Chronically homeless individuals often have extensive health, mental health and psychosocial needs that pose barriers to obtaining and maintain supportive housing. This study aims to qualitatively explore supportive housing providers' experiences and challenges with housing chronically homeless individuals and examine opportunities to improve supportive housing systems of care. In 2014, we conducted qualitative indepth interviews with 65 programme administrators and case managers of supportive housing programmes in Chicago, IL. Data were analysed using an inductive thematic content analysis. Analysis revealed four themes that capture the primary challenges

We present a cost-utility analysis based on data from the Housing and Health (H&H) Study of rental assistance for homeless and unstably housed persons living with HIV in Baltimore, Chicago and Los Angeles. As-treated analyses found favorable associations of housing with HIV viral load, emergency room use, and perceived stress (an outcome that can be quantitatively linked to quality of life). We combined these outcome data with information on intervention costs to estimate the cost-per-quality-adjusted-life-year (QALY) saved. We estimate that the cost-per-QALY-saved by the HIV-related housing services is $62,493. These services compare favorably (in terms of cost-effectiveness) to other well-accepted medical and public health services.

The Housing and Health study examines the effects of permanent supportive housing for homeless and unstably housed persons living with HIV. While promising as an HIV prevention intervention, providing housing may be more expensive to deliver than some other HIV prevention services. Economic evaluation is needed to determine if investment in permanent supportive housing would be cost-saving or cost-effective. Here we ask -- what is the per client cost of delivering the intervention, and how many HIV transmissions have to be averted in order to exceed the threshold needed to claim cost-savings or cost-effectiveness to society? Standard methods of cost and threshold analysis were employed. Payor perspective costs range from $9,256 to $11,651 per client per year; societal perspective costs range from $10,048 to $14,032 per client per year. Considering that averting a new case of HIV saves an estimated $221,365 in treatment costs, the average cost-saving threshold across the three study cities is 0.0555. Expressed another way, if just one out of every 19 Housing & Health intervention clients avoided HIV transmission to an HIV seronegative partner the intervention would be cost-saving. The intervention would be cost-effective if it prevented just one HIV transmission for every 64 clients served.

Supportive housing has become the dominant model in the United States to provide housing to chronically homeless and to improve their housing stability and health. Most supportive housing programs follow a “housing first” paradigm modeled after the Pathways to Housing program in New York City. However, components of housing first supportive housing models were poorly defined and supportive models have varied considerably in their dissemination and implementation to other parts of the country. Recently, research has been conducted to determine the fidelity by which specific housing programs adhere to the Pathways Housing First model. However, evidence regarding which combination of components leads to better health outcomes for particular subpopulations is lacking. This paper presents results from qualitative interviews with supportive housing providers in the Chicago Metropolitan area. Supportive housing varied according to housing configuration (scattered-site versus project-based) and service provision model (low-intensity case management, intensive case management and behavioral health) resulting in six basic types. Supportive housing programs also differed in services they provided in addition to case management and the extent to which they followed harm reduction versus abstinence policies. Results showed advantages and disadvantages to each of the six basic types. Comparative effectiveness research may help identify which program components lead to better health outcomes among different subpopulations of homeless. Future longitudinal research will use the identified typology and other factors to compare the housing stability and health outcomes of supportive housing residents in programs that differ along these dimensions.

No abstract