Estimating the Cost-Effectiveness of HIV Self-Testing in the United States Using Net Benefit Regression.

BACKGROUND: Cost-effectiveness analysis of HIV self-testing using patient-level data from a randomized clinical trial can inform HIV prevention funding decisions. Cost-effectiveness analysis using net-benefit regression addresses the sampling uncertainty in the trial data and the variability of policymakers' willingness to pay (WTP). METHODS: We used published data from a 12-month longitudinal randomized clinical trial that enrolled 2665 men who had sex with men randomly assigned to the self-testing arm (participants receiving self-test kits) and control arm (participants receiving standard-of-care), and the self-testing arm identified 48 additional new HIV cases. We used net-benefit regression to investigate the cost-effectiveness of an HIV self-testing intervention, which compared the incremental cost per new HIV diagnosis with policymakers' WTP thresholds. We addressed the uncertainties in estimating the incremental cost and the policymakers' WTP per new diagnosis through the incremental net-benefit (INB) regression and cost-effectiveness acceptability curve (CEAC) analyses. RESULTS: From the health care provider's perspective, the INB analysis showed a positive net benefit of HIV self-testing compared with standard-of-care when policymakers' WTP per new HIV diagnosis was $9365 (95% confidence interval: $5700 to $25,500) or higher. The CEAC showed that the probability of HIV self-testing being cost-effective compared with standard-of-care was 58% and >99% at a WTP of $10 000 and $50 000 per new HIV diagnosis, respectively. CONCLUSION: The INB and CEAC analyses suggest that HIV self-testing has the potential to be cost-effective for relatively low values of policymakers' WTP.

Analyzing the Costs and Impact of the TakeMeHome Program, a Public-Private Partnership to Deliver HIV Self-Test Kits in the United States.

BACKGROUND: HIV testing is an entry point to access HIV care and prevention services. Building Healthy Online Communities developed a website ( TakeMeHome.org ) where participants can order HIV home test kits. The purpose of this study was to analyze the costs and impact of the TakeMeHome program. METHODS: We estimated the costs of TakeMeHome across all participating jurisdictions for the first year of the program. We estimated program costs using purchase orders and invoices, contracts, and allocation of staff time, and the costs included website design, participant recruitment, administration and overhead, HIV self-test kits, and shipping and handling. Primary outcomes of the analysis were total program cost, cost per HIV test, and cost per new HIV diagnosis. RESULTS: The TakeMeHome program distributed 5323 HIV self-tests to 4859 participants over a 12-month period. The total program cost over this period was $314,870. The cost per HIV test delivered was estimated at $59, and the cost per person tested was $65. The program identified 18 confirmed new HIV diagnoses (0.6% positivity) verified with surveillance data in 7 health jurisdictions at $169,890. The cost per confirmed new HIV diagnosis was estimated at $9440. CONCLUSIONS: The TakeMeHome program delivered HIV self-testing at a reasonable cost, and the program may be a cost-effective use of HIV prevention resources. The public-private partnership can be an effective mechanism to validate HIV diagnoses identified with self-testing and provide HIV prevention and linkage to care services.

Cost Analysis of the Positive Health Check Intervention to Suppress HIV Viral Load and Retain Patients in HIV Clinical Care.

