Return to Home Mortality > Table

Death Rates Table

Data Options

Death Rate Report by State

Liver & Bile Duct, 2016-2020

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

Sorted by Name
State
 sort alphabetically by name descending
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 27,509 stable stable trend -0.6 (-1.2, 0.0)
Alabama *** 7.2 (6.9, 7.5) 11 (7, 16) 471 rising rising trend 2.0 (1.7, 2.3)
Alaska *** 7.1 (6.2, 8.1) 12 (3, 41) 51 rising rising trend 1.8 (0.7, 2.9)
Arizona *** 6.3 (6.1, 6.5) 27 (17, 36) 600 stable stable trend -0.1 (-1.7, 1.5)
Arkansas *** 7.2 (6.9, 7.6) 10 (6, 19) 286 rising rising trend 1.9 (1.3, 2.5)
California *** 7.6 (7.5, 7.8) 7 (6, 10) 3,488 falling falling trend -1.6 (-2.7, -0.5)
Colorado *** 5.7 (5.4, 5.9) 42 (33, 48) 374 rising rising trend 2.2 (1.8, 2.5)
Connecticut *** 5.6 (5.3, 5.9) 45 (34, 49) 280 rising rising trend 2.0 (1.7, 2.4)
Delaware *** 6.7 (6.1, 7.4) 16 (7, 40) 95 rising rising trend 2.6 (1.9, 3.3)
District of Columbia *** 9.1 (8.1, 10.2) 1 (1, 8) 66 rising rising trend 1.7 (1.0, 2.4)
Florida *** 6.2 (6.1, 6.3) 31 (24, 36) 2,014 stable stable trend -1.0 (-2.5, 0.6)
Georgia *** 6.5 (6.3, 6.7) 24 (15, 33) 774 stable stable trend -0.1 (-1.9, 1.6)
Hawaii 8 *** 8.0 (7.4, 8.6) 6 (1, 12) 157 rising rising trend 0.8 (0.4, 1.2)
Idaho *** 5.8 (5.4, 6.3) 37 (20, 48) 126 rising rising trend 3.2 (2.6, 3.8)
Illinois *** 6.4 (6.2, 6.6) 26 (16, 33) 1,014 stable stable trend -0.1 (-1.4, 1.3)
Indiana *** 6.2 (6.0, 6.5) 30 (18, 38) 526 rising rising trend 1.1 (0.1, 2.1)
Iowa *** 5.4 (5.1, 5.8) 47 (35, 50) 226 stable stable trend -1.8 (-7.4, 4.2)
Kansas *** 6.1 (5.7, 6.5) 33 (18, 45) 225 rising rising trend 3.1 (2.7, 3.6)
Kentucky *** 6.5 (6.2, 6.8) 22 (13, 36) 374 stable stable trend -2.8 (-5.5, 0.0)
Louisiana *** 8.7 (8.4, 9.1) 2 (1, 5) 516 rising rising trend 2.1 (1.7, 2.4)
Maine *** 5.1 (4.7, 5.6) 48 (38, 51) 108 rising rising trend 2.2 (1.6, 2.8)
Maryland *** 6.4 (6.2, 6.7) 25 (15, 36) 491 stable stable trend -0.4 (-1.9, 1.1)
Massachusetts *** 6.3 (6.0, 6.5) 28 (18, 37) 568 stable stable trend -1.6 (-3.7, 0.6)
Michigan *** 6.0 (5.9, 6.2) 34 (26, 41) 820 rising rising trend 1.7 (1.5, 2.0)
Minnesota *** 5.8 (5.5, 6.1) 39 (30, 47) 406 rising rising trend 2.4 (2.1, 2.7)
Mississippi *** 8.2 (7.8, 8.6) 5 (1, 8) 309 rising rising trend 1.7 (1.3, 2.1)
Missouri *** 6.6 (6.3, 6.8) 20 (13, 31) 535 stable stable trend 1.0 (0.0, 2.0)
