Using cost-effectiveness league tables to compare interventions to prevent sexual transmission of HIV

A Bayesian Approach to Net Health Benefits: An Illustration and Application to Modeling HIV Prevention

Purpose. To conduct a cost-effectiveness analysis of HIV prevention when costs and effects cannot be measured directly. To quantify the total estimation of uncertainty due to sampling variability as well as inexact knowledge of HIV transmission parameters. Methods. The authors focus on estimating the incremental net health benefit (INHB) in a randomized trial of HIV prevention with intervention and control conditions. Using a Bernoulli model of HIV transmission, changes in the participants’ risk behaviors are converted into the number of HIV infections averted. A sampling model is used to account for variation in the behavior measurements. Bayes’s theorem and Monte Carlo methods are used to attain the stated objectives. Results. The authors obtained a positive mean INHB of 0.0008, indicating that advocacy training is just slightly favored over the control condition for men, assuming a $50,000 per quality-adjusted life year (QALY) threshold. To be confident of a positive INHB, the decision maker would need to spend more than $100,000 per QALY.

HIV Prevention, Cost-Utility Analysis, and Race/Ethnicity: Methodological Considerations and Recommendations

In this methodological article, the author reviews 1) the disproportionate impact that HIV/AIDS is having on communities of color in the United States, 2) what is known about the cost-effectiveness of HIV prevention interventions for racial/ethnic minority communities (including the methods used in these studies), and 3) the relative lack of methodological guidance in the field for conducting economic evaluation studies specifically for communities of color. The author finds that race/ethnicity affects cost-utility analyses in several heretofore unrecognized ways. In this article, methodological techniques to address these concerns are proposed. In particular, the author recommends cost-utility analytic strategies that maximize comparability among studies and avoid the introduction of methodological discrimination.

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.

Cost and threshold analysis of positive charge, a multi-site linkage to HIV care program in the United States

Positive Charge (PC) is a linkage to HIV care initiative implemented by AIDS United with sites in New York, Chicago, Louisiana, North Carolina, and the San Francisco/Bay Area. This study employed standard methods of cost and threshold analyses, as recommended by the US Panel on Cost-effectiveness in Health and Medicine, to calculate cost-saving and cost effective thresholds of the initiative. The overall societal cost of the linkage to care programs ranged from $48,490 to $370,525. The study found that PC's five unique evidence-based linkage to care programs have relatively low costs per client served and highly achievable cost-saving and cost-effectiveness thresholds. The findings from this study suggest that HIV linkage to care programs have the potential to be a highly productive use of public health resources.

Diplomatic advantages and threats in global health program selection, design, delivery and implementation: development and application of the Kevany Riposte

BACKGROUND

Global health programs, as supported by organizations such as the Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria and the President's Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief (PEPFAR), stand to make significant contributions to international medical outcomes. Traditional systems of monitoring and evaluation, however, fail to capture downstream, indirect, or collateral advantages (and threats) of intervention selection, design, and implementation from broader donor perspectives, including those of the diplomatic and foreign policy communities, which these programs also generate. This paper describes the development a new métier under which assessment systems designed to consider the diplomatic value of global health initiatives are described and applied based on previously-identified "Top Ten" criteria.

METHODS

The "Kevany Riposte" and the "K-Score" were conceptualized based on a retrospective and collective assessment of the author's participation in the design, implementation and delivery of a range of global health interventions related to the HIV/AIDS epidemic. Responses and associated scores reframe intervention worth or value in terms of global health diplomacy criteria such as "adaptability", "interdependence", "training," and "neutrality". Response options ranged from "highly advantageous" to "significant potential threat".

RESULTS

Global health initiatives under review were found to generate significant advantages from the diplomatic perspective. These included (1) intervention visibility and associations with donor altruism and prestige, (2) development of international non-health collaborations and partnerships, (3) adaptability and responsiveness of service delivery to local needs, and (4) advancement of broader strategic goals of the international community. Corresponding threats included (1) an absence of formal training of project staff on broader political and international relations roles and responsibilities, (2) challenges to recipient cultural and religious practices, (3) intervention-related environmental concerns, and (4) a lack of prima facie consideration of intervention diplomatic and foreign policy consequences.

CONCLUSIONS

Global health interventions stand to generate significant diplomatic advantages for donor and recipient countries and organizations when appropriately selected, designed, targeted, and delivered. Conversely, in the absence of the application of standards such as those developed under the Kevany Riposte, threats to diplomacy and international relations may occur. With the application of related systems to other global health programmes and settings, comparative results on the relative worth of alternate approaches from the diplomatic perspective may be generated to better inform political, strategic, and global health policy and programmatic decisions.

Financing structural interventions: going beyond HIV-only value for money assessments

OBJECTIVE

Structural interventions can reduce HIV vulnerability. However, HIV-specific budgeting, based on HIV-specific outcomes alone, could lead to the undervaluation of investments in such interventions and suboptimal resource allocation. We investigate this hypothesis by examining the consequences of alternative financing approaches.

METHODS

We compare three approaches for deciding whether to finance a structural intervention to keep adolescent girls in school in Malawi. In the first, HIV and non-HIV budget holders participate in a cross-sectoral cost-benefit analysis and fund the intervention if the benefits outweigh the costs. In the second silo approach, each budget holder considers the cost-effectiveness of the intervention in terms of their own objectives and funds the intervention on the basis of their sector-specific thresholds of what is cost-effective or not. In the third cofinancing approach, budget holders use cost-effectiveness analysis to determine how much they would be willing to contribute towards the intervention, provided that other sectors are willing to pay for the remaining costs. In addition, we explore approaches for determining the HIV share in the cofinancing scenario.

RESULTS

We find that efficient structural interventions may be less likely to be prioritized, financed and taken to scale where sectors evaluate their options in isolation. A cofinancing approach minimizes welfare loss and could be incorporated in a sector budgeting perspective.

CONCLUSION

Structural interventions may be underimplemented and their cross-sectoral benefits foregone. Cofinancing provides an opportunity for multiple HIV, health and development objectives to be achieved simultaneously, but will require effective cross-sectoral coordination mechanisms for planning, implementation and financing.

