Financial outcome of treating trauma in a rural environment.

The financial plight of the urban trauma center is well documented. However, the financial status of the rural trauma center is largely unknown. We hypothesized that our rural trauma center with a high number of blunt trauma patients, a wide spectrum of injury severity, and a large percentage of insured patients would prove to be financially advantageous to the institution. From January 1994 to June 1995, 1,119 consecutive trauma admissions had a complete financial profile compiled including actual costs, reimbursements, and reimbursement ratio (RR = reimbursement/actual costs). Our injury severity profile was very skewed with a preponderance of less severely injured patients (mean Injury Severity Score = 9.6 +/- 7.8). The payor profile of these patients included 49.2% fee-for-service (RR = 1.43), 25.4% diagnosis-related group-based (RR = 0.92), 8.77% per diem (RR = 0.51), and 1.25% capitated (RR = 0.47). Overall, the RR for the trauma unit was 1.11, representing a net profit overall. Cost closely tracked both hospital and intensive-care unit length of stay (R2 = 0.925). Likewise, reimbursement also was reflected in both hospital and intensive-care unit length of stay (R2 = 0.735). We conclude that our rural trauma center, with a favorable payor mix and low injury severity, is financially profitable.