Return to Home Mortality > Table

Death Rates Table

Data Options

Death Rate Report by State

All Cancer Sites, 2016-2020

Hispanic (any race), Both Sexes, All Ages

Sorted by Count
State
 sort alphabetically by name ascending
Met Healthy People Objective of 122.7?
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 ascending
Recent Trend
Recent 5-Year Trend in Death Rates
(95% Confidence Interval)
 sort by trend descending
United States 6 Yes 108.2 (107.8, 108.7) N/A 41,779 falling falling trend -1.8 (-2.5, -1.0)
California Yes 113.7 (112.8, 114.7) 9 (6, 12) 11,534 falling falling trend -0.9 (-1.0, -0.8)
Texas Yes 115.7 (114.5, 116.9) 6 (4, 10) 8,405 falling falling trend -1.5 (-1.6, -1.3)
Florida Yes 108.7 (107.4, 109.9) 12 (9, 16) 5,896 falling falling trend -1.2 (-1.3, -1.1)
New York Yes 99.0 (97.4, 100.7) 19 (15, 26) 3,037 falling falling trend -2.9 (-3.7, -2.2)
Arizona Yes 114.6 (112.0, 117.3) 7 (5, 12) 1,581 falling falling trend -1.4 (-1.6, -1.2)
Illinois Yes 102.3 (99.7, 105.0) 16 (12, 23) 1,288 falling falling trend -0.3 (-0.5, -0.1)
New Mexico No 131.1 (127.9, 134.5) 2 (2, 5) 1,245 falling falling trend -1.3 (-1.5, -1.1)
New Jersey Yes 93.7 (91.3, 96.2) 28 (20, 31) 1,229 falling falling trend -1.0 (-1.3, -0.8)
Colorado No 127.8 (123.9, 131.7) 3 (2, 6) 911 falling falling trend -0.9 (-1.3, -0.4)
Pennsylvania Yes 109.1 (104.8, 113.6) 11 (7, 18) 549 stable stable trend 0.6 (-0.4, 1.5)
Nevada Yes 96.6 (92.4, 100.9) 23 (15, 30) 466 stable stable trend -0.3 (-0.7, 0.1)
Massachusetts Yes 93.8 (89.7, 98.0) 27 (18, 32) 446 falling falling trend -1.3 (-1.8, -0.7)
Washington Yes 100.0 (95.2, 105.0) 18 (12, 28) 411 falling falling trend -0.8 (-1.1, -0.5)
Georgia Yes 85.0 (80.7, 89.5) 32 (27, 41) 375 rising rising trend 3.1 (1.9, 4.3)
Connecticut Yes 98.8 (94.0, 103.9) 21 (13, 29) 350 falling falling trend -1.3 (-1.9, -0.7)
Michigan Yes 120.2 (114.2, 126.5) 5 (3, 11) 331 falling falling trend -2.3 (-3.3, -1.2)
North Carolina Yes 82.6 (78.0, 87.4) 36 (28, 44) 323 rising rising trend 2.0 (1.2, 2.9)
Virginia Yes 79.6 (75.2, 84.1) 37 (31, 45) 309 falling falling trend -2.2 (-2.8, -1.6)
Maryland Yes 77.8 (73.1, 82.7) 41 (32, 46) 250 stable stable trend -0.4 (-1.4, 0.6)
Oregon Yes 99.0 (92.7, 105.6) 20 (11, 30) 231 stable stable trend -0.2 (-0.7, 0.2)
Ohio Yes 87.5 (82.1, 93.1) 31 (23, 40) 216 falling falling trend -2.4 (-3.2, -1.7)
Indiana Yes 92.6 (86.5, 98.9) 30 (16, 35) 209 stable stable trend -0.1 (-0.9, 0.6)
Utah Yes 103.9 (96.9, 111.3) 14 (8, 27) 197 falling falling trend -1.2 (-1.6, -0.7)
Oklahoma 6, 7 Yes 105.0 (97.6, 112.8) 13 (6, 27) 187
*
*
Kansas Yes 114.2 (106.3, 122.4) 8 (4, 17) 183 stable stable trend -0.5 (-0.9, 0.0)
Wisconsin Yes 102.2 (94.8, 109.9) 17 (8, 30) 176 rising rising trend 0.9 (0.1, 1.6)
Louisiana 6, 7 Yes 79.5 (73.4, 85.9) 38 (30, 46) 134 falling falling trend -1.8 (-2.6, -1.0)
Tennessee Yes 79.4 (72.5, 86.8) 39 (28, 47) 125 rising rising trend 3.3 (0.7, 6.0)
Hawaii 8 No 188.7 (171.9, 206.4) 1 (1, 1) 117 stable stable trend 0.8 (-1.5, 3.2)
Minnesota Yes 95.0 (86.3, 104.2) 26 (11, 37) 115 stable stable trend -0.8 (-2.1, 0.6)
Missouri Yes 84.7 (77.4, 92.5) 33 (23, 44) 112 stable stable trend 0.4 (-2.5, 3.3)
South Carolina Yes 79.2 (71.9, 86.9) 40 (29, 47) 108 stable stable trend 0.3 (-0.9, 1.6)