Cost and threshold analysis of an HIV/STI/hepatitis prevention intervention for young men leaving prison: Project START

The objectives of this study were to: (a) estimate the costs of providing a single-session HIV prevention intervention and a multi-session intervention, and (b) estimate the number of HIV transmissions that would need to be prevented for the intervention to be cost-saving or cost-effective (threshold analysis). Project START was evaluated with 522 young men aged 18-29 years released from eight prisons located in California, Mississippi, Rhode Island, and Wisconsin. Cost data were collected prospectively. Costs per participant were $689 for the single-session comparison intervention, and ranged from $1,823 to 1,836 for the Project START multi-session intervention. From the incremental threshold analysis, the multi-session intervention would be cost-effective if it prevented one HIV transmission for every 753 participants compared to the single-session intervention. Costs are comparable with other HIV prevention programs. Program managers can use these data to gauge costs of initiating these HIV prevention programs in correctional facilities.

How Much Should We Pay for a New HIV Diagnosis? A Mathematical Model of HIV Screening in US Clinical Settings

Objective. To develop a model to assist clinical setting decision makers in determining how much they can spend on human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) screening and still be cost-effective. Design. The authors developed a simple mathematical model relating the program cost per new HIV diagnosis to the cost per HIV infection averted and the cost per quality-adjusted life year (QALY) saved by screening. They estimated outcomes based on behavioral changes associated with awareness of HIV infection and applied the model to US sexually transmitted disease clinics. Methods. The authors based the cost per new HIV diagnosis (2009 US dollars) on the costs of testing and the proportion of persons who tested positive. Infections averted were calculated from the reduction in annual transmission rates between persons aware and unaware of their infections. The authors defined program costs from the sexually transmitted disease clinic perspective and treatment costs and QALYs saved from the societal perspective. They undertook numerous sensitivity analyses to determine the robustness of the base case results. Results. In the base case, the cost per new HIV diagnosis was $2528, the cost per infection averted was $40,516, and the cost per QALY saved was less than zero, or cost-saving. Given the model inputs, the cost per new diagnosis could increase to $22,909 to reach the cost-saving threshold and to $63,053 for the cost-effectiveness threshold. All sensitivity analyses showed that the cost-effectiveness results were consistent for extensive variation in the values of model inputs. Conclusions. HIV screening in a clinical setting is cost-effective for a wide range of testing costs, variations in positivity rates, reductions in HIV transmissions, and variation in the receipt of test results.

Allocating funds for HIV/AIDS: a descriptive study of KwaDukuza, South Africa

OBJECTIVE

through a descriptive study, we determined the factors that influence the decision-making process for allocating funds to HIV/AIDS prevention and treatment programmes, and the extent to which formal decision tools are used in the municipality of KwaDukuza, South Africa.

METHODS

we conducted 35 key informant interviews in KwaDukuza. The interview questions addressed specific resource allocation issues while allowing respondents to speak openly about the complexities of the HIV/AIDS resource allocation process.

RESULTS

donors have a large influence on the decision-making process for HIV/AIDS resource allocation. However, advocacy groups, governmental bodies and local communities also play an important role. Political power, culture and ethics are among a set of intangible factors that have a strong influence on HIV/AIDS resource allocation. Formal methods, including needs assessment, best practice approaches, epidemiologic modelling and cost-effectiveness analysis are sometimes used to support the HIV/AIDS resource allocation process. Historical spending patterns are an important consideration in future HIV/AIDS allocation strategies.

CONCLUSIONS

several factors and groups influence resource allocation in KwaDukuza. Although formal economic and epidemiologic information is sometimes used, in most cases other factors are more important for resource allocation decision-making. These other factors should be considered in any attempts to improve the resource allocation processes.

Costs of HIV prevention among out-of-treatment drug-using women: results of a randomized controlled trial

OBJECTIVES

We developed a micro-costing methodology to estimate the real resource costs consumed by delivery of the National Institute on Drug Abuse (NIDA) Cooperative Agreement Standard Intervention (SI) for human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) prevention, plus two enhanced modules, in a three-arm randomized controlled trial (RCT) among drug-using women. To our knowledge, this is the first micro-costing study of the SI and enhanced modules and the first of its kind targeting drug-using women.

METHODS

We conducted a micro-costing study alongside a three-arm RCT to estimate costs of (1) the modified NIDA SI; (2) the SI and a well woman exam (SI+WWE); and (3) the SI, WWE, and four educational sessions (SI+WWE+4ES) to prevent HIV and sexually transmitted diseases in at-risk, drug-using women in St. Louis, Missouri.

RESULTS

The cost of the SI that all 501 participants received was approximately $227 per person. The additional costs for the WWE and 4ES were approximately $145 and $942 per person, respectively. Total program costs for the SI (n = 501) were $113,869; additional costs for the SI+WWE (n = 342) were $49,403 and for the SI+WWE+4ES (n = 170) were $160,189. The main cost component for the SI (64% of total costs) was testing costs, whereas building and facilities costs were the main cost component for the SI+WWE+4ES (75% of total costs).

CONCLUSIONS

This study provides accurate estimates of the real costs for standard and enhanced HIV interventions for policy makers seeking to implement targeted HIV-prevention programs with scarce resources.

Recommendations for increasing the use of HIV/AIDS resource allocation models

BACKGROUND

Resource allocation models have not had a substantial impact on HIV/AIDS resource allocation decisions in spite of the important, additional insights they may provide. In this paper, we highlight six difficulties often encountered in attempts to implement such models in policy settings; these are: model complexity, data requirements, multiple stakeholders, funding issues, and political and ethical considerations. We then make recommendations as to how each of these difficulties may be overcome.

RESULTS

To ensure that models can inform the actual decision, modellers should understand the environment in which decision-makers operate, including full knowledge of the stakeholders' key issues and requirements. HIV/AIDS resource allocation model formulations should be contextualized and sensitive to societal concerns and decision-makers' realities. Modellers should provide the required education and training materials in order for decision-makers to be reasonably well versed in understanding the capabilities, power and limitations of the model.

