4.6 Article

The direct costs of fatal and non-fatal falls among older adults - United States

期刊

JOURNAL OF SAFETY RESEARCH
卷 58, 期 -, 页码 99-103

出版社

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.jsr.2016.05.001

关键词

Fall; Older people; Costs; Hospital care; STEADI

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Introduction: This study sought to estimate the incidence, average cost, and total direct medical costs for fatal and non-fatal fall injuries in hospital, ED, and out-patient settings among U.S. adults aged 65 or older in 2012, by sex and age group and to report total direct medical costs for falls inflated to 2015 dollars. Method: Incidence data came from the 2012 National Vital Statistics System, 2012 Healthcare Cost and Utilization Project-Nationwide Inpatient Sample, 2012 Health Care Utilization Program National Emergency Department Sample, and 2007 Medical Expenditure Panel Survey. Costs for fatal falls were derived from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's Web-based Injury Statistics Query and Reporting System; costs for non-fatal falls were based on claims from the 1998/1999 Medicare fee-for-service 5% Standard Analytical Files. Costs were inflated to 2015 estimates using the health care component of the Personal Consumption Expenditure index. Results: In 2012, there were 24,190 fatal and 3.2 million medically treated non-fatal fall related injuries. Direct medical costs totaled $616.5 million for fatal and $30.3 billion for non-fatal injuries in 2012 and rose to $637.5 million and $31.3 billion, respectively, in 2015. Fall incidence as well as total cost increased with age and were higher among women. Conclusion: Medically treated falls among older adults, especially among older women, are associated with substantial economic costs. Practical application: Widely implementing evidence-based interventions for fall prevention is essential to decrease the incidence and healthcare costs associated with these injuries. National Safety Council and Elsevier Ltd. 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

4.6
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