Search

Living with family and friends is a common strategy used to prevent or exit homelessness, but little is known about structural barriers that impede family and friends' ability to provide temporary or permanent housing for older homeless adults. We conducted semi-structured interviews with 46 homeless participants from the HOPE HOME study, a cohort of 350 community-recruited homeless adults age 50 or older in Oakland, CA, who reported having stayed with housed family/friends for 1 or more nights in the prior 6 months. We conducted semi-structured interviews with 19 hosts of homeless participants and 11 stakeholders in housing and homelessness. We found that homeless older adults and hosts perceived staying with family or friends as a form of temporary housing rather than as a permanent exit to homelessness. Structural barriers to family and friends providing housing for temporary stays or permanent exits from homelessness included housing regulations restricting visitors and changing rent obligations; decreased eligibility and priority for shelter and permanent housing; geographic and transportation challenges; and environments inconducive to older adults. We suggest four areas for policy reform: providing subsidies to hosts and homeless individuals, removing disincentives for homeless older adults to stay with family, changing lease regulations, and expanding the supply of affordable housing.

BackgroundDischarge delays for non-medical reasons put patients at unnecessary risk for hospital-acquired infections, lead to loss of revenue for hospitals and reduce hospital capacity to treat other patients. The objective of this study was to determine prevalence of, and patient characteristics associated with, delays in discharge at an urban county trauma service.MethodsWe performed a retrospective cohort study with data from Zuckerberg San Francisco General Hospital (ZSFGH), a level-1 trauma center and safety net hospital in San Francisco, California. The study included 1720 patients from the trauma surgery service at ZSFGH. A 'delay in discharge' was defined as days in the hospital, including an initial overnight stay, after all medical needs had been met. We used logistic and zero-inflated negative binomial regression models to test whether the following factors were associated with prolonged, non-medical length of stay: age, gender, race/ethnicity, housing, disposition location, type of insurance, having a primary care provider, primary language and zip code.ResultsOf the 1720 patients, 15% experienced a delay in discharge, for a total of 1147 days (median 1.5 days/patient). The following were statistically significant (p

BACKGROUND:The United States is the only high-income nation without universal, government-funded or -mandated health insurance employing a unified payment system. The US multi-payer system leaves residents uninsured or underinsured, despite overall healthcare costs far above other nations. Single-payer (often referred to as Medicare for All), a proposed policy solution since 1990, is receiving renewed press attention and popular support. Our review seeks to assess the projected cost impact of a single-payer approach. METHODS AND FINDINGS:We conducted our literature search between June 1 and December 31, 2018, without start date restriction for included studies. We surveyed an expert panel and searched PubMed, Google, Google Scholar, and preexisting lists for formal economic studies of the projected costs of single-payer plans for the US or for individual states. Reviewer pairs extracted data on methods and findings using a template. We quantified changes in total costs standardized to percentage of contemporaneous healthcare spending. Additionally, we quantified cost changes by subtype, such as costs due to increased healthcare utilization and savings due to simplified payment administration, lower drug costs, and other factors. We further examined how modeling assumptions affected results. Our search yielded economic analyses of the cost of 22 single-payer plans over the past 30 years. Exclusions were due to inadequate technical data or assuming a substantial ongoing role for private insurers. We found that 19 (86%) of the analyses predicted net savings (median net result was a savings of 3.46% of total costs) in the first year of program operation and 20 (91%) predicted savings over several years; anticipated growth rates would result in long-term net savings for all plans. The largest source of savings was simplified payment administration (median 8.8%), and the best predictors of net savings were the magnitude of utilization increase, and savings on administration and drug costs (R2 of 0.035, 0.43, and 0.62, respectively). Only drug cost savings remained significant in multivariate analysis. Included studies were heterogeneous in methods, which precluded us from conducting a formal meta-analysis. CONCLUSIONS:In this systematic review, we found a high degree of analytic consensus for the fiscal feasibility of a single-payer approach in the US. Actual costs will depend on plan features and implementation. Future research should refine estimates of the effects of coverage expansion on utilization, evaluate provider administrative costs in varied existing single-payer systems, analyze implementation options, and evaluate US-based single-payer programs, as available.