Skip to main content
. 2013 Mar 14;91(1):5–36. doi: 10.1111/milq.12001

TABLE 1.

States with the Smallest and Largest Disparities in Functional Limitation, 2009

Six States with the Smallest Overall Disparity Five States with the Largest Overall Disparity
Disparity Contribution (%) Disparity Contribution (%)
Wyoming Mississippi
 Overall (1, 8) 0.018  Overall (47, 41) 0.061
 Income (12) 0.034 45.77  Income (49) 0.069 28.37
 Education (14) 0.030 40.26  Education (47) 0.060 24.54
 Sex (27) 0.004 4.76  Sex (20) 0.003 1.16
 Race/Ethnicity* (4) 0.007 9.21  Race/Ethnicity (43) 0.112 45.93
Hawaii Alabama
 Overall (2, 1) 0.021  Overall (48, 45) 0.062
 Income (2) 0.024 28.20  Income (47) 0.062 25.01
 Education (5) 0.025 29.30  Education (49) 0.064 25.95
 Sex (41) 0.008 9.28  Sex (10) 0.002 0.77
 Race/Ethnicity (6) 0.028 33.21  Race/Ethnicity (46) 0.119 48.26
Minnesota Arkansas
 Overall (2, 21) 0.021  Overall (49, 48) 0.063
 Income (16) 0.036 44.30  Income (46) 0.061 24.20
 Education (11) 0.029 34.97  Education (46) 0.059 23.73
 Sex (41) 0.008 9.55  Sex (27) 0.004 1.72
 Race/Ethnicity (5) 0.009 11.18  Race/Ethnicity (49) 0.126 50.35
Nevada Kentucky
 Overall (4, 5) 0.022  Overall (50, 50) 0.078
 Income (1) 0.022 24.92  Income (50) 0.070 22.63
 Education (1) 0.017 19.08  Education (51) 0.073 23.41
 Sex (1) 0.000 0.00  Sex (20) 0.003 1.08
 Race/Ethnicity (21) 0.050 55.99  Race/Ethnicity (50) 0.165 52.89
Montana West Virginia
 Overall (5, 3) 0.023  Overall (51, 51) 0.083
 Income (18) 0.037 39.99  Income (51) 0.077 23.21
 Education (18) 0.032 33.88  Education (50) 0.072 21.66
 Sex (50) 0.020 21.54  Sex (45) 0.012 3.77
 Race/Ethnicity* (3) 0.004 4.59  Race/Ethnicity (51) 0.170 51.37
New Jersey
 Overall (5, 4) 0.023
 Income (4) 0.027 29.36
 Education (16) 0.031 34.20
 Sex (20) 0.003 3.41
 Race/Ethnicity (8) 0.030 33.03

Notes: 1. States are listed according to the degree of overall disparity, from the smallest to the largest.

2. Numbers in parentheses for overall disparity are the ranking by our proposed approach and the ranking by the Wisconsin measure, respectively, from the smallest to the largest.

3. The number in parentheses for each of the attribute-specific disparities is the ranking by our proposed approach, from the smallest to the largest.

4. “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.

5. Overall disparity is an average of the income-, education-, sex-, and race/ethnicity–specific disparities in each state.

6. For example, the overall disparity of 0.018 in Wyoming 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.

7. For example, the income-specific disparity of 0.034 in Wyoming suggests that in order to eliminate education-specific disparity, 3.4% more people in Wyoming must become free of functional limitation, and they must come from lower-income groups.

8. 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 Wyoming and Montana (marked with an asterisk).

9. All analyses are weighted, and functional limitation is age standardized using the U.S. 2000 standard population.