CONTEXT: Digital video-based behavioral interventions are effective tools for improving HIV care and treatment outcomes. OBJECTIVE: To assess the costs of the Positive Health Check (PHC) intervention delivered in HIV primary care settings. DESIGN, SETTING, AND INTERVENTION: The PHC study was a randomized trial evaluating the effectiveness of a highly tailored, interactive video-counseling intervention delivered in 4 HIV care clinics in the United States in improving viral suppression and retention in care. Eligible patients were randomized to either the PHC intervention or the control arm. Control arm participants received standard of care (SOC), and intervention arm participants received SOC plus PHC. The intervention was delivered on computer tablets in the clinic waiting rooms. The PHC intervention improved viral suppression among male participants. A microcosting approach was used to assess the program costs, including labor hours, materials and supplies, equipment, and office overhead. PARTICIPANTS: Persons with HIV infection, receiving care in participating clinics. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary outcome was the number of patients virally suppressed, defined as having fewer than 200 copies/mL by the end of their 12-month follow-up. RESULTS: A total of 397 (range across sites [range], 95-102) participants were enrolled in the PHC intervention arm, of whom 368 participants (range, 82-98) had viral load data at baseline and were included in the viral load analyses. Of those, 210 (range, 41-63) patients were virally suppressed at the end of their 12-month follow-up visit. The overall annual program cost was $402 274 (range, $65 581-$124 629). We estimated the average program cost per patient at $1013 (range, $649-$1259) and the cost per patient virally suppressed at $1916 (range, $1041-$3040). Recruitment and outreach costs accounted for 30% of PHC program costs. CONCLUSIONS: The costs of this interactive video-counseling intervention are comparable with other retention in care or reengagement interventions.

Costs and cost-effectiveness of a collaborative data-to-care intervention for HIV treatment and care in the United States.

INTRODUCTION: Data-to-care programmes utilize surveillance data to identify persons who are out of HIV care, re-engage them in care and improve HIV care outcomes. We assess the costs and cost-effectiveness of re-engagement in an HIV care intervention in the United States. METHODS: The Cooperative Re-engagement Control Trial (CoRECT) employed a data-to-care collaborative model between health departments and HIV care providers, August 2016-July 2018. The health departments in Connecticut (CT), Massachusetts (MA) and Philadelphia (PHL) collaborated with HIV clinics to identify newly out-of-care patients and randomize them to receive usual linkage and engagement in care services (standard-of-care control arm) or health department-initiated active re-engagement services (intervention arm). We used a microcosting approach to identify the activities and resources involved in the CoRECT intervention, separate from the standard-of-care, and quantified the costs. The cost data were collected at the start-up and recurrent phases of the trial to incorporate potential variation in the intervention costs. The costs were estimated from the healthcare provider perspective. RESULTS: The CoRECT trial in CT, MA and PHL randomly assigned on average 327, 316 and 305 participants per year either to the intervention arm (n = 166, 159 and 155) or the standard-of-care arm (n = 161, 157 and 150), respectively. Of those randomized, the number of participants re-engaged in care within 90 days in the intervention and standard-of-care arms was 85 and 70 in CT, 84 and 70 in MA, and 98 and 67 in PHL. The additional number of participants re-engaged in care in the intervention arm compared with those in the standard-of-care arm was 15 (CT), 14 (MA) and 31 (PHL). We estimated the annual total cost of the CoRECT intervention at $490,040 in CT, $473,297 in MA and $439,237 in PHL. The average cost per participant enrolled was $2952, $2977 and $2834 and the average cost per participant re-engaged in care was $5765, $5634 and $4482. We estimated an incremental cost per participant re-engaged in care at $32,669 (CT), $33,807 (MA) and $14,169 (PHL). CONCLUSIONS: The costs of the CoRECT intervention that identified newly out-of-care patients and re-engaged them in HIV care are comparable with other similar interventions, suggesting a potential for its cost-effectiveness in the US context.

Costs of Providing Preexposure Prophylaxis for HIV Prevention at Community Health Centers in the United States.

