Return to Home Mortality > Table

Death Rates Table

Data Options

Death Rate Report by State

Brain & ONS, 2016-2020

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 17,206 rising rising trend 0.3 (0.1, 0.5)
Alabama *** 5.0 (4.7, 5.2) 10 (2, 28) 301 stable stable trend 0.3 (-0.1, 0.6)
Alaska *** 4.5 (3.8, 5.2) 32 (1, 49) 33 stable stable trend 0.5 (-0.3, 1.3)
Arizona *** 4.1 (3.9, 4.3) 45 (31, 49) 365 stable stable trend 0.0 (-0.3, 0.3)
Arkansas *** 4.8 (4.4, 5.1) 20 (3, 38) 177 falling falling trend -0.8 (-1.1, -0.4)
California *** 4.4 (4.3, 4.5) 34 (27, 39) 1,930 stable stable trend 0.4 (-0.1, 0.9)
Colorado *** 4.3 (4.1, 4.5) 36 (22, 48) 274 falling falling trend -0.6 (-0.8, -0.3)
Connecticut *** 4.5 (4.2, 4.8) 30 (10, 45) 205 stable stable trend 0.1 (-0.2, 0.5)
Delaware *** 4.2 (3.7, 4.7) 44 (8, 49) 52 stable stable trend -0.5 (-1.3, 0.3)
District of Columbia *** 2.9 (2.4, 3.6) 51 (49, 51) 21
*
*
Florida *** 4.2 (4.1, 4.3) 41 (34, 47) 1,228 rising rising trend 0.7 (0.1, 1.4)
Georgia *** 4.3 (4.1, 4.4) 37 (27, 47) 490 rising rising trend 0.8 (0.3, 1.3)
Hawaii 8 *** 2.9 (2.6, 3.3) 50 (50, 51) 52 stable stable trend 0.0 (-0.7, 0.7)
Idaho *** 5.0 (4.5, 5.5) 9 (1, 37) 102 stable stable trend -0.3 (-0.7, 0.2)
Illinois *** 4.2 (4.0, 4.3) 42 (33, 48) 624 stable stable trend 0.5 (0.0, 1.1)
Indiana *** 4.5 (4.3, 4.7) 31 (14, 42) 355 falling falling trend -0.3 (-0.6, -0.1)
Iowa *** 4.9 (4.6, 5.2) 13 (2, 34) 188 falling falling trend -0.6 (-0.9, -0.2)
Kansas *** 5.0 (4.7, 5.4) 8 (1, 31) 170 falling falling trend -0.4 (-0.7, -0.1)
Kentucky *** 4.8 (4.6, 5.1) 15 (3, 33) 263 stable stable trend 0.5 (-0.3, 1.3)
Louisiana *** 4.2 (4.0, 4.5) 39 (25, 49) 230 stable stable trend -0.3 (-0.6, 0.1)
Maine *** 5.4 (4.9, 5.9) 3 (1, 24) 101 stable stable trend 0.2 (-0.2, 0.5)
Maryland *** 4.0 (3.8, 4.2) 47 (34, 49) 283 stable stable trend -0.2 (-0.5, 0.0)
Massachusetts *** 4.7 (4.5, 4.9) 23 (8, 35) 399 rising rising trend 1.0 (0.3, 1.6)
Michigan *** 4.7 (4.6, 4.9) 21 (8, 32) 593 falling falling trend -0.4 (-0.6, -0.1)
Minnesota *** 4.7 (4.4, 4.9) 24 (7, 37) 308 rising rising trend 0.8 (0.1, 1.4)
Mississippi *** 4.9 (4.6, 5.3) 11 (2, 33) 175 stable stable trend 1.1 (-0.2, 2.4)
Missouri *** 4.6 (4.4, 4.8) 26 (10, 38) 347 stable stable trend 2.0 (-0.5, 4.6)
Montana *** 4.8 (4.2, 5.3) 19 (1, 47) 66 stable stable trend -0.1 (-0.6, 0.4)
Nebraska *** 5.2 (4.7, 5.6) 5 (1, 30) 114 stable stable trend -0.1 (-0.4, 0.3)
