3.9 Article

What are the True Costs of Major Trauma?

期刊

出版社

LIPPINCOTT WILLIAMS & WILKINS
DOI: 10.1097/TA.0b013e3181ed4d29

关键词

Trauma; Costs; Economic evaluation

资金

  1. Royal Australasian College of Surgeons
  2. Motor Accident Insurance Commission, via the Centre for Economic Research on Health

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background: This economic evaluation reports the results of a detailed study of the cost of major trauma treated at Princess Alexandra Hospital (PAH), Australia. Methods: A bottom-up approach was used to collect and aggregate the direct and indirect costs generated by a sample of 30 inpatients treated for major trauma at PAH in 2004. Major trauma was defined as an admission for Multiple Significant Trauma with an Injury Severity Score >15. Direct and indirect costs were amalgamated from three sources, (1) PAH inpatient costs, (2) Medicare Australia, and (3) a survey instrument. Inpatient costs included the initial episode of inpatient care including clinical and outpatient services and any subsequent representations for ongoing-related medical treatment. Medicare Australia provided an itemized list of pharmaceutical and ambulatory goods and services. The survey instrument collected out-of-pocket expenses and opportunity cost of employment forgone. Inpatient data obtained from a publically funded trauma registry were used to control for any potential bias in our sample. Costs are reported in Australian dollars for 2004 and 2008. Results: The average direct and indirect costs of major trauma incurred up to 1-year postdischarge were estimated to be A$78,577 and A$24,273, respectively. The aggregate costs, for the State of Queensland, were estimated to range from A$86.1 million to $106.4 million in 2004 and from A$135 million to A$166.4 million in 2008. Conclusions: These results demonstrate that (1) the costs of major trauma are significantly higher than previously reported estimates and (2) the cost of readmissions increased inpatient costs by 38.1%.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

3.9
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据