OBJECTIVE: Preexposure prophylaxis (PrEP) is recommended for people at risk of acquiring HIV. We assessed billable costs associated with PrEP delivery at community health centers. METHODS: The Sustainable Health Center Implementation PrEP Pilot (SHIPP) study is an observational cohort of people receiving daily oral PrEP at participating federally qualified health centers and other community health centers. We assessed health care utilization and billable costs of providing PrEP at 2 health centers, 1 in Chicago, Illinois, and 1 in Washington, DC, from 2014 to 2018. The health centers followed the clinical practice guidelines for PrEP provision, including regular visits with health care providers and ongoing laboratory monitoring. Using clinic billing records and Current Procedural Terminology (CPT) coding, we retrospectively extracted data on the frequency and costs (in 2017 US dollars) of PrEP clinic visits and laboratory screening, for each patient, for 12 months since first PrEP prescription. RESULTS: The average annual number of PrEP clinic visits and associated laboratory screens per patient was 5.1 visits and 25.2 screens in Chicago (n = 482 patients) and 5.4 visits and 24.8 screens in Washington, DC (n = 56 patients). The average annual PrEP billable cost per patient was $583 for clinic visits and $1070 for laboratory screens in Chicago and $923 for clinic visits and $1018 for laboratory screens in Washington, DC. The average annual total cost per patient was $1653 (95% CI, $1639-$1668) in Chicago and $1941 (95% CI, $1811-$2071) in Washington, DC. CONCLUSIONS: Our analysis, which provides PrEP billable cost estimates based on empirical data, may help inform health care providers who are considering implementing this HIV prevention strategy.

Estimated Lifetime HIV-Related Medical Costs in the United States.

BACKGROUND: Lifetime cost estimates are a useful tool in measuring the economic burden of HIV in the United States. Previous estimation methods need to be updated, given improving antiretroviral therapy regimens and updated costs. METHODS: We used an updated version of the agent-based model progression and transmission of HIV (PATH) 3.0 to reflect current regimens and costs. We simulated a cohort of those infected in 2015 until the last person had died to track the lifetime costs for treatment of HIV, including HIV health care utilization costs (inpatient, outpatient, opportunistic infection prophylaxis, non-HIV medication, and emergency department), opportunistic infection treatment costs, and testing costs. We assumed a median per-person diagnosis delay of 3 years and a 3% base monthly probability of dropout from care for a base-case scenario. Additionally, we modeled a most favorable scenario (median diagnosis delay of 1 year and 1% base dropout rate) and a least favorable scenario (median diagnosis delay of 5 years and 5% base dropout rate). RESULTS: We estimated an average lifetime HIV-related medical cost for a person with HIV of $420,285 (2019 US$) discounted (3%) and $1,079,999 undiscounted for a median 3-year diagnosis delay and 3% base dropout rate. Our discounted cost estimate was $490,045 in our most favorable scenario and $326,411 in our least favorable scenario. CONCLUSIONS: Lifetime per-person HIV-related medical costs depend on the time from infection to diagnosis and the likelihood of dropping out of care. Our results, which are similar to previous studies, reflect updated antiretroviral therapy regimens and costs for HIV treatment.

Optimal Allocation of Societal HIV Prevention Resources to Reduce HIV Incidence in the United States.

Objectives. To optimize combined public and private spending on HIV prevention to achieve maximum reductions in incidence.Methods. We used a national HIV model to estimate new infections from 2018 to 2027 in the United States. We estimated current spending on HIV screening, interventions that move persons with diagnosed HIV along the HIV care continuum, pre-exposure prophylaxis, and syringe services programs. We compared the current funding allocation with 2 optimal scenarios: (1) a limited-reach scenario with expanded efforts to serve eligible persons and (2) an ideal, unlimited-reach scenario in which all eligible persons could be served.Results. A continuation of the current allocation projects 331 000 new HIV cases over the next 10 years. The limited-reach scenario reduces that number by 69%, and the unlimited reach scenario by 94%. The most efficient funding allocations resulted in prompt diagnosis and sustained viral suppression through improved screening of high-risk persons and treatment adherence support for those infected.Conclusions. Optimal allocations of public and private funds for HIV prevention can achieve substantial reductions in new infections. Achieving reductions of more than 90% under current funding will require that virtually all infected receive sustained treatment.

Health Utility Estimates and Their Application to HIV Prevention in the United States: Implications for Cost-Effectiveness Modeling and Future Research Needs.

