Return to Home Mortality > Table

Death Rates Table

Data Options

Death Rate Report by State

Brain & ONS, 2018-2022

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

Sorted by Ruralurban

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 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 17,637 stable stable trend -0.4 (-1.2, 0.1)
District of Columbia *** 3.2 (2.6, 3.8) 50 (42, 51) 22 stable stable trend -0.3 (-1.3, 0.8)
Puerto Rico 8 *** 2.5 (2.3, 2.7) N/A 118 stable stable trend -4.1 (-10.1, 2.3)
Alabama *** 4.8 (4.6, 5.1) 13 (3, 31) 307 stable stable trend -0.5 (-2.7, 0.3)
Alaska *** 4.4 (3.7, 5.1) 33 (1, 50) 32 stable stable trend 0.6 (-0.1, 1.4)
Arizona *** 4.3 (4.1, 4.5) 38 (23, 46) 385 stable stable trend 0.1 (-0.1, 0.4)
Arkansas *** 5.0 (4.6, 5.3) 10 (1, 30) 186 falling falling trend -0.6 (-0.9, -0.2)
California *** 4.4 (4.4, 4.5) 32 (23, 37) 1,992 stable stable trend 0.3 (0.0, 1.1)
Colorado *** 4.3 (4.1, 4.5) 36 (20, 47) 280 stable stable trend -0.2 (-0.5, 1.5)
Connecticut *** 4.7 (4.4, 5.0) 22 (5, 39) 217 rising rising trend 1.9 (0.3, 6.1)
Delaware *** 4.2 (3.7, 4.8) 40 (8, 50) 57 stable stable trend -0.2 (-0.9, 0.7)
Florida *** 4.2 (4.1, 4.3) 39 (31, 45) 1,292 stable stable trend 0.5 (-0.1, 1.7)
Georgia *** 4.3 (4.1, 4.5) 35 (24, 45) 517 rising rising trend 0.7 (0.3, 1.5)
Hawaii 8 *** 2.6 (2.3, 3.0) 51 (50, 51) 49 stable stable trend -0.1 (-0.8, 0.6)
Idaho *** 4.8 (4.4, 5.2) 16 (2, 43) 104 stable stable trend -0.4 (-0.8, 0.1)
Illinois *** 4.2 (4.0, 4.3) 42 (31, 47) 643 rising rising trend 0.5 (0.1, 1.9)
Indiana *** 4.5 (4.3, 4.7) 30 (14, 42) 362 falling falling trend -0.3 (-0.5, -0.1)
Iowa *** 4.7 (4.3, 5.0) 23 (4, 41) 183 falling falling trend -0.7 (-1.0, -0.3)
Kansas *** 5.2 (4.9, 5.6) 3 (1, 20) 182 stable stable trend -0.3 (-0.6, 0.1)
Kentucky *** 4.7 (4.4, 5.0) 19 (6, 36) 262 stable stable trend 0.4 (-0.3, 2.8)
Louisiana *** 4.2 (3.9, 4.4) 43 (25, 49) 228 stable stable trend -0.3 (-0.6, 0.1)
Maine *** 5.2 (4.7, 5.7) 5 (1, 31) 101 stable stable trend 0.0 (-0.4, 0.5)
Maryland *** 3.9 (3.7, 4.1) 48 (37, 50) 290 stable stable trend -0.3 (-0.6, 0.2)
Massachusetts *** 4.6 (4.4, 4.8) 26 (12, 38) 402 rising rising trend 0.7 (0.2, 2.4)
Michigan *** 4.7 (4.6, 4.9) 17 (7, 30) 602 falling falling trend -0.3 (-0.5, -0.1)
Minnesota *** 4.6 (4.4, 4.9) 24 (7, 37) 316 stable stable trend 0.4 (-0.2, 2.5)
Mississippi *** 5.3 (4.9, 5.6) 1 (1, 19) 186 stable stable trend -0.3 (-0.7, 0.2)
Missouri *** 4.7 (4.5, 4.9) 18 (6, 34) 360 stable stable trend 1.8 (-0.1, 5.0)
Montana *** 5.0 (4.5, 5.6) 9 (1, 41) 73 stable stable trend 0.0 (-0.4, 0.5)
Nebraska *** 5.1 (4.7, 5.5) 7 (1, 30) 117 stable stable trend -0.1 (-0.5, 0.2)
Nevada *** 3.9 (3.6, 4.2) 46 (32, 50) 145 stable stable trend -4.3 (-12.0, 0.4)
New Hampshire *** 5.2 (4.7, 5.7) 4 (1, 32) 97 stable stable trend -0.3 (-0.8, 0.3)
New Jersey *** 4.0 (3.8, 4.2) 45 (36, 49) 461 stable stable trend -1.2 (-3.8, 0.7)
New Mexico *** 3.9 (3.6, 4.3) 47 (29, 50) 105 stable stable trend 0.1 (-0.3, 0.7)
New York *** 3.7 (3.6, 3.8) 49 (46, 50) 922 falling falling trend -0.3 (-0.4, -0.1)
North Carolina *** 4.1 (4.0, 4.3) 44 (31, 48) 530 stable stable trend -1.0 (-2.8, 0.0)
North Dakota *** 4.5 (3.9, 5.2) 27 (1, 49) 39 falling falling trend -1.2 (-2.0, -0.5)
Ohio *** 4.5 (4.3, 4.6) 31 (17, 39) 662 stable stable trend -0.1 (-0.3, 0.1)
Oklahoma *** 5.0 (4.7, 5.3) 8 (1, 24) 232 stable stable trend -0.1 (-0.4, 0.3)
Oregon *** 4.9 (4.6, 5.1) 12 (2, 30) 263 falling falling trend -0.6 (-1.0, -0.1)
Pennsylvania *** 4.5 (4.4, 4.7) 28 (17, 37) 770 rising rising trend 0.8 (0.4, 1.7)
Rhode Island *** 4.3 (3.8, 4.8) 37 (8, 49) 63 stable stable trend -0.8 (-1.5, 0.0)
South Carolina *** 4.6 (4.4, 4.9) 25 (8, 38) 305 stable stable trend 0.6 (-0.2, 3.2)
South Dakota *** 5.1 (4.5, 5.8) 6 (1, 39) 55 stable stable trend -0.5 (-1.1, 0.1)
Tennessee *** 4.7 (4.5, 4.9) 21 (7, 34) 393 falling falling trend -0.8 (-1.1, -0.5)
Texas *** 4.2 (4.1, 4.3) 41 (33, 46) 1,263 stable stable trend 0.3 (-0.1, 0.9)
Utah *** 4.8 (4.4, 5.2) 14 (2, 38) 144 stable stable trend 0.1 (-0.3, 0.5)
Vermont *** 5.3 (4.6, 6.0) 2 (1, 39) 47 rising rising trend 1.0 (0.4, 1.7)
Virginia *** 4.3 (4.1, 4.5) 34 (23, 45) 445 rising rising trend 0.9 (0.5, 1.9)
Washington *** 4.9 (4.7, 5.2) 11 (2, 23) 445 falling falling trend -0.8 (-1.2, -0.5)
West Virginia *** 4.5 (4.1, 4.9) 29 (5, 47) 112 stable stable trend -0.1 (-0.5, 0.3)
Wisconsin *** 4.8 (4.5, 5.0) 15 (5, 32) 359 stable stable trend -0.1 (-0.3, 0.1)
Wyoming *** 4.7 (4.0, 5.5) 20 (1, 49) 33 stable stable trend 0.4 (-0.4, 1.4)
Notes:
Created by statecancerprofiles.cancer.gov on 11/02/2024 12:31 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 (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