Skip to main content

Military Health System

The Cost of Lower Extremity Fractures Among Active Duty U.S. Army Soldiers, 2017

Image of X-ray image of a fractured tibia. X-ray image of a fractured tibia.

Recommended Content:

Medical Surveillance Monthly Report

What are the New Findings?

This study found that indirect medical costs (i.e., loss of return on personnel salary) cost the Army nearly 4 times the amount spent on direct medical care for soldiers' lower extremity fractures. This estimate assumes that lost duty time was equivalent to the number of days hospitalized for a lower extremity fracture and limited duty was equal to 120 days at 50% productivity for each lower extremity fracture. Study findings demonstrate the value of including indirect costs to obtain a comprehensive understanding of the financial burden of military injuries.

What is the Impact on Readiness and Force Health Protection?

Injury costs estimates inform Army injury prevention initiatives and prioritization efforts. However, a standardized method for estimating Army injury costs is needed. The methodology developed for this analysis fills a critical gap in Army estimates of injury burden and provides the foundation for future expanded cost estimates.

Abstract

The estimated cost to the Army for lower extremity fractures in 2017 was approximately $116 million. Direct medical expenses totaled $24 million, and indirect medical costs totaled $92 million ($900 thousand lost duty; $91 million limited duty). Foot and toe fractures, along with lower leg and ankle fractures accounted for the majority of soldiers' initial visits for care (n=4,482; 91.6%), and more than $103 million (89.0%) of overall costs ($116 million). Costs varied by location of care. In outpatient settings, initial visits for foot and toe injuries accounted for the highest costs: $49 million overall. Direct medical costs totaled $1.2 million, and indirect medical costs (limited duty) were $48 million. Conversely, in inpatient settings, lower leg and ankle fractures accounted for slightly more than half of all costs (overall $9 million; $4.8 million in direct medical costs and $4.5 million in indirect medical costs). The finding that the majority of costs related to lower extremity fractures were due to estimated days of lost or limited duty and associated loss of productivity justifies the inclusion of indirect cost estimates as a part of overall injury cost calculations.

Background

Injuries have long been the leading challenge to the Army's ability to optimize medical readiness and soldier health.1–3 The likelihood of a soldier experiencing an injury is high, with over half of soldiers experiencing a new injury annually.4 Overall, there are over 1,800 new injuries diagnosed per 1,000 soldiers each year.4 Many of these injuries are preventable, lead to costly medical encounters and lost productivity among military personnel, and account for the status of more than half of all medically non-deployable Army soldiers.5-7

This analysis is centered on acute fractures of the lower extremities. Acute fractures are considered "severe" injuries due to the frequent need for hospitalization and the amount of recovery time required before a soldier can return to work at full capacity. U.S. Army surveillance data from 2015 indicate that 45% of acute injury hospitalizations were due to fractures.8 Prior studies have estimated the number of lost duty days attributed to fractures to range from 73 to 120 days—compared to 35 days for dislocations, 18 to 30 days for sprains and strains, and 3 to 11 days for heat- and cold-weather related injuries.9–11 The purpose of this study was to develop a standardized methodology for estimating the direct and indirect medical costs of military injuries. The analyses focused on lower extremity fractures, in particular, because such injuries are considered by both the Army safety and health communities to be a high-visibility, high priority concern.12,13 No papers to date have addressed the costs of fractures to the Army or to other military services.

Methods

Centering on factors of interest to the military (a military-societal perspective), a cost-of-illness approach was used to combine information on the number of injuries and the impact of their associated health care utilization into single estimates of cost.14–17 A cross sectional, prevalence based study design was employed. Therefore, all acute lower extremity fractures requiring medical care - both new and ongoing for calendar year (CY) 2017 - were included in the analysis. The resulting injury estimates provide the costs of lower extremity fractures in a single year, rather than recurrent costs of these injuries over the course of a soldier's career.

