What Determines HIV Prevention Costs at Scale? Evidence from the Avahan Programme in India.

Expanding essential health services through non-government organisations (NGOs) is a central strategy for achieving universal health coverage in many low-income and middle-income countries. Human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) prevention services for key populations are commonly delivered through NGOs and have been demonstrated to be cost-effective and of substantial global public health importance. However, funding for HIV prevention remains scarce, and there are growing calls internationally to improve the efficiency of HIV prevention programmes as a key strategy to reach global HIV targets. To date, there is limited evidence on the determinants of costs of HIV prevention delivered through NGOs; and thus, policymakers have little guidance in how best to design programmes that are both effective and efficient. We collected economic costs from the Indian Avahan initiative, the largest HIV prevention project conducted globally, during the first 4 years of its implementation. We use a fixed-effect panel estimator and a random-intercept model to investigate the determinants of average cost. We find that programme design choices such as NGO scale, the extent of community involvement, the way in which support is offered to NGOs and how clinical services are organised substantially impact average cost in a grant-based payment setting.

The determinants of technical efficiency of a large scale HIV prevention project: application of the DEA double bootstrap using panel data from the Indian Avahan.

BACKGROUND: In 2004, the largest HIV prevention project (Avahan) conducted globally was implemented in India. Avahan was implemented by NGOs supported by state lead partners in order to provide HIV prevention services to high-risk population groups. In 2007, most of the NGOs reached full coverage. METHODS: Using a panel data set of the NGOs that implemented Avahan, we investigate the level of technical efficiency as well as the drivers of technical inefficiency by using the double bootstrap procedure developed by Simar & Wilson (2007). Unlike the two-stage traditional method, this method allows valid inference in the presence of measurement error and serial correlation. RESULTS: We find that over the 4 years, Avahan NGOs could have reduced the level of inputs by 43% given the level of outputs reached. We find that efficiency of the project has increased over time. Results indicate that main drivers of inefficiency come from the characteristics of the state lead partner, the NGOs and the catchment area. CONCLUSION: These organisational factors are important to explicitly consider and assess when designing and implementing HIV prevention programmes and in setting benchmarks in order to optimise the use and allocation of resources. JEL CLASSIFICATIONS: C14, I1.

The costs of scaling up HIV prevention for high risk groups: lessons learned from the Avahan Programme in India.

OBJECTIVE: The study objective is to measure, analyse costs of scaling up HIV prevention for high-risk groups in India, in order to assist the design of future HIV prevention programmes in South Asia and beyond. DESIGN: Prospective costing study. METHODS: This study is one of the most comprehensive studies of the costs of HIV prevention for high-risk groups to date in both its scope and size. HIV prevention included outreach, sexually transmitted infections (STI) services, condom provision, expertise enhancement, community mobilisation and enabling environment activities. Economic costs were collected from 138 non-government organisations (NGOs) in 64 districts, four state level lead implementing partners (SLPs), and the national programme level (Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation (BMGF)) office over four years using a top down costing approach, presented in US$ 2011. RESULTS: Mean total unit costs (2004-08) per person reached at least once a year and per monthly contact were US$ 235(56-1864) and US$ 82(12-969) respectively. 35% of the cost was incurred by NGOs, 30% at the state level SLP and 35% at the national programme level. The proportion of total costs by activity were 34% for expertise enhancement, 37% for programme management (including support and supervision), 22% for core HIV prevention activities (outreach and STI services) and 7% for community mobilisation and enabling environment activities. Total unit cost per person reached fell sharply as the programme expanded due to declining unit costs above the service level (from US$ 477 per person reached in 2004 to US$ 145 per person reached in 2008). At the service level also unit costs decreased slightly over time from US$ 68 to US$ 64 per person reached. CONCLUSIONS: Scaling up HIV prevention for high risk groups requires significant investment in expertise enhancement and programme administration. However, unit costs decreased with programme expansion in spite of an increase in the scope of activities.

Cost-effectiveness of HIV prevention for high-risk groups at scale: an economic evaluation of the Avahan programme in south India.

