.3, 0.7)
Maryland *** 1.8 (1.6, 1.9) 41 (34, 48) 132 stable stable trend -1.7 (-5.1, 4.4)
Oklahoma *** 2.5 (2.3, 2.7) 7 (1, 26) 114 falling falling trend -1.7 (-2.2, -1.2)
California *** 1.8 (1.7, 1.8) 42 (36, 46) 799 stable stable trend -1.6 (-3.4, 1.2)
Hawaii *** 1.3 (1.1, 1.5) 50 (47, 51) 27 stable stable trend -1.4 (-2.7, 0.0)
Delaware *** 2.3 (2.0, 2.7) 18 (1, 42) 31 falling falling trend -1.3 (-2.2, -0.4)
Kentucky *** 2.6 (2.4, 2.8) 4 (1, 20) 139 falling falling trend -1.3 (-2.3, -0.4)
New Hampshire *** 2.4 (2.1, 2.7) 12 (1, 36) 46 stable stable trend -1.2 (-2.4, 0.0)
Montana *** 2.4 (2.0, 2.8) 13 (1, 38) 34 stable stable trend -1.1 (-2.2, 0.0)
Massachusetts *** 2.1 (2.0, 2.3) 27 (14, 37) 192 stable stable trend -1.0 (-3.7, 3.0)
Nebraska *** 2.4 (2.1, 2.7) 11 (1, 35) 57 stable stable trend -0.9 (-1.9, 0.2)
Florida *** 2.1 (2.0, 2.2) 32 (21, 36) 690 stable stable trend -0.8 (-2.6, 2.2)
South Dakota *** 2.2 (1.8, 2.7) 22 (2, 46) 25 stable stable trend -0.5 (-2.5, 1.7)
Wisconsin *** 2.4 (2.2, 2.5) 15 (3, 28) 182 stable stable trend -0.4 (-1.1, 0.3)
Oregon *** 2.4 (2.2, 2.6) 16 (3, 31) 129 stable stable trend 0.4 (-3.3, 6.1)
South Carolina *** 2.0 (1.9, 2.2) 34 (18, 40) 137 stable stable trend 0.5 (-2.6, 5.8)
Virginia *** 2.2 (2.0, 2.3) 26 (14, 36) 221 stable stable trend 0.9 (-1.3, 5.0)
North Carolina *** 2.2 (2.1, 2.3) 23 (11, 34) 285 stable stable trend 2.9 (-3.1, 8.2)
Minnesota *** 2.1 (2.0, 2.3) 28 (14, 38) 149 stable stable trend 7.5 (-0.6, 13.6)
Alaska *** 1.9 (1.4, 2.4) 37 (3, 51) 12
*
*
District of Columbia *** 1.1 (0.8, 1.6) 51 (43, 51) 7
*
*

Notes:
Created by statecancerprofiles.cancer.gov on 03/21/2026 5:40 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 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