Objectives. Health utility estimates from the current era of HIV treatment, critical for cost-effectiveness analyses (CEA) informing HIV health policy, are limited. We examined peer-reviewed literature to assess the appropriateness of commonly referenced utilities, present previously unreported quality-of-life data from two studies, and discuss future implications for HIV-related CEA. Methods. We searched a database of cost-effectiveness analyses specific to HIV prevention efforts from 1999 to 2016 to identify the most commonly referenced sources for health utilities and to examine practices around using and reporting health utility data. Additionally, we present new utility estimates from the Centers of Disease Control and Prevention's Medical Monitoring Project (MMP) and the INSIGHT Strategies for Management of Anti-Retroviral Therapy (SMART) trial. We compare data collection time frames, sample characteristics, assessment methods, and key estimates. Results. Data collection for the most frequently cited utility estimates ranged from 1985 to 1997, predating modern HIV treatment. Reporting practices around utility weights are poor and lack details on participant characteristics, which may be important stratifying factors for CEA. More recent utility estimates derived from MMP and SMART were similar across CD4+ count strata and had a narrower range than pre-antiretroviral therapy (ART) utilities. Conclusions. Despite the widespread use of ART, cost-effectiveness analysis of HIV prevention interventions frequently apply pre-ART health utility weights. Use of utility weights reflecting the current state of the US epidemic are needed to best inform HIV research and public policy decisions. Improved practices around the selection, application, and reporting of health utility data used in HIV prevention CEA are needed to improve transparency.

National Trends in Drug Payments for HIV Preexposure Prophylaxis in the United States, 2014 to 2018 : A Retrospective Cohort Study.

BACKGROUND: Use of HIV preexposure prophylaxis (PrEP) has increased nationwide, but the magnitude and distribution of PrEP medication costs across the health care system are unknown. OBJECTIVE: To estimate out-of-pocket (OOP) and third-party payments using a large pharmacy database. DESIGN: Retrospective cohort study. SETTING: Prescriptions for tenofovir disoproxil fumarate with emtricitabine (TDF-FTC) for PrEP in the United States in the IQVIA Longitudinal Prescriptions database, which covers more than 90% of retail pharmacy prescriptions. MEASUREMENTS: Third-party, OOP, and total payments were compared by third-party payer, classified as commercial, Medicaid, Medicare, manufacturer assistance program, or other. Missing payment data were imputed using a generalized linear model to estimate overall PrEP medication payments. RESULTS: Annual PrEP prescriptions increased from 73 739 to 1 100 684 during 2014 to 2018. Over that period, the average total payment for 30 TDF-FTC tablets increased from $1350 to $1638 (5.0% compound annual growth rate) and the average OOP payment increased from $54 to $94 (14.9% compound annual growth rate). Of the $1638 in total payments per 30 TDF-FTC tablets in 2018, OOP payments accounted for $94 (5.7%) and third-party payments for $1544 (94.3%). Out-of-pocket payments per 30 tablets were lower among Medicaid recipients ($3) than among those with Medicare ($80) or commercial insurance ($107). Payments for PrEP medication in the IQVIA database in 2018 totaled $2.08 billion; $1.68 billion (80.7%) originated from prescriptions for persons with commercial insurance, $200 million (9.6%) for those with Medicaid, $48 million (2.3%) for those with Medicare, and $127 million (6.1%) for those with manufacturer assistance. LIMITATION: The IQVIA database does not capture every prescription nationwide. CONCLUSION: Third-party and OOP payments per 30 TDF-FTC tablets increased annually. The $2.08 billion in PrEP medication payments in 2018 is an underestimation of national costs. High costs to the health care system may hinder PrEP expansion. PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE: Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

Costs and Cost-Effectiveness of the Patient-Centered HIV Care Model: A Collaboration Between Community-Based Pharmacists and Primary Medical Providers.