Nevada *** 4.4 (4.1, 4.8) 33 (11, 48) 157 stable stable trend 0.3 (-0.2, 0.8)
New Hampshire *** 5.1 (4.6, 5.6) 7 (1, 36) 91 stable stable trend -0.4 (-0.9, 0.1)
New Jersey *** 4.2 (4.1, 4.4) 38 (29, 48) 462 rising rising trend 1.5 (0.7, 2.2)
New Mexico *** 3.9 (3.6, 4.3) 48 (30, 50) 103 stable stable trend 0.1 (-0.4, 0.6)
New York *** 3.9 (3.8, 4.0) 49 (44, 49) 922 stable stable trend 0.4 (-0.1, 0.9)
North Carolina *** 4.1 (3.9, 4.2) 46 (34, 49) 506 falling falling trend -1.8 (-3.0, -0.6)
North Dakota *** 4.2 (3.6, 4.9) 40 (5, 50) 36 falling falling trend -1.4 (-2.1, -0.7)
Ohio *** 4.6 (4.5, 4.8) 25 (12, 34) 675 stable stable trend -0.1 (-0.3, 0.1)
Oklahoma *** 4.9 (4.6, 5.2) 12 (2, 31) 226 stable stable trend -0.2 (-0.5, 0.1)
Oregon *** 4.6 (4.3, 4.9) 27 (8, 42) 242 falling falling trend -0.7 (-1.1, -0.3)
Pennsylvania *** 4.6 (4.4, 4.7) 29 (16, 36) 756 rising rising trend 1.0 (0.4, 1.5)
Puerto Rico 8 *** 2.5 (2.3, 2.7) N/A 111 stable stable trend 0.1 (-11.9, 13.7)
Rhode Island *** 4.9 (4.3, 5.4) 14 (1, 45) 66 stable stable trend -0.6 (-1.2, 0.1)
South Carolina *** 4.7 (4.5, 5.0) 22 (5, 35) 304 stable stable trend 0.9 (-0.1, 1.9)
South Dakota *** 5.2 (4.6, 5.9) 4 (1, 39) 54 stable stable trend -0.5 (-1.1, 0.1)
Tennessee *** 4.8 (4.6, 5.1) 16 (4, 31) 392 falling falling trend -0.8 (-1.0, -0.5)
Texas *** 4.2 (4.1, 4.3) 43 (34, 48) 1,213 stable stable trend 0.2 (-0.3, 0.7)
Utah *** 4.8 (4.4, 5.2) 18 (2, 39) 136 stable stable trend 0.0 (-0.4, 0.5)
Vermont *** 5.6 (4.9, 6.5) 1 (1, 32) 46 rising rising trend 1.2 (0.6, 1.9)
Virginia *** 4.3 (4.1, 4.5) 35 (25, 46) 431 rising rising trend 1.1 (0.5, 1.6)
Washington *** 5.1 (4.9, 5.3) 6 (1, 20) 440 falling falling trend -0.8 (-1.1, -0.5)
West Virginia *** 4.6 (4.2, 5.0) 28 (4, 47) 114 stable stable trend -0.1 (-0.6, 0.3)
Wisconsin *** 4.8 (4.6, 5.1) 17 (4, 32) 349 stable stable trend -0.1 (-0.3, 0.2)
Wyoming *** 5.4 (4.6, 6.3) 2 (1, 45) 37 stable stable trend 0.5 (-0.4, 1.4)
Notes:
Created by statecancerprofiles.cancer.gov on 12/01/2022 7:47 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.

* Data has been suppressed to ensure confidentiality and stability of rate estimates. Counts are suppressed if fewer than 16 records were reported in a specific area-sex-race category. If an average count of 3 is shown, the total number of cases for the time period is 16 or more which exceeds suppression threshold (but is rounded to 3).


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