CONCLUSION

This paper addresses the issue of knowledge translation from the established resource allocation modelling expertise in the academic realm to that of policymaking.

The past, present, and future of HIV prevention: integrating behavioral, biomedical, and structural intervention strategies for the next generation of HIV prevention

In the past 25 years, the field of HIV prevention research has been transformed repeatedly. Today, effective HIV prevention requires a combination of behavioral, biomedical, and structural intervention strategies. Risk of transmitting or acquiring HIV is reduced by consistent male- and female-condom use, reductions in concurrent and/or sequential sexual and needle-sharing partners, male circumcision, and treatment with antiretroviral medications. At least 144 behavioral prevention programs have been found effective in reducing HIV transmission acts; however, scale up of these programs has not occurred outside of the United States. A series of recent failures of HIV-prevention efficacy trials for biomedical innovations such as HIV vaccines, treating herpes simplex 2 and other sexually transmitted infections, and diaphragm and microbicide barriers highlights the need for behavioral strategies to accompany biomedical strategies. This challenges prevention researchers to reconceptualize how cost-effective, useful, realistic, and sustainable prevention programs will be designed, delivered, tested, and diffused. The next generation of HIV prevention science must draw from the successes of existing evidence-based interventions and the expertise of the market sector to integrate preventive innovations and behaviors into everyday routines.

A randomized control trial evaluating the educational effectiveness of a rapid HIV posttest counseling video

OBJECTIVE

Many of the individuals most at risk for HIV infection (i.e., minority populations, women, adolescents) are also the most marginalized by our health care system. Lacking primary care providers, they rely on the Emergency Department (ED) for their health care needs and education. In this prospective randomized controlled trial, we compared the educational effectiveness of a 15-minute posttest counseling video with the normal practice of a session with an HIV counselor. The study population was composed of ambulatory patients recruited for rapid HIV testing in the ED.

METHODS

The RAs (research assistants) recruited a convenience sample of stable patients presenting to the walk-in section of an inner-city adult ED for rapid HIV testing. Eligible patients for this study included patients who consented for the rapid HIV test and completed measures on condom intention and condom use self-efficacy. Before receiving their results, participants who consented to be in this study were randomized to either a 15-minute HIV posttest educational video available in English/Spanish or to a posttest educational session with an HIV counselor. Afterwards, both groups completed an assessment tool concerning HIV prevention and transmission.

RESULTS

Of the 128 participants, 61 and 67 patients were randomized to the video and counselor groups, respectively. The groups were similar with respect to gender, ethnicity and experience with prior HIV testing. Mean knowledge scores were higher in the video group (76.20% vs. 69.3%; 90% CI for the difference, 2.8, 11.2). As the lower bound of the CI for the difference was higher than the lower equivalence boundary (-5%), we infer that the video was at least as effective as the counselor educational session.

CONCLUSIONS

The use of an educational counseling video is a valid alternative for providing posttest education and prevention information during the waiting period associated with the 20-minute HIV rapid test. Without disruption in clinical flow, both testing and education can be accomplished in a meaningful way in a busy ED.

Evidence-based efforts to prevent HIV infection: an overview of current status and future challenges

Since the early 1990s, the incidence of human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) infection in the United States has been approximately 40,000 cases per year. Because this rate has not decreased substantially in >15 years, the efficacy and cost-effectiveness of programs to prevent HIV infection have come under intensifying examination. In this article, several issues are addressed, including the efficacy of HIV prevention strategies at the national level in the United States, the status of the goals from the current (albeit expired) national HIV prevention plan, the role of opt-out HIV testing in a new comprehensive national HIV prevention plan, and a review of evidence-based prevention strategies that should be emphasized in a new plan.

Behavioral interventions to reduce risk for sexual transmission of HIV among men who have sex with men

BACKGROUND

Men who have sex with men (MSM) remain at great risk for HIV infection. Program planners and policy makers need descriptions of interventions and quantitative estimates of intervention effects to make informed decisions concerning prevention funding and research. The number of intervention strategies for MSM that have been examined with strong research designs has increased substantially in the past few years.

OBJECTIVES

1. To locate and describe outcome studies evaluating the effects of behavioral HIV prevention interventions for MSM.2. To summarize the effectiveness of these interventions in reducing unprotected anal sex.3. To identify study characteristics associated with effectiveness.4. To identify gaps and indicate future research, policy, and practice needs.

SEARCH STRATEGY

We searched electronic databases, current journals, manuscripts submitted by researchers, bibliographies of relevant articles, conference proceedings, and other reviews for published and unpublished reports from 1988 through December 2007. We also asked researchers working in HIV prevention about new and ongoing studies.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Studies were considered in scope if they examined the effects of behavioral interventions aimed at reducing risk for HIV or STD transmission among MSM. We reviewed studies in scope for criteria of outcome relevance (measurement of at least one of a list of behavioral or biologic outcomes, e.g., unprotected sex or incidence of HIV infections) and methodologic rigor (randomized controlled trials or certain strong quasi-experimental designs with comparison groups).

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used fixed and random effects models to summarize rate ratios (RR) comparing intervention and control groups with respect to count outcomes (number of occasions of or partners for unprotected anal sex), and corresponding prevalence ratios (PR) for dichotomous outcomes (any unprotected anal sex vs. none). We used published formulas to convert effect sizes and their variances for count and dichotomous outcomes where necessary. We accounted for intraclass correlation (ICC) in community-level studies and adjusted for baseline conditions in all studies. We present separate results by intervention format (small group, individual, or community-level) and by type of intervention delivered to the comparison group (minimal or no HIV prevention in the comparison condition versus standard or other HIV prevention in the comparison condition). We examine rate ratios stratified according to characteristics of participants, design, implementation, and intervention content. For small group and individual-level interventions we used a stepwise selection process to identify a multivariable model of predictors of reduction in occasions of or partners for unprotected anal sex. We used funnel plots to examine publication bias, and Q (a chi-squared statistic with degrees of freedom = number of interventions minus 1) to test for heterogeneity.

