Related Experiment Video
Updated: May 5, 2026

Swabbing the Urban Environment - A Pipeline for Sampling and Detection of SARS-CoV-2 From Environmental Reservoirs
Published on: April 9, 2021
Health and Economic Impact of COVID-19 Surveillance Testing in Seattle Homeless Shelters: A Cost-Effectiveness
Sarah N Cox1,2, Eric J Chow1,2,3, Melissa A Rolfes4
1Department of Epidemiology, School of Public Health, University of Washington, Seattle, Washington.
Introduction:
COVID-19 surveillance in congregate settings is important to mitigating disease, but the health and economic impact of testing remains unclear.
Methods:
The authors developed a Markov model to project the cost-utility of COVID-19 testing strategies in homeless shelters from the healthcare payer and societal perspective over 1 year. Model inputs utilized data from residents aged ≥18 years across 23 Seattle shelters from January 1, 2020, to May 31, 2021. No in-shelter surveillance was compared with scenarios of 2 COVID-19 testing strategies implemented monthly: polymerase chain reaction (PCR) testing and rapid antigen testing; scenarios in which only PCR testing was available were also evaluated. The primary health outcome was quality-adjusted life years. Interventions were considered cost-effective if the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio was ≤$150,000 per quality-adjusted life year and dominant if they saved costs and provided health effects.
Results:
When assuming the availability of both antigen and PCR tests, most rapid antigen testing strategies were cost-effective, whereas PCR testing was dominated by antigen testing. Compared with no in-shelter surveillance, antigen testing increased mean quality-adjusted life years by 0.0009 (0.03% infections averted) at an incremental cost of $97/resident from the healthcare perspective (incremental cost-effectiveness ratio=$112,352/quality-adjusted life year gained) and $8/resident from the societal perspective (incremental cost-effectiveness ratio=$9,627/quality-adjusted life year gained) at 75% vaccination coverage. PCR testing was not cost-effective when antigen testing was available but was cost-effective compared with no surveillance at low vaccination coverage levels (<30% coverage from the healthcare perspective and ≤48% coverage from the societal perspective). Probabilistic sensitivity analysis showed that antigen testing was cost-effective in 62% and 86% of simulations from the healthcare and societal perspectives, respectively.
Conclusions:
Modeled findings show that COVID-19 testing in shelters can be a cost-effective pandemic response. Antigen testing remained cost-effective at high vaccination levels, whereas PCR testing was most effective at low vaccination levels if antigen testing was not available.
Related Concept Videos
Specialized Care Centers and Settings-II
Rural health centers are specialized care facilities in remote locations with very few medical personnel. The primary care providers who run the centers are mostly Registered Nurse Practitioners. Here, emergency treatment is provided to critically ill or injured patients before they are transferred to the closest hospital. Fortunately, due to advancement in technology, many rural healthcare facilities and professionals have easy access to diagnostic and treatment...
Steps in Outbreak Investigation
Principles of Disease Surveillance

