Return to Home Mortality > Table

Death Rates Table

Data Options

Death Rate Report by State

Bladder, 2018-2022

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

Sorted by Ruralurban
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 *** 4.1 (4.1, 4.1) N/A 16,859 falling falling trend -1.0 (-1.5, -0.7)
District of Columbia *** 3.5 (2.8, 4.2) 49 (13, 51) 23 falling falling trend -1.1 (-2.0, -0.3)
Puerto Rico 8 *** 2.1 (2.0, 2.3) N/A 120 stable stable trend 1.9 (-0.8, 4.8)
Alabama *** 4.4 (4.1, 4.6) 16 (7, 34) 278 rising rising trend 0.9 (0.5, 1.2)
Alaska *** 3.9 (3.2, 4.7) 40 (3, 50) 24 stable stable trend -0.9 (-1.9, 0.4)
Arizona *** 4.1 (3.9, 4.3) 32 (17, 42) 389 stable stable trend -0.2 (-0.4, 0.2)
Arkansas *** 4.2 (3.9, 4.5) 28 (10, 44) 161 stable stable trend 0.3 (-0.1, 0.8)
California *** 3.7 (3.6, 3.8) 44 (38, 48) 1,662 falling falling trend -1.7 (-4.1, -0.5)
Colorado *** 3.8 (3.5, 4.0) 43 (29, 49) 227 stable stable trend -0.1 (-0.4, 0.2)
Connecticut *** 4.4 (4.1, 4.6) 17 (7, 37) 211 stable stable trend -0.2 (-0.5, 0.1)
Delaware *** 5.5 (4.9, 6.1) 1 (1, 10) 76 stable stable trend -0.3 (-0.9, 0.4)
Florida *** 4.2 (4.1, 4.3) 27 (17, 36) 1,443 falling falling trend -1.6 (-3.5, -0.3)
Georgia *** 4.2 (4.0, 4.4) 24 (14, 40) 465 falling falling trend -1.7 (-5.1, -0.1)
Hawaii 8 *** 2.6 (2.3, 3.0) 51 (50, 51) 57 stable stable trend -0.1 (-0.7, 0.5)
Idaho *** 4.6 (4.2, 5.0) 11 (2, 38) 97 stable stable trend 0.3 (-0.3, 1.1)
Illinois *** 4.0 (3.8, 4.1) 38 (23, 43) 627 falling falling trend -2.6 (-5.3, -1.1)
Indiana *** 4.7 (4.5, 4.9) 8 (3, 17) 385 stable stable trend 0.1 (-0.1, 0.4)
Iowa *** 4.1 (3.8, 4.3) 33 (14, 45) 178 stable stable trend -1.2 (-3.6, 2.1)
Kansas *** 4.0 (3.7, 4.3) 36 (13, 47) 146 stable stable trend 0.3 (-0.1, 0.7)
Kentucky *** 5.1 (4.8, 5.3) 3 (1, 10) 277 rising rising trend 0.6 (0.3, 0.9)
Louisiana *** 4.0 (3.8, 4.3) 37 (16, 46) 219 stable stable trend 0.1 (-0.3, 0.4)
Maine *** 5.5 (5.0, 5.9) 2 (1, 7) 119 stable stable trend -0.1 (-0.5, 0.5)
Maryland *** 4.2 (4.0, 4.4) 23 (12, 40) 313 falling falling trend -2.2 (-3.7, -1.4)
Massachusetts *** 4.2 (4.0, 4.4) 21 (12, 39) 386 falling falling trend -1.8 (-4.4, -0.9)
Michigan *** 4.5 (4.3, 4.7) 13 (7, 23) 591 stable stable trend -0.2 (-0.3, 0.0)
Minnesota *** 3.8 (3.6, 4.0) 41 (29, 49) 272 stable stable trend -0.3 (-0.6, 0.0)
