State Trauma Center Designation Criteria and Expansion of For-Profit vs Nonprofit Trauma Centers

Importance Trauma center designation in the US is determined by state-specific criteria, whereas the optional American College of Surgeons Committee on Trauma (ACS-COT) standards provide a nationally recognized benchmark for optimal trauma care. The number of trauma centers continues to expand, yet access disparities persist. The degree of alignment between state designation criteria and ACS-COT standards as well as its implications for recent patterns of for-profit and nonprofit center expansion remain unexplored. Objective To quantify the concordance between each state’s trauma center designation criteria and ACS-COT standards, and to evaluate its correlation with expansion of for-profit and nonprofit trauma centers. Design, Setting, and Participants This cross-sectional study used data from the Trauma Information Exchange Program database for all designated trauma centers in the 50 states and the District of Columbia from January 1, 2013, to December 31, 2022. Data were analyzed from January to September 2024. Exposure State-specific trauma center designation criteria. Main Outcomes and Measures The primary outcome was concordance, defined as the proportion of ACS-COT standards reflected in each state’s trauma center designation criteria. Correlations (Spearman rank [ r s ]) of concordance with the expansion of for-profit and nonprofit trauma centers from 2013 to 2022 were calculated. Results The study cohort comprised 464 trauma centers (389 nonprofit [83.8%] and 75 for-profit [16.2%]) that gained designation between 2013 and 2022. State trauma center designation criteria concordance with ACS-COT standards varied between 31.1% and 100%. Overall mean (SD) concordance was highest for level I trauma centers with the highest resource capacity (92.5% [15.6%]) and lowest for level IV trauma centers with low resource capacity (78.5% [28.2%]). Among the 464 trauma centers, 380 (81.9%) were level III or IV centers with lower resource capacity. States with lower concordance between their designation criteria and ACS-COT standards had a statistically significant correlation with expansion of for-profit trauma centers ( r s = −0.39; P = .004) but not with expansion of nonprofit trauma centers. Conclusions and Relevance In this cross-sectional study of state trauma center designation criteria and their alignment with ACS-COT standards, states’ designation criteria and trauma center expansion patterns varied widely. Lower concordance between state designation criteria and ACS-COT standards was correlated with for-profit trauma centers, whereas this pattern was not observed for nonprofit trauma centers. These findings highlight the importance of understanding how regulatory environments may shape trauma system development.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
JAMA Network Open
Published
2026-05-18
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2026.13256
Primary Topic
Trauma and Emergency Care Studies
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.00
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

State Trauma Center Designation Criteria and Expansion of For-Profit vs Nonprofit Trauma Centers

Jeff Choi, Nam Yong Cho, David A. Spain, Kristan Staudenmayer et al.
JAMA Network Open
Trauma and Emergency Care Studies
article

State Trauma Center Designation Criteria and Expansion of For-Profit vs Nonprofit Trauma Centers

Jeff Choi, Nam Yong Cho, David A. Spain, Kristan Staudenmayer, Kaustav Chattopadhyay, Sachin Narayan
article en

Abstract

Importance Trauma center designation in the US is determined by state-specific criteria, whereas the optional American College of Surgeons Committee on Trauma (ACS-COT) standards provide a nationally recognized benchmark for optimal trauma care. The number of trauma centers continues to expand, yet access disparities persist. The degree of alignment between state designation criteria and ACS-COT standards as well as its implications for recent patterns of for-profit and nonprofit center expansion remain unexplored. Objective To quantify the concordance between each state’s trauma center designation criteria and ACS-COT standards, and to evaluate its correlation with expansion of for-profit and nonprofit trauma centers. Design, Setting, and Participants This cross-sectional study used data from the Trauma Information Exchange Program database for all designated trauma centers in the 50 states and the District of Columbia from January 1, 2013, to December 31, 2022. Data were analyzed from January to September 2024. Exposure State-specific trauma center designation criteria. Main Outcomes and Measures The primary outcome was concordance, defined as the proportion of ACS-COT standards reflected in each state’s trauma center designation criteria. Correlations (Spearman rank [ r s ]) of concordance with the expansion of for-profit and nonprofit trauma centers from 2013 to 2022 were calculated. Results The study cohort comprised 464 trauma centers (389 nonprofit [83.8%] and 75 for-profit [16.2%]) that gained designation between 2013 and 2022. State trauma center designation criteria concordance with ACS-COT standards varied between 31.1% and 100%. Overall mean (SD) concordance was highest for level I trauma centers with the highest resource capacity (92.5% [15.6%]) and lowest for level IV trauma centers with low resource capacity (78.5% [28.2%]). Among the 464 trauma centers, 380 (81.9%) were level III or IV centers with lower resource capacity. States with lower concordance between their designation criteria and ACS-COT standards had a statistically significant correlation with expansion of for-profit trauma centers ( r s = −0.39; P = .004) but not with expansion of nonprofit trauma centers. Conclusions and Relevance In this cross-sectional study of state trauma center designation criteria and their alignment with ACS-COT standards, states’ designation criteria and trauma center expansion patterns varied widely. Lower concordance between state designation criteria and ACS-COT standards was correlated with for-profit trauma centers, whereas this pattern was not observed for nonprofit trauma centers. These findings highlight the importance of understanding how regulatory environments may shape trauma system development.

JAMA Network OpenVol. 9(5)
Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey (US), University of California, Los Angeles (US), Johnson University (US), Stanford University (US)
Openalex Percentile: Top 5%
Trauma and Emergency Care Studies
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.