Death Rates Table
Death Rate Report by State
Kidney & Renal Pelvis, 2018-2022
All Races (includes Hispanic), Both Sexes, All Ages
Sorted by CI*Rank
State
|
Met Healthy People Objective of ***? |
Age-Adjusted Death Rate † deaths per 100,000 (95% Confidence Interval) 
|
CI*Rank ⋔ (95% Confidence Interval) 
|
Average Annual Count
|
Recent Trend |
Recent 5-Year Trend ‡ in Death Rates (95% Confidence Interval)
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| United States | *** | 3.4 (3.4, 3.5) | N/A | 14,249 |
falling 
|
-1.6 (-2.6, -1.2) |
| Oklahoma | *** | 4.9 (4.6, 5.2) | 1 (1, 4) | 231 |
stable 
|
0.0 (-0.3, 0.4) |
| Louisiana | *** | 4.6 (4.3, 4.9) | 2 (1, 8) | 255 |
falling
|
-0.9 (-6.1, -0.3) |
| South Dakota | *** | 4.4 (3.9, 5.0) | 3 (1, 24) | 51 |
stable
|
-0.5 (-1.1, 0.1) |
| Arkansas | *** | 4.4 (4.1, 4.7) | 4 (1, 15) | 169 |
stable
|
0.1 (-0.3, 0.4) |
| Mississippi | *** | 4.3 (4.0, 4.6) | 5 (1, 18) | 158 |
stable
|
-0.4 (-3.7, 0.1) |
| Kentucky | *** | 4.3 (4.0, 4.5) | 6 (2, 15) | 244 |
stable
|
-0.4 (-0.7, 0.0) |
| Texas | *** | 4.3 (4.1, 4.4) | 7 (3, 11) | 1,247 |
falling
|
-0.7 (-1.6, -0.4) |
| Montana | *** | 4.1 (3.7, 4.6) | 8 (1, 32) | 62 |
rising 
|
2.5 (0.2, 6.0) |
| Missouri | *** | 4.1 (3.9, 4.3) | 9 (4, 20) | 326 |
falling
|
-0.4 (-0.7, -0.1) |
| West Virginia | *** | 4.0 (3.7, 4.4) | 10 (2, 29) | 105 |
stable
|
-0.2 (-0.7, 0.2) |
| Tennessee | *** | 4.0 (3.8, 4.2) | 11 (5, 22) | 347 |
falling
|
-0.4 (-0.6, -0.2) |
| Indiana | *** | 4.0 (3.8, 4.2) | 12 (5, 24) | 330 |
falling
|
-1.3 (-4.5, -0.8) |
| New Mexico | *** | 3.9 (3.6, 4.3) | 13 (3, 32) | 108 |
stable
|
-0.4 (-0.9, 0.3) |
| Nebraska | *** | 3.9 (3.5, 4.3) | 14 (3, 34) | 93 |
stable
|
-0.5 (-0.9, 0.0) |
| Iowa | *** | 3.9 (3.6, 4.1) | 15 (5, 31) | 165 |
falling
|
-1.8 (-7.5, -0.7) |
| Ohio | *** | 3.8 (3.7, 4.0) | 16 (9, 26) | 590 |
falling
|
-1.3 (-3.2, -0.9) |
| Oregon | *** | 3.8 (3.6, 4.1) | 17 (7, 31) | 214 |
falling
|
-0.4 (-0.7, -0.1) |
| Wisconsin | *** | 3.8 (3.6, 4.0) | 18 (9, 30) | 298 |
falling
|
-0.7 (-1.0, -0.4) |
| Minnesota | *** | 3.7 (3.5, 4.0) | 19 (9, 31) | 267 |
falling
|
-0.9 (-1.3, -0.6) |
| Kansas | *** | 3.7 (3.5, 4.0) | 20 (7, 36) | 137 |
falling
|
-3.5 (-7.8, -1.4) |
| Wyoming | *** | 3.7 (3.1, 4.4) | 21 (2, 45) | 27 |
stable
|
-0.7 (-1.5, 0.2) |
| Maine | *** | 3.7 (3.3, 4.1) | 22 (5, 39) | 78 |
falling
|
-1.1 (-1.6, -0.6) |
| Alaska | *** | 3.7 (3.1, 4.4) | 23 (2, 46) | 26 |
falling
|
-1.6 (-2.8, -0.1) |
| North Carolina | *** | 3.6 (3.5, 3.8) | 24 (15, 34) | 473 |
falling
|
-1.1 (-2.0, -0.8) |
| South Carolina | *** | 3.6 (3.4, 3.8) | 25 (13, 36) | 245 |
falling
|
-0.9 (-3.4, -0.5) |