This study included injuries identified in the medical records from the active component of the U.S. Army. Army Reserve and National Guard members on active duty status at any time during CY 2017 were also included. These data represent injury-related care received in or paid for by the Military Health System (MHS) and were obtained from MHS Data Repository (MDR) files including the Standard Inpatient Data Record (SIDR) (military treatment facility [MTF] inpatient data), the Comprehensive Ambulatory/Professional Encounter Record (CAPER) (MTF outpatient data), TRICARE Encounter Data Institutional (TED-I) (inpatient data), and TED-Non-Institutional (NI) (records of outpatient Purchased CareThe TRICARE Health Program is often referred to as purchased care. It is the services we “purchase” through the managed care support contracts.purchased care) using the MHS Mart (M2) interface.

Lower extremity fractures were identified using International Classification of Disease, 10th Revision, Clinical Modification (ICD-10-CM) medical diagnostic codes. The listing of codes was identified using an ICD-10-CM Injury Mortality Diagnosis (IMD) Matrix.18 The inclusion criterion for a case was any medical encounter with an ICD-10 diagnosis code of S72 (fracture of bones in hip or upper leg), S82 (fracture of bones in the knee, lower leg, or ankle), or S92 (fracture of bones in the feet or toes) recorded in the first or second diagnostic position. All extenders for the listed codes were captured and included in the analysis.

Inclusion of the first 2 diagnosis code positions varies from the methodology used in previous incidence and prevalence studies of Army injuries, which limited inclusion criteria to the first diagnosis code position only. A review of several case examples found that many fractures were not identified by a primary diagnosis because a diagnosis of "pain" in a lower extremity often preceded the fracture diagnosis. It was necessary to use the secondary diagnosis to more completely capture all fractures and associated direct costs for treatments and indirect costs via estimated days of lost duty. A 365-day incidence rule was applied by person and injury in order to reduce the effect of follow-up injury visits and potential overestimation of frequencies and rates. The rule states that multiple visits for the same 3-digit ICD-10-CM diagnosis within 365 days of the initial visit were counted as only 1 visit, allowing only 1 injury of the same type per year.

Comprehensive cost-of-illness metrics—both direct and indirect costs—were examined. Direct medical cost was defined as the cost of care associated with the fracture encounter paid for by the MHS. All direct medical cost data were extracted from the MDR and were included for each injury encounter. Two types of indirect medical costs were determined: (1) lost duty time, in which a soldier is not able/ available to perform his/her duties due to health care (e.g., injury-related hospitalizations); and (2) limited duty time, in which a soldier either could not participate in his/her military occupational and physical training tasks and/or performed these tasks at diminished capacity due to the injury (e.g., working while injured). The amount of time lost (lost duty time) is based on hospital length of stay associated with a lower extremity fracture. Clinician visit duration or appointment time is not consistently captured across all outpatient settings. No assumptions were made for the length of time for visits and no lost duty time was estimated for time away from duties associated with these appointments. Given the incomplete capture of limited duty days in military medical records, the amount of limited time (limited duty days) for lower extremity fractures was based on estimates from existing literature.9

Data were extracted, downloaded, and analyzed using SAS/STAT software, version 9.4 (2014, SAS Institute, Cary, NC). Analyses of lower extremity fractures resulting in inpatient and outpatient treatment were stratified by body region and encounter type. The number of soldiers treated for lower extremity fractures (along with age, sex, and rank group characteristics), frequency of encounters, and estimated limited duty days were reported. Total cost was calculated as the sum of direct medical cost and indirect medical cost.

Direct medical cost, the full cost and/ or total amount paid for an injury encounter, was summed respectively for the three fracture diagnosis codes (based on ICD10 codes S72, S82, and S92). Data were reported in 2017 U.S. dollars by location of care (outpatient and inpatient) and by injury encounter type using available ICD10-CM extension digits. Initial encounters (first occurrence) were indicated by a seventh digit of "A", "B", or "C", followup encounters by "D" "R", and sequela encounters by "S".

