Pilot study on the comprehensive economic costs of major trauma: Consequential costs are well in excess of medical costs

BACKGROUND: Trauma care is expensive. However, reliable data on the exact lifelong costs incurred by a major trauma patient are lacking. Discussion usually focuses on direct medical costs--underestimating consequential costs resulting from absence from work and permanent disability. METHODS: Direct medical costs and consequential costs of 63 major trauma survivors (ISS >13) at a Swiss trauma center from 1995 to 1996 were assessed 5 years posttrauma. The following cost evaluation methods were used: correction cost method (direct cost of restoring an original state), human capital method (indirect cost of lost productivity), contingent valuation method (human cost as the lost quality of life), and macroeconomic estimates. RESULTS: Mean ISS (Injury Severity Score) was 26.8 +/- 9.5 (mean +/- SD). In all, 22 patients (35%) were disabled, causing discounted average lifelong total costs of USD 1,293,800, compared with 41 patients (65%) who recovered without any disabilities with incurred costs of USD 147,200 (average of both groups USD 547,800). Two thirds of these costs were attributable to a loss of production whereas only one third was a result of the cost of correction. Primary hospital treatment (USD 27,800 +/- 37,800) was only a minor fraction of the total cost--less than the estimated cost of police and the judiciary. Loss of quality of life led to considerable intangible human costs similar to real costs. CONCLUSIONS: Trauma costs are commonly underestimated. Direct medical costs make up only a small part of the total costs. Consequential costs, such as lost productivity, are well in excess of the usual medical costs. Mere cost averages give a false estimate of the costs incurred by patients with/without disabilities.

Theories of Militancy in Practice: Explanations of Muslim Terrorism in India

This article analyzes the interaction between theories of radicalization and state responses to militancy in India. Focusing on the interpretation of the increased frequency of terrorist attacks in Indian metropolises in the last decade, the article examines the narratives surrounding those classified as terrorists in the context of rising Muslim militancy in the country. Different state agencies operate with different theories about the links between processes of radicalization and terrorist violence. The scenarios of radicalization underlying legislative efforts to prevent terrorism, the construction of motives by the police, and the interpretation of violence by the judiciary all rely on assumptions about radicalization and violence. Such narratives are used to explain terrorism both to security agencies and to the public; they inform the categories and scenarios of prevention. Prevention relies on detection of future deeds, planning, intentions, and even potential intentions. "Detection" of potential intentions relies on assumptions about specific dispositions. Identification of such dispositions in turn relies on the context-specific theories of the causes of militancy. These determine what "characteristics" of individuals or groups indicate potential threats and form the basis for their categorization as "potentially dangerous." The article explores the cultural contexts of theories of radicalization, focusing on how they are framed by societal understandings of the causes of deviance and the relation between the individual and society emerging in contemporary India. It examines the shift in the perception of threat and the categories of "dangerous others" from a focus on role to a focus on ascriptive identity.