Return to Home Mortality > Table

Death Rates Table

Data Options
Comparison Options

Death Rate Report by State

Bladder, 2019-2023

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 *** 4.1 (4.1, 4.2) N/A 16,993 falling falling trend -1.4 (-1.8, -1.1)
Alabama *** 4.2 (4.0, 4.4) 28 (13, 41) 266 stable stable trend -4.6 (-10.3, 0.8)
Alaska *** 4.0 (3.3, 4.8) 39 (3, 50) 25 stable stable trend -0.7 (-2.7, 1.5)
Arizona *** 4.0 (3.8, 4.2) 35 (21, 43) 391 falling falling trend -4.3 (-7.7, -0.5)
Arkansas *** 4.4 (4.1, 4.7) 17 (6, 38) 169 stable stable trend 0.5 (-0.2, 1.2)
California *** 3.7 (3.6, 3.8) 44 (38, 47) 1,662 falling falling trend -0.7 (-1.1, -0.5)
Colorado *** 3.8 (3.6, 4.1) 41 (27, 47) 233 stable stable trend 0.0 (-0.4, 0.5)
Connecticut *** 4.4 (4.1, 4.7) 16 (6, 36) 218 stable stable trend -0.3 (-0.8, 0.2)
Delaware *** 5.6 (5.0, 6.2) 2 (1, 9) 76 stable stable trend 0.2 (-0.8, 1.4)
District of Columbia *** 3.0 (2.4, 3.7) 50 (37, 51) 20 falling falling trend -2.2 (-3.7, -0.9)
Florida *** 4.2 (4.1, 4.3) 27 (18, 36) 1,467 falling falling trend -1.5 (-3.4, -0.4)
Georgia *** 4.4 (4.2, 4.5) 18 (10, 32) 489 stable stable trend -1.7 (-4.3, 0.1)
Hawaii *** 2.5 (2.2, 2.8) 51 (50, 51) 55 stable stable trend -0.3 (-1.1, 0.7)
Idaho *** 4.4 (4.0, 4.9) 15 (4, 41) 96 stable stable trend 0.1 (-0.9, 1.2)
Illinois *** 4.0 (3.9, 4.1) 37 (25, 43) 623 falling falling trend -2.5 (-5.3, -1.2)
Indiana *** 4.8 (4.6, 5.0) 9 (3, 17) 388 stable stable trend -0.7 (-4.9, 0.4)
Iowa *** 4.0 (3.8, 4.3) 34 (15, 46) 176 falling falling trend -1.1 (-2.6, -0.4)
Kansas *** 4.0 (3.7, 4.3) 36 (15, 47) 144 stable stable trend 0.0 (-0.7, 0.8)
Kentucky *** 5.1 (4.8, 5.4) 3 (1, 10) 279 rising rising trend 0.6 (0.2, 1.1)
Louisiana *** 4.2 (3.9, 4.4) 29 (12, 42) 223 stable stable trend 0.1 (-0.5, 0.8)
Maine *** 5.6 (5.2, 6.1) 1 (1, 5) 122 stable stable trend -0.3 (-1.1, 0.5)
Maryland *** 4.3 (4.1, 4.5) 23 (11, 39) 317 falling falling trend -2.0 (-6.1, -0.7)
Massachusetts *** 4.1 (3.9, 4.3) 33 (18, 42) 373 falling falling trend -4.1 (-8.7, -1.5)
Michigan *** 4.7 (4.5, 4.8) 11 (5, 19) 612 stable stable trend -0.1 (-0.4, 0.2)
Minnesota *** 3.8 (3.6, 4.0) 42 (33, 48) 269 falling falling trend -0.6 (-1.0, -0.1)
Mississippi *** 4.1 (3.8, 4.5) 31 (12, 45) 148 stable stable trend 0.8 (-0.2, 1.8)
Missouri *** 4.3 (4.1, 4.5) 19 (11, 36) 345 stable stable trend 0.4 (0.0, 0.9)
Montana *** 4.3 (3.8, 4.8) 22 (4, 46) 64 stable stable trend -0.7 (-1.6, 0.3)