Indirect medical cost, the costs associated with estimated lost duty time and limited duty time, were calculated by linking each soldier's rank from his/her initial encounter to military pay charts.19 The 2 types of indirect medical costs are considered independent and an injury could be associated with both lost duty time and limited duty time. Indirect medical cost associated with lost duty time for inpatient stays was calculated as the number of days spent in the hospital multiplied by the salary associated with the soldier's rank at the time of the injury. No lost duty time was calculated for outpatient visits. Indirect medical cost associated with limited duty time, based on Ruscio's estimate,9 was calculated only for the initial occurrence of each injury of interest.9 The first occurrence of a fracture with an initial encounter indicator (i.e., an "A", "B", or "C") in the seventh position of the ICD code was first assumed to result in 120 days of limited duty.9 Upon further consideration by injury subject matter experts, and to provide conservative estimates for this analysis, it was assumed that all 120 days were limited duty at 50% productivity. Therefore, the cost of 1 limited duty day was considered equal to half of a service member's daily pay. For 120 days of limited duty, the cost of an injury would equal 120 (days) x 50% of the soldier's daily salary.

Results

Characteristics of lower extremity fractures

Table 1 shows there were 5,287 soldiers who experienced at least 1 lower extremity fracture in CY 2017 (83.3% men, 16.7% women). Over two-fifths (44.1%) of those with lower extremity fractures were 30 years of age or older and 44.0% were less than E-5 in rank. More than half (54.5%) of soldiers with lower extremity fractures experienced fractures to the foot and toes (n=2,880), and 37.1% experienced fractures to the lower leg and ankle (n=1,962); all other anatomical sites for the lower extremity accounted for the remaining 8.9% of fractures (n=445).

Cost of inpatient care for lower extremity fractures

A total of 433 soldiers received inpatient care for lower extremity fractures (Table 2). The number of soldiers hospitalized for lower leg and ankle fractures (n=278) was 5 times the number hospitalized for upper leg and thigh fractures (n=55), the second most common fracture location. Lower leg and ankle fractures accounted for the highest number of limited duty days associated with inpatient treatment (n=33,744; 64.5%). Lower leg and ankle fractures also accounted for the highest direct medical costs, just over $6.4 million (59.8% of total direct medical inpatient costs); the highest lost duty cost, slightly more than $550 thousand (59.6% of the cost associated with bed days); and the highest limited duty cost, about $4.2 million (66.4% of the cost associated with lost productivity). Of the estimated $18.1 million in inpatient cost reported in Table 2, $11.2 million (62.1%) was associated with lower leg and ankle fractures.

Cost of outpatient care for lower extremity fractures

Table 3 shows that 5,247 soldiers received outpatient care for lower extremity fractures. More soldiers made initial visits for foot and toe fractures (n=2,875; 54.8%) than for lower leg and ankle fractures (n=1,944; 37.0%). A smaller number of soldiers experienced lower extremity fractures in other anatomical sites (n=428; 8.2%).

The highest direct medical costs resulted from lower leg and ankle fractures ($7.2 million; 55.0%), followed by foot and toe fractures ($4.9 million; 37.3%). The highest indirect costs—lost or limited productivity costs due to limited duty time—resulted from foot and toe fractures ($47.6 million; 56.1%). Likewise, the highest total costs associated with outpatient encounters were for foot and toe fractures ($52.4 million; 53.6%), followed by lower leg and ankle fractures ($37.9 million; 38.7%).

Cost of inpatient and outpatient care for lower extremity fractures

Table 4 shows that 5,287 soldiers received care for lower extremity fractures in inpatient and/or outpatient sites in CY 2017; 40 soldiers received care in an inpatient setting only (data not shown). More soldiers made initial visits for fractures of the foot and toe (n=2,880; 54.5%) than for fractures of the lower leg (n=1,962; 37.1%). Far fewer soldiers sought initial medical encounters for the other categories of lower extremity fracture (hip, n=157, 3.0%; upper leg and thigh, n= 152, 2.9%; knee, n=136, 2.6%).

Fractures to the foot and toes resulted in more days of limited duty than any other anatomical site of the lower extremities: 359,284 days (51.3% of the total days). The second greatest number of limited duty days was for lower leg and ankle fractures: 275,664 (39.4%) of the total days of limited duty.

The highest total costs for lower extremity fractures were associated with foot and toe fractures ($54.1 million; 46.6%), followed by the cost of lower leg and ankle fractures ($49.1 million; 42.4%). These 2 anatomical sites accounted for 89.0% of total costs.

