7
CAVEATS
Data limitations necessitated the development of assumptions and approaches that may impact the
estimates, and our estimates are likely to be conservative. Challenges included:
Underestimation of hospital costs: Our hospital costs are based on hospital discharge data only,
and thus do not include hospital costs related to patients treated and released in the emergency
department.
Calculating ambulance fees: We used the most likely base ambulance fee for caring for a
pedestrian or bicyclist and applied this average fee to all incidents. However, special charges
such as an oxygen mask, bandages, cervical collar, mileage, etc., would be considered additional
fees and would be added to the ambulance fee. These special charges were not available by
incident.
Underestimation of professional fees: Our professional fee estimates are based on pricing rates
for Medicaid reimbursement for services rendered to outpatients in the emergency department,
and do not account for instances where the patient was hospitalized, has Medicare, or private
insurance. Reimbursement amounts vary widely across payers and both Medicaid and Medicare
set a much lower rate than private insurers for the same procedure
14
; in one example (treating a
broken leg), we found a difference of up to $584.00.
,15
Procedures not eligible for Medicaid
reimbursement were assigned a reimbursement of $0 by Medi-Cal, California’s Medicaid
program.
Estimation of MVTC victims transported by an ambulance to a non-trauma center: Information
on patients transported to non-trauma centers is in the EMS database. While the EMS data
contains geographic information related to an incident, it lacks identifying information on whether
the victim was involved in a MVTC versus some other incident. Our approach to estimating the
probable number of MVTC victims in the EMS data was to take the proportion of pedestrian and
bicyclist MVTC victims in the Trauma Data and apply this to the EMS data; this may have biased
the ambulance fee estimates.
Possible misclassification of victims injured in the county vs. city: We assumed that victims
were injured in the same general area as the medical facility they were transported to because
neither the hospital nor emergency department data (OSHPD) contained information on incident
location. Using the location of the treating facility as a proxy for the location of the incident may
have skewed the identification of victims injured in the county versus the city, and subsequently the
distribution of hospital costs and professional fees between the two regions.
Missing values: We imputed observations/values in the databases using corresponding county
and city costs averages when these missing values prevented the calculation of hospital costs and
professional fees.
Los Angeles County Department of Public Health
Division of Chronic Disease and Injury Prevention
Tony Kuo, MD, MSHS, Director
Jean Armbruster, MA, Director, PLACE Program
Chandini Singh, MA, Policy Analyst, PLACE Program
Kimberly Porter, PhD, MPH, Epidemiologist, PLACE Program
Isabelle Sternfeld, MSPH, Epidemiologist, IVPP
Los Angeles County Chief Executive Office
Ricardo Basurto-Davila, PhD, MSc
Suggested Citation:
Porter K, Singh C, Sternfeld I, Basurto-Davila R,
Armbruster J. Los Angeles County Department of Public
Health, Division of Chronic Disease and Injury Prevention,
PLACE Program. Methods to Calculate the Direct Costs
of Medical Care for Pedestrian and Bicyclist Injuries Due
to Traffic Collisions in the County of Los Angeles, 2014.
October 2018.