Citation

Kearney TE, Olson KR, Bero LA, Heard SE, Blanc PD. West. J. Med. 1995; 162(6): 499-504.

Affiliation

San Francisco Injury Center, San Francisco General Hospital, CA 94110, USA.

Copyright

(Copyright © 1995, BMJ Publishing Group)

DOI

unavailable

PMID

7618308

PMCID

PMC1022825

Abstract

Poison control centers in the United States are threatened with closure, and attempts at a cost-benefit analysis of these services have been indeterminate. The purpose of this study was to compare the operating costs of a regional poison control center resulting from public use of its telephone hotline services with those of hypothetical alternative sources of advice and care. We conducted a follow-up telephone survey among 589 public callers to the San Francisco Bay Area Regional Poison Control Center who had been managed at home without medical referral after an unintentional poisoning. All survey respondents were asked what alternative action they would have taken had the poison control center not been available to assist them by telephone consultation. We then surveyed emergency departments and physicians' offices cited as alternatives by the callers to determine their response and charges for evaluating a suspected poisoning case. A total of 464 (79%) of the callers surveyed would have sought assistance from their local emergency health care system had the poison control center not been available. We conservatively estimated that the total charges for such evaluations would be +71,900. Comparatively, the total actual operating cost of services provided by the poison control center for all 589 poisoning cases was +13,547. Most of the study subjects (429 [73%]) had private insurance coverage. Direct public access to these services probably reduces the use of emergency health care resources, thus lowering health care costs.

Language: en