为住房不稳定的退伍军人提供临时经济援助的成本效益。

IF 10.5 1区 医学 Q1 MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL
Richard E Nelson, Alec Chapman, Thomas Byrne, Nathorn Chaiyakunapruk, Ying Suo, Atim Effiong, Warren Pettey, Lillian Gelberg, Stefan G Kertesz, Jack Tsai, Ann Elizabeth Montgomery
{"title":"为住房不稳定的退伍军人提供临时经济援助的成本效益。","authors":"Richard E Nelson, Alec Chapman, Thomas Byrne, Nathorn Chaiyakunapruk, Ying Suo, Atim Effiong, Warren Pettey, Lillian Gelberg, Stefan G Kertesz, Jack Tsai, Ann Elizabeth Montgomery","doi":"10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2024.43396","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Importance: </strong>The US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) partners with community organizations (grantees) across the US to provide temporary financial assistance (TFA) to vulnerable veterans through the Supportive Services for Veteran Families (SSVF) program. The goal of TFA for housing-related expenses is to prevent homelessness or to quickly house those who have become homeless.</p><p><strong>Objective: </strong>To assess the cost-effectiveness of the SSVF program with TFA vs without TFA as an intervention for veterans who are experiencing housing insecurity.</p><p><strong>Design, setting, and participants: </strong>This study used a Markov simulation model to compare cost and housing outcomes in a hypothetical cohort of veterans enrolled in the SSVF program. Enrollees who are homeless receive rapid rehousing services, while those who are at risk of becoming homeless receive homelessness prevention services.</p><p><strong>Exposure: </strong>The SSVF program with TFA for veterans who are experiencing housing insecurity.</p><p><strong>Main outcomes and measures: </strong>The effectiveness measure was the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) with quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs). The model was parameterized using a combination of inputs taken from published literature and internal VA data. The model had a 2-year time horizon and a 1-day cycle length. In addition, probabilistic sensitivity analyses were conducted using 10 000 Monte Carlo simulations.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The base case analyses found that the SSVF program with TFA was more costly ($35 814 vs $32 562) and yielded more QALYs (1.541 vs 1.398) than the SSVF program without TFA. The resulting ICER was $22 676 per QALY, indicating that TFA is the preferred strategy at a willingness-to-pay threshold of $150 000 per QALY. This ICER was $19 114 per QALY for veterans in the rapid rehousing component of the SSVF program and $29 751 per QALY for those in the homelessness prevention component of the SSVF program. At a willingness-to-pay threshold of $150 000 per QALY, probabilistic sensitivity analyses showed that TFA was cost-effective in 8972 of the 10 000 Monte Carlo simulations (89.7%) for rapid rehousing and in 8796 of the 10 000 Monte Carlo simulations (88.0%) for homelessness prevention only.</p><p><strong>Conclusions and relevance: </strong>This economic evaluation suggests that TFA is a cost-effective approach (ie, yields improved health benefits at a reasonable cost) for addressing housing insecurity for veterans enrolling in the SSVF program. Future research could examine the cost effectiveness of large, nationwide housing interventions such as this one among subpopulations of veterans such as those with certain comorbidities including severe mental illness or substance use disorders, those with chronic diseases, or those experiencing long-term housing instability vs acute loss of housing.</p>","PeriodicalId":14694,"journal":{"name":"JAMA Network Open","volume":"7 11","pages":"e2443396"},"PeriodicalIF":10.5000,"publicationDate":"2024-11-04","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11539017/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Cost-Effectiveness of Temporary Financial Assistance for Veterans Experiencing Housing Instability.\",\"authors\":\"Richard E Nelson, Alec Chapman, Thomas Byrne, Nathorn Chaiyakunapruk, Ying Suo, Atim Effiong, Warren Pettey, Lillian Gelberg, Stefan G Kertesz, Jack Tsai, Ann Elizabeth Montgomery\",\"doi\":\"10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2024.43396\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Importance: </strong>The US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) partners with community organizations (grantees) across the US to provide temporary financial assistance (TFA) to vulnerable veterans through the Supportive Services for Veteran Families (SSVF) program. The goal of TFA for housing-related expenses is to prevent homelessness or to quickly house those who have become homeless.</p><p><strong>Objective: </strong>To assess the cost-effectiveness of the SSVF program with TFA vs without TFA as an intervention for veterans who are experiencing housing insecurity.</p><p><strong>Design, setting, and participants: </strong>This study used a Markov simulation model to compare cost and housing outcomes in a hypothetical cohort of veterans enrolled in the SSVF program. Enrollees who are homeless receive rapid rehousing services, while those who are at risk of becoming homeless receive homelessness prevention services.</p><p><strong>Exposure: </strong>The SSVF program with TFA for veterans who are experiencing housing insecurity.</p><p><strong>Main outcomes and measures: </strong>The effectiveness measure was the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) with quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs). The model was parameterized using a combination of inputs taken from published literature and internal VA data. The model had a 2-year time horizon and a 1-day cycle length. In addition, probabilistic sensitivity analyses were conducted using 10 000 Monte Carlo simulations.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The base case analyses found that the SSVF program with TFA was more costly ($35 814 vs $32 562) and yielded more QALYs (1.541 vs 1.398) than the SSVF program without TFA. The resulting ICER was $22 676 per QALY, indicating that TFA is the preferred strategy at a willingness-to-pay threshold of $150 000 per QALY. This ICER was $19 114 per QALY for veterans in the rapid rehousing component of the SSVF program and $29 751 per QALY for those in the homelessness prevention component of the SSVF program. At a willingness-to-pay threshold of $150 000 per QALY, probabilistic sensitivity analyses showed that TFA was cost-effective in 8972 of the 10 000 Monte Carlo simulations (89.7%) for rapid rehousing and in 8796 of the 10 000 Monte Carlo simulations (88.0%) for homelessness prevention only.</p><p><strong>Conclusions and relevance: </strong>This economic evaluation suggests that TFA is a cost-effective approach (ie, yields improved health benefits at a reasonable cost) for addressing housing insecurity for veterans enrolling in the SSVF program. Future research could examine the cost effectiveness of large, nationwide housing interventions such as this one among subpopulations of veterans such as those with certain comorbidities including severe mental illness or substance use disorders, those with chronic diseases, or those experiencing long-term housing instability vs acute loss of housing.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":14694,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"JAMA Network Open\",\"volume\":\"7 11\",\"pages\":\"e2443396\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":10.5000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-11-04\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11539017/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"JAMA Network Open\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2024.43396\",\"RegionNum\":1,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"JAMA Network Open","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2024.43396","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