MAIN RESULTS

We found 44 studies evaluating 58 interventions with 18,585 participants. Formats included 26 small group interventions, 21 individual-level interventions, and 11 community-level interventions. Sixteen of the 58 interventions focused on HIV-positives. The 40 interventions that were measured against minimal to no HIV prevention intervention reduced occasions of or partners for unprotected anal sex by 27% (95% confidence interval [CI] = 15% to 37%). The other 18 interventions reduced unprotected anal sex by 17% beyond changes observed in standard or other interventions (CI = 5% to 27%). Intervention effects were statistically homogeneous, and no independent variable was statistically significantly associated with intervention effects at alpha=.05. However, a multivariable model selected by backward stepwise elimination identified four study characteristics associated with reduction in occasions of or partners for unprotected anal sex among small group and individual-level interventions at alpha=.10. The most favorable reductions in episodes of or partners for unprotected anal sex (33% to 35% decreases) were observed among studies with count outcomes, those with shorter intervention spans (<=1 month), those with better retention in the intervention condition than in the comparison condition, and those with minimal to no HIV prevention intervention delivered to the comparison condition. Because there were only 11 community-level studies we did not search for a multivariable model for community-level interventions. In stratified analyses including only one variable at a time, the greatest reductions (40% to 54% decreases) in number of episodes of or partners for unprotected anal sex among community-level interventions were observed among studies where groups were assigned randomly rather than by convenience, studies with shorter recall periods and longer follow-up, studies with more than 25% non-gay identifying MSM, studies in which at least 90% of participants were white, and studies in which the intervention addressed development of personal skills.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Behavioral interventions reduce self-reported unprotected anal sex among MSM. These results indicate that HIV prevention for this population can work and should be supported. Results of previous studies provide a benchmark for expectations in new studies. Meta-analysis can inform future design and implementation in terms of sample size, target populations, settings, goals for process measures, and intervention content. When effects differ by design variables, which are deliberately selected and planned, awareness of these characteristics may be beneficial to future designs. Researchers designing future small group and individual-level studies should keep in mind that to date, effects of the greatest magnitude have been observed in studies that used count outcomes and a shorter intervention span (up to 1 month). Among small group and individual-level studies, effects were also greatest when the comparison condition included minimal to no HIV prevention content. Nevertheless, statistically significant favorable effects were also seen when the comparison condition included standard or other HIV prevention content. Researchers choosing the latter option for new studies should plan for larger sample sizes based on the smaller expected net intervention effect noted above. When effects differ by implementation variables, which become evident as the study is conducted but are not usually selected or planned, caution may be advised so that future studies can reduce bias. Because intervention effects were somewhat stronger (though not statistically significantly so) in studies with a greater attrition in the comparison condition, differential retention may be a threat to validity. Extra effort should be given to retaining participants in comparison conditions. Among community-level interventions, intervention effects were strongest among studies with random assignment of groups or communities. Therefore the inclusion of studies where assignment of groups or communities was by convenience did not exaggerate the summary effect. The greater effectiveness of interventions including more than 25% non-gay identifying MSM suggests that when they can be reached, these men may be more responsive than gay-identified men to risk reduction efforts. Non-gay identified MSM may have had less exposure to previous prevention messages, so their initial exposure may have a greater impact. The greater effectiveness of interventions that include efforts to promote personal skills such as keeping condoms available and behavioral self-management indicates that such content merits strong consideration in development and delivery of new interventions for MSM. And the finding that interventions were most effective for majority white populations underscores the critical need for effective interventions for MSM of African and Latino descent. Further research measuring the incidence of HIV and other STDs is needed. Because most studies were conducted among mostly white men in the US and Europe, more evaluations of interventions are needed for African American and Hispanic MSM as well as MSM in the developing world. More research is also needed to further clarify which behavioral strategies (e.g., reducing unprotected anal sex, having oral sex instead of anal sex, reducing number of partners, avoiding serodiscordant partners, strategic positioning, or reducing anal sex even with condom use) are most effective in reducing transmission among MSM, the messages most effective in promoting these behaviors, and the methods and settings in which these messages can be most effectively delivered.

Universal access to HIV treatment in developing countries: going beyond the misinterpretations of the 'cost-effectiveness' algorithm

BACKGROUND

Economic cost-effectiveness analysis (CEA) has been proposed as the appropriate tool to set priorities for resource allocation among available health interventions. Controversy remains about the way CEA should be used in the field of HIV/AIDS.

METHODS AND OBJECTIVES

This paper reviews the general literature in health economics and public economics about the use of CEA for priority setting in public health, in order better to inform current debates about resource allocation in the fight against HIV/AIDS.

RESULTS

Theoretical and practical limitations of CEA do not raise major problems when it is applied to compare alternatives for treating the same medical condition or public health problem. Using CEA to set priorities among different health interventions by ranking them from the lowest to the highest values of their cost per life-year saved is appropriate only under the very restrictive and unrealistic assumptions that all interventions compared are discrete and finite alternatives that cannot vary in terms of size and scale. In order for CEA to inform resource allocation compared across programmes to fight the AIDS epidemic, a pragmatic interpretation of this economic approach, like that proposed by the Commission on Macroeconomics and Health, is better suited. Interventions, like a number of preventive strategies and first-line antiretroviral treatments for HIV, whose marginal costs per additional life-year saved are less than three times the gross domestic product per capita, should be considered cost-effective.

CONCLUSION

Because of their empirical and theoretical limitations, results of CEA should only be one element in priority setting among interventions for HIV/AIDS, which should also be informed by explicit debates about societal and ethical preferences.

