Return to Home Mortality > Table

Death Rates Table

Data Options
Comparison Options

Death Rate Report by State

Brain & ONS, 2019-2023

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

Sorted by Name

State
 sort alphabetically by name descending
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 *** 4.4 (4.4, 4.4) N/A 17,852 stable stable trend -0.3 (-1.1, 0.0)
Alabama *** 4.9 (4.7, 5.2) 10 (2, 28) 312 stable stable trend -0.3 (-1.7, 1.9)
Alaska *** 4.2 (3.5, 4.9) 41 (3, 50) 31 stable stable trend 0.3 (-0.7, 1.5)
Arizona *** 4.2 (4.0, 4.3) 43 (30, 48) 384 stable stable trend -3.6 (-5.9, 0.1)
Arkansas *** 5.1 (4.8, 5.5) 6 (1, 24) 191 stable stable trend -0.1 (-0.5, 0.5)
California *** 4.5 (4.4, 4.5) 32 (23, 38) 2,013 stable stable trend 0.1 (-0.1, 0.4)
Colorado *** 4.3 (4.1, 4.6) 35 (19, 46) 287 stable stable trend -0.2 (-0.5, 0.2)
Connecticut *** 4.6 (4.3, 4.9) 25 (7, 42) 217 stable stable trend 0.5 (0.0, 1.2)
Delaware *** 4.3 (3.8, 4.9) 37 (6, 49) 59 stable stable trend -0.3 (-1.4, 1.0)
District of Columbia *** 2.9 (2.3, 3.5) 50 (47, 51) 19 stable stable trend -0.9 (-2.4, 0.8)
Florida *** 4.3 (4.2, 4.4) 40 (30, 45) 1,333 rising rising trend 0.5 (0.2, 1.0)
Georgia *** 4.3 (4.2, 4.5) 36 (23, 44) 527 rising rising trend 0.6 (0.3, 0.9)
Hawaii *** 2.6 (2.2, 2.9) 51 (50, 51) 49 stable stable trend 0.0 (-1.2, 1.2)
Idaho *** 4.9 (4.5, 5.3) 11 (1, 39) 109 stable stable trend -0.4 (-1.0, 0.3)
Illinois *** 4.3 (4.2, 4.5) 38 (26, 45) 660 rising rising trend 0.7 (0.3, 2.3)
Indiana *** 4.6 (4.4, 4.8) 26 (10, 39) 371 stable stable trend 0.0 (-0.4, 0.3)
Iowa *** 4.6 (4.3, 4.9) 27 (7, 44) 182 stable stable trend -0.6 (-1.2, 0.0)
Kansas *** 5.3 (4.9, 5.6) 4 (1, 19) 181 stable stable trend 0.1 (-0.3, 0.5)
Kentucky *** 4.8 (4.5, 5.0) 16 (5, 36) 266 stable stable trend 0.3 (-0.1, 0.8)
Louisiana *** 4.3 (4.1, 4.6) 39 (18, 47) 235 stable stable trend -0.1 (-0.7, 0.5)
Maine *** 4.9 (4.4, 5.3) 13 (1, 42) 97 falling falling trend -5.5 (-10.2, -0.4)
Maryland *** 3.9 (3.7, 4.1) 48 (39, 49) 291 stable stable trend -0.1 (-0.5, 0.4)
Massachusetts *** 4.7 (4.5, 4.9) 21 (9, 36) 417 rising rising trend 0.6 (0.2, 0.9)
Michigan *** 4.8 (4.6, 5.0) 15 (6, 28) 614 stable stable trend -0.1 (-0.3, 0.2)
Minnesota *** 4.5 (4.3, 4.8) 28 (11, 41) 315 stable stable trend -0.9 (-3.4, 0.1)
Mississippi *** 5.3 (4.9, 5.6) 5 (1, 18) 187 stable stable trend 1.0 (0.0, 4.8)
Missouri *** 4.7 (4.5, 5.0) 17 (6, 34) 364 stable stable trend 0.1 (-0.3, 0.5)
Montana *** 5.0 (4.5, 5.6) 8 (1, 39) 75 stable stable trend 0.2 (-0.6, 1.0)
Nebraska *** 5.3 (4.9, 5.7) 3 (1, 22) 122 stable stable trend 0.2 (-0.3, 0.7)
