Return to Home Mortality > Table

Death Rates Table

Data Options

Death Rate Report by State

Kidney & Renal Pelvis, 2018-2022

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 *** 3.4 (3.4, 3.5) N/A 14,249 falling falling trend -1.6 (-2.6, -1.2)
Oklahoma *** 4.9 (4.6, 5.2) 1 (1, 4) 231 stable stable trend 0.0 (-0.3, 0.4)
Louisiana *** 4.6 (4.3, 4.9) 2 (1, 8) 255 falling falling trend -0.9 (-6.1, -0.3)
South Dakota *** 4.4 (3.9, 5.0) 3 (1, 24) 51 stable stable trend -0.5 (-1.1, 0.1)
Arkansas *** 4.4 (4.1, 4.7) 4 (1, 15) 169 stable stable trend 0.1 (-0.3, 0.4)
Mississippi *** 4.3 (4.0, 4.6) 5 (1, 18) 158 stable stable trend -0.4 (-3.7, 0.1)
Kentucky *** 4.3 (4.0, 4.5) 6 (2, 15) 244 stable stable trend -0.4 (-0.7, 0.0)
Texas *** 4.3 (4.1, 4.4) 7 (3, 11) 1,247 falling falling trend -0.7 (-1.6, -0.4)
Montana *** 4.1 (3.7, 4.6) 8 (1, 32) 62 rising rising trend 2.5 (0.2, 6.0)
Missouri *** 4.1 (3.9, 4.3) 9 (4, 20) 326 falling falling trend -0.4 (-0.7, -0.1)
West Virginia *** 4.0 (3.7, 4.4) 10 (2, 29) 105 stable stable trend -0.2 (-0.7, 0.2)
Tennessee *** 4.0 (3.8, 4.2) 11 (5, 22) 347 falling falling trend -0.4 (-0.6, -0.2)
Indiana *** 4.0 (3.8, 4.2) 12 (5, 24) 330 falling falling trend -1.3 (-4.5, -0.8)
New Mexico *** 3.9 (3.6, 4.3) 13 (3, 32) 108 stable stable trend -0.4 (-0.9, 0.3)
Nebraska *** 3.9 (3.5, 4.3) 14 (3, 34) 93 stable stable trend -0.5 (-0.9, 0.0)
Iowa *** 3.9 (3.6, 4.1) 15 (5, 31) 165 falling falling trend -1.8 (-7.5, -0.7)
Ohio *** 3.8 (3.7, 4.0) 16 (9, 26) 590 falling falling trend -1.3 (-3.2, -0.9)
Oregon *** 3.8 (3.6, 4.1) 17 (7, 31) 214 falling falling trend -0.4 (-0.7, -0.1)
Wisconsin *** 3.8 (3.6, 4.0) 18 (9, 30) 298 falling falling trend -0.7 (-1.0, -0.4)
Minnesota *** 3.7 (3.5, 4.0) 19 (9, 31) 267 falling falling trend -0.9 (-1.3, -0.6)
Kansas *** 3.7 (3.5, 4.0) 20 (7, 36) 137 falling falling trend -3.5 (-7.8, -1.4)
Wyoming *** 3.7 (3.1, 4.4) 21 (2, 45) 27 stable stable trend -0.7 (-1.5, 0.2)
Maine *** 3.7 (3.3, 4.1) 22 (5, 39) 78 falling falling trend -1.1 (-1.6, -0.6)
Alaska *** 3.7 (3.1, 4.4) 23 (2, 46) 26 falling falling trend -1.6 (-2.8, -0.1)
North Carolina *** 3.6 (3.5, 3.8) 24 (15, 34) 473 falling falling trend -1.1 (-2.0, -0.8)
South Carolina *** 3.6 (3.4, 3.8) 25 (13, 36) 245 falling falling trend -0.9 (-3.4, -0.5)
Nevada *** 3.6 (3.3, 3.9) 26 (11, 40) 130 falling falling trend -0.7 (-1.0, -0.3)
