Health Care Management Science

, Volume 15, Issue 4, pp 327–338 | Cite as

Optimal incentives for allocating HIV/AIDS prevention resources among multiple populations

  • Monali S. Malvankar-Mehta
  • Bin Xie


Many agencies, such as the United Nations Program on HIV/AIDS (UNAIDS), the World Health Organization (WHO), the World Bank, the U.S. President’s Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief (PEPFAR), and the Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria, provide funding to prevent HIV/AIDS infections worldwide. These funds are allocated at multiple levels, resulting in a highly complicated distribution process. An oversight agency allocates funds to various national-level decision-makers who then allocate funds to regional-level decision-makers who in turn distribute the monies to local organizations, programs, or risk groups. Simple allocation techniques are often preferred by the decision-makers at each administrative level, but such methods can lead to sub-optimal allocation of funds. Thus, incentives could be provided to decisionmakers in order to encourage optimal allocation of HIV/AIDS prevention resources. We formulate an incentive-based resource allocation model that takes into consideration strategic interactions between decision-makers in a multiple-level resource-allocation process. We analyze each decision-maker’s behavior at the equilibrium and summarize the results that characterize the optimal solution to the resource-allocation problem. Our intended audiences are technical experts, decision-makers, and policy-makers in governments who can make use of incentives to encourage effective decisions regarding HIV/AIDS policy modeling and budget allocation at local levels.


HIV/AIDS Resource allocation Incentives Risk groups Optimization model 



We would like to thank Dr. Greg Zaric and Dr. Shaun (Xinghao) Yan for their honest advice regarding the developed model.


  1. 1.
    UNAIDS (2009) Making the money work. Accessed August 5, 2011
  2. 2.
    Ainsworth M, Over AM (1997) Confronting AIDS: Public Priorities in a Global Epidemic. The World Bank Report. Oxford University Press 1:17285.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Mathers CD, Stein C, Doris MF et al. (2002) Global Burden of Disease 2000: Version 2 methods and results, Discussion 2002. World Health Organization, Switzerland, Geneva. Accessed August 5, 2011
  4. 4.
    PEPFAR (2011) Addressing Gender and HIV/AIDS. Accessed August 5, 2011
  5. 5.
    Global Fund to Fight AIDS Tuberculosis and Malaria (2007) Proposals process: applying for funding. Accessed August 5, 2011
  6. 6.
    Ahmad E, Brosio G (2006) Handbook of fiscal federalism. Edward Elgar Publishing.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Bird RM, Vaillancourt F (2006) Perspectives on fiscal federalism. World Bank Publications.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Okorafor OA, Thomas S (2007) Protecting resources for primary health care under fiscal federalism: options for resource allocation. Health Policy Plan 22:415–426CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Glenngard AH, Maina TM (2007) Reversing the trend of weak policy implementation in the Kenyan health sector–a study of budget allocation and spending of health resources versus set priorities. Health Res Pol Syst 5:3. doi: 10.1186/1478-4505-5-3 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Johnson-Masotti AP, Pinkerton SD, Holtgrave DR et al (2000) Decision-making in HIV prevention community planning: an integrative review. J Community Health 25:95–112CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Forsythe S, Stover J, Bollinger L (2009) The past, present and future of HIV, AIDS and resource allocation. BMC Public Health 9:S4. doi: 10.1186/1471-2458-9-S1-S4 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Holtgrave DR, Thomas CW, Chen H et al (2000) HIV prevention community planning and communities of color: do resources track the epidemic? AIDS Public Policy J 15:75–81Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Valdiserri RO, Aultman TV, Curran JW (1995) Community planning: a national strategy to improve HIV prevention programs. J Community Health 20:87–100CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Zaric GS, Brandeau ML (2002) Dynamic resource allocation for epidemic control in multiple populations. Math Med Biol 19:235–255CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Epstein DM, Chalabi Z, Claxton K et al (2007) Efficiency, equity, and budgetary policies: informing decisions using mathematical programming. Med Decis Making 27:128–137CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Richter A, Hicks KA, Earnshaw SR et al (2008) Allocating HIV prevention resources: a tool for state and local decision making. Health Policy 87:342–349CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Earnshaw SR, Hicks K, Richter A et al (2007) A linear programming model for allocating HIV prevention funds with state agencies: a pilot study. Health Care Manag Sci 10:239–252CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Ruiz MS (2001) No time to lose: getting more from HIV prevention. National Academy Press.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Brandeau ML, Zaric GS (2009) Optimal investment in HIV prevention programs: more is not always better. Health Care Manag Sci 12:27–37CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Lewis HS, Butler TW (2007) An interactive framework for multi-person, multiobjective decisions. Decis Sci 24:1–22CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Li X, Beullens P, Jones D et al (2009) An integrated queuing and multi-objective bed allocation model with application to a hospital in China. J Oper Res Soc 60:330–338CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Malvankar-Mehta MS, Zaric GS, (2011) Optimal Incentives for Multi-level Allocation of HIV Prevention Resources. Information Systems and Operational Research (Accepted for publication).Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Zaric GS, Brandeau ML (2007) A little planning goes a long way: multilevel allocation of HIV prevention resources. Med Decis Making 27:71–81CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Lasry A, Zaric GS, Carter MW (2007) Multi-level resource allocation for HIV prevention: a model for developing countries. Eur J Oper Res 180:786–799CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Malvankar MM, Zaric GS (2011) Incentives for optimal allocation of HIV prevention resources. Dissertation. Richard Ivey School of Business, University of Western Ontario.Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Chick SE, Mamani H, Simchi-Levi D (2008) Supply chain coordination and influenza vaccination. Oper Res 56:1493–1506CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Su X, Zenios SA (2006) Recipient choice can address the efficiency-equity trade-off in kidney transplantation: a mechanism design model. Manag Sci 52:1647–1660CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    McPake B, Hanson K, Adam C (2007) Two-tier charging strategies in public hospitals: implications for intra-hospital resource allocation and equity of access to hospital services. J Health Econ 26:447–462CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Sun P, Yang L, de Vericourt F (2009) Selfish drug allocation for containing an international influenza pandemic at the onset. Oper Res 57:1320–1332CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Office of AIDS (2010) Cumulative HIV/AIDS Cases in California. HIV/AIDS Surveillance in California. California Department of Public Health. Accessed May 1, 2011
  31. 31.
    Bureau of HIV/AIDS Epidemiology (2008) New York State HIV/AIDS Surveillance Annual Report—2006. New York State Department of Health. Accessed May 1, 2011
  32. 32.
    The Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation (2009) The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) HIV/AIDS Funding, FY2007. Accessed May 1, 2011

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of OphthalmologyUniversity of Western OntarioLondonCanada
  2. 2.Department of Epidemiology & Biostatistics, Schulich School of Medicine and DentistryUniversity of Western OntarioLondonCanada
  3. 3.Department of Obstetrics & GynaecologyUniversity of Western OntarioLondonCanada
  4. 4.St. Joseph’s Health Care LondonLondonCanada

Personalised recommendations