Dataset Information

Optimal allocation of HIV prevention funds for state health departments.

ABSTRACT: OBJECTIVE:To estimate the optimal allocation of Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) HIV prevention funds for health departments in 52 jurisdictions, incorporating Health Resources and Services Administration (HRSA) Ryan White HIV/AIDS Program funds, to improve outcomes along the HIV care continuum and prevent infections. METHODS:Using surveillance data from 2010 to 2012 and budgetary data from 2012, we divided the 52 health departments into 5 groups varying by number of persons living with diagnosed HIV (PLWDH), median annual CDC HIV prevention budget, and median annual HRSA expenditures supporting linkage to care, retention in care, and adherence to antiretroviral therapy. Using an optimization and a Bernoulli process model, we solved for the optimal CDC prevention budget allocation for each health department group. The optimal allocation distributed the funds across prevention interventions and populations at risk for HIV to prevent the greatest number of new HIV cases annually. RESULTS:Both the HIV prevention interventions funded by the optimal allocation of CDC HIV prevention funds and the proportions of the budget allocated were similar across health department groups, particularly those representing the large majority of PLWDH. Consistently funded interventions included testing, partner services and linkage to care and interventions for men who have sex with men (MSM). Sensitivity analyses showed that the optimal allocation shifted when there were differences in transmission category proportions and progress along the HIV care continuum. CONCLUSION:The robustness of the results suggests that most health departments can use these analyses to guide the investment of CDC HIV prevention funds into strategies to prevent the most new cases of HIV.

SUBMITTER: Yaylali E

PROVIDER: S-EPMC5955542 | biostudies-literature | 2018

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Optimal allocation of HIV prevention funds for state health departments.

Yaylali Emine E Farnham Paul G PG Cohen Stacy S Purcell David W DW Hauck Heather H Sansom Stephanie L SL

PloS one 20180516 5

<h4>Objective</h4>To estimate the optimal allocation of Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) HIV prevention funds for health departments in 52 jurisdictions, incorporating Health Resources and Services Administration (HRSA) Ryan White HIV/AIDS Program funds, to improve outcomes along the HIV care continuum and prevent infections.<h4>Methods</h4>Using surveillance data from 2010 to 2012 and budgetary data from 2012, we divided the 52 health departments into 5 groups varying by number ...[more]

PMID: 29768489

Similar Datasets

Project description:BACKGROUND:Health resources are limited, which means spending should be focused on the people, places and programs that matter most. Choosing the mix of programs to maximize a health outcome is termed allocative efficiency. Here, we extend the methodology of allocative efficiency to answer the question of how resources should be distributed among different geographic regions. METHODS:We describe a novel geographical optimization algorithm, which has been implemented as an extension to the Optima HIV model. This algorithm identifies an optimal funding of services and programs across regions, such as multiple countries or multiple districts within a country. The algorithm consists of three steps: (1) calibrating the model to each region, (2) determining the optimal allocation for each region across a range of different budget levels, and (3) finding the budget level in each region that minimizes the outcome (such as reducing new HIV infections and/or HIV-related deaths), subject to the constraint of fixed total budget across all regions. As a case study, we applied this method to determine an illustrative allocation of HIV program funding across three representative oblasts (regions) in Ukraine (Mykolayiv, Poltava, and Zhytomyr) to minimize the number of new HIV infections. RESULTS:Geographical optimization was found to identify solutions with better outcomes than would be possible by considering region-specific allocations alone. In the case of Ukraine, prior to optimization (i.e. with status quo spending), a total of 244,000 HIV-related disability-adjusted life years (DALYs) were estimated to occur from 2016 to 2030 across the three oblasts. With optimization within (but not between) oblasts, this was estimated to be reduced to 181,000. With geographical optimization (i.e., allowing reallocation of funds between oblasts), this was estimated to be further reduced to 173,000. CONCLUSIONS:With the increasing availability of region- and even facility-level data, geographical optimization is likely to play an increasingly important role in health economic decision making. Although the largest gains are typically due to reallocating resources to the most effective interventions, especially treatment, further gains can be achieved by optimally reallocating resources between regions. Finally, the methods described here are not restricted to geographical optimization, and can be applied to other problems where competing resources need to be allocated with constraints, such as between diseases.

