Marrotte Alexander, Calvo Richard Y, Capacio Benedict, Goljan Christopher, Rooney Alexandra S, Carroll Alyssa N, Krzyzaniak Andrea, Bansal Vishal, Sise Michael J, Martin Matthew J
From the Trauma Service, Department of Surgery (A.M., R.Y.C., B.C., C.G., A.S.R., A.C., A.K., V.B., M.S.), Scripps Mercy Hospital, San Diego; and Division of Trauma and Acute Care Surgery, Department of Surgery (M.J.M.), Los Angeles County + USC Medical Center, Los Angeles, California.
J Trauma Acute Care Surg. 2023 May 1;94(5):637-642. doi: 10.1097/TA.0000000000003899. Epub 2023 Jan 10.
Trauma centers function as an essential safeguard in the United States health care system. However, there has been minimal study of their financial health or vulnerability. We sought to perform a nationwide analysis of trauma centers using detailed financial data and a recently developed Financial Vulnerability Score (FVS) metric.
The RAND Hospital Financial Database was used to evaluate all American College of Surgeons-verified trauma centers nationwide. The composite FVS was calculated for each center using six metrics. Financial Vulnerability Score tertiles were used to classify centers as high, medium, or low vulnerability, and hospital characteristics were analyzed and compared. Hospitals were also compared by US Census region and teaching versus nonteaching hospitals.
A total of 311 American College of Surgeons-verified trauma centers were included in the analysis, with 100 (32%) Level I, 140 (45%) Level II, and 71 (23%) Level III. The largest share of the high FVS tier was consisted of Level III centers (62%), with the majority of Level I (40%) and Level II (42%) in the middle and low FVS tier, respectively. The most vulnerable centers had fewer beds, negative operating margins, and significantly less cash on hand. Lower FVS centers had greater asset/liability ratios, lower outpatient shares, and three times less uncompensated care. Nonteaching centers were statistically significantly more likely to have high vulnerability compared with teaching centers (46% vs. 29%). Statewide analysis showed high discrepancy among individual states.
With approximately 25% of Levels I and II trauma centers at high risk for financial vulnerability, disparities in characteristics, including payer mix and outpatient status, should be targeted to reduce vulnerabilities and bolster the health care safety net.
Prognostic and Epidemiological; Level IV.
创伤中心在美国医疗体系中发挥着至关重要的保障作用。然而,对其财务健康状况或脆弱性的研究却极少。我们试图利用详细的财务数据和最近开发的财务脆弱性评分(FVS)指标,对创伤中心进行全国性分析。
使用兰德医院财务数据库评估全国所有经美国外科医师学会认证的创伤中心。利用六个指标为每个中心计算综合FVS。财务脆弱性评分三分位数用于将中心分为高、中、低脆弱性类别,并对医院特征进行分析和比较。还按美国人口普查区域以及教学医院与非教学医院对医院进行了比较。
分析共纳入311个经美国外科医师学会认证的创伤中心,其中100个(32%)为一级,140个(45%)为二级,71个(23%)为三级。高FVS层级中占比最大的是三级中心(62%),一级中心的大多数(40%)和二级中心的大多数(42%)分别处于中、低FVS层级。最脆弱的中心床位较少,运营利润率为负,手头现金明显较少。FVS较低的中心资产/负债比率更高,门诊份额更低,无偿护理少三倍。与教学中心相比,非教学中心在统计学上更有可能具有高脆弱性(46%对29%)。全州范围的分析显示各州之间存在很大差异。
约25%的一级和二级创伤中心面临较高的财务脆弱性风险,应针对包括支付方组合和门诊状况在内的特征差异,以降低脆弱性并加强医疗安全网。
预后和流行病学;四级。