Posted 11/21/2006

By Julie Appleby, USA TODAY

Reducing the number of infections patients contract while in hospitals would not only benefit patients but also hospitals' profits.

Researchers say the finding in a study out Monday counters an assumption that hospitals make money on patients who fall ill with a hospital-acquired infection because they often receive higher payments from insurers for dealing with complicated cases. But the higher payments do not cover the additional costs.

"This adds economic strength to the notion that we ought to be doing away with infections," says Richard Shannon, co-author of the study and vice chair of clinical affairs in the department of medicine at the University of Pennsylvania.

"Not only is it the right thing to do from the patient perspective," he says, "but infections are in fact costing payers and hospitals lots of money."

His study showed an average $26,839 loss to the hospital for each patient who came down with one type of infection called a central-line-associated bloodstream infection. A central line is a catheter placed into a vein to provide fluids or medication. Of 54 patients who got that type of infection during a three-year period at the one hospital studied, only four resulted in a break-even or profit for the hospital.

That's because the costs of caring for a patient who gets an infection usually far exceed the amount the facility is paid by insurers, says the study, one of three studies on the effects of hospital-acquired infections published in the American Journal of Medical Quality.

The journal articles come as hospitals nationwide are being asked to provide more information on cost and quality, but many have balked at providing information on hospital-acquired infections. Debate is ongoing about what types of infections should be reported and how to tell whether patients got the infections while in the hospital, came to the facility with them or developed them after being discharged.

Hospital-acquired infections are estimated to affect about 2 million patients annually and cause an estimated 100,000 deaths, according to one of the studies.

About 16 states have laws covering a variety of infection-reporting requirements for hospitals, but only Pennsylvania has issued a public report that gives infection rates at individual hospitals. Last week, Pennsylvania reported that more than 19,000 patients got an infection while in a hospital last year, raising costs.

The two other reports in the same issue of the journal take issue with another assumption about hospital infections: that patients who get them may have higher risks that cause them to come down with infections.

"Hospital-acquired infection is not an anticipated byproduct of taking care of the very ill," says David Nash, editor of the journal and chairman of the Department of Health Policy at Jefferson Medical College in Philadelphia. "It's a failure in the process of how medical care is delivered."