Cost savings threshold analysis of a capacity-building program for HIV prevention organizations

Although the incidence of HIV each year remains steady, prevention funding is increasingly competitive. Programs need to justify costs in terms of evaluation outcomes, including economic ones. Threshold analyses set performance standards to determine program effectiveness relative to that threshold. This method was used to evaluate the potential cost savings of a national capacity-building program for HIV prevention organizations. Program costs were compared with the lifetime treatment costs of HIV, yielding an estimate of the HIV infections that would have to be prevented for the program to be cost saving. The 136 persons who completed the capacity-building program between 2000 and 2003 would have to avert 41 cases of HIV for the program to be considered cost saving. These figures represent less than one tenth of 1% of the 40,000 new HIV infections that occur in the United States annually and suggest a reasonable performance standard. These data underscore the resources needed to prevent HIV.

S4HARA: System for HIV/AIDS resource allocation

Background

HIV/AIDS resource allocation decisions are influenced by political, social, ethical and other factors that are difficult to quantify. Consequently, quantitative models of HIV/AIDS resource allocation have had limited impact on actual spending decisions. We propose a decision-support System for HIV/AIDS Resource Allocation (S4HARA) that takes into consideration both principles of efficient resource allocation and the role of non-quantifiable influences on the decision-making process for resource allocation.

Methods

S4HARA is a four-step spreadsheet-based model. The first step serves to identify the factors currently influencing HIV/AIDS allocation decisions. The second step consists of prioritizing HIV/AIDS interventions. The third step involves allocating the budget to the HIV/AIDS interventions using a rational approach. Decision-makers can select from several rational models of resource allocation depending on availability of data and level of complexity. The last step combines the results of the first and third steps to highlight the influencing factors that act as barriers or facilitators to the results suggested by the rational resource allocation approach. Actionable recommendations are then made to improve the allocation. We illustrate S4HARA in the context of a primary healthcare clinic in South Africa.

Results

The clinic offers six types of HIV/AIDS interventions and spends US$750,000 annually on these programs. Current allocation decisions are influenced by donors, NGOs and the government as well as by ethical and religious factors. Without additional funding, an optimal allocation of the total budget suggests that the portion allotted to condom distribution be increased from 1% to 15% and the portion allotted to prevention and treatment of opportunistic infections be increased from 43% to 71%, while allocation to other interventions should decrease.

Conclusion

Condom uptake at the clinic should be increased by changing the condom distribution policy from a pull system to a push system. NGOs and donors promoting antiretroviral programs at the clinic should be sensitized to the results of the model and urged to invest in wellness programs aimed at the prevention and treatment of opportunistic infections. S4HARA differentiates itself from other decision support tools by providing rational HIV/AIDS resource allocation capabilities as well as consideration of the realities facing authorities in their decision-making process.

Cost and threshold analysis of housing as an HIV prevention intervention

The Housing and Health study examines the effects of permanent supportive housing for homeless and unstably housed persons living with HIV. While promising as an HIV prevention intervention, providing housing may be more expensive to deliver than some other HIV prevention services. Economic evaluation is needed to determine if investment in permanent supportive housing would be cost-saving or cost-effective. Here we ask -- what is the per client cost of delivering the intervention, and how many HIV transmissions have to be averted in order to exceed the threshold needed to claim cost-savings or cost-effectiveness to society? Standard methods of cost and threshold analysis were employed. Payor perspective costs range from $9,256 to $11,651 per client per year; societal perspective costs range from $10,048 to $14,032 per client per year. Considering that averting a new case of HIV saves an estimated $221,365 in treatment costs, the average cost-saving threshold across the three study cities is 0.0555. Expressed another way, if just one out of every 19 Housing & Health intervention clients avoided HIV transmission to an HIV seronegative partner the intervention would be cost-saving. The intervention would be cost-effective if it prevented just one HIV transmission for every 64 clients served.

The magnitude of key HIV prevention challenges in the United States: implications for a new national HIV prevention plan

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has undertaken an advisory process to update its national HIV prevention plan. We offer observations on the magnitude of HIV prevention challenges in the United States and reflect on how these challenges might influence the structure of a new HIV prevention plan. We recommend a plan structure that (1) is based on fundamental principles of prevention, (2) enables accountability and mid-course correction, and (3) if achieved, would result in historic changes in the US HIV epidemic. The recommended plan structure would differentially prioritize serostatus determination and prevention and care interventions for people living with HIV while retaining goals directed at high-risk HIV-negative and general population members.

WHAT WORKS, AND WHAT REMAINS TO BE DONE, IN HIV PREVENTION IN THE UNITED STATES

Since the beginning of the HIV epidemic in the United States, HIV prevention programs have prevented hundreds of thousands of HIV infections, and the investment in these programs has actually been cost-saving to society in terms of medical costs averted. A substantial body of evidence exists (including randomized controlled trials and careful meta-analyses) which demonstrates that various HIV prevention services are effective; an increasingly large body of data also demonstrates the cost-effectiveness of these interventions. However, the efforts to utilize these interventions in a comprehensive HIV prevention program are hampered by insufficient funding, imperfect targeting strategies, and a problematic policy environment that creates barriers to the use of some of these life-saving interventions. Progress toward reducing new HIV infections will likely be as much a function of improvements in funding and policies as it will in the development of new tools for HIV prevention.

The cost-effectiveness of health communication programs: what do we know?

While a considerable body of evidence has emerged supporting the effectiveness of communication programs in augmenting health, only a very small subset of studies has examined also whether these programs are cost-effective, that is, whether they achieve greater health gains for available financial resources than alternative interventions. In this article, we examine the available literature on the cost-effectiveness of health behavior change communication programs, focusing on communication interventions involving mass media, and, to a lesser extent, community mobilization and interpersonal communication or counseling. Our objective is to identify the state of past and current research efforts of the cost-effectiveness of behavior change communication programs. This review makes three principal conclusions. First, the analysis of the cost-effectiveness of health communication programs commonly has not been performed. Second, the studies reviewed here have utilized a considerable diversity of methods and have reflected varying levels of quality and adherence to standard cost-effectiveness methodologies. This leads to problems of transparency, comparability, and generalizability. Third, while the available studies generally are indicative of the cost-effectiveness of communication interventions relative to alternatives, the evidence base clearly needs to be expanded by additional rigorous cost-effectiveness analyses.

