Hospital Taxes, Medicaid Supplemental Payments, and State Budgets.

The federal Medicaid statute provides states an incentive to tax hospitals (even otherwise tax-exempt ones) as a means of raising revenue and then leverage federal matching funds by returning at least some of the tax back to the hospitals in the form of Medicaid supplemental payments. The potential for supplemental payments is attractive to hospitals, especially those struggling to recoup the costs of treating Medicaid and uninsured patients, and has resulted in political support from hospitals for states to create hospital "taxes" in name only-hospitals and states both end up with more money than they did when they started because of the federal match. When state officials begin to perceive, however, that nonprofit hospitals may be serving private rather than public interests, they are able to use these hospital taxes as a way to incrementally chip away at the historic governmental support provided through tax exemption by redirecting the revenue raised from the hospital tax to general fund purposes rather than Medicaid supplemental payments. This article looks at how states have been using hospital taxes and supplemental payments to balance state budgets and whether this practice is consistent with the Medicaid program objectives that make the taxes politically feasible.

Comparing model performance for survival prediction using total Glasgow Coma Scale and its components in traumatic brain injury.

The Glasgow Coma Scale (GCS) score is used in clinical practice for patient assessment and communication among clinicians and also in outcome prediction models such as the Trauma and Injury Severity Score (TRIS). The objective of this study is to determine which GCS subscore is best associated with outcome, taking time of assessment into account. Records of patients with brain injury who presented after 1989 were extracted from the Trauma Audit and Research Network (TARN) database. Using logistic regression, a baseline model was derived with age, Injury Severity Score (ISS), and year of injury as covariates and survival at discharge as the dependent variable. Total GCS, its subscores, and their combinations at various time points were separately added to the baseline model to compare their effect on model performance. The dataset contained 21,657 cases. The total GCS score at scene and its subscores had significantly lower predictive power compared with those recorded on arrival at the Emergency Department (ED) (scene total GCS: Area Under the Curve-AUC: 0.89; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.89-0.90) and Nagelkerke R(2) of 0.55, admission total GCS: AUC of 0.91; 95% CI: 0.91-0.91, and Nagelkerke R(2) of 0.59). Eye and verbal subscores had significantly lower performances compared with total GCS, motor subscore, and various combinations of subscores. Motor subscore and total GCS appeared to have similar predictive performance (admission total and motor GCS both had AUC of 0.91 (95% CI: 0.91-0.92) and Nagelkerke R(2) of 0.59 and 0.58, respectively). Motor subscore contains most of the predictive power of the total score. GCS on arrival is a significantly better predictor of outcome than that recorded at scene.