Theme articlesThe costs of unintentional home injuries
Introduction
Unintentional home injuries impose significant, but little reported, costs to society. Few studies have examined these costs. Danseco et al.1 analyzed nonfatal home injury costs for people aged 0 to 20 years in the United States; Scuffham et al.2 analyzed medical costs of unintentional falls in older people in the United Kingdom; and Thanh et al.3 analyzed the economic burden of unintentional home injuries in a Vietnamese district. This study provides the first comprehensive analysis of unintentional home injury costs in the United States. Its results can be used to better characterize the problem, weigh its importance, guide resource allocation, and evaluate savings from interventions.
Section snippets
Methods
The annual cost of injuries in the home was computed by multiplying unit costs of an injury by diagnosis, age group, and outcome/treatment level (fatal, nonfatal hospital admitted, other medically treated nonfatal) times corresponding injury frequency counts. The unit costs of injury used in this study are a data set compiled in prior studies.4, 5, 6, 7, 8 Although the costing methods are summarized here, more detail is available in the source articles. Data sources for injury counts were the
Results
Unintentional home injuries cost society at least $217 billion in 1998. The cost of fatal unintentional injuries alone was $34 billion, with nonfatal injuries accounting for the remaining $183 billion. The largest cost was the value of lost quality of life at $162 billion. Medical costs and indirect loss costs were $22 billion and $33 billion, respectively.
These figures are based on NHIS injury estimates. If the CPSC’s surveillance system is used to estimate the number of injuries, the total
Discussion
This study presents the first comprehensive U.S. unintentional home injury cost estimates. Due to incidence discrepancies between NHIS and NEISS data, the range of total cost estimates was large ($217 billion to $379 billion). In addition, because this study used unit costs data from other studies, some of the cost factors are based on old data or are not tailored by age group.
Although current data do not precisely enumerate unintentional injuries in the home and their costs, clearly the
References (22)
- et al.
Highway crash costs in the United States by driver age, blood, alcohol level, victim age, and restraint use
Accid Anal Prev
(1998) Costs and functional consequences of United States roadway crashes
Accid Anal Prev
(1993)- et al.
Incidence and cost of 1987–1994 childhood injurieswith demographic breakdowns
Pediatrics
(2000) - et al.
Incidence and costs of unintentional falls in older people in the United Kingdom
J Epidemiol Community Health
(2003) - et al.
The economic burden of unintentional injuriesa community-based cost analysis in Bavi, Vietnam
Scand J Public Health
(2003) - et al.
Estimating the cost to society of consumer product injuriesthe revised injury cost model
(1998) - et al.
Estimating the costs of non-fatal consumer product injuries in the United States
Inj Control Saf Promotion
(2000) - et al.
The cost of childhood unintentional injuries and the value of prevention
Future Child
(2000) - et al.
Databook on nonfatal injuryincidence, costs, and consequences
(1995) Final report panel on utilization and cost
(1996)
Statistical abstract of the United States 1998
Cited by (61)
Leisure-Time Physical Activity, Falls, and Fall Injuries in Middle-Aged Adults
2015, American Journal of Preventive MedicineEpidemiology and short-term mortality in traumatic patients admitted to Shariati Hospital in Iran between 2012 and 2013
2015, Chinese Journal of Traumatology - English EditionPopulation-based incidence and cost of non-fatal injuries in Iran: A consistent under-recognized public health concern
2015, Public HealthCitation Excerpt :One limitation of this study was overlooking the cost of the lost quality of life. The lost quality of life may account for a large proportion of the cost of injuries; larger than the medical and indirect costs.6 Another limitation is the population-based design of this study; recall bias may have resulted in an underestimation of the actual incidence rates.