Idaho Yes 97.3 (87.8, 107.4) 22 (9, 35) 95 falling falling trend -1.3 (-1.9, -0.7)
Nebraska Yes 83.9 (74.5, 94.0) 34 (21, 46) 73 falling falling trend -1.8 (-2.5, -1.2)
Rhode Island Yes 77.3 (68.9, 86.3) 42 (29, 48) 71 stable stable trend -0.4 (-1.4, 0.6)
Arkansas Yes 71.1 (62.6, 80.3) 45 (33, 50) 66 stable stable trend 0.0 (-1.3, 1.3)
Iowa Yes 83.2 (73.2, 93.9) 35 (20, 46) 63 falling falling trend -3.1 (-4.1, -2.1)
Alabama Yes 60.8 (53.6, 68.7) 48 (43, 51) 61 stable stable trend -0.2 (-2.2, 1.9)
Kentucky Yes 68.0 (59.1, 77.7) 46 (35, 50) 51 falling falling trend -5.0 (-6.1, -4.0)
Wyoming No 125.2 (108.7, 143.2) 4 (2, 17) 45 stable stable trend 4.5 (-2.8, 12.3)
Delaware Yes 96.3 (82.8, 111.2) 25 (6, 42) 43 falling falling trend -2.3 (-3.5, -1.1)
District of Columbia Yes 72.3 (60.5, 85.4) 44 (28, 50) 31 falling falling trend -3.4 (-6.2, -0.6)
Mississippi Yes 60.2 (50.4, 71.1) 49 (41, 51) 30 stable stable trend 0.2 (-1.5, 1.9)
Montana Yes 93.1 (75.1, 113.8) 29 (4, 47) 21 falling falling trend -3.4 (-4.4, -2.5)
Alaska Yes 103.9 (82.3, 128.6) 15 (2, 45) 20 falling falling trend -1.9 (-3.6, -0.2)
New Hampshire 6, 7 Yes 74.6 (59.5, 91.9) 43 (20, 51) 20
*
*
South Dakota Yes 96.4 (69.2, 129.1) 24 (2, 50) 11
*
*
West Virginia Yes 48.2 (35.2, 64.2) 51 (44, 51) 10
*
*
Maine Yes 64.5 (46.6, 86.5) 47 (24, 51) 9
*
*
North Dakota Yes 113.3 (77.4, 157.7) 10 (2, 49) 8
*
*
Vermont Yes 59.5 (35.9, 91.5) 50 (15, 51) 4
*
*
Puerto Rico 8 ***
¶¶¶
N/A
¶¶¶
¶¶¶
¶¶¶
Notes:
Created by statecancerprofiles.cancer.gov on 12/03/2022 4:44 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 (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.

6 Hispanic mortality recent trend data for the United States has been excluded for the following states: Louisiana, New Hampshire, and Oklahoma. The data on Hispanic and non-Hispanic mortality for these states may be unreliable for the time period used in the generation of the recent trend (1990 - 2020) and has been excluded from the calculation of the United States recent trend. This was based on the NCHS Policy.

7 Data on Hispanic and non-Hispanic mortality may be unreliable for the time period used in the generation of the recent trend (1990 - 2020) for this state and the user is cautioned against drawing conclusions from such data. This was based on the NCHS Policy.

8 Due to data availability issues, the time period used in the calculation of the joinpoint regression model may differ for selected counties.

¶¶¶ Data for Puerto Rico is only available for All Races (includes Hispanics). For more information see data not available.
* 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.

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.

NHIA (NAACCR Hispanic Identification Algorithm) was used for Hispanic Ethnicity (see Technical Notes section of the USCS).
Statistics for minorities may be affected by inconsistent race identification between the cancer case reports (sources for numerator of rate) and data from the Census Bureau (source for denominator of rate); and from undercounts of some population groups in the census.
Data for United States does not include Puerto Rico.
CI*Rank data for Puerto Rico is not available.

Return to Top