Background: Some articles proved indirect-transfer the major trauma patients to the trauma centers had non-significant different outcomes with the patients direct-transfer to the centers. But the outcomes for the major trauma patients in the counties without trauma centers still can be worse. So we did a population based research by using the NHIRD data for the results. Methods: From the claim data of one million beneficiaries of Taiwan National Health Insurance during the year of 2006 to 2008, all of the trauma patients were identified from the database by the ICD-9-CM system. ICDMAP-90 was used for calculating the Injury Severity Score (ISS) as the variable controlling the disease severity. The patients of major trauma were defined as ISS more than fifteen. We used the diagnosis one year before the trauma admission for calculating Charlson Comorbidity Index (CCI). The first hospitals and the second transferred hospitals that the major trauma patients admitted, and the areas of the first hospitals were recognized in our data bank. The condition of transfer, age, genders, intubation, ICU admission, ISS, CCI, and the triage classifications were adjusted in a logistic regression model for further analysis. Results: There were 2497 major trauma patients (ISS more then 15). The total mortality rate was 12.49%. The variables like age, intubation, ICU admission, ISS and CCI were significant for mortality, but the condition of transfer was not significant in our model. After controlling all the factors, the major trauma patients that first admitted in the areas with no trauma centers have a significant higher risk of mortality (OR=1.73, P=0.005). Conclusions: Our results hint that, although indirect-transfer for the major trauma patients have insignificant difference in mortality with the direct transfer patients, the counties with no trauma centers have significant higher mortality rates in major trauma patients. Further researches are needed for investigating the possible reasons.