PubMed Health⌕ Search

PubMed · 8629202

Cost effectiveness in trauma care.

Abstract

The above discussion brings together a vast body of data that together proclaim with fervent clarity: Traumatic injuries are expensive. The expense is paid in productive lives lost, in permanent disability, in pain and suffering, and in health care resources consumed. As local and regional trauma systems struggle for development and survival, competition for the health care dollar casts in the additional necessity of providing the service of trauma care with maximum efficiency. Despite the variety of cost-efficiency measures described above, a majority of trauma centers continue to operate "in the red." Such cannot continue indefinitely. Fiscal responsibility dictates that health care institutions must balance budgets in order to maintain operations. Four primary strategies for cost containment appear from the above discussion: 1. Improve reimbursement rates from trauma patients. 2. Increase outside funding from government sources. 3. Improve cost efficiency of diagnostic and therapeutic procedures used in trauma patient management. 4. Increase efforts aimed at primary prevention of intentional and unintentional injuries. In the final analysis, most authors agree that the last strategy offers the best hope. As stated in their article, "The Economic Impact of Injuries," Harlan and colleagues conclude that "the most effective medical and cost reduction strategy would be prevention." The same article goes on to detail how greater funding for research into optimal prevention modalities could reap societal and economic benefits far beyond the value of the initial outlay. Yet such research funding continues to be inadequate. For every dollar spent on medical care of cancer patients, nine cents is directed to research. For every dollar spent on trauma care, less than a penny is spent on research. Until the public recognizes the terrible toll trauma extracts in lives, livelihood, and money wasted and until it realizes the pre-eminent importance of prevention, care of the trauma patient cannot truly achieve cost efficiency.

Explore related subjects

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

D C Elliott, A Rodriguez. 1996. Cost effectiveness in trauma care.. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0039-6109(05)70421-7

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related citations

The burden of type 2 diabetes in Serbia and the cost-effectiveness of its management.

The purpose of this study was to analyse whether the nationwide application of the national Serbian guideline for diabetes mellitus (NSGDM) would save a relevant amount of disability-adjusted life years (DALYs) and/or reduce the medical cost of treating diabetic patients in Serbia, as compared to the present situation. Disability-adjusted life years were calculated for Serbia and the cost-effectiveness was analysed in eight population groups under ideal and present conditions; prevalent and incident cases were each split up for patients with blood glucose that was well controlled and that was uncontrolled. Under ideal conditions, i.e., according to the NSGDM, 8,031 DALYs could be saved with a potential cost reduction at the same time of approximately 19 million Euros. The implementation of the NSGDM in clinical practice bears a great potential to save lives and reduce years lived with lowered quality of life, but in addition it may reduce costs by about a quarter.

Cost of Illness↗

Economic aspects of diabetic foot care in a multidisciplinary setting: a review.

BACKGROUND: To evaluate the economic aspects of diabetic foot care in a multidisciplinary setting. METHOD: A review of the English language literature, published from 1966 to November 2005. RESULTS: The results of available studies on the cost-of-illness of diabetic foot problems are difficult to compare. Nevertheless trends concerning excess of costs, protraction in time of costs, positive correlation to severity of ulcer and/or peripheral vascular disease, contribution of in-hospital stay and length of stay, and the patient's own contribution to total costs, are obvious. Only a few cost-effectiveness and cost-utility studies are available. Most use a Markov based model to predict outcome and show an acceptable result on long-term. CONCLUSIONS: Diabetic foot problems are frequent and are associated with high costs. A multidisciplinary approach to diabetic foot problems has proved to be cost saving with regard to cost of treatment itself. Nevertheless, it remained unclear if these savings could offset the overall costs involved in implementing this kind of approach. The few studies that address this issue specifically all show an acceptable cost-effectiveness, but often the profit will be evident after some years only, because long-term costs are involved. Based on these data, policymakers should foresee sufficient reimbursement for preventive and early curative measures, and not only for 'salvage manoeuvres'.

Cost of Illness↗