They don't seem to explain their methodology for how they've "age-adjusted" the figures which is a shame. But assuming these are valid numbers: by this metric,

They don't seem to explain their methodology for how they've "age-adjusted" the figures which is a shame. But assuming these are valid numbers: by this metric, both California (214) and Mass. (206) are doing better than Florida (235) which again contradicts the claim. Or am I reading these numbers wrongly?