Department of Surgery, Section of Trauma and Acute Care Surgery, Stanford University, Stanford, CA; Stanford - Surgery Policy Improvement Research & Education Center, Stanford University, Stanford, CA.
Department of Surgery, Section of Trauma and Acute Care Surgery, Stanford University, Stanford, CA; Stanford - Surgery Policy Improvement Research & Education Center, Stanford University, Stanford, CA.
J Am Coll Surg. 2018 Aug;227(2):172-180. doi: 10.1016/j.jamcollsurg.2018.03.043. Epub 2018 Apr 20.
Level I trauma centers often exist within safety-net hospitals (SNHs), facilities servicing high proportions of low-income and uninsured patients. Given the current health care funding environment, trauma centers within SNHs may be at particular risk. Using California as a model, we hypothesized that SNHs with trauma centers vary in terms of financial stability.
We performed a retrospective cohort study using data from publicly available financial disclosure reports from California's Office of Statewide Health Planning and Development. Safety-net hospitals were identified from the California Association of Public Hospitals and Health Systems. The primary outcomes metric for financial performance was operating margin.
California hospitals with Level I trauma centers were analyzed (11 SNH sites, 2 non SNH). The SNHs did not behave uniformly, and were clustered into county-owned SNHs (36%, n = 4) and nonprofit-owned SNHs (64%, n = 7). Mean operating margins for county SNHs, nonprofit SNHs, and non SNHs were -16.5%, 8.4%, and 9.5%, respectively (p < 0.001). From 2010 to 2015, operating margins improved for all hospitals, partly due to increases in the percent of insured patients and changes in payer mix. Nonprofit SNHs had a payer mix similar to that of non SNHs; county SNHs had the highest proportions of MediCal (California Medicaid) (45% vs 36% vs 12%, respectively, p < 0.001) and uninsured patients (17% vs 5% vs 0%, respectively, p < 0.001) compared with nonprofit SNHs and non SNHs, respectively.
The majority (85%) of Level I trauma centers are within SNHs, whose financial stability is highly variable. A group of SNHs rely on infusions of government funds and are therefore susceptible to changes in policy. These findings suggest deliberate funding efforts are critical to protect the health of the US academic trauma system.
一级创伤中心通常存在于服务高比例低收入和无保险患者的安全网医院 (SNH) 内。鉴于当前的医疗保健资金环境,SNH 中的创伤中心可能面临特别的风险。我们以加利福尼亚州为模型,假设具有创伤中心的 SNH 在财务稳定性方面存在差异。
我们使用加利福尼亚州卫生规划和发展办公室公开的财务披露报告中的数据进行了回顾性队列研究。从加利福尼亚州公立医院和卫生系统协会确定了安全网医院。财务绩效的主要指标是运营利润率。
分析了加利福尼亚州具有一级创伤中心的医院(11 个 SNH 站点,2 个非 SNH)。SNH 的表现并不一致,分为县拥有的 SNH(36%,n=4)和非营利拥有的 SNH(64%,n=7)。县 SNH、非营利 SNH 和非 SNH 的平均运营利润率分别为-16.5%、8.4%和 9.5%(p<0.001)。从 2010 年到 2015 年,所有医院的运营利润率都有所提高,部分原因是保险患者比例的增加和支付方式组合的变化。非营利 SNH 的支付方式组合与非 SNH 相似;县 SNH 的 MediCal(加州医疗补助)(45%比 36%比 12%,分别为 p<0.001)和无保险患者(17%比 5%比 0%,分别为 p<0.001)的比例最高,分别与非营利 SNH 和非 SNH 相比。
大多数(85%)一级创伤中心都位于 SNH 内,其财务稳定性高度可变。一组 SNH 依赖政府资金的注入,因此容易受到政策变化的影响。这些发现表明,精心的资金投入对于保护美国学术创伤系统的健康至关重要。