LAUSR

Providing permanent supported housing (rent subsidies), integrating clinical and social services to homeless people may represent a financial barrier for building a healthier European public policy. Our objective was to conduct a cost-effectiveness analysis of the French Housing First program. Between 2011 and 2014, homeless people with severe mental illness from 4 French major cities were randomized to Housing First (HF, n = 353) or Treatment as Usual (TAU, n = 350) and followed over 24 months. Housing stability and survival were assessed. Costs incurred by health (ED visits, hospital admissions, physician consultations), social (shelters, supported accommodations, other residential structures), justice services (court appearances, detention and penitentiary centres), and welfare benefits were collected over 24 months. Markov models of 6-month transition probabilities were compared among HF group (offering an independent house and support from outpatient mental health and social team) and TAU group (receiving pre-existing dedicated homeless-targeted programs and services). Three Markov states were defined: stable housing (at least 90 nights in an independent housing), unstable housing (i.e. inverse) and death. A societal perspective and a life-time horizon were chosen. Robust sensitivity analyses were performed, including Tornado diagram and Monte-Carlo simulations. There is evidence of changes (P<.001) in housing stability (246% more days housed) for the HF group compared with TAU group. From the societal perspective, HF was €10,163 (3%) more costly than usual care. ICER was €5.32 per additional night spent in independent housing. In sensitivity analyses, HF was less costly and more effective in 28% of iterations. HF proves to be cost-effective in homeless people with mental disorders and may assist decision-makers in defining conditions for further implementation of these innovations in Europe. Housing First model proves to be cost-effective in homeless people with mental disorders. Housing First model was less costly and more effective in 28% of ieration compared to treatment as usual.