The cost savings of expanding Medicaid eligibility to include currently uninsured homeless adults with substance use disorders

Health Service Access Among Homeless Veterans: Health Access Challenges Faced by Homeless African American Veterans

Veteran homelessness is a public health crisis, especially among the disproportionate number of minority veterans in the homeless veteran population. African American homeless veterans in particular face unique challenges accessing appropriate health care services to meet their medical needs. Their needs are often underrepresented in the literature on veteran homelessness. Drawing together over 80 studies and government reports from the last two decades, this review provides a timely synopsis of homeless veterans' health care access, with a particular focus on the barriers faced by African American veterans. This review employs Penchansky and Thomas' Access Model to frame health access barriers faced by homeless veterans, dialing in on what is known about the experience of African American veterans, within the five dimensions of access: Availability, Accessibility, Accommodation, Affordability, and Acceptability. Actionable guidance and targeted interventions to address health access barriers for all veterans are delineated with a focus on the need to gather further data for African American homeless veterans and to consider tailoring interventions for this important and underserved group.

A comprehensive review of prioritised interventions to improve the health and wellbeing of persons with lived experience of homelessness

Background

Homelessness has emerged as a public health priority, with growing numbers of vulnerable populations despite advances in social welfare. In February 2020, the United Nations passed a historic resolution, identifying the need to adopt social-protection systems and ensure access to safe and affordable housing for all. The establishment of housing stability is a critical outcome that intersects with other social inequities. Prior research has shown that in comparison to the general population, people experiencing homelessness have higher rates of infectious diseases, chronic illnesses, and mental-health disorders, along with disproportionately poorer outcomes. Hence, there is an urgent need to identify effective interventions to improve the lives of people living with homelessness.

Objectives

The objective of this systematic review is to identify, appraise, and synthesise the best available evidence on the benefits and cost-effectiveness of interventions to improve the health and social outcomes of people experiencing homelessness.

Search Methods

In consultation with an information scientist, we searched nine bibliographic databases, including Medline, EMBASE, and Cochrane CENTRAL, from database inception to February 10, 2020 using keywords and MeSH terms. We conducted a focused grey literature search and consulted experts for additional studies.

Selection Criteria

Teams of two reviewers independently screened studies against our inclusion criteria. We included randomised control trials (RCTs) and quasi-experimental studies conducted among populations experiencing homelessness in high-income countries. Eligible interventions included permanent supportive housing (PSH), income assistance, standard case management (SCM), peer support, mental health interventions such as assertive community treatment (ACT), intensive case management (ICM), critical time intervention (CTI) and injectable antipsychotics, and substance-use interventions, including supervised consumption facilities (SCFs), managed alcohol programmes and opioid agonist therapy. Outcomes of interest were housing stability, mental health, quality of life, substance use, hospitalisations, employment and income.

Data Collection and Analysis

Teams of two reviewers extracted data in duplicate and independently. We assessed risk of bias using the Cochrane Risk of Bias tool. We performed our statistical analyses using RevMan 5.3. For dichotomous data, we used odds ratios and risk ratios with 95% confidence intervals. For continuous data, we used the mean difference (MD) with a 95% CI if the outcomes were measured in the same way between trials. We used the standardised mean difference with a 95% CI to combine trials that measured the same outcome but used different methods of measurement. Whenever possible, we pooled effect estimates using a random-effects model.