Editorial Comments

In a single year (CY 2017), lower extremity fractures—the most common cause of hospitalization among military service members—cost the Army an estimated $116 million in direct and indirect medical cost, and more than 5,000 active duty soldiers experienced 1 or more lower extremity fractures in CY 2017. Even though lower extremity fractures are considered "serious" injuries, the largest percentage of associated costs ($97.8 million; 84.4%) was incurred by fractures treated in outpatient settings. Overall, 5,247 soldiers had outpatient encounters for lower extremity fractures. The majority of soldiers treated in outpatient settings for lower extremity fractures had encounters for fractures to foot and toes (54.8%), followed by fractures to lower leg and ankle (37.0%). Although more serious, the costs of lower extremity fractures requiring hospitalization were only $18.1 million, or 15.6% of the total costs. However, the costs per case for fractures treated in inpatient settings was 9 times the cost of those treated on an outpatient basis ($30,628 per case versus $3,370 per case [Encounter data reported in the full technical report21]). Among the 433 soldiers hospitalized for lower extremity fractures, 64.2% were hospitalized for fractures to lower legs and ankles, followed by upper leg and thigh fractures (12.7%). Overall, the indirect costs of fractures ($92.0 million) were approximately 4 times greater than costs associated with direct medical expenses ($23.9 million). These indirect costs were clearly driven by the cost associated with limited duty days ($91.1 million of the $92.0 million). This study estimated that more than 700,000 limited duty days were associated with lower extremity fractures in 2017; 648,000 days were related to soldiers treated in outpatient settings, and 52,000 days were related to soldiers who were hospitalized.

While the cost of fractures has not been previously reported, the diagnosis, distribution, and anatomical locations of these acute injuries for outpatient cases were similar to those seen previously among military service members.2 The distribution of lower extremity fractures treated in hospitals in this study was also similar to the distributions reported among service members2 and among medical evacuation cases during Operation Iraqi Freedom/Operation Enduring Freedom.20

This study estimated both direct and indirect medical costs attributed to a specific type of injury more precisely than any prior study. While days of lost duty and limited duty were estimated to determine the indirect costs, these costs were segregated by complete loss of duty time (such as due to hospital or bed restriction) and the cost of restricted abilities (represented as productivity loss). A study innovation involved inclusion of the secondary diagnosis in the case definition after study investigators noted a diagnosis of "pain" in a lower extremity often precedes the fracture diagnosis for these injuries. As a result, an additional 531 injuries of interest were appropriately identified. Methodological details are documented in an earlier APHC public health information paper.21

As an initial study, some limitations are acknowledged. Study estimates may overestimate costs associated with fractures where comorbid conditions (i.e., other injuries or conditions) contributed to the cost of the encounters. Additional analysis should be conducted to better understand the likelihood and magnitude of this concern. The basis for estimation of limited duty of 120 days was from information in the literature and not actual profile days assigned by providers, and therefore may lack precision. Additionally, these estimates are not differentiated by type of injury and could overestimate the cost for fractures where the number of limited duty days for a specific injury type were less than the estimated 120 days (e.g., toe fractures and metatarsal fractures). While the researchers addressed this concern by assuming that all 120 days were limited duty at 50% productivity; the productivity cutoff was based on the experience of injury prevention subject matter experts. Sensitivity analysis could be conducted to confirm the efficacy of this decision. The cost for fractures may be underestimated where visits preceding the fracture diagnosis (e.g., for pain) were not included in cost estimates. Appointment time is also lost duty time but was not available for all data sources and was not included in this analysis. Not all costs were captured since fractures recorded in diagnostic positions 3–10 were not included. Lower extremity fracture costs associated with outpatient surgeries (e.g., Current Procedural Terminology [CPT] codes 27600–27899, surgical procedures to the leg and ankle), may not have been captured especially where these costs were attached to visits preceding the fracture diagnosis. Costs for care paid by insurers outside the MHS as well as the cost for other care, such as informal care, were not included and are a source of underestimation as well.

