Financial Incentives for COVID-19 Vaccines Among People Experiencing Homelessness.

INTRODUCTION: Novel strategies are needed to address barriers to COVID-19 vaccination among people experiencing homelessness (PEH), a population that faces increased COVID-19 risk. Although growing evidence suggests that financial incentives for vaccination are acceptable to PEH, their impact on uptake is unknown. This study aimed to assess whether offering $50 gift cards was associated with the uptake of the first doses of COVID-19 vaccine among PEH in Los Angeles County. METHODS: Vaccination clinics began on March 15, 2021; the financial incentive program was implemented from September 26, 2021 to April 30, 2022. Interrupted time-series analysis with quasi-Poisson regression was used to evaluate the level and slope change in the number of weekly first doses administered. Time-varying confounders included the weekly number of clinics and the weekly number of new cases. Demographic characteristics were compared for PEH vaccinated before and after the implementation of the incentive program using chi-square tests. RESULTS: Offering financial incentives was associated with the administration of 2.5 times (95% CI=1.8, 3.1) more first doses than would have been expected without the program. Level (-0.184, 95% CI= -1.166, -0.467) and slope change (0.042, 95% CI=0.031, 0.053) were observed. Individuals who were unsheltered, aged <55 years, and identified as Black or African American accounted for a higher percentage of those vaccinated during the post-intervention period than during the pre-intervention period. CONCLUSIONS: Financial incentives may be an effective tool for increasing vaccine uptake among PEH, but important ethical considerations must be made to avoid coercion of vulnerable populations.

A COVID-19 Vaccination Program to Promote Uptake and Equity for People Experiencing Homelessness in Los Angeles County.

People experiencing homelessness (PEH) have been disproportionately affected by COVID-19, yet their vaccination coverage is lower than is that of the general population. We implemented a COVID-19 vaccination program that used evidence-based and culturally tailored approaches to promote vaccine uptake and equity for PEH in Los Angeles County, California. From February 2021 through February 2022, 33 977 doses of vaccine were administered at 2658 clinics, and 9275 PEH were fully vaccinated. This program may serve as a model for future service delivery in vulnerable populations. (Am J Public Health. 2023;113(2):170-174. https://doi.org/10.2105/AJPH.2022.307147).

Perceptions of Homeless Adults and Their Providers on Coping With the Impact of COVID-19 Pandemic on Mental Health, Substance Use, and Harm Reduction Services.

Adults experiencing homelessness experience a disproportionate burden of health disparities which has further exacerbated mental health, substance use, and coping during the COVID-19 pandemic. As limited data is available to understand the experience of adults experiencing homelessness and their health during this time, the purpose of this study was to explore how COVID-19 may have impacted their mental health, substance use, and ways of coping in this population. Using community-based participatory research, a community advisory board was established and remote individual interviews with 21 adults experiencing homelessness and 10 providers were conducted in Skid Row, Los Angeles. Using a qualitative, data analytic approach, the following major themes emerged: (1) Negative Impact of COVID-19 on Mental Health; (2) Negative Impact of COVID-19 on Limitation of Harm Reduction Services; and (3) Coping Strategies Utilized During the COVID-19 Pandemic. More research is needed to understand the impact of this pandemic on underserved communities.

COVID-19 Vaccine Acceptability and Financial Incentives among Unhoused People in Los Angeles County: a Three-Stage Field Survey.

