Return to Home Mortality > Table

Death Rates Table

Data Options

Death Rate Report by State

Bladder, 2014-2018

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

Sorted by Rate
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 ascending
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 *** 4.3 (4.3, 4.3) N/A 16,395 falling falling trend -1.4 (-2.6, -0.3)
Vermont *** 5.4 (4.7, 6.2) 1 (1, 25) 46 stable stable trend 0.2 (-0.4, 0.8)
Maine *** 5.4 (4.9, 5.9) 2 (1, 14) 105 stable stable trend 0.0 (-0.6, 0.5)
Delaware *** 5.2 (4.7, 5.9) 3 (1, 25) 64 stable stable trend -0.7 (-1.4, 0.1)
Nevada *** 5.2 (4.9, 5.6) 4 (1, 12) 163 stable stable trend 0.0 (-0.4, 0.5)
Ohio *** 5.0 (4.9, 5.2) 5 (1, 11) 742 rising rising trend 0.2 (0.1, 0.4)
New Hampshire *** 5.0 (4.6, 5.5) 6 (1, 29) 88 stable stable trend -0.3 (-0.9, 0.2)
Kentucky *** 5.0 (4.7, 5.2) 7 (1, 18) 258 rising rising trend 0.6 (0.2, 0.9)
Rhode Island *** 4.9 (4.4, 5.5) 8 (1, 35) 70 stable stable trend -0.3 (-0.7, 0.2)
West Virginia *** 4.9 (4.5, 5.3) 9 (1, 29) 125 stable stable trend 0.1 (-0.3, 0.5)
Oklahoma *** 4.7 (4.4, 5.0) 10 (3, 30) 213 rising rising trend 1.1 (0.7, 1.5)
Massachusetts *** 4.7 (4.5, 4.9) 11 (5, 25) 408 stable stable trend -0.3 (-0.5, 0.0)
Pennsylvania *** 4.7 (4.5, 4.8) 12 (6, 22) 846 stable stable trend 0.0 (-0.2, 0.1)
Oregon *** 4.7 (4.4, 5.0) 13 (4, 30) 238 stable stable trend 0.2 (-0.2, 0.6)
Indiana *** 4.6 (4.4, 4.8) 14 (6, 29) 356 stable stable trend 0.1 (-0.2, 0.3)
Idaho *** 4.6 (4.2, 5.1) 15 (2, 40) 85 stable stable trend 0.5 (0.0, 1.1)
Michigan *** 4.6 (4.4, 4.8) 16 (8, 28) 579 stable stable trend -0.2 (-0.4, 0.0)
New Jersey *** 4.6 (4.4, 4.8) 17 (8, 29) 507 falling falling trend -0.6 (-0.8, -0.4)
Washington *** 4.5 (4.3, 4.7) 18 (8, 33) 367 falling falling trend -3.1 (-5.5, -0.5)
Maryland *** 4.5 (4.2, 4.7) 19 (8, 36) 305 falling falling trend -0.5 (-0.9, -0.2)
Georgia *** 4.5 (4.3, 4.7) 20 (10, 34) 446 stable stable trend -4.2 (-10.8, 2.9)
Connecticut *** 4.4 (4.2, 4.7) 21 (8, 38) 215 stable stable trend -6.4 (-13.9, 1.7)
Virginia *** 4.4 (4.2, 4.6) 22 (10, 36) 411 stable stable trend 0.0 (-0.3, 0.3)
Illinois *** 4.4 (4.2, 4.5) 23 (13, 35) 661 stable stable trend -0.1 (-0.3, 0.0)
Arkansas *** 4.4 (4.1, 4.7) 24 (8, 42) 162 stable stable trend 0.4 (-0.1, 0.9)
Wisconsin *** 4.4 (4.1, 4.6) 25 (12, 39) 320 stable stable trend -0.1 (-0.4, 0.2)
Tennessee *** 4.3 (4.1, 4.6) 26 (12, 39) 339 stable stable trend 0.2 (-0.1, 0.5)