BACKGROUND: The patient-centered HIV care model (PCHCM) is an evidence-informed structural intervention that integrates community-based pharmacists with primary medical providers to improve rates of HIV viral suppression. This report assesses the costs and cost-effectiveness of the PCHCM. SETTING: Patient-centered HIV care model. METHODS: Three project sites, each composed of a medical clinic and 1 or 2 community-based HIV-specialized pharmacies, were included in the analyses. PCHCM required patient data sharing between medical providers and pharmacists and collaborative therapy-related decision making. Intervention effectiveness was measured as the incremental number of patients virally suppressed (HIV RNA <200 copies/mL at the last test in a 12-month measurement period). Microcosting direct measurement methods were used to estimate intervention costs. The cost per patient, cost per patient visit, and incremental cost per patient virally suppressed were calculated from the health care providers' perspective. Additionally, the number of HIV transmissions averted, lifetime HIV treatment cost saved, quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) saved, and cost per QALY saved were calculated from the societal perspective, using standard methods and reported values from the published literature. RESULTS: Overall, the PCHCM annual intervention cost for the 3 project sites was $226,741. The average cost per patient, cost per patient visit, and incremental cost per patient virally suppressed were $813, $48, and $5,039, respectively. The intervention averted 2.75 HIV transmissions and saved 12.22 QALYs and nearly $1.28 million in lifetime HIV treatment costs. The intervention was cost saving overall and at each project site. CONCLUSIONS: The PCHCM can be delivered at a relatively low cost and is a cost-saving intervention to assist patients in achieving viral suppression and preventing HIV transmission.

Out-of-pocket costs and HIV pre-exposure prophylaxis persistence in a US multicity demonstration project.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate whether out-of-pocket (OOP) costs reduced HIV pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP) persistence. DATA SOURCE: Participants from five urban community health centers (CHCs) in four US cities enrolled in a PrEP demonstration project from September 2014 to August 2017. STUDY DESIGN: Patients initiating PrEP were followed quarterly until they withdrew from PrEP care or the study ended. Self-reported OOP medication and clinic visit costs were assessed by semiannual questionnaires. Persistence was defined as the time from study enrollment to the last visit after which two subsequent 3-month visits were missed. Multivariable Cox proportional hazard regression was used to assess the effect of demographics, insurance, and OOP costs on PrEP persistence. PRINCIPAL FINDINGS: Among 918 participants with OOP cost data, the average quarterly OOP cost was $34 (median: $5, IQR: $0-$25). Participants who were men, White, employed, completed college, and had commercial insurance had higher OOP costs. Higher OOP costs were not associated with lower PrEP persistence by Cox proportional hazards regression (adjusted hazard ratio = 1.00 per $50 increase, 95% CI = 0.97, 1.02). CONCLUSION: Among patients receiving care from these urban CHCs, OOP costs were low and did not undermine PrEP persistence.

Estimating the costs and cost-effectiveness of HIV self-testing among men who have sex with men, United States.