Nebraska *** 4.2 (3.9, 4.6) 24 (7, 45) 102 rising rising trend 0.7 (0.1, 1.2)
Nevada *** 4.8 (4.5, 5.2) 5 (2, 22) 173 stable stable trend -0.6 (-1.2, 0.1)
New Hampshire *** 4.8 (4.3, 5.2) 10 (2, 34) 91 stable stable trend -0.4 (-1.4, 0.6)
New Jersey *** 4.1 (4.0, 4.3) 32 (18, 40) 485 falling falling trend -2.5 (-4.8, -1.5)
New Mexico *** 3.7 (3.4, 4.1) 43 (25, 50) 105 stable stable trend 0.0 (-0.6, 0.7)
New York *** 3.4 (3.3, 3.5) 48 (45, 50) 903 falling falling trend -3.3 (-5.2, -2.3)
North Carolina *** 4.2 (4.0, 4.4) 26 (15, 39) 531 stable stable trend -0.8 (-3.9, 0.2)
North Dakota *** 3.3 (2.8, 3.8) 49 (32, 51) 32 falling falling trend -1.7 (-3.1, -0.4)
Ohio *** 4.8 (4.6, 4.9) 8 (4, 14) 729 falling falling trend -2.6 (-4.8, -1.1)
Oklahoma *** 5.1 (4.8, 5.4) 4 (1, 11) 237 rising rising trend 1.2 (0.5, 1.9)
Oregon *** 4.8 (4.5, 5.1) 7 (3, 19) 266 stable stable trend 0.0 (-0.6, 0.6)
Pennsylvania *** 4.5 (4.4, 4.7) 13 (8, 23) 840 falling falling trend -1.2 (-4.1, -0.3)
Puerto Rico *** 2.1 (2.0, 2.3) N/A 125 stable stable trend -0.7 (-4.3, 3.2)
Rhode Island *** 4.6 (4.1, 5.1) 12 (2, 40) 70 falling falling trend -0.8 (-1.5, -0.1)
South Carolina *** 4.3 (4.1, 4.5) 21 (11, 38) 283 stable stable trend 0.4 (-0.1, 0.9)
South Dakota *** 3.7 (3.2, 4.2) 46 (14, 50) 42 stable stable trend -0.4 (-1.5, 0.6)
Tennessee *** 4.5 (4.3, 4.7) 14 (7, 29) 374 stable stable trend 0.2 (-0.1, 0.6)
Texas *** 3.7 (3.6, 3.8) 45 (38, 48) 1,045 stable stable trend -0.1 (-0.4, 0.1)
Utah *** 3.5 (3.2, 3.9) 47 (34, 50) 94 stable stable trend -1.4 (-7.4, 0.1)
Vermont *** 4.0 (3.4, 4.6) 38 (6, 50) 37 falling falling trend -5.3 (-10.0, -3.1)
Virginia *** 4.2 (4.0, 4.4) 25 (13, 39) 430 stable stable trend 0.0 (-0.4, 0.4)
Washington *** 4.3 (4.1, 4.5) 20 (11, 35) 382 falling falling trend -1.7 (-2.7, -1.0)
West Virginia *** 4.8 (4.4, 5.2) 6 (2, 26) 127 stable stable trend 0.2 (-0.3, 0.7)
Wisconsin *** 4.2 (4.0, 4.4) 30 (15, 41) 317 falling falling trend -1.0 (-3.7, -0.6)
Wyoming *** 3.9 (3.3, 4.6) 40 (6, 50) 29 stable stable trend -0.3 (-1.8, 1.3)

Notes:
Created by statecancerprofiles.cancer.gov on 02/19/2026 2:20 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 (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.

When displaying county information, the CI*Rank for the state is not shown because it's not comparable. To see the state CI*Rank please view the statistics at the US By State level.

*** 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