Main Results

The search resulted in 15,889 citations. We included 86 studies (128 citations) that examined the effectiveness and/or cost-effectiveness of interventions for people with lived experience of homelessness. Studies were conducted in the United States (73), Canada (8), United Kingdom (2), the Netherlands (2) and Australia (1). The studies were of low to moderate certainty, with several concerns regarding the risk of bias. PSH was found to have significant benefits on housing stability as compared to usual care. These benefits impacted both high- and moderate-needs populations with significant cimorbid mental illness and substance-use disorders. PSH may also reduce emergency department visits and days spent hospitalised. Most studies found no significant benefit of PSH on mental-health or substance-use outcomes. The effect on quality of life was also mixed and unclear. In one study, PSH resulted in lower odds of obtaining employment. The effect on income showed no significant differences. Income assistance appeared to have some benefits in improving housing stability, particularly in the form of rental subsidies. Although short-term improvement in depression and perceived stress levels were reported, no evidence of the long-term effect on mental health measures was found. No consistent impact on the outcomes of quality of life, substance use, hospitalisations, employment status, or earned income could be detected when compared with usual services. SCM interventions may have a small beneficial effect on housing stability, though results were mixed. Results for peer support interventions were also mixed, though no benefit was noted in housing stability specifically. Mental health interventions (ICM, ACT, CTI) appeared to reduce the number of days homeless and had varied effects on psychiatric symptoms, quality of life, and substance use over time. Cost analyses of PSH interventions reported mixed results. Seven studies showed that PSH interventions were associated with increased cost to payers and that the cost of the interventions were only partially offset by savings in medical- and social-services costs. Six studies revealed that PSH interventions saved the payers money. Two studies focused on the cost-effectiveness of income-assistance interventions. For each additional day housed, clients who received income assistance incurred additional costs of US$45 (95% CI, -$19, -$108) from the societal perspective. In addition, the benefits gained from temporary financial assistance were found to outweigh the costs, with a net savings of US$20,548. The economic implications of case management interventions (SCM, ICM, ACT, CTI) was highly uncertain. SCM clients were found to incur higher costs than those receiving the usual care. For ICM, all included studies suggested that the intervention may be cost-offset or cost-effective. Regarding ACT, included studies consistently revealed that ACT saved payers money and improved health outcomes than usual care. Despite having comparable costs (US$52,574 vs. US$51,749), CTI led to greater nonhomeless nights (508 vs. 450 nights) compared to usual services.

Authors' Conclusions

PSH interventions improved housing stability for people living with homelessness. High-intensity case management and income-assistance interventions may also benefit housing stability. The majority of included interventions inconsistently detected benefits for mental health, quality of life, substance use, employment and income. These results have important implications for public health, social policy, and community programme implementation. The COVID-19 pandemic has highlighted the urgent need to tackle systemic inequality and address social determinants of health. Our review provides timely evidence on PSH, income assistance, and mental health interventions as a means of improving housing stability. PSH has major cost and policy implications and this approach could play a key role in ending homelessness. Evidence-based reviews like this one can guide practice and outcome research and contribute to advancing international networks committed to solving homelessness.

Barriers to Homeless Persons Acquiring Health Insurance Through the Affordable Care Act

BACKGROUND

Medicaid expansion under the Affordable Care Act (ACA) is intended to provide a framework for increasing health care access for vulnerable populations, including the 1.2 million who experience homelessness each year in the United States.

OBJECTIVE

We sought to characterize homeless persons' knowledge of the ACA, identify barriers to their ACA enrollment, and determine access to various forms of communication that could be used to facilitate enrollment.

METHODS

At an urban county Level I trauma center, we interviewed all noncritically ill adults who presented to the emergency department (ED) during daytime hours and were able to provide consent. We assessed access to communication, awareness of the ACA, insurance status, and barriers preventing subjects from enrolling in health insurance and compared homeless persons' responses with concomitantly enrolled housed individuals.

RESULTS

Of the 650 enrolled subjects, 134 (20.2%) were homeless. Homeless subjects were more likely to have never heard of the ACA (26% vs. 10%). "Not being aware if they qualify for Medicaid" was the most common (70%) and most significant (30%) barrier to enrollment reported by uninsured homeless persons. Of homeless subjects who were unsure if they qualified for Medicaid, 91% reported an income < 138% of the federal poverty level, likely qualifying them for enrollment. Although 99% of housed subjects reported access to either phone or internet, only 74% of homeless subjects reported access.

CONCLUSIONS

Homeless persons report having less knowledge of the ACA than their housed counterparts, poor understanding of ACA qualification criteria, and limited access to phone and internet. ED-based outreach and education regarding ACA eligibility may increase their enrollment.