Return to Home Mortality > Table

Death Rates Table

Data Options

Death Rate Report by State

Kidney & Renal Pelvis, 2015-2019

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 *** 3.6 (3.5, 3.6) N/A 14,081 falling falling trend -2.5 (-3.6, -1.3)
Oklahoma *** 4.7 (4.4, 5.0) 1 (1, 8) 220 falling falling trend -2.3 (-4.5, -0.1)
Mississippi *** 4.5 (4.2, 4.8) 2 (1, 14) 161 stable stable trend 0.3 (0.0, 0.6)
Kentucky *** 4.5 (4.2, 4.8) 3 (1, 12) 247 stable stable trend -0.3 (-0.6, 0.0)
Louisiana *** 4.5 (4.2, 4.8) 4 (1, 14) 246 falling falling trend -1.6 (-3.0, -0.2)
Arkansas *** 4.5 (4.2, 4.8) 5 (1, 16) 170 stable stable trend 0.1 (-0.2, 0.5)
Nebraska *** 4.3 (3.9, 4.7) 6 (1, 26) 100 stable stable trend -0.2 (-0.7, 0.2)
South Dakota *** 4.3 (3.7, 4.9) 7 (1, 35) 48 stable stable trend -0.6 (-1.2, 0.0)
Missouri *** 4.2 (4.0, 4.4) 8 (3, 19) 326 falling falling trend -0.4 (-0.7, -0.1)
Kansas *** 4.2 (3.9, 4.5) 9 (2, 26) 146 stable stable trend -6.1 (-14.7, 3.4)
Texas *** 4.1 (4.0, 4.3) 10 (6, 18) 1,150 falling falling trend -1.2 (-1.5, -0.8)
Indiana *** 4.1 (3.9, 4.3) 11 (4, 21) 329 falling falling trend -1.5 (-2.0, -0.9)
Iowa *** 4.1 (3.8, 4.4) 12 (2, 26) 170 stable stable trend -0.4 (-0.9, 0.0)
West Virginia *** 4.0 (3.7, 4.4) 13 (2, 34) 105 stable stable trend -0.2 (-0.6, 0.3)
New Mexico *** 4.0 (3.7, 4.4) 14 (2, 33) 105 stable stable trend -0.2 (-0.7, 0.3)
Tennessee *** 4.0 (3.8, 4.2) 15 (5, 25) 333 falling falling trend -0.4 (-0.6, -0.2)
Maine *** 4.0 (3.6, 4.4) 16 (2, 37) 80 falling falling trend -1.1 (-1.7, -0.5)
Wisconsin *** 3.9 (3.7, 4.1) 17 (7, 30) 293 falling falling trend -0.7 (-0.9, -0.4)
Wyoming *** 3.9 (3.2, 4.6) 18 (1, 47) 28 stable stable trend -0.7 (-1.7, 0.2)
Ohio *** 3.8 (3.7, 4.0) 19 (12, 30) 576 falling falling trend -1.5 (-2.1, -1.0)
Montana *** 3.8 (3.4, 4.3) 20 (3, 43) 54 stable stable trend 3.1 (0.0, 6.3)
Oregon *** 3.8 (3.5, 4.0) 21 (10, 37) 198 falling falling trend -0.5 (-0.8, -0.2)
Alabama *** 3.8 (3.5, 4.0) 22 (11, 36) 232 stable stable trend 0.2 (-0.1, 0.5)
Vermont *** 3.7 (3.2, 4.4) 23 (2, 46) 34 falling falling trend -1.2 (-1.9, -0.6)
Minnesota *** 3.7 (3.5, 3.9) 24 (13, 36) 255 falling falling trend -0.9 (-1.3, -0.6)
South Carolina *** 3.7 (3.5, 3.9) 25 (13, 37) 237 falling falling trend -0.5 (-0.9, -0.1)
Illinois *** 3.7 (3.6, 3.9) 26 (16, 34) 569 falling falling trend -4.3 (-8.1, -0.3)
