4.5 Article

Trends in United States emergency department visits and associated charges from 2010 to 2016

期刊

AMERICAN JOURNAL OF EMERGENCY MEDICINE
卷 38, 期 8, 页码 1576-1581

出版社

W B SAUNDERS CO-ELSEVIER INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.ajem.2019.158423

关键词

Health care costs; Health care expenditures; Hospital charges; Health care economics and organization; Emergency medicine; After-hours care

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background: Demographic shifts and care delivery system evolution affect the number of Emergency Department (ED) visits and associated costs. Recent aggregate trends in ED visit rates and charges between 2010 and 2016 have not been evaluated. Methods: Data from the National Emergency Department Sample, comprising approximately 30 million annual patient visits, were used to estimate the ED visit rate and charges per visit from 2010 to 2016. ED visits were grouped into 144 mutually exclusive clinical categories. Visit rates, compound annual growth rates (CAGRs), and per visit charges were estimated. Results: From 2010 to 2016, the number of ED visits increased from 128.97 million to 144.82 million; the cumulative growth was 12.29% and the CAGR was 1.95%, while the population grew at a CAGR of 0.73%. Expressed as a population rate, ED visits per 1000 persons increased from 416.92 in 2010 to 448.19 in 2016 (p value <0.001). The mean charges per visit increased from $2061 (standard deviation $2962) in 2010 to $3516 (standard deviation $2962) in 2016; the CAGR was 9.31% (p value <0.001). Of 144 clinical categories, 140 categories had a CAGR for mean charges per visit of at least 5%. Conclusion: The rate of ED visits per 1000 persons and the mean charge per ED visit increased significantly between 2010 and 2016. Mean charges increased for both high- and low-acuity clinical categories. Visits for the 5 most common clinical categories comprise about 30% of ED visits, and may represent focus areas for increasing the value of ED care. (c) 2019 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

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

4.5
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