Homelessness Among Acute Care Patients Within a Large Health Care System in Northern California.

The impacts of homelessness on health and health care access are detrimental. Intervention and efforts to improve outcomes and increase availability of affordable housing have mainly originated from the public health sector and government. The role that large community-based health systems may play has yet to be established. This study characterizes patients self-identified as homeless in acute care facilities in a large integrated health care system in Northern California to inform the development of collaborative interventions addressing unmet needs of this vulnerable population. The authors compared sociodemographic characteristics, clinical conditions, and health care utilization of individuals who did and did not self-identify as homeless and characterized their geographical distribution in relation to Sutter hospitals and homeless resources. Between July 1, 2019 and June 30, 2020, 5% (N = 20,259) of the acute care settings patients had evidence of homelessness, among which 51.1% age <45 years, 66.4% males, and 24% non-Hispanic Black. Patients experiencing homelessness had higher emergency department utilization and lower utilization of outpatient and urgent care services. Mental health conditions were more common among patients experiencing homelessness. More than half of the hospitals had >5% of patients who identified as homeless. Some hospitals with higher proportions of patients experiencing homelessness are not located near many shelter resources. By understanding patients who self-identify as homeless, it is possible to assess the role of the health system in addressing their unmet needs. Accurate identification is the first step for the health systems to develop and deliver better solutions through collaborations with nonprofit organizations, community partners, and government agencies.

Understanding the Relationship Between Depression Symptom Severity and Health Care Costs for Patients With Treatment-Resistant Depression.

Objective: To examine whether measures of depression symptom severity could improve understanding of health care costs for patients with major depressive disorder (MDD) or treatment-resistant depression (TRD) from the health plan perspective.Methods: In this retrospective cohort study within an integrated health system, cohorts consisted of 2 mutually exclusive groups: (1) adults with TRD based on a standard treatment algorithm and (2) adults with MDD, but no TRD, identified through ICD-9/10-CM codes. Depression severity was measured using the Patient Health Questionnaire-9 (PHQ-9). Patterns of health care resource utilization (HRU) and costs were compared between the TRD and MDD groups overall and within the groups at different symptom levels. A general linear model with a γ distribution and log link for cost outcomes, logistic regression for binary outcomes, and negative binomial regression for count outcomes were used.Results: Patients with TRD (n = 24,534) had greater comorbidity than those in the MDD group (n = 17,628). Mean age in the TRD group was 52.8 years versus 48.2 for MDD (P < .001). Both groups were predominantly female (TRD: 72.8% vs MDD: 66.9%; P < .001). Overall, the TRD group had greater costs than the MDD group, with 1.23 times (95% CI, 1.21-1.26; P < .001) greater total cost on average over 1 year following index date. Within both groups, those with severe symptoms had greater total mean (SD) costs (TRD: moderate: $12,429 [$23,900] vs severe: $13,344 [$22,895], P < .001; low: $12,220 [$31,864] vs severe: $13,344 [$22,895], P < .001; MDD: moderate: $8,899 [$20,755] vs severe: $10,098 [$22,853]; P < .001; low: $8,752 [$25,800] vs severe: $10,098 [$22,853], P < .001).Conclusions: MDD and TRD impose high costs for health systems, with increasing costs as PHQ-9 symptom severity rises. Better understanding of subgroups with different symptom levels could improve clinical care by helping target interventions.