Return to Home Mortality > Table

Death Rates Table

Data Options

Death Rate Report by State

Bladder, 2016-2020

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

Sorted by CI*Rank
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 *** 4.2 (4.1, 4.2) N/A 16,684 falling falling trend -2.5 (-3.2, -1.7)
Maine *** 5.4 (5.0, 5.9) 1 (1, 9) 112 stable stable trend 0.0 (-0.5, 0.4)
Delaware *** 5.3 (4.8, 5.9) 2 (1, 14) 70 stable stable trend -0.6 (-1.2, 0.1)
New Hampshire *** 5.0 (4.5, 5.5) 3 (1, 22) 91 stable stable trend -0.5 (-1.1, 0.0)
Kentucky *** 5.0 (4.7, 5.2) 4 (1, 13) 269 rising rising trend 0.5 (0.2, 0.8)
Ohio *** 4.9 (4.8, 5.1) 5 (2, 10) 749 stable stable trend 0.1 (0.0, 0.3)
Nevada *** 4.9 (4.6, 5.3) 6 (1, 18) 167 stable stable trend -0.2 (-0.6, 0.3)
West Virginia *** 4.9 (4.5, 5.3) 7 (1, 23) 128 stable stable trend 0.1 (-0.3, 0.5)
Idaho *** 4.8 (4.4, 5.3) 8 (1, 27) 96 stable stable trend 0.5 (0.0, 1.0)
Oklahoma *** 4.7 (4.4, 5.0) 9 (3, 24) 219 rising rising trend 1.0 (0.6, 1.3)
Vermont *** 4.7 (4.0, 5.4) 10 (1, 43) 42 stable stable trend -7.5 (-14.5, 0.2)
Oregon *** 4.6 (4.4, 4.9) 11 (3, 26) 250 stable stable trend 0.1 (-0.3, 0.4)
Michigan *** 4.5 (4.4, 4.7) 12 (7, 23) 591 stable stable trend -0.2 (-0.4, 0.0)
Indiana *** 4.5 (4.3, 4.8) 13 (5, 25) 366 stable stable trend 0.1 (-0.2, 0.3)
Massachusetts *** 4.5 (4.3, 4.7) 14 (6, 27) 405 stable stable trend -5.1 (-10.5, 0.5)
Pennsylvania *** 4.5 (4.4, 4.6) 15 (8, 23) 834 falling falling trend -2.2 (-4.0, -0.3)
Rhode Island *** 4.4 (3.9, 4.9) 16 (2, 45) 65 stable stable trend -0.4 (-0.9, 0.0)
New Jersey *** 4.4 (4.2, 4.5) 17 (10, 31) 502 falling falling trend -0.7 (-0.9, -0.5)
Washington *** 4.4 (4.2, 4.6) 18 (9, 33) 373 falling falling trend -2.4 (-3.9, -1.0)
Alabama *** 4.4 (4.1, 4.6) 19 (8, 35) 266 rising rising trend 0.9 (0.6, 1.3)
Tennessee *** 4.3 (4.1, 4.5) 20 (9, 34) 355 stable stable trend 0.2 (-0.1, 0.5)
Virginia *** 4.3 (4.1, 4.5) 21 (10, 34) 424 stable stable trend 0.0 (-0.3, 0.3)
Georgia *** 4.3 (4.1, 4.5) 22 (11, 34) 459 rising rising trend 0.6 (0.3, 1.0)
Maryland *** 4.3 (4.1, 4.5) 23 (10, 37) 307 falling falling trend -0.6 (-0.9, -0.3)
Missouri *** 4.2 (4.0, 4.5) 24 (12, 36) 337 stable stable trend 0.3 (0.0, 0.6)
Florida *** 4.2 (4.1, 4.3) 25 (16, 32) 1,420 falling falling trend -0.3 (-0.5, -0.2)
Wisconsin *** 4.2 (4.0, 4.4) 26 (12, 37) 319 falling falling trend -1.8 (-3.1, -0.4)
Connecticut *** 4.2 (4.0, 4.5) 27 (10, 40) 210 falling falling trend -0.4 (-0.7, -0.1)