Study findings support the methodological value of estimating Army injury costs. Specifically, the results demonstrate that the majority of costs of lower extremity fractures result from the indirect costs associated with limited duty time. This finding and the methods used to calculate the associated indirect and direct costs address a gap which has previously existed in the study and surveillance of military injuries.

Author affiliations: Injury Prevention Program, U.S. Army Public Health Center, Aberdeen Proving Ground, MD (COL Jones, Ms. Hauschild, Dr. Schuh-Renner, Mr. Grier, Ms. Dada, Dr. Canham-Chervak); U.S. Army Satellite, Armed Forces Health Surveillance Division, Public Health Division/Defense Health Agency (Dr. Forrest, Mr. Barnes, Mr. Steelman).

Disclaimer: The views expressed herein are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of the Army, the Department of Defense, or the U.S. Government.

References

  1. Nindl BC, Williams TJ, Deuster PA, et al. Strategies for optimizing military physical readiness and preventing musculoskeletal injuries in the 21st century. US Army Med Dep. 2013;J:5-23.
  2. Jones BH, Canham-Chervak M, Canada S, et al. Medical surveillance of injuries in the U.S. military descriptive epidemiology and recommendations for improvement. Am J Prev Med. 2010;38(1 Suppl):S42-60.
  3. National Research Council. Assessing fitness for military enlistment: physical, medical, and mental health standards. Washington, DC: National Academies Press; 2006.
  4. U.S. Army Public Health Center (APHC). Health of the Force Report 2018. Accessed 22 March 2019. https://phc.amedd.army.mil/Periodical%20Library/2018HealthoftheForceReport.pdf
  5. Shuping E, Canham-Chervak M, Amoroso PJ, et al. Identifying modifiable causes of fall-related injury: an analysis of U.S. Army safety data. Work. 2009;33:23-34.
  6. Army Public Health Center. Health of the Force Report 2017. Accessed 15 March 2019. https://phc.amedd.army.mil/Periodical%20Library/2017HealthoftheForceweb.pdf#search=2017%20health%20of%20the%20force
  7. National Safety Council. Department of Defense Executive Assessment of Safety and Occupational Health Management Systems. 6 December 2001.
  8. Army Public Health Center. U.S. Army Injury Surveillance Summary 2016. Accessed 23 August 2021. https://phc.amedd.army.mil/Periodical%20Library/USArmyInjurySurveillanceSummary2016.pdf
  9. Ruscio BA, Jones BH, Bullock SH, et al. A process to identify military injury prevention priorities based on injury type and limited duty days. Am J Prev Med. 2010;38(1 Suppl):S19-33.
  10. Hauschild VD, Schuh-Renner A, Lee T, Richardson MD, Hauret K, Jones BH. Using causal energy categories to report the distribution of injuries in an active population: An approach used by the U.S. Army. J Sci Med Sport. 2019;22(9):997-1003.
  11. Army Public Health Center. Survey of Injuries and Injury Risk Factors in the 2nd Brigade Combat Team, 3rd Infantry Division, November 2014-January 2015, Technical Report S.0030637-17. Accessed 15 March 2019. https://apps.dtic.mil/docs/citations/AD1036189
  12. Hauschild VD, Schuh A, Taylor BJ, et al. Identification of specific activities associated with fall-related injuries, active component, U.S. Army, 2011. MSMR. 2016; 23(6):2–9.
  13. Smith GS, Dannenberg AL, Amoroso PJ. Hospitalization due to injuries in the military. Evaluation of current data and recommendations on their use for injury prevention. Am J Prev Med. 2000;18(38):41-53.
  14. Bonnie RJ, Fulco CE, Liverman CT, eds. Reducing the Burden of Injury: Advancing Prevention and Treatment. Washington, D.C.: The National Academies Press; 1999.
  15. Currie G, Kerfoot KD, Donaldson C, et al. Are cost of injury studies useful? Inj Prev. 2000;6(3):175-176.
  16. Rice, DP, Hodgson TA, Kopstein AN. The economic costs of illness: a replication and update. Health Care Finance Rev. 1985;7(1):61-80.
  17. Changik J. Cost-of-illness studies: concepts, scopes, and methods. Clin Mol Hepatol. 2014;20(4):327-337.
  18. ICD-10 Framework: Injury Mortality Diagnosis Matrix. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) website. Accessed 8 March 2019. https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/injury/ice/injury_matrix10.htm
  19. Defense Finance and Accounting Services (DFAS). Military Pay Charts 2017. Accessed 8 March 2019. https://www.dfas.mil/Portals/98/2017MilitaryPayChart.pdf
  20. Hauret KG, Taylor BJ, Clemmons NS, et al. Frequency and causes of non battle injuries air evacuated from Operations Iraqi Freedom and Enduring Freedom, U.S. Army, 2001-2006. Am J Prev Med. 2010;38(1 Suppl):S94-107.
  21. Army Public Health Center. The Cost of Army Injuries, Phase 1: Lower extremity fractures among active duty soldiers CY2017, Public Health Information Paper (PHIP) No. 12-04-1219. 2020. Army Public Health Center, Aberdeen Proving Ground, MD.
TABLE 1. Demographic characteristics and ranks of active duty Army soldiers with at least 1 lower extremity fracture-related medical encounter, calendar year 2017

