long post
Was the patient a concert pianist or surgeon? What was the ischemic time prior to transport? warm or chilled? If the patient got there 30 minutes earlier, would the pt actually get treated 30 minutes earlier or would the patient get there before the surgeon was ready?
Digits last longer than other parts of the body. Generally, replantation within 24 hours (chilled) is considered viable. One hospital was able to get 64% success for patients over 24hours. Others have worse than 50% success with an average of 5.6hours.
Lets suppose that the chance of a successful outcome decreases 0.1 percent per minute. This is not to be confused with 0.1 percentage points per minute: 1000 minutes is 37% survival not 0%; i.e. this is exponential decay, not linear. This is loosely based on the very limited random data points I could find for finger replantation success vs duration of ischemia. This simple model suggests that a 30 minute shorter transport would improve the patients outcome by about 3%. This estimate may be a bit on the high side.
At $20,000 per trip (just using number tossed out by someone else in thread, it might be high for the mileage), you have to air transport 33 patients to save one thumb for a cost of $660,000. That is about 10 times what a thumb is considered worth in terms of disability payments. 100% loss of thumb gets a payout equivalent to about 75 weeks disability (2/3 wages) or about 1 year of income. If the surgery is successful, the pt will probably have 50% motion/sensation in thumb and so will get half that disability, anyway, so the benefit of the helicopter ride is equal to one half years wages for one out of 33 patients. So, the average benefit to the pt of this intervention is about 0.75 weeks wages, perhaps $750, at a cost of $20,000.
In court, there have been some outlandish awards in cases where a handinjury resulted from malice, but a median award for a hand injury is about $70,000 and the lawyer probably got a third of that; so the courts probably are pretty similar to disability.
$660,000 might buy an ambulance and staff it for a year. How does the benefit they could provide compare to the saving on one thumb? There are also other potential life saving measures out there that could safe a life, not merely a thumb, for less than $660,000.
Maybe the patients loss is considerably greater than the potential compensation. But so, too, might be the losses that this same money might otherwise prevent if it were used in other areas.
Maybe the same helicopter transporting the same patient to a hospital on the other side of the state with a better hand surgeon might perhaps increase the cost by a factor of two (if the number wasn't already inflated a bit) but also increase the average benefit by a factor of 10. Even ground transport across the state might improve the patients outcome as outcome seems to vary more with surgeon than it does with time.
Maybe if you don't use the helicopter for less deserving calls like this, it sits on the ground burning up money, anyway. Maybe instead of billing for 100 calls at $20K each, you bill for 10 calls at $200K each. So maybe the insurance companies and government utlimately are paying for the helicopter and we might as well get as much benefit out of it as we can. Or maybe we should really only look at the marginal cost per transport and not include the overhead costs.
And maybe we can reduce, but not eliminate, the helicopter availability issue by taking the thumb patient but if a more important call comes in, the helicopter takes it and ditches the pt with the ground ambulance on scene. Issues with being closer to some critical patients and further from others and potential fuel/supply usage or flying out of response area.