How should HIV resources be allocated? Lessons learnt from applying Optima HIV in 23 countries.

INTRODUCTION: With limited funds available, meeting global health targets requires countries to both mobilize and prioritize their health spending. Within this context, countries have recognized the importance of allocating funds for HIV as efficiently as possible to maximize impact. Over the past six years, the governments of 23 countries in Africa, Asia, Eastern Europe and Latin America have used the Optima HIV tool to estimate the optimal allocation of HIV resources. METHODS: Each study commenced with a request by the national government for technical assistance in conducting an HIV allocative efficiency study using Optima HIV. Each study team validated the required data, calibrated the Optima HIV epidemic model to produce HIV epidemic projections, agreed on cost functions for interventions, and used the model to calculate the optimal allocation of available funds to best address national strategic plan targets. From a review and analysis of these 23 country studies, we extract common themes around the optimal allocation of HIV funding in different epidemiological contexts. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION: The optimal distribution of HIV resources depends on the amount of funding available and the characteristics of each country's epidemic, response and targets. Universally, the modelling results indicated that scaling up treatment coverage is an efficient use of resources. There is scope for efficiency gains by targeting the HIV response towards the populations and geographical regions where HIV incidence is highest. Across a range of countries, the model results indicate that a more efficient allocation of HIV resources could reduce cumulative new HIV infections by an average of 18% over the years to 2020 and 25% over the years to 2030, along with an approximately 25% reduction in deaths for both timelines. However, in most countries this would still not be sufficient to meet the targets of the national strategic plan, with modelling results indicating that budget increases of up to 185% would be required. CONCLUSIONS: Greater epidemiological impact would be possible through better targeting of existing resources, but additional resources would still be required to meet targets. Allocative efficiency models have proven valuable in improving the HIV planning and budgeting process.

The global Optima HIV allocative efficiency model: targeting resources in efforts to end AIDS.

BACKGROUND: To move towards ending AIDS by 2030, HIV resources should be allocated cost-effectively. We used the Optima HIV model to estimate how global HIV resources could be retargeted for greatest epidemiological effect and how many additional new infections could be averted by 2030. METHODS: We collated standard data used in country modelling exercises (including demographic, epidemiological, behavioural, programmatic, and expenditure data) from Jan 1, 2000, to Dec 31, 2015 for 44 countries, capturing 80% of people living with HIV worldwide. These data were used to parameterise separate subnational and national models within the Optima HIV framework. To estimate optimal resource allocation at subnational, national, regional, and global levels, we used an adaptive stochastic descent optimisation algorithm in combination with the epidemic models and cost functions for each programme in each country. Optimal allocation analyses were done with international HIV funds remaining the same to each country and by redistributing these funds between countries. FINDINGS: Without additional funding, if countries were to optimally allocate their HIV resources from 2016 to 2030, we estimate that an additional 7·4 million (uncertainty range 3·9 million-14·0 million) new infections could be averted, representing a 26% (uncertainty range 13-50%) incidence reduction. Redistribution of international funds between countries could avert a further 1·9 million infections, which represents a 33% (uncertainty range 20-58%) incidence reduction overall. To reduce HIV incidence by 90% relative to 2010, we estimate that more than a three-fold increase of current annual funds will be necessary until 2030. The most common priorities for optimal resource reallocation are to scale up treatment and prevention programmes targeting key populations at greatest risk in each setting. Prioritisation of other HIV programmes depends on the epidemiology and cost-effectiveness of service delivery in each setting as well as resource availability. INTERPRETATION: Further reductions in global HIV incidence are possible through improved targeting of international and national HIV resources. FUNDING: World Bank and Australian NHMRC.

Getting it right when budgets are tight: Using optimal expansion pathways to prioritize responses to concentrated and mixed HIV epidemics.

BACKGROUND: Prioritizing investments across health interventions is complicated by the nonlinear relationship between intervention coverage and epidemiological outcomes. It can be difficult for countries to know which interventions to prioritize for greatest epidemiological impact, particularly when budgets are uncertain. METHODS: We examined four case studies of HIV epidemics in diverse settings, each with different characteristics. These case studies were based on public data available for Belarus, Peru, Togo, and Myanmar. The Optima HIV model and software package was used to estimate the optimal distribution of resources across interventions associated with a range of budget envelopes. We constructed "investment staircases", a useful tool for understanding investment priorities. These were used to estimate the best attainable cost-effectiveness of the response at each investment level. FINDINGS: We find that when budgets are very limited, the optimal HIV response consists of a smaller number of 'core' interventions. As budgets increase, those core interventions should first be scaled up, and then new interventions introduced. We estimate that the cost-effectiveness of HIV programming decreases as investment levels increase, but that the overall cost-effectiveness remains below GDP per capita. SIGNIFICANCE: It is important for HIV programming to respond effectively to the overall level of funding availability. The analytic tools presented here can help to guide program planners understand the most cost-effective HIV responses and plan for an uncertain future.

Maximizing the impact of malaria funding through allocative efficiency: using the right interventions in the right locations.

BACKGROUND: The high burden of malaria and limited funding means there is a necessity to maximize the allocative efficiency of malaria control programmes. Quantitative tools are urgently needed to guide budget allocation decisions. METHODS: A geospatial epidemic model was coupled with costing data and an optimization algorithm to estimate the optimal allocation of budgeted and projected funds across all malaria intervention approaches. Interventions included long-lasting insecticide-treated nets (LLINs), indoor residual spraying (IRS), intermittent presumptive treatment during pregnancy (IPTp), seasonal mass chemoprevention in children (SMC), larval source management (LSM), mass drug administration (MDA), and behavioural change communication (BCC). The model was applied to six geopolitical regions of Nigeria in isolation and also the nation as a whole to minimize incidence and malaria-attributable mortality. RESULTS: Allocative efficiency gains could avert approximately 84,000 deaths or 15.7 million cases of malaria in Nigeria over 5 years. With an additional US$300 million available, approximately 134,000 deaths or 37.3 million cases of malaria could be prevented over 5 years. Priority funding should go to LLINs, IPTp and BCC programmes, and SMC should be expanded in seasonal areas. To minimize mortality, treatment expansion is critical and prioritized over some LLIN funding, while to minimize incidence, LLIN funding remained a priority. For areas with lower rainfall, LSM is prioritized over IRS but MDA is not recommended unless all other programmes are established. CONCLUSIONS: Substantial reductions in malaria morbidity and mortality can be made by optimal targeting of investments to the right malaria interventions in the right areas.