重要性:美国退伍军人事务部 (VA) 与美国各地的社区组织(受赠方)合作,通过退伍军人家庭支助服务 (SSVF) 计划为弱势退伍军人提供临时经济援助 (TFA)。临时经济援助用于支付与住房有关的费用,目的是防止无家可归或迅速安置那些无家可归的人:目的:评估退伍军人家庭支助服务(SSVF)计划中使用全额补贴与不使用全额补贴作为对住房无保障的退伍军人进行干预的成本效益:本研究采用马尔可夫模拟模型,对参加 SSVF 计划的退伍军人假定群体的成本和住房结果进行比较。无家可归的参加者接受快速安置服务,而面临无家可归风险的参加者则接受无家可归预防服务:有效性的衡量标准是增量成本效益比(ICER)和质量调整生命年(QALYs)。该模型的参数设置结合了已发表文献和退伍军人事务部的内部数据。模型的时间跨度为 2 年,周期长度为 1 天。此外,还使用 10 000 次蒙特卡罗模拟进行了概率敏感性分析:基础病例分析发现,与不使用 TFA 的 SSVF 方案相比,使用 TFA 的 SSVF 方案成本更高(35 814 美元 vs 32 562 美元),而 QALYs(1.541 vs 1.398)更多。由此得出的 ICER 为每 QALY 22 676 美元,表明在每 QALY 150 000 美元的支付意愿阈值下,TFA 是首选策略。对于参加 SSVF 项目中快速安置部分的退伍军人,该 ICER 为每 QALY 19 114 美元;对于参加 SSVF 项目中无家可归预防部分的退伍军人,该 ICER 为每 QALY 29 751 美元。在每 QALY 150 000 美元的支付意愿阈值下,概率敏感性分析表明,在 10 000 次 Monte Carlo 模拟中,有 8 972 次(89.7%)的快速安置项目中,TFA 具有成本效益;在 10 000 次 Monte Carlo 模拟中,有 8796 次(88.0%)的无家可归预防项目中,TFA 仅具有成本效益:这项经济评估表明,TFA 是一种具有成本效益的方法(即以合理的成本获得更好的健康效益),可用于解决加入 SSVF 计划的退伍军人的住房不安全问题。未来的研究可以在退伍军人的子人群中,如患有某些合并症(包括严重精神疾病或药物使用障碍)、慢性病或经历长期住房不稳定与急性失去住房的退伍军人中,研究像该项目这样的全国性大型住房干预措施的成本效益。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Cost-Effectiveness of Temporary Financial Assistance for Veterans Experiencing Housing Instability.