Illinois *** 4.2 (4.0, 4.3) 28 (18, 36) 647 stable stable trend -3.6 (-7.3, 0.2)
Iowa *** 4.1 (3.9, 4.4) 29 (12, 44) 177 stable stable trend 0.1 (-0.3, 0.4)
Arkansas *** 4.1 (3.8, 4.4) 30 (12, 45) 158 stable stable trend 0.3 (-0.2, 0.8)
North Carolina *** 4.1 (3.9, 4.2) 31 (20, 40) 509 stable stable trend 0.3 (0.0, 0.5)
Montana *** 4.1 (3.6, 4.6) 32 (8, 49) 59 stable stable trend -0.3 (-0.9, 0.3)
Arizona *** 4.0 (3.8, 4.2) 33 (21, 44) 374 stable stable trend -0.3 (-0.6, 0.0)
Nebraska *** 3.9 (3.6, 4.3) 34 (14, 49) 94 stable stable trend 0.3 (0.0, 0.7)
Louisiana *** 3.9 (3.7, 4.2) 35 (21, 47) 212 stable stable trend 0.1 (-0.2, 0.4)
Kansas *** 3.9 (3.6, 4.2) 36 (17, 48) 142 stable stable trend 0.3 (-0.1, 0.7)
District of Columbia *** 3.9 (3.2, 4.6) 37 (5, 51) 27 falling falling trend -1.0 (-1.8, -0.2)
South Carolina *** 3.9 (3.7, 4.1) 38 (26, 47) 247 stable stable trend -0.3 (-0.7, 0.0)
New York *** 3.8 (3.7, 3.9) 39 (32, 46) 977 falling falling trend -4.8 (-7.9, -1.7)
Minnesota *** 3.8 (3.6, 4.0) 40 (29, 48) 267 stable stable trend -0.3 (-0.6, 0.0)
California *** 3.8 (3.7, 3.9) 41 (34, 46) 1,670 falling falling trend -0.4 (-0.5, -0.2)
Colorado *** 3.8 (3.6, 4.0) 42 (29, 49) 222 stable stable trend -3.8 (-10.2, 3.1)
New Mexico *** 3.7 (3.4, 4.1) 43 (24, 50) 99 stable stable trend 0.2 (-0.3, 0.7)
South Dakota *** 3.7 (3.2, 4.3) 44 (14, 50) 42 stable stable trend -0.5 (-1.1, 0.1)
Alaska *** 3.7 (3.0, 4.4) 45 (7, 51) 22 falling falling trend -1.6 (-2.7, -0.4)
Texas *** 3.6 (3.5, 3.7) 46 (40, 49) 986 falling falling trend -0.2 (-0.4, -0.1)
Mississippi *** 3.6 (3.3, 3.9) 47 (32, 50) 126 stable stable trend 0.2 (-0.3, 0.7)
Wyoming *** 3.5 (2.9, 4.2) 48 (14, 51) 25 stable stable trend -0.1 (-0.9, 0.8)
Utah *** 3.3 (3.0, 3.7) 49 (38, 51) 86 stable stable trend 0.0 (-0.5, 0.5)
North Dakota *** 3.3 (2.8, 3.9) 50 (29, 51) 32 stable stable trend -0.3 (-1.2, 0.5)
Hawaii 8 *** 2.8 (2.5, 3.1) 51 (48, 51) 57 stable stable trend 0.0 (-0.7, 0.7)
Puerto Rico 8 *** 2.2 (2.0, 2.4) N/A 115 stable stable trend -3.2 (-8.8, 2.6)
Notes:
Created by statecancerprofiles.cancer.gov on 12/09/2022 11:37 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.

*** No Healthy People 2030 Objective for this cancer.
Healthy People 2030 Objectives provided by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

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.

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.

Data for United States does not include Puerto Rico.
CI*Rank data for Puerto Rico is not available.

Return to Top