Alabama *** 4.3 (4.1, 4.6) 27 (11, 40) 254 rising rising trend 0.9 (0.5, 1.3)
Missouri *** 4.3 (4.1, 4.5) 28 (13, 39) 328 rising rising trend 0.4 (0.1, 0.7)
Florida *** 4.3 (4.2, 4.4) 29 (19, 36) 1,353 falling falling trend -0.3 (-0.4, -0.1)
Montana *** 4.3 (3.8, 4.8) 30 (5, 48) 60 stable stable trend -0.2 (-0.9, 0.4)
North Carolina *** 4.2 (4.0, 4.4) 31 (20, 41) 496 rising rising trend 0.4 (0.1, 0.6)
District of Columbia *** 4.2 (3.5, 5.0) 32 (2, 50) 27 stable stable trend -0.8 (-1.7, 0.1)
New York *** 4.2 (4.1, 4.3) 33 (24, 41) 1,027 falling falling trend -0.8 (-0.9, -0.6)
Kansas *** 4.1 (3.8, 4.5) 34 (14, 47) 145 stable stable trend 0.4 (-0.1, 0.9)
Iowa *** 4.1 (3.9, 4.4) 35 (15, 46) 172 stable stable trend 0.2 (-0.2, 0.6)
Arizona *** 4.1 (3.9, 4.3) 36 (23, 44) 355 stable stable trend -0.3 (-0.6, 0.0)
South Carolina *** 4.1 (3.8, 4.3) 37 (22, 46) 240 stable stable trend -0.2 (-0.6, 0.2)
Alaska *** 4.0 (3.3, 4.9) 38 (3, 51) 23 falling falling trend -1.3 (-2.6, -0.1)
Nebraska *** 4.0 (3.6, 4.4) 39 (16, 49) 93 rising rising trend 0.4 (0.1, 0.8)
Colorado *** 4.0 (3.7, 4.2) 40 (26, 48) 221 stable stable trend 0.0 (-0.3, 0.3)
Minnesota *** 4.0 (3.7, 4.2) 41 (28, 48) 265 stable stable trend -0.2 (-0.5, 0.1)
Louisiana *** 3.9 (3.6, 4.1) 42 (30, 49) 201 stable stable trend 0.0 (-0.3, 0.4)
California *** 3.9 (3.8, 3.9) 43 (37, 47) 1,620 falling falling trend -0.3 (-0.5, -0.2)
South Dakota *** 3.8 (3.3, 4.4) 44 (13, 51) 42 stable stable trend -0.4 (-1.0, 0.3)
New Mexico *** 3.8 (3.4, 4.1) 45 (27, 50) 95 stable stable trend 0.3 (-0.2, 0.9)
Texas *** 3.7 (3.6, 3.8) 46 (41, 49) 943 stable stable trend -0.1 (-0.3, 0.0)
Mississippi *** 3.7 (3.4, 4.0) 47 (33, 50) 124 stable stable trend 0.2 (-0.4, 0.8)
Wyoming *** 3.6 (3.0, 4.4) 48 (11, 51) 25 stable stable trend 0.2 (-0.8, 1.1)
North Dakota *** 3.5 (3.0, 4.1) 49 (23, 51) 32 stable stable trend -0.2 (-1.1, 0.8)
Utah *** 3.3 (2.9, 3.6) 50 (44, 51) 79 stable stable trend 0.0 (-0.6, 0.6)
Hawaii 8 *** 2.9 (2.6, 3.3) 51 (48, 51) 56 stable stable trend 0.0 (-0.8, 0.8)
Puerto Rico 8 *** 2.3 (2.2, 2.5) N/A 114 stable stable trend -5.6 (-12.4, 1.8)
Notes:
Created by statecancerprofiles.cancer.gov on 06/22/2021 10:29 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 2020 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 1969-2017 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 2020 Objective for this cancer.
Healthy People 2020 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