Skip directly to search Skip directly to A to Z list Skip directly to navigation Skip directly to page options Skip directly to site content

The Cost of Sepsis

Posted on by CDC's Safe Healthcare Blog
Jim O’Brien, Vice President of Quality and Patient Safety, Ohio Health Riverside Methodist Hospital
Jim O’Brien, Vice President of Quality and Patient Safety, Ohio Health Riverside Methodist Hospital

Guest Author: Jim O’Brien
Vice President of Quality and Patient Safety
Ohio Health Riverside Methodist Hospital

I am biased about sepsis, but I will try to put that aside and present an argument for why people who have day jobs like me – hospital administrators – should focus on improving sepsis care today.

I am not going to spend time writing about the altruistic nature of medicine and the desire to eliminate human suffering. I believe this is self-evident and covered by others on this blog. Instead, I want to talk dollars and cents, operational efficiencies and reimbursement penalties.

Sepsis is the most expensive reason for hospitalization. In 20111 (the most recent published data), the US spent $20.3 billion dollars on hospital care for patients with sepsis. This means we are spending $55,616,438 on sepsis care in US hospitals every day. An average hospital stay for sepsis costs approximately double a stay for another diagnosis, and the annual rate of growth of sepsis costs in hospitals is three-times the rate for hospital costs overall. Sepsis patients stay in the hospital 75% longer than other patients – impacting the ability for hospitals to move patients out of the emergency department and into hospital beds. Survivors of sepsis are more likely to be discharged to a place other than home after the hospital2 and suffer readmissions at a high rate, costing approximately $2B per year3.

Leading organizations understand the cost of caring for these patients and have realized significant savings as a result. However, this realization is far from universal. One reason is that traditional financial incentives are not aligned with best sepsis care. Traditional healthcare economics measures a return on investment based on new revenue – not avoided costs. Investing in better sepsis care does not increase the volume of services – what most hospitals and doctors income is based on. Multiple improvement projects have shown that immediate identification of the suspicion of sepsis and treatment as a medical emergency reduces the likelihood of continued deterioration – from sepsis to severe sepsis to septic shock. However, hospitals (and, to a lesser degree, doctors) get paid more for providing care to sicker patients. For example, in 2013 in Ohio, Medicare paid, on average $11,794 per case of severe sepsis that did not require patient to be on a mechanical ventilator for at least 96 hours4. If the patient required this level of care, presumably because they were sicker, Medicare paid $40,878 per case. The problem is that we do not have a good way to determine if patients are sicker in spite of the care they receive or because of it. Despite this, I am dubious that changing reimbursement for sepsis care will be sufficient to improve outcomes. Instead, an empowered team of clinicians using proven performance improvement methods appears to be the necessary ingredient. However, eliminating misaligned financial incentives may bring sepsis to the attention of less forward-thinking administrators and provide greater support and resources to the clinical teams.

Another influential factor are that sepsis is not something known by the public. Less than half of Americans have heard the word “sepsis.” As a result, there is not the informal, but influential, discussions at cocktail parties and back yard barbecues of which hospital treats sepsis care best. Instead, I hear my neighbors and friends discuss the great heart care they received at hospital X and the terrific knee replacement done by Dr. Y. Hospital board members and CEOs attend these functions too. And most of them are not physicians – they are administrators like me. When we aren’t being asked what we are doing about sepsis, we don’t know we should be doing anything about sepsis.

  1. Pfuntner et al. Costs for Hospital Stays in the United States. HCUP Statistical Brief #168.
  2. Hall et al. Inpatient care for septicemia or sepsis: A challenge for patients and hospitals. NCHS Data Brief, No. 62; June 2011.
  3. Hines et al. HCUP Statistical Brief #172. April 2014.
  4. http://www.cms.gov/Research-Statistics-Data-and-Systems/Statistics-Trends-and-Reports/Medicare-Provider-Charge-Data/Inpatient.html, Accessed June 4, 2015.
Posted on by CDC's Safe Healthcare Blog

2 comments on “The Cost of Sepsis”

Comments listed below are posted by individuals not associated with CDC, unless otherwise stated. These comments do not represent the official views of CDC, and CDC does not guarantee that any information posted by individuals on this site is correct, and disclaims any liability for any loss or damage resulting from reliance on any such information. Read more about our comment policy ».

    I was searching Cost of Treating Sepsis, and found this article, by James O’Brian ( on the board of Sepsis Alliance ) where he really lets the cat out of the bag, indicating that Hospitals ( and also non profits like Sepsis Alliance ) benefit enormously under the existing conditions of long stays in hospitals and frequent readmissions. Marik’s low cost, safe and effective Protocol, best described as a cure of Sepsis, would undermine their economic interests.

    It is not surprising to me that Sepsis Alliance and most of the mainstream medical community is hostile to the Marik protocol. They have a lot to loose.

    Being a respiratory therapist turned administrator, I can truly appreciate your blog! Sepsis awareness is critical going forward and the misaligned financial incentives need to change!

Post a Comment

Your email address will not be published.

All comments posted become a part of the public domain, and users are responsible for their comments. This is a moderated site and your comments will be reviewed before they are posted. Read more about our comment policy »

TOP