BACKGROUND: Avahan is a large-scale, HIV preventive intervention, targeting high-risk populations in south India. We assessed the cost-effectiveness of Avahan to inform global and national funding institutions who are considering investing in worldwide HIV prevention in concentrated epidemics. METHODS: We estimated cost effectiveness from a programme perspective in 22 districts in four high-prevalence states. We used the UNAIDS Costing Guidelines for HIV Prevention Strategies as the basis for our costing method, and calculated effect estimates using a dynamic transmission model of HIV and sexually transmitted disease transmission that was parameterised and fitted to locally observed behavioural and prevalence trends. We calculated incremental cost-effective ratios (ICERs), comparing the incremental cost of Avahan per disability-adjusted life-year (DALY) averted versus a no-Avahan counterfactual scenario. We also estimated incremental cost per HIV infection averted and incremental cost per person reached. FINDINGS: Avahan reached roughly 150 000 high-risk individuals between 2004 and 2008 in the 22 districts studied, at a mean cost per person reached of US$327 during the 4 years. This reach resulted in an estimated 61 000 HIV infections averted, with roughly 11 000 HIV infections averted in the general population, at a mean incremental cost per HIV infection averted of $785 (SD 166). We estimate that roughly 1 million DALYs were averted across the 22 districts, at a mean incremental cost per DALY averted of $46 (SD 10). Future antiretroviral treatment (ART) cost savings during the lifetime of the cohort exposed to HIV prevention were estimated to be more than $77 million (compared with the slightly more than $50 million spent on Avahan in the 22 districts during the 4 years of the study). INTERPRETATION: This study provides evidence that the investment in targeted HIV prevention programmes in south India has been cost effective, and is likely to be cost saving if a commitment is made to provide ART to all that can benefit from it. Policy makers should consider funding and sustaining large-scale targeted HIV prevention programmes in India and beyond. FUNDING: Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation.

Community mobilisation and empowerment interventions as part of HIV prevention for female sex workers in Southern India: a cost-effectiveness analysis.

BACKGROUND: Most HIV prevention for female sex workers (FSWs) focuses on individual behaviour change involving peer educators, condom promotion and the provision of sexual health services. However, there is a growing recognition of the need to address broader societal, contextual and structural factors contributing to FSW risk behaviour. We assess the cost-effectiveness of adding community mobilisation (CM) and empowerment interventions (eg. community mobilisation, community involvement in programme management and services, violence reduction, and addressing legal policies and police practices), to core HIV prevention services delivered as part of Avahan in two districts (Bellary and Belgaum) of Karnataka state, Southern India. METHODS: An ingredients approach was used to estimate economic costs in US$ 2011 from an HIV programme perspective of CM and empowerment interventions over a seven year period (2004-2011). Incremental impact, in terms of HIV infections averted, was estimated using a two-stage process. An 'exposure analysis' explored whether exposure to CM was associated with FSW's empowerment, risk behaviours and HIV/STI prevalence. Pathway analyses were then used to estimate the extent to which behaviour change may be attributable to CM and to inform a dynamic HIV transmission model. FINDINGS: The incremental costs of CM and empowerment were US$ 307,711 in Belgaum and US$ 592,903 in Bellary over seven years (2004-2011). Over a 7-year period (2004-2011) the mean (standard deviation, sd.) number of HIV infections averted through CM and empowerment is estimated to be 1257 (308) in Belgaum and 2775 (1260) in Bellary. This translates in a mean (sd.) incremental cost per disability adjusted life year (DALY) averted of US$ 14.12 (3.68) in Belgaum and US$ 13.48 (6.80) for Bellary--well below the World Health Organisation recommended willingness to pay threshold for India. When savings from ART are taken into account, investments in CM and empowerment are cost saving. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings suggest that CM and empowerment is, at worst, highly cost-effective and, at best, a cost-saving investment from an HIV programme perspective. CM and empowerment interventions should therefore be considered as core components of HIV prevention programmes for FSWs.