Cost–Utility Analysis of A Female Condom Promotion Program in Washington, DC
- 468 Downloads
A retrospective economic evaluation of a female condom distribution and education program in Washington, DC. was conducted. Standard methods of cost, threshold and cost–utility analysis were utilized as recommended by the U.S. Panel on cost-effectiveness in health and medicine. The overall cost of the program that distributed 200,000 female condoms and provided educational services was $414,186 (at a total gross cost per condom used during sex of $3.19, including educational services). The number of HIV infections that would have to be averted in order for the program to be cost-saving was 1.13 in the societal perspective and 1.50 in the public sector payor perspective. The cost-effectiveness threshold of HIV infections to be averted was 0.46. Overall, mathematical modeling analyses estimated that the intervention averted approximately 23 HIV infections (even with the uncertainty inherent in this estimate, this value appears to well exceed the necessary thresholds), and the intervention resulted in a substantial net cost savings.
KeywordsFemale condom HIV prevention Economics Cost-effectiveness analysis Policy analysis
Johns Hopkins University received support for this economic evaluation from the Female Health Company, the producer of the female condom product, FC2. The Washington DC Department of Health received support for the FC2 dissemination and education project from the Female Health Company; the educational project was also supported by the MAC AIDS Fund. Further details on this public/private sector partnership are provided in the text. Final control of the analysis and publication rested with the authors, not with any sponsor.
- 4.District of Columbia Department of Health and George Washington University School of Public Health. District of Columbia Comprehensive HIV/AIDS Behavioral Surveillance Report, 2008. http://dchealth.dc.gov/doh/lib/doh/pdf/dc_hiv_surveillance__summary.pdf. Accessed 30 Aug, 2011.
- 5.Gold M. Panel on cost-effectiveness in health and medicine. Med Care. 1996;34(12 Suppl):DS197–199.Google Scholar
- 6.Pinkerton SD, Holtgrave DR. Assessing the cost-effectiveness of HIV prevention interventions: a primer. In: Holtgrave DR, editor. Handbook of economic evaluation of HIV prevention programs. New York and London: Plenum Press; 1998. p. 34–41.Google Scholar
- 12.Blondon M, Righini M, Bounameaux H, Veenstra DL. Fondaparinux for isolated superficial-vein thrombosis of the legs: a cost-effectiveness analysis. Chest. Jul 14 2011.Google Scholar
- 15.Holtgrave DR, Wolitski RJ, Pals SL, et al. Cost–utility analysis of the housing and health intervention for homeless and unstably housed persons living with HIV. Manuscript submitted for publication.Google Scholar
- 16.Smith DK, Grohskopf LA, Black RJ, et al. Antiretroviral postexposure prophylaxis after sexual, injection-drug use, or other nonoccupational exposure to HIV in the United States. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep. 2005;54(RR02):1–20.Google Scholar
- 17.Hoke TH, Feldblum PJ, Van Damme K, Nasution MD, Grey TW, Wong EL, Ralimamonjy L, Raharimalala L, Rasamindrakotroka A. Temporal trends in sexually transmitted infection prevalence and condom use following introduction of the female condom to Madagascar sex workers. Int J STD AIDS. 2007;18:461–6.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar