Play or pay: a financial model for trauma care in a regional trauma system

Impact of subsidy policies on the financial status of trauma centers

Trauma centers (TCs) play a crucial role in improving patient safety of severely injured individuals, but require substantial financial resources to operate effectively. TCs in low-insured areas are particularly at risk of being confronted with financial deficits, and a threat of closure, due to the inability to recover costs from uncompensated care. While some states in the US provide financial subsidies to support these centers, the diversity of state subsidy policies and their impacts on TC financial viability are poorly understood. To address this, we introduce a generalized subsidy distribution formula that incorporates key components from various state policies. Based on that, we further propose a TC Financial Evaluation Model that employs Monte Carlo simulation to assess the effects of different subsidy policies along three proposed metrics. Utilizing realistic data from multiple US states and national insurance statistics, we conduct a comprehensive experimental study. Our findings suggest that the financial performance of TCs could be affected by the total subsidy amount, the Uninsured level within the Trauma Service Area (TSA), and the specific subsidy distribution policy employed. This research provides trauma decision-makers a quantitative tool to evaluate, compare, and design subsidy policies tailored to their unique demographic and economic contexts, potentially leading to a more standardized approach to mitigate existing policy disparities across states.

Regionalization of Critical Care in the United States: Current State and Proposed Framework From the Academic Leaders in Critical Care Medicine Task Force of the Society of the Critical Care Medicine

OBJECTIVES

The Society of Critical Care Medicine convened its Academic Leaders in Critical Care Medicine taskforce on February 22, 2016, during the 45th Critical Care Congress to develop a series of consensus papers with toolkits for advancing critical care organizations in North America. The goal of this article is to propose a framework based on the expert opinions of critical care organization leaders and their responses to a survey, for current and future critical care organizations, and their leadership in the health system to design and implement successful regionalization for critical care in their regions.

DATA SOURCES AND STUDY SELECTION

Members of the workgroup convened monthly via teleconference with the following objectives: to 1) develop and analyze a regionalization survey tool for 23 identified critical care organizations in the United States, 2) assemble relevant medical literature accessed using Medline search, 3) use a consensus of expert opinions to propose the framework, and 4) create groups to write the subsections and assemble the final product.

DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS

The most prevalent challenges for regionalization in critical care organizations remain a lack of a strong central authority to regulate and manage the system as well as a lack of necessary infrastructure, as described more than a decade ago. We provide a framework and outline a nontechnical approach that the health system and their critical care medicine leadership can adopt after considering their own structure, complexity, business operations, culture, and the relationships among their individual hospitals. Transforming the current state of regionalization into a coordinated, accountable system requires a critical assessment of administrative and clinical challenges and barriers. Systems thinking, business planning and control, and essential infrastructure development are critical for assisting critical care organizations.

CONCLUSIONS

Under the value-based paradigm, the goals are operational efficiency and patient outcomes. Health systems that can align strategy and operations to assist the referral hospitals with implementing regionalization will be better positioned to regionalize critical care effectively.

Industrial Injury Hospitalizations Billed to Payers Other Than Workers' Compensation: Characteristics and Trends by State

OBJECTIVE

To describe characteristics of industrial injury hospitalizations, and to test the hypothesis that industrial injuries were increasingly billed to non-workers' compensation (WC) payers over time.

DATA SOURCES

Hospitalization data for 1998-2009 from State Inpatient Databases, Healthcare Cost and Utilization Project, and Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality.

STUDY DESIGN

Retrospective secondary analyses described the distribution of payer, age, gender, race/ethnicity, and injury severity for injuries identified using industrial place of occurrence codes. Logistic regression models estimated trends in expected payer.

PRINCIPAL FINDINGS

There was a significant increase over time in the odds of an industrial injury not being billed to WC in California and Colorado, but a significant decrease in New York. These states had markedly different WC policy histories. Industrial injuries among older workers were more often billed to a non-WC payer, primarily Medicare.

CONCLUSIONS

Findings suggest potentially dramatic cost shifting from WC to Medicare. This study adds to limited, but mounting evidence that, in at least some states, the burden on non-WC payers to cover health care for industrial injuries is growing, even while WC-related employer costs are decreasing-an area that warrants further research.

Who pays for work-related traumatic injuries? Payer distribution in washington state by ethnicity, injury severity, and year (1998-2008)

BACKGROUND

Acute work-related trauma is a leading cause of death and disability for U.S. workers but it is difficult to obtain information about injured workers not covered by workers' compensation (WC). This study aimed to: (1) describe trends in expected payer and linkage to WC claims, (2) compare characteristics of injured workers who did and did not have a linked WC claim, and (3) describe variation in expected payer and linkage to WC claims by ethnicity and injury severity.

METHODS

Data for injuries occurring from 1998 through 2008 were obtained from the Washington State Trauma Registry and linked to WC claims.

RESULTS

We found that 27% of work-related traumatic injuries did not have WC listed as a payer, while 37% did not link to a WC claim. Among those with WC listed as a payer, the odds of having a linked WC claim were 57% lower for workers with other non-WC insurance compared with the otherwise uninsured. Latinos were more likely to have a linked WC claim compared with non-Latinos, but there was no significant difference after partially controlling for WC-covered employment and other insurance.

CONCLUSIONS

This study demonstrated the importance of considering differential access to other insurance coverage and adaptation by health care settings to financial pressures when assessing trends in occupational injury incidence and reporting, especially when using WC as a proxy for work-relatedness. The addition of occupation, industry, and work status to trauma registries and hospital discharge databases would improve surveillance, research, policy and prevention efforts.