Cost-Effectiveness of Temporary Financial Assistance for Veterans Experiencing Housing Instability.

Abstract

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.