Comparative cost-effectiveness of the components of a behavior change communication campaign on HIV/AIDS in North India

Numerous studies show that exposure to entertainment-education-based mass media campaigns is associated with reduction in risk behaviors. Concurrently, there is a growing interest in comparing the cost-effectiveness of HIV prevention interventions taking into account infrastructural and programmatic costs. In such analyses, though few in number, mass media campaigns have fared well. Using data from a mass media communication campaign in the low HIV prevalence states of Uttar Pradesh, Rajasthan, and Delhi in Northern India, in this article we examine the following: (1) factors that mediate behavior change in different components of the campaign, comprising a TV drama, reality show for youth audiences, and TV spots; (2) the relative impact of campaign components on the behavioral outcome: condom use; and (3) the cost-effectiveness calculations arising from this analysis. Results suggest that recall of the TV spots and the TV drama influences behavior change and is strongly associated with interpersonal communication and positive gender attitudes. The TV drama, in spite of being the costliest, emerges as the most cost-effective component when considering the behavioral outcome of interest. The analysis of the comparative cost-effectiveness of individual campaign components provides insights into the planning of resources for communication interventions globally.

Using economic threshold analysis to determine the intensity of HIV prevention services for HIV-seropositive persons

OBJECTIVE

Studies of the effectiveness of HIV prevention interventions for persons living with HIV have examined interventions with very wide variation in intensity (from single session interventions to those offered twice-weekly for 6 months); this raises questions about cost-effectiveness. Herein the question is asked: at varied (but specified) levels of HIV transmission rates and intervention effectiveness, how much money can be spent per HIV-seropositive client on HIV prevention services and still be considered cost-saving to society (in the United States)?

DESIGN AND METHODS

Standard methods of economic evaluation (threshold analysis, in particular) were used. Per-client HIV transmission rates and intervention effectiveness were specified and then allowed to vary widely. The threshold for intervention cost (as well as number of sessions per client) that could be justified on the basis of societal cost savings was then calculated.

RESULTS

If HIV transmissions are permanently prevented and lifetime medical costs are avoided in an HIV-seronegative partner, then monthly counseling sessions, even after high quality pre- and post-test counseling, and even at moderate levels of effectiveness, may be cost-saving to society (and at higher transmission rates and effectiveness, dozens of sessions per client could be cost-saving). If these interventions delay (but do not permanently prevent) HIV infection among HIV-seronegative partners, then the cost and number of session thresholds are substantially lower.

CONCLUSIONS

Even with considerable uncertainty in input parameters, an economic evaluation threshold analysis framework can yield useful insights for guiding the selection of intensity of HIV prevention services for persons living with HIV.

Cost-Effectiveness of a Community-Level HIV Risk Reduction Intervention for Women Living in Low-Income Housing Developments

We conducted a cost-effectiveness analysis of a multi-site community-level HIV prevention trial that enrolled women living in 18 low-income housing developments in 5 U.S. cities. A mathematical model of HIV transmission was used to estimate the number of HIV infections averted and quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) saved by the community-level intervention, based on data obtained from community-wide sexual behavior surveys at baseline and 12-month follow-up. Results indicated that the intervention prevented approximately 1 infection per 3500 women reached by the intervention, at a total cost of 174,845 dollars. The cost per QALY saved by the intervention was 37,433 dollars and the cost per HIV infection averted was 732,072 dollars. The community-level intervention was moderately cost-effective in comparison with other HIV prevention programs for at-risk women. Synergistic approaches to HIV prevention that combine community-level sexual norm change interventions with more intensive risk reduction programs for high-risk women are needed. EDITORS' STRATEGIC IMPLICATIONS: The authors present a promising and efficient community-level HIV prevention approach, with effects beyond the limited scope of individual or small group interventions. This paper represents an example of how an analysis of cost-effectiveness can provide policymakers with information needed for difficult decisions about prevention resource allocations.

Health and Economic Impacts of an HIV Intervention in Out of Treatment Substance Abusers: Evidence from a Dynamic Model

INTRODUCTION

A community-based intervention program found that the high-risk target population interacts with its surrounding community as a source of drugs and prostitution, creating a measure of co-dependence in the health status of each group.

METHODOLOGY

The intervention collected extensive data on sexual and drug use practices in the target population. A dynamic compartment model estimates the epidemiological impact of the intervention, which serves as the basis for the economic assessment comparing intervention costs and lifetime HIV treatment costs.

RESULTS

Approximately 2/3 of the new infections arise in the surrounding community. Intervention spillover benefits in the surrounding community are sufficient to make the intervention cost-saving in the first year--a savings of approximately 534,000 dollars.

CONCLUSIONS

Conducting the intervention results in health benefits and cost-savings not only for the risk group, but for the entire community in which it resides. Quantifying the spillovers is vital to policymakers attempting to allocate scarce public health resources.

Comparing the Cost-Effectiveness of HIV Prevention Interventions

OBJECTIVE

Communities need to identify cost-effective interventions for HIV prevention to optimize limited resources.

METHODS

The authors developed a spreadsheet tool using Bernoulli and proportionate change models to estimate the relative cost-effectiveness for 26 HIV prevention interventions including biomedical interventions, structural interventions, and interventions designed to change risk behaviors of individuals. They also conducted sensitivity analyses to assess patterns of the cost-effectiveness across different populations using various assumptions.

RESULTS

The 2 factors most strongly determining the cost-effectiveness of the different interventions were the HIV prevalence of the population at risk and the cost per person reached. In low-prevalence populations (eg, heterosexuals) the most cost-effective interventions were structural interventions (eg, mass media, condom distribution), whereas in high-prevalence populations (eg, men who have sex with men) individually focused interventions to change risk behavior were also relatively cost-effective. Among the most cost-effective interventions overall were showing videos in STD clinics and raising alcohol taxes. School-based HIV prevention programs appeared to be the least cost-effective. Needle exchange and needle deregulation programs were relatively cost-effective only when injection drug users have a high HIV prevalence.

