ABSTRACT
Importance Approximately 356,000 people stay in homeless shelters nightly in the US. They are at high risk for COVID-19.
Objective To assess clinical outcomes, costs, and cost-effectiveness of strategies for COVID-19 management among sheltered homeless adults.
Design We developed a dynamic microsimulation model of COVID-19 in sheltered homeless adults in Boston, Massachusetts. We used cohort characteristics and costs from Boston Health Care for the Homeless Program. Disease progression, transmission, and outcomes data were from published literature and national databases. We examined surging, growing, and slowing epidemics (effective reproduction numbers [Re] 2.6, 1.3, and 0.9). Costs were from a health care sector perspective; time horizon was 4 months, from April to August 2020.
Setting & Participants Simulated cohort of 2,258 adults residing in homeless shelters in Boston.
Interventions We assessed daily symptom screening with polymerase chain reaction (PCR) testing of screen-positives, universal PCR testing every 2 weeks, hospital-based COVID-19 care, alternate care sites [ACSs] for mild/moderate COVID-19, and temporary housing, each compared to no intervention.
Main Outcomes and Measures Cumulative infections and hospital-days, costs to the health care sector (US dollars), and cost-effectiveness, as incremental cost per case prevented of COVID-19.
Results We simulated a population of 2,258 sheltered homeless adults with mean age of 42.6 years. Compared to no intervention, daily symptom screening with ACSs for pending tests or confirmed COVID-19 and mild/moderate disease led to 37% fewer infections and 46% lower costs (Re=2.6), 75% fewer infections and 72% lower costs (Re=1.3), and 51% fewer infections and 51% lower costs (Re=0.9). Adding PCR testing every 2 weeks further decreased infections; incremental cost per case prevented was $1,000 (Re=2.6), $27,000 (Re=1.3), and $71,000 (Re=0.9). Temporary housing with PCR every 2 weeks was most effective but substantially more costly than other options. Results were sensitive to cost and sensitivity of PCR and ACS efficacy in preventing transmission.
Conclusions & Relevance In this modeling study of simulated adults living in homeless shelters, daily symptom screening and ACSs were associated with fewer COVID-19 infections and decreased costs compared with no intervention. In a modeled surging epidemic, adding universal PCR testing every 2 weeks was associated with further decrease in COVID-19 infections at modest incremental cost and should be considered during future surges.
Question What are the projected clinical outcomes and costs of strategies for reducing COVID-19 infections among people experiencing sheltered homelessness?
Findings In this microsimulation modeling study, daily symptom screening with polymerase chain reaction (PCR) testing of screen-positive individuals, paired with non-hospital care site management of people with mild to moderate COVID-19, substantially reduced infections and lowered costs over 4 months compared to no intervention, across a wide range of epidemic scenarios. In a surging epidemic, adding periodic universal PCR testing to symptom screening and non-hospital care site management improved clinical outcomes at modestly increased costs. Periodic universal PCR testing paired with temporary housing further reduced infections but at much higher cost.
Meaning Daily symptom screening with PCR testing of screen-positive individuals and use of alternate care sites for COVID-19 management among sheltered homeless people was associated with substantially reduced new cases and costs compared to other strategies.
Competing Interest Statement
The authors have declared no competing interest.
Funding Statement
This work was supported by the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Disease [T32 AI007433 to AM] and the National Institute of Arthritis and Musculoskeletal and Skin Diseases [K24 AR057827 to EL] at the National Institutes of Health, and by the Royal Society and Wellcome Trust [210479/Z/18/Z to GH]. The funding sources had no role in the study design, data collection, data analysis, data interpretation, writing of the manuscript, or in the decision to submit the manuscript for publication. The content is solely the responsibility of the authors and does not necessarily represent the official views of the funding sources.
Author Declarations
I confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.
Yes
The details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:
Mass General Brigham Human Research Committee: The Human Research Committee is the Institutional Review Board (IRB) of Mass General Brigham on behalf of the BWH and MGH and approves all human-subject research conducted by a Mass General Brigham-affiliated investigator.
All necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived.
Yes
I understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).
Yes
I have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines and uploaded the relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material as supplementary files, if applicable.
Yes
Data Availability
Data available upon request.