INTRODUCTION: HIV testing is an essential prerequisite for accessing treatment with antiretroviral therapy or prevention using pre-exposure prophylaxis. Internet distribution of HIV self-tests is a novel approach, and data on the programmatic cost of this approach are limited. We analyse the costs and cost-effectiveness of a self-testing programme. METHODS: Men who have sex with men (MSM) reporting unknown or negative HIV status were enrolled from March to August 2015 into a 12-month trial of HIV self-testing in the United States. Participants were randomly assigned either to the self-testing arm or the control arm. All participants received information on HIV testing services and locations in their community. Self-testing participants received up to four self-tests each quarter, which they could use themselves or distribute to their social network associates. Quarterly follow-up surveys collected testing outcomes, including number of tests used and new HIV diagnoses. Using trial expenditure data, we estimated the cost of implementing a self-testing programme. Primary outcomes of this analysis included total programme implementation costs, cost per self-test completed, cost per person tested, cost per new HIV diagnosis among those self-tested and cost per quality adjusted life year (QALY) saved. RESULTS: A total of 2665 men were assigned either to the self-testing arm (n = 1325) or the control arm (n = 1340). HIV testing was reported by 971 self-testing participants who completed a total of 5368 tests. In the control arm, 619 participants completed 1463 HIV tests. The self-testing participants additionally distributed 2864 self-tests to 2152 social network associates. Testing during the trial identified 59 participants and social network associates with newly diagnosed HIV infection in the self-testing arm; 11 control participants were newly diagnosed with HIV. The implementation cost of the HIV self-testing programme was $449,510. The cost per self-test completed, cost per person tested at least once, and incremental cost per new HIV diagnosis was $61, $145 and $9365 respectively. We estimated that self-testing programme potentially averted 3.34 transmissions, saved 14.86 QALYs and nearly $1.6 million lifetime HIV treatment costs. CONCLUSIONS: The HIV self-testing programme identified persons with newly diagnosed HIV infection at low cost, and the programme is cost saving.

Implementing Data to Care-What Are the Costs for the Health Department?

BACKGROUND: The Cooperative Re-Engagement Controlled Trial (CoRECT) is a randomized controlled trial that uses a combined health department-provider data to care (D2C) model to identify out-of-care HIV-infected persons. We present cost data for programmatic aspects of the trial during the start-up period (first 30 days of the study). METHODS: We used microcosting methods to estimate health department start-up costs. We collected start-up cost data between September 2016 and December 2016; 3 health departments completed a form to capture expenses for the initial 30 days of study implementation; the start date varied by health department. All costs are expressed in 2016 US dollars. RESULTS: Among the 3 health departments, the total start-up costs ranged from $14,145 to $26,058. Total start-up labor hours ranged from 224 to 640 hours. CONCLUSIONS: As D2C expands nationally with cooperative agreement, PS 18-1802 health departments may be able to use a similar analysis to consider the labor, time, and resources needed to implement D2C within their jurisdiction.

Cost Effectiveness of HIV Prevention Interventions in the U.S.

INTRODUCTION: The purpose of this study was to assess and compare the cost effectiveness of current HIV prevention interventions in the U.S. using a consistent, standardized methodology. METHODS: The cost effectiveness of common and emerging HIV biomedical and behavioral prevention interventions as delivered to men who have sex with men, injection drug users, and sexually active heterosexuals was estimated. Data on program costs, intervention efficacy, risk behaviors, and per contact transmission probabilities were collected from peer-reviewed papers and health department reports. These data were combined with 2010 national HIV incidence and prevalence surveillance data in a Bernoulli process model to estimate the reduced annual risk of HIV transmission or acquisition associated with these interventions. The cost per prevented case of HIV and the cost per saved quality-adjusted life year were then calculated. Analyses were conducted between 2014 and 2015. RESULTS: Interventions to diagnose HIV and provide ongoing care and treatment had the lowest cost per prevented case. Among interventions targeted at specific risk groups, interventions for men who have sex with men were the most cost effective. The least cost-effective interventions typically addressed people at risk of acquiring HIV rather than those at risk of transmitting the disease. CONCLUSIONS: HIV prevention interventions targeted at high-risk populations, those associated with the care continuum, and those that reduce the transmission risk of HIV-infected people are typically the most cost effective. Decision makers can consider these results in planning an efficient allocation of HIV prevention resources.

Nearly Half Of US Adults Living With HIV Received Federal Disability Benefits In 2009.