Importance: The US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) partners with community organizations (grantees) across the US to provide temporary financial assistance (TFA) to vulnerable veterans through the Supportive Services for Veteran Families (SSVF) program. The goal of TFA for housing-related expenses is to prevent homelessness or to quickly house those who have become homeless.

Objective: To assess the cost-effectiveness of the SSVF program with TFA vs without TFA as an intervention for veterans who are experiencing housing insecurity.

Design, setting, and participants: This study used a Markov simulation model to compare cost and housing outcomes in a hypothetical cohort of veterans enrolled in the SSVF program. Enrollees who are homeless receive rapid rehousing services, while those who are at risk of becoming homeless receive homelessness prevention services.

Exposure: The SSVF program with TFA for veterans who are experiencing housing insecurity.

Main outcomes and measures: The effectiveness measure was the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) with quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs). The model was parameterized using a combination of inputs taken from published literature and internal VA data. The model had a 2-year time horizon and a 1-day cycle length. In addition, probabilistic sensitivity analyses were conducted using 10 000 Monte Carlo simulations.

Results: The base case analyses found that the SSVF program with TFA was more costly ($35 814 vs $32 562) and yielded more QALYs (1.541 vs 1.398) than the SSVF program without TFA. The resulting ICER was $22 676 per QALY, indicating that TFA is the preferred strategy at a willingness-to-pay threshold of $150 000 per QALY. This ICER was $19 114 per QALY for veterans in the rapid rehousing component of the SSVF program and $29 751 per QALY for those in the homelessness prevention component of the SSVF program. At a willingness-to-pay threshold of $150 000 per QALY, probabilistic sensitivity analyses showed that TFA was cost-effective in 8972 of the 10 000 Monte Carlo simulations (89.7%) for rapid rehousing and in 8796 of the 10 000 Monte Carlo simulations (88.0%) for homelessness prevention only.

Conclusions and relevance: This economic evaluation suggests that TFA is a cost-effective approach (ie, yields improved health benefits at a reasonable cost) for addressing housing insecurity for veterans enrolling in the SSVF program. Future research could examine the cost effectiveness of large, nationwide housing interventions such as this one among subpopulations of veterans such as those with certain comorbidities including severe mental illness or substance use disorders, those with chronic diseases, or those experiencing long-term housing instability vs acute loss of housing.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
JAMA Network Open
JAMA Network Open Medicine-General Medicine
CiteScore
16.00
自引率
2.90%
发文量
2126
审稿时长
16 weeks
期刊介绍: JAMA Network Open, a member of the esteemed JAMA Network, stands as an international, peer-reviewed, open-access general medical journal.The publication is dedicated to disseminating research across various health disciplines and countries, encompassing clinical care, innovation in health care, health policy, and global health. JAMA Network Open caters to clinicians, investigators, and policymakers, providing a platform for valuable insights and advancements in the medical field. As part of the JAMA Network, a consortium of peer-reviewed general medical and specialty publications, JAMA Network Open contributes to the collective knowledge and understanding within the medical community.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信