Montana *** 5.7 (5.2, 6.3) 40 (18, 50) 89 rising rising trend 2.0 (1.4, 2.6)
Nebraska *** 4.4 (4.1, 4.8) 51 (48, 51) 106 rising rising trend 1.8 (1.2, 2.4)
Nevada *** 6.7 (6.3, 7.1) 18 (10, 32) 246 rising rising trend 1.7 (1.3, 2.2)
New Hampshire *** 5.6 (5.1, 6.1) 44 (25, 50) 108 rising rising trend 1.7 (1.2, 2.3)
New Jersey *** 5.8 (5.6, 6.0) 38 (32, 46) 674 stable stable trend -2.2 (-7.3, 3.1)
New Mexico *** 8.5 (8.0, 9.0) 3 (1, 7) 237 rising rising trend 2.4 (1.9, 2.8)
New York *** 5.7 (5.5, 5.8) 43 (36, 47) 1,437 falling falling trend -2.3 (-3.2, -1.4)
North Carolina *** 6.6 (6.4, 6.8) 19 (13, 28) 884 stable stable trend 0.3 (-0.9, 1.5)
North Dakota *** 4.9 (4.2, 5.6) 50 (36, 51) 45 rising rising trend 1.4 (0.6, 2.1)
Ohio *** 6.2 (6.1, 6.4) 29 (20, 37) 987 stable stable trend -0.5 (-3.4, 2.5)
Oklahoma *** 7.4 (7.1, 7.8) 9 (6, 15) 368 rising rising trend 3.3 (3.0, 3.6)
Oregon *** 6.9 (6.6, 7.3) 13 (9, 23) 399 stable stable trend 0.6 (-1.4, 2.5)
Pennsylvania *** 6.5 (6.3, 6.6) 23 (16, 31) 1,179 rising rising trend 2.3 (2.0, 2.5)
Puerto Rico 8 *** 6.6 (6.3, 7.0) N/A 333 stable stable trend 0.7 (-4.5, 6.1)
Rhode Island *** 7.5 (6.9, 8.2) 8 (3, 20) 107 rising rising trend 2.5 (1.9, 3.1)
South Carolina *** 6.7 (6.4, 7.0) 17 (11, 29) 466 rising rising trend 2.2 (1.9, 2.5)
South Dakota *** 5.9 (5.3, 6.6) 35 (13, 49) 68 rising rising trend 2.9 (2.2, 3.6)
Tennessee *** 6.9 (6.7, 7.2) 14 (9, 22) 610 stable stable trend -1.6 (-6.7, 3.8)
Texas *** 8.2 (8.1, 8.4) 4 (2, 7) 2,466 stable stable trend -0.2 (-1.5, 1.1)
Utah *** 5.0 (4.6, 5.3) 49 (45, 51) 139 rising rising trend 2.3 (1.8, 2.8)
Vermont *** 5.6 (4.9, 6.3) 46 (18, 51) 51 rising rising trend 6.7 (2.1, 11.6)
Virginia *** 6.1 (5.9, 6.3) 32 (23, 40) 644 stable stable trend -0.6 (-3.0, 1.9)
Washington *** 6.8 (6.6, 7.1) 15 (10, 23) 634 stable stable trend 0.1 (-1.0, 1.1)
West Virginia *** 6.5 (6.1, 7.0) 21 (10, 38) 174 rising rising trend 2.4 (2.0, 2.9)
Wisconsin *** 5.7 (5.5, 6.0) 41 (33, 48) 443 rising rising trend 1.8 (1.5, 2.0)
Wyoming *** 5.9 (5.1, 6.7) 36 (12, 50) 46 rising rising trend 1.5 (0.7, 2.4)
Notes:
Created by statecancerprofiles.cancer.gov on 03/28/2024 7:53 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.

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


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.
CI*Rank data for Puerto Rico is not available.

Return to Top