The effects of HIV infection on national labor-force participation have not been rigorously evaluated. Using data from the Medical Monitoring Project and the National Health Interview Survey, we present nationally representative estimates of the receipt of disability benefits by adults living with HIV receiving care compared with the general US adult population. We found that in 2009, adults living with HIV were nine times more likely than adults in the general population to receive disability benefits. The risk of being on disability is also greater for younger and more educated adults living with HIV compared to the general population, which suggests that productivity losses can result from HIV infection. To prevent disability, early diagnosis and treatment of HIV are essential. This study offers a baseline against which to measure the impacts of recently proposed or enacted changes to Medicaid and private insurance markets, including the Affordable Care Act and proposed revisions to the Social Security Administration's HIV Infection Listings.

Cost analysis of a novel HIV testing strategy in community pharmacies and retail clinics.

OBJECTIVE: To document the cost of implementing point-of-care (POC) human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) rapid testing in busy community pharmacies and retail clinics. Providing HIV testing services in community pharmacies and retail clinics is an innovative way to expand HIV testing. The cost of implementing POC HIV rapid testing in a busy retail environment needs to be documented to provide program and policy leaders with adequate information for planning and budgeting. DESIGN: Cost analysis from a pilot project that provided confidential POC HIV rapid testing services in community pharmacies and retail clinics. SETTING: The pharmacy sites were operated under several different ownership structures (for-profit, nonprofit, sole proprietorship, corporation, public, and private) in urban and rural areas. We included data from the initial six sites that participated in the project. We collected the time spent by pharmacy and retail clinic staff for pretest and posttest counseling in an activity log for time-in-motion for each interaction. PARTICIPANTS: Pharmacists and retail clinic staff. INTERVENTION: HIV rapid testing. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The total cost was calculated to include costs of test kits, control kits, shipping, test supplies, training, reporting, program administration, and advertising. RESULTS: The six sites trained 22 staff to implement HIV testing. A total of 939 HIV rapid tests were conducted over a median time of 12 months, of which 17 were reactive. Median pretest counseling time was 2 minutes. Median posttest counseling time was 2 minutes for clients with a nonreactive test and 10 minutes for clients with a reactive test. The average cost per person tested was an estimated $47.21. When we considered only recurrent costs, the average cost per person tested was $32.17. CONCLUSIONS: Providing POC HIV rapid testing services required a modest amount of staff time and costs that are comparable to other services offered in these settings. HIV testing in pharmacies and retail clinics can provide an additional alternative venue for increasing the availability and accessibility of HIV testing services in the United States.

Costs of Rapid HIV Screening in an Urban Emergency Department and a Nearby County Jail in the Southeastern United States.

Emergency departments and jails provide medical services to persons at risk for HIV infection and are recommended venues for HIV screening. Our main objective in this study was to analyze the cost per new HIV diagnosis associated with the HIV screening program in these two venues. The emergency department's parallel testing program was conducted at Grady Memorial Hospital in Atlanta, Georgia starting in 2008; the jail's integrated testing program began at the Fulton County (GA) Jail in 2011. The two sites, four miles apart from one another, employed the same rapid HIV test. Ascertainment that cases were new differed by site; only the jail systematically checked identities against health department HIV registries. The program in the emergency department used dedicated HIV test counselors and made 242 diagnoses over a 40-month period at a cost of $2,981 per diagnosis. The jail program used staff nurses, and found 41 new HIV cases over 10.5 months at a cost of $6,688 per new diagnosis. Differences in methods for ascertainment of new diagnoses, previously undiagnosed HIV sero-positivity, and methodologies used for assessing program costs prevent concluding that one program was more economical than the other. Nonetheless, our findings show that testing in both venues yielded many new diagnoses, with the costs within the range reported in the literature.

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Funding for HIV Testing Associated With Higher State Percentage of Persons Tested.

