4.5 Article

Local Housing Choice Voucher Distribution Policies Impact Healthcare Utilization: a Randomized Natural Experiment

Publisher

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s11524-022-00609-7

Keywords

Housing; Health Care Utilization; Public policy

Funding

  1. Robert Wood Johnson Foundation [73140]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

This study assessed the impact of obtaining housing on health care utilization. The results showed that obtaining housing vouchers was associated with increased outpatient visits, while obtaining vouchers for families with school-aged children decreased the likelihood of emergency department visits. This suggests that local prioritization policies for housing vouchers can influence the impact of housing on health care.
While associations between obtaining affordable housing and improved health care are well documented, insufficient funding often forces housing authorities to prioritize limited housing vouchers to specific populations. We assessed the impact of obtaining housing on health care utilization at two urban housing authorities with different distribution policies: Housing Authority A prioritized seniors and people with disabilities, while Housing Authority B prioritized medically complex individuals and families with school-aged children. Both housing authorities used random selection to distribute vouchers, allowing us to conduct a randomized natural experiment of cases and waitlisted controls. No significant demographic differences were present between those receiving vouchers and waitlisted controls. Housing Authority A vouchers were associated with increased outpatient visits (OR = 1.19; P = 0.051). Housing Authority B vouchers decreased the likelihood of emergency department visits (OR = 0.61; P = 0.042). This study provides evidence that, while obtaining housing can result in better health care outcomes overall, local prioritization policies can influence that impact.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available