| Nevada | *** | 3.6 (3.3, 3.9) | 26 (11, 40) | 130 |
falling
|
-0.7 (-1.0, -0.3) |
| Alabama | *** | 3.6 (3.4, 3.8) | 27 (14, 37) | 231 |
falling
|
-1.9 (-4.6, -0.7) |
| Michigan | *** | 3.5 (3.3, 3.6) | 28 (20, 37) | 467 |
stable
|
1.5 (-1.9, 3.8) |
| Arizona | *** | 3.5 (3.3, 3.7) | 29 (18, 38) | 327 |
falling
|
-4.5 (-7.2, -0.8) |
| Illinois | *** | 3.5 (3.3, 3.6) | 30 (21, 38) | 546 |
falling
|
-2.9 (-5.6, -1.6) |
| Delaware | *** | 3.5 (3.0, 3.9) | 31 (7, 45) | 48 |
falling
|
-0.8 (-1.4, -0.1) |
| Idaho | *** | 3.4 (3.1, 3.8) | 32 (11, 44) | 77 |
falling
|
-1.1 (-4.9, -0.4) |
| Washington | *** | 3.4 (3.3, 3.6) | 33 (20, 39) | 314 |
falling
|
-1.3 (-1.7, -0.9) |
| Georgia | *** | 3.4 (3.2, 3.5) | 34 (24, 40) | 401 |
falling
|
-0.5 (-0.8, -0.2) |
| North Dakota | *** | 3.4 (2.8, 3.9) | 35 (6, 49) | 32 |
falling
|
-1.5 (-2.2, -0.7) |
| Virginia | *** | 3.3 (3.2, 3.5) | 36 (24, 41) | 351 |
falling
|
-1.2 (-3.0, -0.9) |
| Pennsylvania | *** | 3.3 (3.2, 3.4) | 37 (29, 41) | 599 |
falling
|
-2.0 (-3.0, -1.5) |
| Maryland | *** | 3.2 (3.0, 3.3) | 38 (30, 45) | 239 |
falling
|
-1.2 (-1.5, -0.8) |
| California | *** | 3.1 (3.0, 3.2) | 39 (35, 44) | 1,415 |
falling
|
-2.2 (-3.6, -1.4) |
| Vermont | *** | 3.1 (2.6, 3.7) | 40 (14, 51) | 30 |
falling
|
-1.4 (-2.1, -0.8) |
| Utah | *** | 3.1 (2.8, 3.4) | 41 (27, 47) | 88 |
stable
|
-9.3 (-16.2, 0.0) |
| Colorado | *** | 3.1 (2.9, 3.3) | 42 (32, 46) | 193 |
falling
|
-1.3 (-3.6, -0.8) |
| Florida | *** | 3.0 (2.9, 3.1) | 43 (37, 46) | 1,009 |
falling
|
-1.9 (-3.9, -0.9) |
| Rhode Island | *** | 3.0 (2.6, 3.4) | 44 (23, 51) | 44 |
falling
|
-1.4 (-2.2, -0.6) |
| New Hampshire | *** | 2.9 (2.6, 3.3) | 45 (30, 51) | 57 |
falling
|
-1.3 (-1.9, -0.6) |
| Connecticut | *** | 2.7 (2.5, 2.9) | 46 (43, 51) | 130 |
falling
|
-1.5 (-2.1, -1.0) |
| New Jersey | *** | 2.6 (2.5, 2.8) | 47 (44, 51) | 312 |
falling
|
-2.4 (-3.3, -1.9) |
| Massachusetts | *** | 2.6 (2.5, 2.8) | 48 (44, 51) | 238 |
falling
|
-1.7 (-2.0, -1.4) |
| District of Columbia | *** | 2.5 (2.0, 3.2) | 49 (33, 51) | 18 |
falling
|
-1.7 (-2.5, -0.9) |
| Hawaii 8 | *** | 2.5 (2.2, 2.9) | 50 (43, 51) | 52 |
stable
|
-0.7 (-1.4, 0.1) |
| New York | *** | 2.5 (2.4, 2.6) | 51 (46, 51) | 653 |
falling
|
-3.0 (-4.5, -2.3) |
| Puerto Rico 8 | *** | 1.7 (1.6, 1.9) | N/A | 90 |
stable
|
-2.2 (-4.8, 0.5) |
Notes:
Created by statecancerprofiles.cancer.gov on 07/15/2025 8:11 pm.
State Cancer Registries may provide more current or more local data.
† 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.
Created by statecancerprofiles.cancer.gov on 07/15/2025 8:11 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.
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.