OBJECTIVES: To assess the association between state per capita allocations of Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) funding for HIV testing and the percentage of persons tested for HIV. SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS: We examined data from 2 sources: 2011 Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System and 2010-2011 State HIV Budget Allocations Reports. Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System data were used to estimate the percentage of persons aged 18 to 64 years who had reported testing for HIV in the last 2 years in the United States by state. State HIV Budget Allocations Reports were used to calculate the state mean annual per capita allocations for CDC-funded HIV testing reported by state and local health departments in the United States. DESIGN: The association between the state fixed-effect per capita allocations for CDC-funded HIV testing and self-reported HIV testing in the last 2 years among persons aged 18 to 64 years was assessed with a hierarchical logistic regression model adjusting for individual-level characteristics. MAIN OUTCOME: The percentage of persons tested for HIV in the last 2 years. RESULTS: In 2011, 18.7% (95% confidence interval = 18.4-19.0) of persons reported being tested for HIV in last 2 years (state range, 9.7%-28.2%). During 2010-2011, the state mean annual per capita allocation for CDC-funded HIV testing was $0.34 (state range, $0.04-$1.04). A $0.30 increase in per capita allocation for CDC-funded HIV testing was associated with an increase of 2.4 percentage points (14.0% vs 16.4%) in the percentage of persons tested for HIV per state. CONCLUSIONS: Providing HIV testing resources to health departments was associated with an increased percentage of state residents tested for HIV.

Estimating the cost of increasing retention in care for HIV-infected patients: results of the CDC/HRSA retention in care trial.

BACKGROUND: Retaining HIV patients in medical care promotes access to antiretroviral therapy, viral load suppression, and reduced HIV transmission to partners. We estimate the programmatic costs of a US multisite randomized controlled trial of an intervention to retain HIV patients in care. METHODS: Six academically affiliated HIV clinics randomized patients to intervention (enhanced personal contact with patients across time coupled with basic HIV education) and control [standard of care (SOC)] arms. Retention in care was defined as 4-month visit constancy, that is, at least 1 primary care visit in each 4-month interval over a 12-month period. We used microcosting methods to collect unit costs and measure the quantity of resources used to implement the intervention in each clinic. All fixed and variable labor and nonlabor costs of the intervention were included. RESULTS: Visit constancy was achieved by 45.7% (280/613) of patients in the SOC arm and by 55.8% (343/615) of patients in the intervention arm, representing an increase of 63 patients (relative improvement 22.1%; 95% confidence interval: 9% to 36%; P < 0.01). The total annual cost of the intervention at the 6 clinics was $241,565, the average cost per patient was $393, and the estimated cost per additional patient retained in care beyond SOC was $3834. CONCLUSIONS: Our analyses showed that a retention in care intervention consisting of enhanced personal contact coupled with basic HIV education may be delivered at fairly low cost. These results provide useful information for guiding decisions about planning or scaling-up retention in care interventions for HIV-infected patients.

Estimating the cost to U.S. health departments to conduct HIV surveillance.

OBJECTIVES: HIV case surveillance is a primary source of information for monitoring HIV burden in the United States and guiding the allocation of prevention and treatment funds. While the number of people living with HIV and the need for surveillance data have increased, little is known about the cost of surveillance. We estimated the economic cost to health departments of conducting high-quality HIV case surveillance. METHODS: We collected primary data on the unit cost and quantity of resources used to operate the HIV case surveillance program in Michigan, where HIV burden (i.e., the number of HIV cases) is moderate to high (n=14,864 cases). Based on Michigan's data, we projected the expected annual HIV surveillance cost for U.S., state, local, and territorial health departments. We based our cost projection on the variation in the number of new and established cases, area-specific wages, and potential economies of scale. RESULTS: We estimated the annual total HIV surveillance cost to the Michigan health department to be $1,286,524 ($87/case), the annual total cost of new cases to be $108,657 ($133/case), and the annual total cost of established cases to be $1,177,867 ($84/case). Our projected median annual HIV surveillance cost per health department ranged from $210,600 in low-HIV burden sites to $1,835,000 in high-HIV burden sites. CONCLUSIONS: Our analysis shows that a systematic approach to costing HIV surveillance at the health department level is feasible. For HIV surveillance, a substantial portion of total surveillance costs is attributable to maintaining established cases.