aRalph H. Johnson VA Medical Center, Charleston, South Carolina. *Corresponding author: Mark B. Hamner, MD, Ralph H. Johnson VA Medical Center, 109 Bee Street, Charleston, SC 29401-5799 (mark.hamner@va.gov). J Clin Psychiatry 2015;76(7):e911–e912 dx.doi.org/10.4088/JCP.14com09726 © Copyright 2015 Physicians Postgraduate Press, Inc. S is likely much higher in the homeless than in the general population. It is likely higher still in the mentally ill homeless. The effect of veteran status on smoking in the homeless is unclear. However, there is no reason to think that smoking rates would be different as a function of veteran status in this population. For example, homeless veterans are much more likely to have nicotine dependence than veterans who are not homeless.1 Few studies have investigated the treatment of smoking in the homeless, despite the fact that the majority of smokers seem to want to quit. In this issue of the Journal, Carpenter and colleagues2 report an open trial of a multicomponent smoking cessation program for 20 homeless veterans. A novel feature of the study was the development of a smartphone application to facilitate mobile contingency management (mCM) therapy. The smoking cessation program utilized in the study included 4 weeks of using mCM, 4 counseling sessions, nicotine replacement therapy, and bupropion if medically appropriate. Participants could earn up to $815 ($480 for mCM, $100 for verified abstinence at 3 follow-up visits, and $35 for equipment return). This approach was a success in this pilot study. Abstinence as verified by carbon monoxide concentrations ≤ 6 ppm was 50% at the 4-week endpoint. Follow-up bioverified abstinence was 55% at 3 months and 45% at 6 months. Not surprisingly, there was a high rate of psychiatric comorbidity in this sample including posttraumatic stress disorder, major depressive disorder, and lifetime alcohol or substance dependence. This study further suggests that the intervention may be effective despite other psychiatric conditions that are thought to limit successful abstinence. The interpretation of this study, as the authors note appropriately, is limited by the small sample size and the lack of a control group. Nonetheless, the results are promising and should be further explored using a randomized controlled trial design.