CONCLUSIONS

Comparing estimates of the cost-effectiveness of HIV interventions provides insight that can help local communities maximize the impact of their HIV prevention resources.

Rationing of medical care: Rules of rescue, cost-effectiveness, and the Oregon plan

Doctors who deal with individual patients fail to avoid interventions with minimal expected benefits. This is one reason that the United States spends more on health care services than any of 28 other industrialized nations. Yet, our money has not bought us health; our infant mortality rate ranks 23rd, and our overall life expectancy rate ranks 20th among the 29 nations. Ours is the only nation without a national health system. Our job-based health insurance system has allowed the number of uninsured persons to reach 44 million, which is 18% of the nonelderly population. This article examines the role of such ethical concepts as beneficence, utilitarianism, and justice in the allocation of health care resources. It also examines the innovative Oregon Health Plan and its use of cost-effectiveness analysis for health care allocation that is based on league tables.

When there is too much to do: how practicing physicians prioritize among recommended interventions

BACKGROUND

Recent evidence suggests that patients are receiving only 50% of recommended processes of care. It is important to understand physician priorities among recommended interventions and how these priorities are influenced both intentionally as well as unintentionally.

METHODS

A survey was mailed to all primary care physicians (PCPs) from two VA hospital networks (N= 289), one of which had participated in a broad, evidence-based guideline development effort 8 to 12 months earlier, and all endocrinologists nationwide in the VA (N= 213); response rate, 63% (n= 315). Using the method of paired comparisons, we assessed physician priorities among 11 clinical triggers for interventions in the management of an uncomplicated patient with type 2 diabetes.

RESULTS

Both PCPs and specialists consistently identified several high-impact clinical triggers for treatment as the highest priority interventions (hemoglobin A1c = 9.5%, diastolic blood pressure [DBP]= 95 mm Hg, low-density lipoprotein = 145 mg/dl). Several low-impact interventions that are commonly used as performance measures also received relatively high ratings. Treatments that have recently been found to be highly beneficial were often rated as being of low importance (e.g., treating when DBP = 88 mm Hg). Almost 80% of PCPs rated tight glycemic control as more important than tight DBP control, in direct contrast to clinical trial evidence. Specialists' ratings followed the same general pattern, but were more consistent with the epidemiological evidence. The PCPs at the sites that participated in the guideline intervention rated blood pressure control significantly higher.

CONCLUSION

Although several high-priority aspects of diabetes care were clearly identified, there were also notable examples of ratings that were clearly inconsistent with the epidemiological literature. Recommendations based upon more recent evidence were substantially underrated and some guidelines used as performance measures were relatively overrated. These results support the arguments that a more proactive approach is needed to facilitate rapid dissemination of new high-priority findings, and that intervention priority, and not just ease of measurement, should be considered carefully when disseminating guidelines and when selecting performance measures.

Disseminating Effective Behavioral Interventions for HIV Prevention

Economic evaluations of researched HIV-prevention interventions assist service providers in decision making and can help disseminate effective interventions into practice. The study described in this article presents a cost analysis of an intervention that was effective in a research setting. This article also provides threshold analyses that set performance standards to determine if an intervention is cost-effective or cost-saving. From a service provider's perspective, the cost for this intervention is estimated at 50306.40 US dollars for one year (for 150 clients). The base-case, cost per client of this intervention is estimated at 335.38 US dollars. Threshold analyses revealed that in order for Safety Point to be considered cost-saving, it should avert at least 0.411 HIV infections per 150 clients.

"Here's what I'd do...": condom promotion strategies proposed by high-risk women in Anchorage, Alaska

Women drug users are at significant risk of sexually transmitted HIV; however, interventions aimed at increasing condom use by this population have been relatively ineffective. The authors conducted a series of focus groups with 17 current and former drug-using women to identify (a) reasons for using versus not using condoms, (b) intervention strategies they believed would be most effective at increasing condom use, and (c) previous ineffective intervention strategies. Risk of HIV, sexually transmitted diseases, and pregnancy was the main reason given for using condoms. Many factors were identified that limited condom use, including lack of availability, substance use, and cost. Participants enthusiastically endorsed condom availability and AIDS awareness interventions, and suggested that no intervention was a waste of money. The authors discuss the limitations of the suggested interventions and recommend additional research to evaluate the efficacy of these strategies.

Interventions to modify sexual risk behaviors for preventing HIV infection in men who have sex with men

BACKGROUND

MSM remain at great risk for HIV infection. Program planners and policy makers need descriptions of interventions and quantitative estimates of intervention effects to make informed decisions concerning prevention efforts.

OBJECTIVES

1. To locate and describe outcome studies evaluating the effects of behavioral and social interventions targeting MSM. 2. To summarize the effectiveness of these interventions among MSM. 3. To stratify results by characteristics of interventions and participants. 4. To identify gaps and indicate future research, policy, and practice needs.

SEARCH STRATEGY

We searched electronic databases (MedLine, PsycInfo, etc.); several current journals (e.g., AIDS, AIDS and Behavior, AIDS Education and Prevention, American Journal of Public Health, Journal of Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndromes, etc.); manuscripts submitted by researchers; bibliographies of relevant articles; and other published reviews, for published and unpublished reports from 1988 through 1997.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Studies were considered in scope if they examined the effects of behavioral interventions to reduce risk for HIV or STD transmission. We reviewed studies in scope for criteria of outcome relevance (measurement of at least one of a list of behavioral or biologic outcomes, e.g., unprotected sex or incidence of HIV infections) and methodologic rigor (randomized controlled trials or certain strong quasi-experimental designs with comparison groups).

