Related Experiment Video
Updated: Aug 9, 2025
Systems Analysis of the Neuroinflammatory and Hemodynamic Response to Traumatic Brain Injury
Published on: May 27, 2022
Financial vulnerability of trauma centers: A national analysis
Alexander Marrotte1, Richard Y Calvo, Benedict Capacio
1From the Trauma Service, Department of Surgery (A.M., R.Y.C., B.C., C.G., A.S.R., A.C., A.K., V.B., M.S.), Scripps Mercy Hospital, San Diego; and Division of Trauma and Acute Care Surgery, Department of Surgery (M.J.M.), Los Angeles County + USC Medical Center, Los Angeles, California.
Objective:
Trauma centers function as an essential safeguard in the United States health care system. However, there has been minimal study of their financial health or vulnerability. We sought to perform a nationwide analysis of trauma centers using detailed financial data and a recently developed Financial Vulnerability Score (FVS) metric.
Methods:
The RAND Hospital Financial Database was used to evaluate all American College of Surgeons-verified trauma centers nationwide. The composite FVS was calculated for each center using six metrics. Financial Vulnerability Score tertiles were used to classify centers as high, medium, or low vulnerability, and hospital characteristics were analyzed and compared. Hospitals were also compared by US Census region and teaching versus nonteaching hospitals.
Results:
A total of 311 American College of Surgeons-verified trauma centers were included in the analysis, with 100 (32%) Level I, 140 (45%) Level II, and 71 (23%) Level III. The largest share of the high FVS tier was consisted of Level III centers (62%), with the majority of Level I (40%) and Level II (42%) in the middle and low FVS tier, respectively. The most vulnerable centers had fewer beds, negative operating margins, and significantly less cash on hand. Lower FVS centers had greater asset/liability ratios, lower outpatient shares, and three times less uncompensated care. Nonteaching centers were statistically significantly more likely to have high vulnerability compared with teaching centers (46% vs. 29%). Statewide analysis showed high discrepancy among individual states.
Conclusion:
With approximately 25% of Levels I and II trauma centers at high risk for financial vulnerability, disparities in characteristics, including payer mix and outpatient status, should be targeted to reduce vulnerabilities and bolster the health care safety net.
Level Of Evidence:
Prognostic and Epidemiological; Level IV.
More Related Videos
11:28A Coupled Experiment-finite Element Modeling Methodology for Assessing High Strain Rate Mechanical Response of Soft Biomaterials
Published on: May 18, 2015
08:25Polar Histogram Visualization of Acute Stress Disorder Scale Scores for Comprehensive Clinical Assessment
Published on: December 6, 2024
Related Concept Videos
01:21Types of Reports II: Incident or Occurrence Report
Purposes:
In the healthcare industry, reports play a crucial role in documenting incidents within an agency. The primary objective of these reports is to ensure patient safety, uphold the...
01:30Specialized Care Centers and Settings-I
Daycare centers
They provide several functions. Some facilities care for healthy newborns and children whose parents work, while others are medically focused and care for...