David Rudoler1,2,3,4, Claire de Oliveira1,2,3, Binu Jacob1,2, Melonie Hopkins5, Paul Kurdyak1,2,3,6. 1. 1 Centre for Addiction and Mental Health, Institute for Mental Health Policy Research, Toronto, Ontario. 2. 2 Mental Health and Addictions Research Program, Institute for Clinical Evaluative Sciences (ICES), Toronto, Ontario. 3. 3 Institute of Health Policy, Management and Evaluation, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario. 4. 4 Faculty of Health Sciences, University of Ontario Institute of Technology. 5. 5 Centre for Addiction and Mental Health, Toronto, Ontario. 6. 6 Department of Psychiatry, Faculty of Medicine, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The objective of this article was to conduct a cost analysis comparing the costs of a supportive housing intervention to inpatient care for clients with severe mental illness who were designated alternative-level care while inpatient at the Centre for Addiction and Mental Health in Toronto. The intervention, called the High Support Housing Initiative, was implemented in 2013 through a collaboration between 15 agencies in the Toronto area. METHOD: The perspective of this cost analysis was that of the Ontario Ministry of Health and Long-Term Care. We compared the cost of inpatient mental health care to high-support housing. Cost data were derived from a variety of sources, including health administrative data, expenditures reported by housing providers, and document analysis. RESULTS: The High Support Housing Initiative was cost saving relative to inpatient care. The average cost savings per diem were between $140 and $160. This amounts to an annual cost savings of approximately $51,000 to $58,000. When tested through sensitivity analysis, the intervention remained cost saving in most scenarios; however, the result was highly sensitive to health system costs for clients of the High Support Housing Initiative program. CONCLUSIONS: This study suggests the High Support Housing Initiative is potentially cost saving relative to inpatient hospitalization at the Centre for Addiction and Mental Health.
OBJECTIVE: The objective of this article was to conduct a cost analysis comparing the costs of a supportive housing intervention to inpatient care for clients with severe mental illness who were designated alternative-level care while inpatient at the Centre for Addiction and Mental Health in Toronto. The intervention, called the High Support Housing Initiative, was implemented in 2013 through a collaboration between 15 agencies in the Toronto area. METHOD: The perspective of this cost analysis was that of the Ontario Ministry of Health and Long-Term Care. We compared the cost of inpatient mental health care to high-support housing. Cost data were derived from a variety of sources, including health administrative data, expenditures reported by housing providers, and document analysis. RESULTS: The High Support Housing Initiative was cost saving relative to inpatient care. The average cost savings per diem were between $140 and $160. This amounts to an annual cost savings of approximately $51,000 to $58,000. When tested through sensitivity analysis, the intervention remained cost saving in most scenarios; however, the result was highly sensitive to health system costs for clients of the High Support Housing Initiative program. CONCLUSIONS: This study suggests the High Support Housing Initiative is potentially cost saving relative to inpatient hospitalization at the Centre for Addiction and Mental Health.
Entities:
Keywords:
cost analysis; mental health and addictions; supportive housing
Authors: Tim Aubry; Paula Goering; Scott Veldhuizen; Carol E Adair; Jimmy Bourque; Jino Distasio; Eric Latimer; Vicky Stergiopoulos; Julian Somers; David L Streiner; Sam Tsemberis Journal: Psychiatr Serv Date: 2015-12-01 Impact factor: 3.084
Authors: Michael K Chapko; Chuan-Fen Liu; Mark Perkins; Yu-Fang Li; John C Fortney; Matthew L Maciejewski Journal: Health Econ Date: 2009-10 Impact factor: 3.046
Authors: Maureen Anderson; Crawford W Revie; Jacqueline M Quail; Walter Wodchis; Claire de Oliveira; Meriç Osman; Marilyn Baetz; J McClure; Henrik Stryhn; David Buckeridge; Cordell Neudorf Journal: Can J Public Health Date: 2018-06-28