Overall Disparity in Functional Limitation Calculated by the Proposed Approach and the Wisconsin Measure, 2009
| Overall Disparity | ||
|---|---|---|
| State | Proposed Approach | Wisconsin Measure |
| Alabama | 0.062 | 0.155 |
| Alaska | 0.035 | 0.113 |
| Arizona | 0.028 | 0.080 |
| Arkansas | 0.063 | 0.160 |
| California | 0.024 | 0.064 |
| Colorado | 0.029 | 0.092 |
| Connecticut | 0.028 | 0.085 |
| DC | 0.054 | 0.130 |
| Delaware | 0.043 | 0.132 |
| Florida | 0.033 | 0.089 |
| Georgia | 0.036 | 0.081 |
| Hawaii | 0.021 | 0.057 |
| Idaho | 0.051 | 0.156 |
| Illinois | 0.029 | 0.079 |
| Indiana | 0.041 | 0.116 |
| Iowa | 0.033 | 0.101 |
| Kansas | 0.033 | 0.098 |
| Kentucky | 0.078 | 0.199 |
| Louisiana | 0.042 | 0.087 |
| Maine* | 0.033 | 0.119 |
| Maryland | 0.026 | 0.072 |
| Massachusetts | 0.031 | 0.099 |
| Michigan | 0.046 | 0.133 |
| Minnesota | 0.021 | 0.094 |
| Mississippi | 0.061 | 0.135 |
| Missouri | 0.056 | 0.166 |
| Montana* | 0.023 | 0.068 |
| Nebraska | 0.038 | 0.121 |
| Nevada | 0.022 | 0.071 |
| New Hampshire | 0.048 | 0.155 |
| New Jersey | 0.023 | 0.069 |
| New Mexico | 0.051 | 0.123 |
| New York | 0.029 | 0.074 |
| North Carolina | 0.044 | 0.115 |
| North Dakota* | 0.045 | 0.135 |
| Ohio | 0.047 | 0.134 |
| Oklahoma | 0.049 | 0.117 |
| Oregon | 0.033 | 0.099 |
| Pennsylvania | 0.034 | 0.105 |
| Rhode Island | 0.031 | 0.095 |
| South Carolina | 0.056 | 0.145 |
| South Dakota* | 0.041 | 0.112 |
| Tennessee | 0.056 | 0.139 |
| Texas | 0.037 | 0.094 |
| Utah | 0.024 | 0.077 |
| Vermont* | 0.024 | 0.093 |
| Virginia | 0.031 | 0.084 |
| Washington | 0.027 | 0.082 |
| West Virginia | 0.083 | 0.215 |
| Wisconsin | 0.027 | 0.082 |
| Wyoming* | 0.018 | 0.076 |
Notes: 1. “No functional limitation” is defined as not having a limitation in any of the following six areas: hearing, vision, cognition, ambulation, self-care, and independent living.
2. Overall disparity measured by the proposed approach is an average of income-, education-, sex-, and race/ethnicity–specific disparities in each state.
3. For example, the overall disparity of 0.018 in Wyoming measured by the proposed approach suggests that in order to eliminate disparity in functional limitation in Wyoming on average across the four attributes considered, an additional 1.8% of the population from the less healthy (and often disadvantaged) groups must become free from functional limitation.
4. Due to the small numbers (cell counts less than 50), combined groups, rather than a single group, are used as the reference in the calculation of race/ethnicity–specific disparity in the six states marked with an asterisk.
5. The Wisconsin measure is calculated by (1) identifying the healthiest group, regardless of its attributes; (2) calculating the sum of the differences in health between the healthiest and each of all the other groups; and (3) dividing this sum by the total number of groups minus one.
6. For example, the Wisconsin measure of 0.076 in Wyoming suggests that the average difference in the fraction of persons free from functional limitation between the healthiest group and that of all other groups is 7.6%.
7. All analyses are weighted, and the functional limitation is age standardized using the U.S. 2000 standard population.
Source: U.S. Census Bureau n.d.a.