Table 3.

Geographic allocation disparity: annual changes in disparity ratios due to implementation of Statewide Sharing variance

StateTransplant RateWaiting TimeTime on DialysisFive-Year Graft Survivala
TN−0.003b (−0.028 to 0.022)−0.019b (−0.043 to 0.005)−0.012b (−0.024 to 0.000)−0.012 (−0.022 to −0.002)
 Baselinec0.031 (Reference)0.030 (Reference)0.008 (Reference)−0.003 (Reference)
FL−0.031b (−0.064 to 0.002)−0.117 (−0.193 to −0.041)−0.030b (−0.052 to −0.008)−0.017 (−0.031 to −0.003)
 Baselined0.016 (Reference)−0.057 (Reference)−0.006 (Reference)−0.010 (Reference)
  • 95% confidence intervals in parentheses. The annualized change of geographic allocation disparity ratios since enactment of Statewide Sharing variance (1992–2009) was calculated via time series regression. The coefficients and SE of the annual changes in Tennessee and Florida are provided (β2+β4+β5). The baseline denotes the mean change of geographic allocation disparity ratios for other comparable states (β2+β4). A negative annual change indicates an improvement in disparity since 1992. A positive annual change indicates worsening disparity since 1992. Transplant rate calculated as the mean number of transplant candidates per transplant in the period. Waiting time calculated as the median waiting time to transplantation in the period. Time on dialysis is calculated as the median cumulative dialysis time prior to transplantation in the period.

  • a Five-year graft survival significance is adjusted for age, sex, race, panel reactive antibody, diagnosis, insurance, and educational attainment.

  • b Significantly different annual change of geographic disparity from baseline (P<0.05).

  • c Baseline includes North Carolina, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin.

  • d Baseline includes California, New York, Ohio, and Texas.