Alabama *** 3.6 (3.4, 3.8) 27 (14, 37) 231 falling falling trend -1.9 (-4.6, -0.7)
Michigan *** 3.5 (3.3, 3.6) 28 (20, 37) 467 stable stable trend 1.5 (-1.9, 3.8)
Arizona *** 3.5 (3.3, 3.7) 29 (18, 38) 327 falling falling trend -4.5 (-7.2, -0.8)
Illinois *** 3.5 (3.3, 3.6) 30 (21, 38) 546 falling falling trend -2.9 (-5.6, -1.6)
Delaware *** 3.5 (3.0, 3.9) 31 (7, 45) 48 falling falling trend -0.8 (-1.4, -0.1)
Idaho *** 3.4 (3.1, 3.8) 32 (11, 44) 77 falling falling trend -1.1 (-4.9, -0.4)
Washington *** 3.4 (3.3, 3.6) 33 (20, 39) 314 falling falling trend -1.3 (-1.7, -0.9)
Georgia *** 3.4 (3.2, 3.5) 34 (24, 40) 401 falling falling trend -0.5 (-0.8, -0.2)
North Dakota *** 3.4 (2.8, 3.9) 35 (6, 49) 32 falling falling trend -1.5 (-2.2, -0.7)
Virginia *** 3.3 (3.2, 3.5) 36 (24, 41) 351 falling falling trend -1.2 (-3.0, -0.9)
Pennsylvania *** 3.3 (3.2, 3.4) 37 (29, 41) 599 falling falling trend -2.0 (-3.0, -1.5)
Maryland *** 3.2 (3.0, 3.3) 38 (30, 45) 239 falling falling trend -1.2 (-1.5, -0.8)
California *** 3.1 (3.0, 3.2) 39 (35, 44) 1,415 falling falling trend -2.2 (-3.6, -1.4)
Vermont *** 3.1 (2.6, 3.7) 40 (14, 51) 30 falling falling trend -1.4 (-2.1, -0.8)
Utah *** 3.1 (2.8, 3.4) 41 (27, 47) 88 stable stable trend -9.3 (-16.2, 0.0)
Colorado *** 3.1 (2.9, 3.3) 42 (32, 46) 193 falling falling trend -1.3 (-3.6, -0.8)
Florida *** 3.0 (2.9, 3.1) 43 (37, 46) 1,009 falling falling trend -1.9 (-3.9, -0.9)
Rhode Island *** 3.0 (2.6, 3.4) 44 (23, 51) 44 falling falling trend -1.4 (-2.2, -0.6)
New Hampshire *** 2.9 (2.6, 3.3) 45 (30, 51) 57 falling falling trend -1.3 (-1.9, -0.6)
Connecticut *** 2.7 (2.5, 2.9) 46 (43, 51) 130 falling falling trend -1.5 (-2.1, -1.0)
New Jersey *** 2.6 (2.5, 2.8) 47 (44, 51) 312 falling falling trend -2.4 (-3.3, -1.9)
Massachusetts *** 2.6 (2.5, 2.8) 48 (44, 51) 238 falling falling trend -1.7 (-2.0, -1.4)
District of Columbia *** 2.5 (2.0, 3.2) 49 (33, 51) 18 falling falling trend -1.7 (-2.5, -0.9)
Hawaii 8 *** 2.5 (2.2, 2.9) 50 (43, 51) 52 stable stable trend -0.7 (-1.4, 0.1)
New York *** 2.5 (2.4, 2.6) 51 (46, 51) 653 falling falling trend -3.0 (-4.5, -2.3)
Puerto Rico 8 *** 1.7 (1.6, 1.9) N/A 90 stable stable trend -2.2 (-4.8, 0.5)
Notes:
Created by statecancerprofiles.cancer.gov on 10/22/2024 3:59 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 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