Search

ObjectivesWe compared homeless patients' experiences of care in health care organizations that differed in their degree of primary care design service tailoring.MethodsWe surveyed homeless-experienced patients (either recently or currently homeless) at 3 Veterans Affairs (VA) mainstream primary care settings in Pennsylvania and Alabama, a homeless-tailored VA clinic in California, and a highly tailored non-VA Health Care for the Homeless Program in Massachusetts (January 2011-March 2012). We developed a survey, the "Primary Care Quality-Homeless Survey," to reflect the concerns and aspirations of homeless patients.ResultsMean scores at the tailored non-VA site were superior to those from the 3 mainstream VA sites (P < .001). Adjusting for patient characteristics, these differences remained significant for subscales assessing the patient-clinician relationship (P < .001) and perceptions of cooperation among providers (P = .004). There were 1.5- to 3-fold increased odds of an unfavorable experience in the domains of the patient-clinician relationship, cooperation, and access or coordination for the mainstream VA sites compared with the tailored non-VA site; the tailored VA site attained intermediate results.ConclusionsTailored primary care service design was associated with a superior service experience for patients who experienced homelessness.

The CDC recommends routine voluntary HIV testing of all patients 13-64 years of age. Despite this recommendation, HIV testing rates are low even among those at identifiable risk, and many patients do not return to receive their results.To examine the costs and benefits of strategies to improve HIV testing and receipt of results.Cost-effectiveness analysis based on a Markov model. Acceptance of testing, return rates, and related costs were derived from a randomized trial of 251 patients; long-term costs and health outcomes were derived from the literature.Primary-care patients with unknown HIV status.Comparison of three intervention models for HIV counseling and testing: Model A = traditional HIV counseling and testing; Model B = nurse-initiated routine screening with traditional HIV testing and counseling; Model C = nurse-initiated routine screening with rapid HIV testing and streamlined counseling.Life-years, quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), costs and incremental cost-effectiveness.Without consideration of the benefit from reduced HIV transmission, Model A resulted in per-patient lifetime discounted costs of $48,650 and benefits of 16.271 QALYs. Model B increased lifetime costs by $53 and benefits by 0.0013 QALYs (corresponding to 0.48 quality-adjusted life days). Model C cost $66 more than Model A with an increase of 0.0018 QALYs (0.66 quality-adjusted life days) and an incremental cost-effectiveness of $36,390/QALY. When we included the benefit from reduced HIV transmission, Model C cost $10,660/QALY relative to Model A. The cost-effectiveness of Model C was robust in sensitivity analyses.In a primary-care population, nurse-initiated routine screening with rapid HIV testing and streamlined counseling increased rates of testing and receipt of test results and was cost-effective compared with traditional HIV testing strategies.