ABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: There is a national loss of access to surgeons for emergencies. Contributing factors include reduced numbers of practicing general surgeons, superspecialization, reimbursement issues, emphasis on work and life balance, and medical liability. Regionalizing acute care surgery (ACS), as exists for trauma care, represents a potential solution. The purpose of this study is to assess the financial and resources impact of transferring all nontrauma ACS cases from a community hospital (CH) to a trauma center (TC). METHODS: We performed a case mix and financial analysis of patient records with ACS for a rural CH located near an urban Level I TC. ACS patients were analyzed for diagnosis, insurance status, procedures, and length of stay. We estimated physician reimbursement based on evaluation and management codes and procedural CPT codes. Hospital revenues were based on regional diagnosis-related group rates. All third-party remuneration was set at published Medicare rates; self-pay was set at nil. RESULTS: Nine hundred ninety patients were treated in the CH emergency department with 188 potential surgical diseases. ACS was necessary in 62 cases; 25.4% were uninsured. Extrapolated to 12 months, 248 patients would generate new TC physician revenue of >$155,000 and hospital profits of >$1.5 million. CH savings for call pay and other variable costs are >$100,000. TC operating room volume would only increase by 1%. CONCLUSION: Regionalization of ACS to TCs is a viable option from a business perspective. Access to care is preserved during an approaching crisis in emergency general surgical coverage. The referring hospital is relieved of an unfavorable payer mix and surgeon call problems. The TC receives a new revenue stream with limited impact on resources by absorbing these patients under its fixed costs, saving the CH variable costs.
Subject(s)
Critical Care/organization & administration , Hospitals, Community/organization & administration , Trauma Centers/organization & administration , Traumatology/organization & administration , Costs and Cost Analysis , Critical Care/economics , Diagnosis-Related Groups , Fees, Medical , Financial Audit , Florida , Hospitals, Community/economics , Humans , Insurance, Health , Length of Stay , Medically Uninsured , Trauma Centers/economics , Traumatology/economicsABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: The model of inpatient medical management has evolved toward Hospitalists because of greater cost efficiency compared to traditional practice. The optimal model of inpatient care is not known. OBJECTIVE: To compare three models of inpatient Internal Medicine (traditional private practice Internists, private Hospitalist Internists, and Academic Internists with resident teams) for cost efficiency and quality at a community teaching hospital. DESIGN: Single-institution retrospective cohort study. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Measurements were hospital cost, length of stay (LOS), mortality, and 30-day readmission rate adjusted for severity, demographics, and case mix. Academic Internist teams had 30% lower cost and 40% lower LOS compared to traditional private Internists and 24% lower cost and 30% lower LOS compared to private Hospitalists. Hospital mortality was equivalent for all groups. Academic teams had 2.3-2.6% more 30-day readmissions than the other groups. CONCLUSIONS: Academic teams compare favorably to private Hospitalists and traditional Internists for hospital cost efficiency and quality.