Mississippi *** 3.9 (3.6, 4.2) 39 (16, 48) 141 stable stable trend 0.4 (-0.1, 1.0)
Missouri *** 4.3 (4.1, 4.5) 19 (10, 37) 344 rising rising trend 0.3 (0.1, 0.6)
Montana *** 4.2 (3.7, 4.7) 22 (5, 48) 63 stable stable trend -0.2 (-0.8, 0.4)
Nebraska *** 4.1 (3.7, 4.4) 34 (9, 48) 98 rising rising trend 0.4 (0.1, 0.7)
Nevada *** 4.8 (4.5, 5.2) 6 (1, 19) 170 stable stable trend -0.2 (-0.6, 0.3)
New Hampshire *** 4.6 (4.2, 5.1) 10 (2, 37) 88 stable stable trend -0.5 (-1.0, 0.0)
New Jersey *** 4.1 (3.9, 4.3) 29 (16, 41) 488 falling falling trend -2.9 (-6.0, -1.2)
New Mexico *** 3.8 (3.5, 4.1) 42 (18, 50) 104 stable stable trend 0.3 (-0.2, 0.8)
New York *** 3.5 (3.4, 3.6) 48 (44, 50) 926 falling falling trend -4.4 (-6.7, -3.0)
North Carolina *** 4.2 (4.0, 4.3) 26 (15, 39) 528 stable stable trend -2.7 (-5.9, 0.3)
North Dakota *** 3.4 (2.9, 3.9) 50 (22, 51) 33 falling falling trend -3.7 (-13.5, -1.1)
Ohio *** 4.9 (4.7, 5.0) 4 (2, 11) 747 falling falling trend -3.1 (-5.3, -0.3)
Oklahoma *** 4.8 (4.6, 5.1) 5 (2, 16) 227 rising rising trend 1.1 (0.7, 1.5)
Oregon *** 4.7 (4.4, 4.9) 9 (3, 21) 261 stable stable trend 0.1 (-0.2, 0.5)
Pennsylvania *** 4.5 (4.4, 4.6) 12 (7, 22) 840 falling falling trend -1.2 (-3.6, -0.2)
Rhode Island *** 4.4 (3.9, 4.9) 15 (3, 44) 67 stable stable trend -0.5 (-0.9, 0.0)
South Carolina *** 4.1 (3.8, 4.3) 35 (15, 44) 268 stable stable trend -0.2 (-0.5, 0.2)
South Dakota *** 3.6 (3.1, 4.2) 46 (17, 50) 42 stable stable trend -0.3 (-0.9, 0.3)
Tennessee *** 4.5 (4.3, 4.7) 14 (6, 28) 375 rising rising trend 0.3 (0.1, 0.6)
Texas *** 3.6 (3.5, 3.8) 45 (40, 49) 1,017 stable stable trend -0.1 (-0.3, 0.0)
Utah *** 3.5 (3.2, 3.9) 47 (33, 50) 94 stable stable trend 0.0 (-0.5, 0.6)
Vermont *** 4.2 (3.6, 4.8) 25 (3, 50) 39 falling falling trend -5.3 (-12.2, -2.3)
Virginia *** 4.1 (3.9, 4.3) 30 (16, 41) 420 stable stable trend -0.1 (-0.3, 0.2)
Washington *** 4.3 (4.1, 4.5) 20 (10, 37) 378 falling falling trend -1.7 (-2.9, -0.9)
West Virginia *** 4.8 (4.5, 5.2) 7 (1, 22) 129 stable stable trend 0.1 (-0.2, 0.4)
Wisconsin *** 4.1 (3.9, 4.3) 31 (16, 43) 315 falling falling trend -1.6 (-4.2, -0.7)
Wyoming *** 4.3 (3.6, 5.0) 18 (2, 50) 32 stable stable trend 0.3 (-0.4, 1.2)
Notes:
Created by statecancerprofiles.cancer.gov on 10/08/2024 7:16 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.

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

Return to Top