TABLE 2. Costa of active duty Army soldiers with at least 1 lower extremity fracture treated in inpatient settings, by lower extremity–specific anatomical site and visit type, calendar year 2017

TABLE 3. Costa of active duty Army soldiers with at least 1 lower extremity fracture treated in outpatient settings, by lower extremity–specific anatomical site and visit type, calendar year 2017

TABLE 4. Costa of active duty Army soldiers’ encounters for lower extremity fractures treated in both inpatient and outpatient settings, by lower extremity-specific anatomical sites and visit type, calendar year 2017

You also may be interested in...

MSMR Vol. 29 No. 07 - July 2022

Report
7/1/2022

A monthly publication of the Armed Forces Health Surveillance Division. This issue of the peer-reviewed journal contains the following articles: Surveillance trends for SARS-CoV-2 and other respiratory pathogens among U.S. Military Health System Beneficiaries, Sept. 27, 2020 – Oct. 2,2021; Establishment of SARS-CoV-2 genomic surveillance within the MHS during March 1 – Dec. 31 2020; Suicide behavior among heterosexual, lesbian/gay, and bisexual active component service members in the U.S. Armed Forces; Brief report: Phase I results using the Virtual Pooled Registry Cancer Linkage system (VPR-CLS) for military cancer surveillance.

Recommended Content:

Health Readiness & Combat Support | Public Health | Medical Surveillance Monthly Report

Brief Report: Phase I Results Using the Virtual Pooled Registry Cancer Linkage System (VPR-CLS) for Military Cancer Surveillance

Article
7/1/2022
A patient at Naval Hospital Pensacola prepares to have a low-dose computed tomography test done to screen for lung cancer. Lung cancer is the leading cause of cancer-related deaths among men and women. Early detection can lower the risk of dying from this disease. (U.S. Navy photo by Jason Bortz)

The Armed Forces Health Surveillance Division, as part of its surveillance mission, periodically conducts studies of cancer incidence among U.S. military service members. However, service members are likely lost to follow-up from the Department of Defense cancer registry and Military Health System data sets after leaving service and during periods of time not on active duty.

Recommended Content:

Medical Surveillance Monthly Report

Morbidity Burdens Attributable to Various Illnesses and Injuries, Deployed Active and Reserve Component Service Members, U.S. Armed Forces, 2021

Article
6/1/2022
Morbidity Burdens Attributable to Various Illnesses and Injuries, Deployed Active and Reserve Component Service Members, U.S. Armed Forces, 2021

As in previous years, among service members deployed during 2021, injury/poisoning, musculoskeletal diseases and signs/symptoms accounted for more than half of the total health care burden during deployment. Compared to garrison disease burden, deployed service members had relatively higher proportions of encounters for respiratory infections, skin diseases, and infectious and parasitic diseases. The recent marked increase in the percentage of total medical encounters attributable to the ICD diagnostic category "other" (23.0% in 2017 to 44.4% in 2021) is likely due to increases in diagnostic testing and immunization associated with the response to the COVID-19 pandemic.

