No CrossRef data available.
Article contents
The Direct and Indirect Costs of Treating the Victims of the 2016 Nice Terror Attacks in a Single Pediatric Hospital
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 07 May 2021
Abstract
Objective:
To analyze the cost of the terror attack in Nice in a single pediatric institution.
Methods:
We carried out descriptive analyses of the data coming from the Lenval University Children’s Hospital of Nice database after the July 14, 2016 terror attack. The medical cost for each patient was estimated from the invoice that the hospital sent to public insurance. The indirect costs were calculated from the hospital’s accounting, as the items that were previously absent or the difference between costs in 2016 versus the previous year.
Results:
The costs total 1.56 million USD, corresponding to 2% of Lenval Hospital’s 2016 annual budget. Direct medical costs represented 9% of the total cost. The indirect costs were related to human resources (overtime, sick leave), revenue shortfall, and security and psychiatric reinforcement.
Conclusion:
Indirect costs had a greater impact than did direct medical costs. Examining the level and variety of direct and indirect costs will lead to a better understanding of the consequences of terror acts and to improved preparation for future attacks.
- Type
- Brief Report
- Information
- Copyright
- © Society for Disaster Medicine and Public Health, Inc. 2021
References
Carles, M, Levraut, J, Gonzalez, JF, et al. Mass casualty events and health organization: Terrorist attack in Nice. Lancet. 2016;388(10058):2349–2350.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Haas, H, Fernandez, A, Bréaud, J, Dupont, A, Tran, A, Solla, F. Terrorist attack in Nice: the central role of a children’s hospital. Lancet. 2017;389(10073):1007.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Solla, F, Carboni, J, Bréaud, J, et al. July 14, 2016, Terror attack in Nice, France. Acad Pediatr. 2018;18(4):361–363.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Solla, F, Carboni, J, Fernandez, A, et al. Severe casualties from Bastille Day attack in Nice, France. Eur J Trauma Emerg Surg. 2019;45(5):857–864.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Askenazy, F, Chauvelin, L, Gindt, M, Thümmler, S. Réponse pédopsychiatrique d’urgence à la suite de l’attentat terroriste du 14 juillet 2016 à Nice, en France [Emergency child psychiatry response following the 14 July 2016 terrorist attack in Nice, France]. Arch Pediatr. 2017;24(12):1220–1227.Google Scholar
Bar-El, Y, Michaelson, M, Hyames, G, Skorecki, K, Reisner, SA, Beyar, R. An academic medical center under prolonged rocket attack--organizational, medical, and financial considerations. Acad Med. 2009;84(9):1203–1210.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Osgood, R, Scanlon, C, Jotwani, R, Rodkey, D, Arshanskiy, M, Salem, D. Shaken but prepared: Analysis of disaster response at an academic medical centre following the Boston Marathon bombings. J Bus Contin Emer Plan. 2015;9(2):177–184.Google ScholarPubMed
Gates, JD, Arabian, S, Biddinger, P, et al. The initial response to the Boston marathon bombing: lessons learned to prepare for the next disaster. Ann Surg. 2014;260(6):960–966.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Craigie, RJ, Farrelly, PJ, Santos, R, Smith, SR, Pollard, JS, Jones, DJ. Manchester Arena bombing: lessons learnt from a mass casualty incident. BMJ Mil Health. 2020;166(2):72–75.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Solla, F, Tran, A, Rampal, V. What level of evidence is provided by comparative retrospective studies? Orthop Traumatol Surg Res. 2019;105(4):789–790.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed