Cost–Utility of Access to Care, a National HIV Linkage, Re-engagement and Retention in Care Program
Linkage to HIV medical care and on-going engagement in HIV medical care are vital for ending the HIV epidemic. However, little is known about the cost–utility of HIV linkage, re-engagement and retention (LRC) in care programs. This paper presents the cost–utility analysis of Access to Care, a national HIV LRC program. Using standard methods from the US Panel on Cost-Effectiveness in Health and Medicine, we calculated the cost–utility ratio. Seven Access to Care programs were cost-effective and two were cost-saving. This study adds to a small but growing body of evidence to support the cost-effectiveness of LRC programs.
KeywordsRetention in HIV care Cost–utility HIV Access to Care
The authors would like to express their gratitude to the A2C intervention staff for their dedication and for the individuals who participated in the A2C intervention. This document is based upon work under Grant No. 10SIHDC001 and supported by the Social Innovation Fund (SIF), a Program of the Corporation for National and Community Service (CNCS). Opinions or points of view expressed in this document are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the official position of, or a position that is endorsed by, CNCS or the Social Innovation Fund Program. The Social Innovation Fund is a Program of the Corporation for National and Community Service, a federal agency that engages millions of Americans in service through its AmeriCorps, Senior Corps, Social Innovation Fund, and Volunteer Generation Fund programs, and leads the President’s national call to service initiative, United We Serve. For more information, visit http://NationalService.gov.
Compliance with Ethical Standards
Conflict of interest
Catherine Maulsby, Kriti Jain, Brian Weir, Blessing Enobun, Melissa Werner, Morey Riordan, The Access to Care Intervention Team, and David Holtgrave have no conflicts of interest to disclose.
All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the Institutional and/or National Research Committee and with the 1964 Helsinki Declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.
Program sites underwent IRB approval locally. Program evaluation activities by Action Wellness, The Damien Center, and Amida Care were found to be non-human subjects research and consent was not obtained. Activities conducted by AIDS Action Committee were found to be minimal risk and all participants provided signed informed consent. Activities by AIDS Foundation of Chicago, AIDS Project Los Angeles, Christies Place, Louisiana Public Health Institute, Medical Advocacy and Outreach, and St. Louis Effort for AIDS were found to be participating in human subjects research which required IRB oversight. At all these sites written informed consent was obtained, except for St. Louis Effort for AIDS were informed consent was waved because all data were de-identified. JHU’s IRB found the cost evaluation to be non-human subjects research and informed consent was not obtained.
- 2.White House Office of National AIDS Policy. National HIV/AIDS strategy for the United States. Washington, DC: The White House; 2010. http://www.whitehouse.gov/administration/eop/onap/nhas. Accessed 27 Feb 2016.
- 3.White House Office of National AIDS Policy. National HIV/AIDS strategy for the United States: updated to 2020. Washington, DC: The White House; 2015. https://www.aids.gov/federal-resources/national-hiv-aids-strategy/nhas-update.pdf. Accessed 27 Feb 2016.
- 6.Higa DH, Crepaz N, Mullins MM, Prevention Research Synthesis Project. Identifying best practices for increasing linkage to, retention, and re-engagement in HIV medical care: findings from a systematic review, 1996–2014. AIDS Behav. 2016;20(5):951–66. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10461-015-1204-x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 7.Liau A, Crepaz N, Lyles CM, Higa DH, Mullins MM, DeLuca J, et al. Interventions to promote linkage to and utilization of HIV medical care among HIV-diagnosed persons: a qualitative systematic review, 1996–2011. AIDS Behav. 2013;17(6):1941–62. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10461-013-0435-y.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
- 9.Nosyk B, Min JE, Lima VD, Hogg RS, Montaner JS, Group SHAs. Cost-effectiveness of population-level expansion of highly active antiretroviral treatment for HIV in British Columbia, Canada: a modelling study. Lancet HIV. 2015;2(9):e393–400. https://doi.org/10.1016/s2352-3018(15)00127-7.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
- 12.Marseille E, Giganti MJ, Mwango A, Chisembele-Taylor A, Mulenga L, Over M, et al. Taking ART to scale: determinants of the cost and cost-effectiveness of antiretroviral therapy in 45 clinical sites in Zambia. PLoS ONE. 2012;7(12):e51993. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0051993.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
- 13.Kim JJ, Maulsby C, Zulliger R, Jain K, Charles V, et al., Positive Charge Intervention Team. Cost and threshold analysis of positive charge, a multi-site linkage to HIV care program in the United States. AIDS Behav. 2015;19(10):1735–41. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10461-015-1124-9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 16.Renaud A, Basenya O, de Borman N, Greindl I, Meyer-Rath G. The cost effectiveness of integrated care for people living with HIV including antiretroviral treatment in a primary health care centre in Bujumbura, Burundi. AIDS Care. 2009;21(11):1388–94. https://doi.org/10.1080/09540120902884042.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 18.Health Resources and Services Administration. HIV/AIDS Bureau performance measures. http://hab.hrsa.gov/deliverhivaidscare/coremeasures.pdf. Accessed 10 Oct 2017.
- 20.Sanders GD, Neumann PJ, Basu A, Brock DW, Feeny D, Krahn M, et al. Recommendations for conduct, methodological practices, and reporting of cost-effectiveness analyses: Second Panel on Cost-Effectiveness in Health and Medicine. JAMA. 2016;316(10):1093–103. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.2016.12195.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 25.Holtgrave DR, Hall HI, Wehrmeyer L, Maulsby C. Costs, consequences and feasibility of strategies for achieving the goals of the national HIV/AIDS strategy in the United States: a closing window for success? AIDS Behav. 2012;16(6):1365–72. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10461-012-0207-0.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 26.World Health Organization. Choosing interventions that are cost-effective: 2014. http://www.who.int/choice/en/. Accessed 10 Oct 2017.
- 28.World Bank. GDP per capita (current US$) 2013. http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/NY.GDP.PCAP.CD.