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

As of June 1998 we had identified 13 eligible studies. Twelve studies (7 trials of small group interventions, 3 community-level interventions, and 2 individual level interventions) reported intervention effects on unprotected sex. Because few studies reported effects on condom use (3 studies), number of sex partners without regard to condom use (4 studies), or HIV or STD incidence (1 study in which no infections occurred) we do not address these outcomes at this time. We present those analyses which can be performed in the current Cochrane RevMan software, followed by more complete analyses that permit inclusion of community-level studies, adjustment for baseline conditions, calculation of effect sizes from a wider variety of statistics (e.g., an F-statistic from a one-way ANOVA), and simultaneous meta-analysis of continuous and dichotomous outcomes (Johnson 2002b). We translate the summary effect to reduction in risk behavior based on the background prevalence of unprotected sex. Finally we provide analyses stratified by intervention content (interpersonal skills addressed or not), intervention format (community vs small group or individual) and mean age of participants (23 to 31 vs. 32 to 36).

MAIN RESULTS

A summary measure of intervention effects on reducing unprotected sex was favorable (odds ratio = 0.73) and statistically significant (CI, 0.60 to 0.88), corresponding to a 23% reduction in the proportion of men engaging in unprotected sex. Effects were homogeneous among studies, but were slightly more favorable among community-level interventions, those that served populations in their 20s rather than their 30s, and those that promoted interpersonal skills.

REVIEWER'S CONCLUSIONS

These studies demonstrate that interventions can promote risk reduction among MSM. Yet given the epidemiology of HIV in Pattern I countries, the small number of rigorous controlled intervention trials for this population is striking. Many more rigorous evaluations of HIV prevention efforts with MSM are needed to ascertain with confidence the effects of specific intervention components, population characteristics, and methodologic features.

The cost-effectiveness of the WINGS intervention: a program to prevent HIV and sexually transmitted diseases among high-risk urban women

BACKGROUND

We evaluated the cost-effectiveness of the WINGS project, an intervention to prevent HIV and other sexually transmitted diseases among urban women at high risk for sexual acquisition of HIV.

METHODS

We used standard methods of cost-effectiveness analysis. We conducted a retrospective analysis of the intervention's cost and we used a simplified model of HIV transmission to estimate the number of HIV infections averted by the intervention. We calculated cost-effectiveness ratios for the complete intervention and for the condom use skills component of the intervention.

RESULTS

Under base case assumptions, the intervention prevented an estimated 0.2195 new cases of HIV at a cost of $215,690 per case of HIV averted. When indirect costs of HIV were excluded from the analysis, the intervention's cost-effectiveness ratios were $357,690 per case of HIV averted and $31,851 per quality-adjusted life year (QALY) saved. Under base case assumptions, the condom use skills component of the intervention prevented an estimated 0.1756 HIV infections and was cost-saving. When indirect HIV costs were excluded, the cost-effectiveness ratios for the condom use skills component of the intervention were $97,404 per case of HIV averted and $8,674 per QALY saved.

CONCLUSIONS

The WINGS intervention, particularly the two sessions of the intervention which focussed on condom use skills, could be cost-effective in preventing HIV among women.

Estimating the cost of unmet HIV-prevention needs in the United States

BACKGROUND

Although new HIV infection cases have dropped from over 160,000 per year in the mid-1980s to 40,000 per year in the 1990s, HIV incidence has been relatively unchanged for a decade. This number of annual incident infections suggests that substantial, unmet HIV-prevention needs continue to fuel the HIV epidemic in the United States.

OBJECTIVES

This study estimates the cost of addressing the unmet HIV-prevention needs in the United States and establishes a performance standard by estimating the number of HIV infections that would have to be prevented in order for these programs to be considered cost saving to society.

METHODS

Standard methods of cost and threshold analysis were employed in this study. Interventions needed to address unmet behavioral risks include services to reduce sexual risk of HIV infection, services to provide access to sterile syringes for people who cannot stop injecting drugs, HIV counseling and testing, and intensive preventive services to help HIV-seropositive people avoid transmitting the virus to others.

RESULTS

If brief interventions are utilized to address sexual behavior risk, the total program cost (over and above current resource levels) is just over $817 million; and if more expensive multisession, small-group interventions are used, the costs increase to over $1.85 billion. However, even the higher-cost program has a threshold of only 12,000 infections that must be prevented in order for the program to be considered a cost saving to society.

CONCLUSIONS

Addressing the remaining unmet HIV-preventive needs in the United States will require a substantial commitment of resources. However, even a greatly expanded HIV-preventive program in the United States could pay for itself through savings in averted medical care costs.

Cost-effectiveness of HIV/AIDS interventions in Africa: a systematic review of the evidence

BACKGROUND

Evidence for cost-effectiveness of interventions for HIV/AIDS in Africa is fragmentary. Cost-effectiveness is, however, highly relevant. African governments face difficult choices in striking the right balance between prevention, treatment, and care, all of which are necessary to deal comprehensively with the epidemic. Reductions in drug prices have raised the priority of treatment, though treatment access is restricted. We assessed the existing cost-effectiveness data and its implications for value-for-money strategies to combat HIV/AIDS in Africa.

METHODS

We undertook a systematic review using databases and consultations with experts. We identified over 60 reports that measured both the cost and effectiveness of HIV/AIDS interventions in Africa. 24 studies met our inclusion criteria and were used to calculate standardised estimates of the cost (US$ for year 2000) per HIV infection prevented and per disability-adjusted life-year (DALY) gained for 31 interventions.

FINDINGS

Cost-effectiveness varied greatly between interventions. A case of HIV/AIDS can be prevented for $11, and a DALY gained for $1, by selective blood safety measures, and by targeted condom distribution with treatment of sexually transmitted diseases. Single-dose nevirapine and short-course zidovudine for prevention of mother-to-child transmission, voluntary counselling and testing, and tuberculosis treatment, cost under $75 per DALY gained. Other interventions, such as formula feeding for infants, home care programmes, and antiretroviral therapy for adults, cost several thousand dollars per infection prevented, or several hundreds of dollars per DALY gained.

INTERPRETATION

A strong economic case exists for prioritisation of preventive interventions and tuberculosis treatment. Where potentially exclusive alternatives exist, cost-effectiveness analysis points to an intervention that offers the best value for money. Cost-effectiveness analysis is an essential component of informed debate about priority setting for HIV/AIDS.