Little is known regarding the health outcomes of people who exit from housing assistance and if that experience varies by the circumstances under which a person exits. We asked two questions: (1) does the type of exit from housing assistance matter for healthcare utilization? And (2) how does each exit type compare to remaining in housing assistance in terms of healthcare utilization? This retrospective cohort study of 5550 exits between 2012 and 2018 used data from two large, urban public housing authorities in King County, Washington. Exposures were exiting from housing assistance and type of exit (positive, neutral, negative). Outcomes were emergency department visits, hospitalizations, and well-child checks (among those aged < 6) in the year following exit from housing assistance. After adjustment for demographics and baseline healthcare utilization, people with positive exits had 26% (95% confident interval: 6–39%) lower odds of having 1 + ED visits in the year following exit than people with negative exits and 20% (95% CI: 6–31%) lower odds than those who continued receiving housing assistance. Neutral and negative exits did not differ substantially from each other, and both exit types appear to be detrimental to health, with higher levels of ED visits and hospitalizations and lower levels of well-child checks. Why people exit from housing assistance matters. Those with negative exits experience poorer outcomes and efforts should be made to both prevent this kind of exit and mitigate its impact.

对于退出住房援助的人的健康结果以及这种经历是否因人退出的情况而异，人们知之甚少。我们问了两个问题：（1）退出住房援助的类型对于医疗保健利用是否重要？(2) 就医疗保健利用而言，每种退出类型与保留住房援助相比如何？这项回顾性队列研究使用了华盛顿州金县两个大型城市公共住房管理局的数据，对 2012 年至 2018 年间的 5550 名学生进行了回顾性队列研究。风险敞口包括退出住房援助和退出类型（积极、中性、消极）。结果是退出住房援助后一年内的急诊就诊、住院治疗和儿童健康检查（年龄<6 岁的儿童）。对人口统计数据和基线医疗保健利用率进行调整后，退出积极的人在退出后一年内接受 1 + 急诊就诊的几率比退出消极的人低 26%（95% 置信区间：6-39%），比退出消极的人低 20%（95%）。 % CI：6–31%）比继续接受住房援助的人低。中性退出和消极退出彼此没有显着差异，两种退出类型似乎都对健康有害，急诊就诊和住院率较高，而儿童健康检查水平较低。人们为何退出住房援助很重要。那些有负面退出的人会经历较差的结果，应该努力防止这种退出并减轻其影响。