{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.025376685170499604, 'fraction_numerical': 0.012688342585249802, 'mean_word_length': 5.0095238095238095, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 1, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Prospective payments in a regional trauma center: the case for recognition of the transfer patient in diagnostic related groups.

BACKGROUND
Transfer patients (TP) differ from patients transported directly from the field (DP) by virtue of their complexity and delays to definitive care, factors that might impact on costs and resource utilization and aggravate the adverse selection that already threatens TC reimbursement.


METHODS
This is a retrospective cohort study where patients admitted to a Level I trauma center were classified as a TP or DP. Crude and adjusted total costs, complications, length of stay, and proportion of DRG outliers were compared across the two cohorts.


RESULTS
Among 8,665 patients, 40% were transferred. TP were more likely to be DRG outliers (15% versus 10%, p < 0.001). Costs in 65% of the DRGs were higher in the TP. Rates of complications and length of stay were significantly greater in the TP.


CONCLUSION
There are systematic differences in resource consumption between transferred patients and patients transported directly from the field. These differences render conventional DRG-based mechanisms of reimbursement inadequate, suggesting a need for recognition of the transfer patient as a distinct entity by payers.