Recommended Content:

Medical Surveillance Monthly Report

Absolute and Relative Morbidity Burdens Attributable to Various Illnesses and Injuries, Non-service Member Beneficiaries of the Military Health System, 2021

Article
6/1/2022
Absolute and Relative Morbidity Burdens Attributable to Various Illnesses and Injuries, Non-service Member Beneficiaries of the Military Health System, 2021

In 2021, mental health disorders accounted for the largest proportions of the morbidity and health care burdens that affected the pediatric and younger adult beneficiary age groups. Among adults aged 45–64 and those aged 65 or older, musculoskeletal diseases accounted for the most morbidity and health care burdens. As in previous years, this report documents a substantial majority of non-service member beneficiaries received care for current illness and injury from the Military Health System as outsourced services at non-military medical facilities.

Recommended Content:

Medical Surveillance Monthly Report

Hospitalizations, Active Component, U.S. Armed Forces, 2021

Article
6/1/2022
Hospitalizations, Active Component, U.S. Armed Forces, 2021

The hospitalization rate in 2021 was 48.0 per 1,000 person-years (p-yrs), the second lowest rate of the most recent 10 years. For hospitalizations limited to military facilities, the rate in 2021 was the lowest for the entire period. As in prior years, the majority (71.2%) of hospitalizations were associated with diagnoses in the categories of mental health disorders, pregnancy-related conditions, injury/poisoning, and digestive system disorders.

Recommended Content:

Medical Surveillance Monthly Report

Surveillance snapshot: Illness and injury burdens, reserve component, U.S. Armed Forces, 2021

Article
6/1/2022
Surveillance snapshot: Illness and injury burdens, reserve component, U.S. Armed Forces, 2021

Recommended Content:

Medical Surveillance Monthly Report

Absolute and Relative Morbidity Burdens Attributable to Various Illnesses and Injuries, Active Component, U.S. Armed Forces, 2021

Article
6/1/2022
Absolute and Relative Morbidity Burdens Attributable to Various Illnesses and Injuries, Active Component, U.S. Armed Forces, 2021

In 2021, as in prior years, the medical conditions associated with the most medical encounters, the largest number of affected service members, and the greatest number of hospital days were in the major categories of injuries, musculoskeletal disorders, and mental health disorders. Despite the pandemic, COVID-19 accounted for less than 2% of total medical encounters and bed days in active component service members.

Recommended Content:

Medical Surveillance Monthly Report

Medical Evacuations out of the U.S. Central and U.S. Africa Commands, Active and Reserve Components, U.S. Armed Forces, 2021

Article
6/1/2022
Medical Evacuations out of the U.S. Central and U.S. Africa Commands, Active and Reserve Components, U.S. Armed Forces, 2021

The proportions of evacuations out of USCENTCOM that were due to battle injuries declined substantially in 2021. For USCENTCOM, evacuations for mental health disorders were the most common, followed by non-battle injury and poisoning, and signs, symptoms, and ill-defined conditions. For USAFRICOM, evacuations for non-battle injury and poisoning were most common, followed by disorders of the digestive system and mental health disorders.

Recommended Content:

Medical Surveillance Monthly Report

Surveillance snapshot: Illness and injury burdens, recruit trainees, U.S. Armed Forces, 2021

Article
6/1/2022
Surveillance snapshot: Illness and injury burdens, recruit trainees, U.S. Armed Forces, 2021

Recommended Content:

Medical Surveillance Monthly Report

Ambulatory Visits, Active Component, U.S. Armed Forces, 2021

Article
6/1/2022
Ambulatory Visits, Active Component, U.S. Armed Forces, 2021

In 2021, the overall numbers and rates of active component service member ambulatory care visits were the highest of any of the last 10 years. Most categories of illness and injury showed modest increases in numbers and rates. The proportions of ambulatory care visits that were accomplished via telehealth encounters fell to under 15% in 2021, compared to 19% in 2020.