Unhoused people have higher COVID-19 mortality and lower vaccine uptake than housed community members. Understanding vaccine hesitancy among unhoused people is key for developing programs that address their unique needs. A three-round, rapid, field-based survey was conducted to describe attitudes toward COVID-19 vaccination. Round 1 assessed vaccine brand preference, round 2 assessed intention to accept a financial incentive for vaccination, and round 3 measured vaccine uptake and assessed reasons for vaccine readiness during implementation of a financial incentive program. A total of 5177 individuals were approached at COVID-19 vaccination events for unhoused people in Los Angeles County from May through November 2021. Analyses included 4949 individuals: 3636 (73.5%) unsheltered and 1313 (26.5%) sheltered. Per self-report, 2008 (40.6%) were already vaccinated, 1732 (35%) wanted to get vaccinated, 359 (7.3%) were not yet ready, and 850 (17.2%) did not want to get vaccinated. Brand preference was evenly split among participants (Moderna 31.0%, J&J 35.5%, either 33.5%, p = 0.74). Interest in a financial incentive differed between those who were not yet ready and those who did not want to get vaccinated (43.2% vs. 16.2%, p < 0.01). After implementing a financial incentive program, 97.4% of participants who indicated interest in vaccination were vaccinated that day; the financial incentive was the most cited reason for vaccine readiness (n = 731, 56%). This study demonstrated the utility of an iterative, field-based assessment for program implementation during the rapidly evolving pandemic. Personal engagement, a variety of brand choices, and financial incentives could be important for improving vaccine uptake among unhoused people.

Cost-effectiveness of artificial intelligence monitoring for active tuberculosis treatment: A modeling study.

BACKGROUND: Tuberculosis (TB) incidence in Los Angeles County, California, USA (5.7 per 100,000) is significantly higher than the U.S. national average (2.9 per 100,000). Directly observed therapy (DOT) is the preferred strategy for active TB treatment but requires substantial resources. We partnered with the Los Angeles County Department of Public Health (LACDPH) to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of AiCure, an artificial intelligence (AI) platform that allows for automated treatment monitoring. METHODS: We used a Markov model to compare DOT versus AiCure for active TB treatment in LA County. Each cohort transitioned between health states at rates estimated using data from a pilot study for AiCure (N = 43) and comparable historical controls for DOT (N = 71). We estimated total costs (2017, USD) and quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) over a 16-month horizon to calculate the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) and net monetary benefits (NMB) of AiCure. To assess robustness, we conducted deterministic (DSA) and probabilistic sensitivity analyses (PSA). RESULTS: For the average patient, AiCure was dominant over DOT. DOT treatment cost $4,894 and generated 1.03 QALYs over 16-months. AiCure treatment cost $2,668 for 1.05 QALYs. At willingness-to-pay threshold of $150K/QALY, incremental NMB per-patient under AiCure was $4,973. In univariate DSA, NMB were most sensitive to monthly doses and vocational nurse wage; however, AiCure remained dominant. In PSA, AiCure was dominant in 93.5% of 10,000 simulations (cost-effective in 96.4%). CONCLUSIONS: AiCure for treatment of active TB is cost-effective for patients in LA County, California. Increased use of AI platforms in other jurisdictions could facilitate the CDC's vision of TB elimination.

Cost-effectiveness of a potential prophylactic Helicobacter pylori vaccine in the United States.

BACKGROUND: Helicobacter pylori vaccines are under development to prevent infection. We quantified the cost-effectiveness of such a vaccine in the United States, using a dynamic transmission model. METHODS: We compartmentalized the population by age, infection status, and clinical disease state and measured effectiveness in quality-adjusted life years (QALYs). We simulated no intervention, vaccination of infants, and vaccination of school-age children. Variables included costs of vaccine, vaccine administration, and gastric cancer treatment (in 2007 US dollars), vaccine efficacy, quality adjustment due to gastric cancer, and discount rate. We evaluated possible outcomes for periods of 10-75 years. RESULTS: H. pylori vaccination of infants would cost $2.9 billion over 10 years; savings from cancer prevention would be realized decades later. Over a long time horizon (75 years), incremental costs of H. pylori vaccination would be $1.8 billion, and incremental QALYs would be 0.5 million, yielding a cost-effectiveness ratio of $3871/QALY. With school-age vaccination, the cost-effectiveness ratio would be $22,137/QALY. With time limited to <40 years, the cost-effectiveness ratio exceeded $50,000/QALY. CONCLUSION: When evaluated with a time horizon beyond 40 years, the use of a prophylactic H. pylori vaccine was cost-effective in the United States, especially with infant vaccination.