Related Experiment Video
Updated: Aug 19, 2026

Setup and Execution Of the Blindfolded Code Training Exercise
Published on: March 29, 2019
Maximizing reimbursement from trauma response fees (UB-92: 68X) - lessons learned from a hospital comparison
John B Fortune1, Christopher Wohltmann, Brenda Margold
1Southern Illinois Trauma Center, Springfield, Illinois, USA. fortunej@upstate.edu
Background:
The trauma response fee (UB-92:68x) recently has been approved, to be used by hospitals to cover expenses resulting from continuous trauma team availability. These charges may be made by designated trauma centers for all defined trauma patients when notification has been received before arrival (eligible pt). This study compares two trauma centers' performance in collecting this fee help define methodologies that can enhance reimbursement.
Methods:
Our trauma system uses two hospitals (A and B) that are designated as the Level I trauma center for the region on alternate years. This allows hospital performance comparisons with relatively consistent patient demographics, injury severity, and payer mix. Data were collected for a one-year period beginning on January 1, 2003 and included charges, collections, and payer source for the trauma response fee. This time frame allowed the comparison of two six-month sequential periods at each trauma center.
Results:
Out of a total of 871 trauma patients, 625 were eligible for the trauma response fee (72%): hospital A = 65% and hospital B = 77%. Total trauma response fee charges for both centers were 1,111,882 dollars with collections of 319,684 dollars (28.8%). The following payer sources contributed to the collections: Indemnity insurance (77.4%), Managed Care (22.1%), Medicare (0.3%), and Medicaid (0.2%). No collections were obtained from any self-pay patient. Eligible patients were charged a trauma response fee much less frequently in Hospital A than B (29.35% versus 95.2%) but revenue / charge ratios were equivalent at both hospitals (0.32 versus 0.28). These differences resulted in markedly enhanced revenue for each eligible patient in Hospital B compared with A (735 dollars versus 174 dollars)
Conclusions:
Enhanced collection by hospital B was a result of a higher charge, compulsive billing of all eligible patients, and emphasis on pre-admission designation of trauma patients. Effective billing and collection process related to trauma response fees results in substantial additional revenue for the trauma center without additional expense.
Related Concept Videos
SBAR II: Application of SBAR
SBAR Report from a Nurse to a Health Care Provider
S: "Hello, Dr. Smith. This is Jane, RN, from the Med Surg unit. I am calling to tell you about Ms. White in Room 210, who is experiencing increased pain and redness at her incision site. Her recent...
Health Information Technology and Healthcare Information System
Health Information Technology, commonly called HIT, integrates advanced information systems and technology in healthcare settings. Its primary functions include:
Hospitals-I