Nevada *** 4.0 (3.7, 4.3) 46 (32, 49) 148 stable stable trend 0.1 (-0.7, 0.9)
New Hampshire *** 5.3 (4.8, 5.8) 2 (1, 23) 100 stable stable trend 0.4 (-0.3, 1.1)
New Jersey *** 3.9 (3.8, 4.1) 47 (39, 49) 456 stable stable trend -1.8 (-5.3, 0.8)
New Mexico *** 4.0 (3.7, 4.4) 45 (23, 49) 108 stable stable trend 0.4 (-0.3, 1.3)
New York *** 3.7 (3.6, 3.8) 49 (46, 50) 911 stable stable trend -1.4 (-3.7, 0.0)
North Carolina *** 4.2 (4.0, 4.4) 42 (31, 47) 545 falling falling trend -0.7 (-1.9, -0.2)
North Dakota *** 4.6 (4.0, 5.3) 24 (1, 49) 40 stable stable trend -0.3 (-1.6, 1.0)
Ohio *** 4.5 (4.3, 4.6) 30 (17, 40) 662 stable stable trend 0.1 (-0.1, 0.3)
Oklahoma *** 5.0 (4.7, 5.3) 9 (2, 29) 231 stable stable trend 0.2 (-0.5, 0.8)
Oregon *** 4.7 (4.5, 5.0) 18 (5, 36) 259 stable stable trend -0.6 (-1.3, 0.2)
Pennsylvania *** 4.5 (4.4, 4.7) 29 (16, 38) 773 stable stable trend 0.8 (-1.0, 2.7)
Puerto Rico *** 2.4 (2.2, 2.6) N/A 117 stable stable trend -1.2 (-6.6, 4.5)
Rhode Island *** 4.5 (4.0, 5.0) 31 (4, 48) 66 stable stable trend -0.4 (-1.7, 1.0)
South Carolina *** 4.6 (4.4, 4.9) 23 (7, 39) 311 stable stable trend 0.3 (-0.1, 0.8)
South Dakota *** 5.0 (4.4, 5.7) 7 (1, 43) 54 stable stable trend -0.4 (-1.1, 0.4)
Tennessee *** 4.7 (4.5, 4.9) 20 (8, 36) 394 falling falling trend -0.7 (-1.3, -0.1)
Texas *** 4.2 (4.0, 4.3) 44 (35, 46) 1,275 stable stable trend -0.7 (-2.3, 0.1)
Utah *** 4.9 (4.5, 5.2) 12 (1, 35) 150 stable stable trend 0.4 (-0.1, 1.0)
Vermont *** 5.4 (4.7, 6.2) 1 (1, 36) 49 rising rising trend 1.2 (0.3, 2.3)
Virginia *** 4.3 (4.2, 4.5) 34 (22, 45) 450 rising rising trend 1.0 (0.5, 2.8)
Washington *** 4.9 (4.6, 5.1) 14 (4, 27) 443 falling falling trend -0.7 (-1.0, -0.4)
West Virginia *** 4.7 (4.3, 5.1) 19 (3, 45) 116 stable stable trend 0.4 (-0.3, 1.1)
Wisconsin *** 4.6 (4.4, 4.9) 22 (8, 38) 353 stable stable trend -0.1 (-0.5, 0.4)
Wyoming *** 4.4 (3.7, 5.1) 33 (1, 49) 31 stable stable trend 0.3 (-1.0, 1.8)

Notes:
Created by statecancerprofiles.cancer.gov on 02/18/2026 10:48 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 (20 age groups: <1, 1-4, 5-9, ... , 80-84, 85-89, 90+).

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.

When displaying county information, the CI*Rank for the state is not shown because it's not comparable. To see the state CI*Rank please view the statistics at the US By State level.

*** No Healthy People 2030 Objective for this cancer.

Healthy People 2030 Objectives provided by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

Data for United States does not include Puerto Rico.

CI*Rank data for Puerto Rico is not available.

Return to Top