Recommended Content:

Medical Surveillance Monthly Report

Surveillance Snapshot: Tick-borne Encephalitis in Military Health System Beneficiaries, 2012–2021

Article
5/1/2022
iStock—The castor bean tick (Ixoedes ricinus). Credit: Erik Karits

Tick-borne Encephalitis in Military Health System Beneficiaries, 2012–2021. Tick-borne encephalitis (TBE) is a viral infection of the central nervous system that is transmitted by the bite of infected ticks, mostly found in wooded habitats in parts of Europe and Asia

Recommended Content:

Medical Surveillance Monthly Report

The Association Between Two Bogus Items, Demographics, and Military Characteristics in a 2019 Cross-sectional Survey of U.S. Army Soldiers

Article
5/1/2022
NIANTIC, CT, UNITED STATES 06.16.2022 U.S. Army Staff Sgt. John Young, an information technology specialist assigned to Joint Forces Headquarters, Connecticut Army National Guard, works on a computer at Camp Nett, Niantic, Connecticut, June 16, 2022. Young provided threat intelligence to cyber analysts that were part of his "Blue Team" during Cyber Yankee, a cyber training exercise meant to simulate a real world environment to train mission essential tasks for cyber professionals. (U.S. Army photo by Sgt. Matthew Lucibello)

Data from surveys may be used to make public health decisions at both the installation and the Department of the Army level. This study demonstrates that a vast majority of soldiers were likely sufficiently engaged and answered both bogus items correctly. Future surveys should continue to investigate careless responding to ensure data quality in military populations.

Recommended Content:

Medical Surveillance Monthly Report

Update: Sexually Transmitted Infections, Active Component, U.S. Armed Forces, 2013–2021

Article
5/1/2022
This illustration depicts a 3D computer-generated image of a number of drug-resistant Neisseria gonorrhoeae bacteria. CDC/James Archer

This report summarizes incidence rates of the 5 most common sexually transmitted infections (STIs) among active component service members of the U.S. Armed Forces during 2013–2021. In general, compared to their respective counterparts, younger service members, non-Hispanic Black service members, those who were single and other/unknown marital status, and enlisted service members had higher incidence rates of STIs.

Recommended Content:

Medical Surveillance Monthly Report

Evaluation of ICD-10-CM-based Case Definitions of Ambulatory Encounters for COVID-19 Among Department of Defense Health Care Beneficiaries

Article
5/1/2022
SEATTLE, WA, UNITED STATES 04.05.2020 U.S. Army Maj. Neil Alcaria is screened at the Seattle Event Center in Wash., April 5. Soldiers from Fort Carson, Colo., and Joint Base Lewis-McChord, Wash. have established an Army field hospital center at the center in support of the Department of Defense COVID-19 response. U.S. Northern Command, through U.S. Army North, is providing military support to the Federal Emergency Management Agency to help communities in need. (U.S. Army photo by Cpl. Rachel Thicklin)

This is the first evaluation of ICD-10-CM-based cased definitions for COVID-19 surveillance among DOD health care beneficiaries. The 3 case definitions ranged from highly specific to a lower specificity, but improved balance between sensitivity and specificity.

Recommended Content:

Medical Surveillance Monthly Report

Exertional Hyponatremia, Active Component, U.S. Armed Forces, 2006–2021

Article
4/1/2022
Marine Corps Cpl. Luis Alicea drinks water after a combat conditioning exercise at Naval Air Station Joint Reserve Base New Orleans, May 20, 2019. Photo By: Marine Corps Lance Cpl. Jose Gonzalez.

Exertional (or exercise-associated) hyponatremia refers to a low serum, plasma, or blood sodium concentration (below 135 mEq/L) that develops during or up to 24 hours following prolonged physical activity. Acute hyponatremia creates an osmotic imbalance between fluids outside and inside of cells.

Recommended Content:

Medical Surveillance Monthly Report
<< < 1 2 3 4 5  ... > >> 
Showing results 1 - 15 Page 1 of 13
Refine your search
Last Updated: August 24, 2021
Follow us on Instagram Follow us on LinkedIn Follow us on Facebook Follow us on Twitter Follow us on YouTube Sign up on GovDelivery