North Carolina *** 3.7 (3.5, 3.8) 27 (16, 36) 457 falling falling trend -0.7 (-0.9, -0.4)
Arizona *** 3.7 (3.5, 3.8) 28 (16, 38) 322 stable stable trend -0.3 (-0.6, 0.1)
Michigan *** 3.6 (3.5, 3.8) 29 (18, 37) 467 falling falling trend -2.7 (-4.2, -1.1)
Delaware *** 3.6 (3.2, 4.1) 30 (5, 46) 48 stable stable trend -0.7 (-1.4, 0.0)
Georgia *** 3.6 (3.5, 3.8) 31 (18, 38) 396 falling falling trend -0.4 (-0.8, -0.1)
Idaho *** 3.6 (3.2, 4.0) 32 (11, 45) 71 stable stable trend -0.5 (-1.1, 0.1)
North Dakota *** 3.5 (3.0, 4.1) 33 (5, 49) 31 falling falling trend -1.4 (-2.3, -0.5)
Pennsylvania *** 3.5 (3.3, 3.6) 34 (26, 41) 613 falling falling trend -1.6 (-2.1, -1.0)
Nevada *** 3.4 (3.2, 3.7) 35 (18, 45) 118 falling falling trend -1.0 (-1.3, -0.6)
Virginia *** 3.4 (3.3, 3.6) 36 (27, 43) 340 falling falling trend -1.2 (-1.6, -0.8)
Washington *** 3.4 (3.2, 3.6) 37 (25, 44) 293 falling falling trend -1.3 (-1.8, -0.9)
Utah *** 3.4 (3.1, 3.7) 38 (19, 46) 89 stable stable trend 0.4 (-0.2, 1.1)
Maryland *** 3.3 (3.1, 3.5) 39 (29, 45) 234 falling falling trend -1.1 (-1.4, -0.8)
California *** 3.3 (3.2, 3.3) 40 (35, 44) 1,428 falling falling trend -3.2 (-5.4, -1.0)
Alaska *** 3.3 (2.6, 4.0) 41 (6, 51) 21 falling falling trend -2.0 (-3.3, -0.8)
New Hampshire *** 3.2 (2.8, 3.6) 42 (21, 50) 59 falling falling trend -1.1 (-1.7, -0.4)
Rhode Island *** 3.2 (2.8, 3.7) 43 (18, 51) 44 falling falling trend -1.3 (-2.0, -0.5)
Florida *** 3.2 (3.1, 3.3) 44 (37, 45) 986 falling falling trend -0.8 (-1.0, -0.7)
Colorado *** 3.0 (2.8, 3.2) 45 (37, 50) 181 falling falling trend -1.0 (-1.5, -0.5)
New Jersey *** 3.0 (2.8, 3.1) 46 (41, 49) 331 falling falling trend -2.1 (-2.6, -1.7)
Massachusetts *** 2.9 (2.7, 3.1) 47 (42, 50) 254 falling falling trend -6.7 (-12.1, -1.0)
New York *** 2.8 (2.7, 2.9) 48 (45, 51) 691 falling falling trend -2.4 (-3.4, -1.5)
Connecticut *** 2.8 (2.6, 3.0) 49 (43, 51) 132 falling falling trend -1.7 (-2.1, -1.2)
Hawaii 8 *** 2.5 (2.2, 2.9) 50 (44, 51) 48 stable stable trend -0.7 (-1.4, 0.1)
District of Columbia *** 2.4 (1.9, 3.0) 51 (38, 51) 17 falling falling trend -1.9 (-2.7, -1.1)
Puerto Rico 8 *** 1.8 (1.7, 2.0) N/A 88 stable stable trend -4.3 (-24.3, 20.9)
Notes:
Created by statecancerprofiles.cancer.gov on 10/23/2021 1:30 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 1969-2018 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