Project description:IntroductionGreat strides in responding to the HIV epidemic have led to improved access to and uptake of HIV services in Guyana, a lower-middle-income country with a generalized HIV epidemic. Despite efforts to scale up HIV treatment and adopt the test and start strategy, little is known about costs of HIV services across the care cascade.MethodsWe collected cost data from the national laboratory and nine selected treatment facilities in five of the country's ten Regions, and estimated the costs associated with HIV testing and services (HTS) and antiretroviral therapy (ART) from a provider perspective from January 1, 2016 to December 31, 2016. We then used the unit costs to construct four resource allocation scenarios. In the first two scenarios, we calculated how close Guyana would currently be to its 2020 targets if the allocation of funding across programs and regions over 2017-2020 had (a) remained unchanged from latest-reported levels, or (b) been optimally distributed to minimize incidence and deaths. In the next two, we estimated the resources that would have been required to meet the 2020 targets if those resources had been distributed (a) according to latest-reported patterns, or (b) optimally to minimize incidence and deaths.ResultsThe mean cost per test was US$15 and the mean cost per person tested positive was US$796. The mean annual cost per of maintaining established adult and pediatric patients on ART were US$428 and US$410, respectively. The mean annual cost of maintaining virally suppressed patients was US$648. Cost variation across sites may suggest opportunities for improvements in efficiency, or may reflect variation in facility type and patient volume. There may also be scope for improvements in allocative efficiency; we estimated a 28% reduction in the total resources required to meet Guyana's 2020 targets if funds had been optimally distributed to minimize infections and deaths.ConclusionsWe provide the first estimates of costs along the HIV cascade in the Caribbean and assessed efficiencies using novel context-specific data on the costs associated with diagnostic, treatment, and viral suppression. The findings call for better targeting of services, and efficient service delivery models and resource allocation, while scaling up HIV services to maximize investment impact.

Project description:ObjectiveTo develop a resource allocation model to optimize health departments' Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC)-funded HIV prevention budgets to prevent the most new cases of HIV infection and to evaluate the model's implementation in 4 health departments.Design, settings, and participantsWe developed a linear programming model combined with a Bernoulli process model that allocated a fixed budget among HIV prevention interventions and risk subpopulations to maximize the number of new infections prevented. The model, which required epidemiologic, behavioral, budgetary, and programmatic data, was implemented in health departments in Philadelphia, Chicago, Alabama, and Nebraska.Main outcome measuresThe optimal allocation of funds, the site-specific cost per case of HIV infection prevented rankings by intervention, and the expected number of HIV cases prevented.ResultsThe model suggested allocating funds to HIV testing and continuum-of-care interventions in all 4 health departments. The most cost-effective intervention for all sites was HIV testing in nonclinical settings for men who have sex with men, and the least cost-effective interventions were behavioral interventions for HIV-negative persons. The pilot sites required 3 to 4 months of technical assistance to develop data inputs and generate and interpret the results. Although the sites found the model easy to use in providing quantitative evidence for allocating HIV prevention resources, they criticized the exclusion of structural interventions and the use of the model to allocate only CDC funds.ConclusionsResource allocation models have the potential to improve the allocation of limited HIV prevention resources and can be used as a decision-making guide for state and local health departments. Using such models may require substantial staff time and technical assistance. These model results emphasize the allocation of CDC funds toward testing and continuum-of-care interventions and populations at highest risk of HIV transmission.

Project description:BackgroundThis study aimed to investigate the distribution of European Union (EU) healthcare research grants across EU countries, and to study the effect of the potential influencing factors on grant allocation.MethodsWe analysed publicly available data on healthcare research grants from the 7th Framework Programme and the Horizon 2020 Programme allocated to beneficiaries between 2007 and 2016. Grant allocation was analysed at the beneficiary-, country-, and country group-level (EU-15 versus newer Member States, defined as EU-13). The investigated country-level explanatory variables included GDP per capita, population size, overall disease burden, and healthcare research excellence. Grant amounts per 100,000 inhabitants were used as an outcome variable in the regression analyses.ResultsResearch funds were disproportionally allocated to EU-15 versus the EU-13, as 96.9% of total healthcare grants were assigned to EU-15 countries. At the beneficiary level, EU funding was positively influenced by participating in previous grants. The average grant amount per beneficiary was higher for EU-15 organizations. In the multiple regression analysis GDP per capita (p = 0.002) and research excellence (p<0.001) had a significant positive association with EU funding. Population size had an inverted U-shaped relationship with EU funding for healthcare research, having the largest per capita funding in second and the third quartiles (p = 0.03 and p = 0.02).ConclusionThe uneven allocation of healthcare research funds across EU countries was influenced by GDP per capita, medical research excellence and population size. Wealthier countries with an average population size and strong research excellence in healthcare had more EU funding for healthcare research. Higher disease burden apparently was not associated with more EU research funding. While our findings are in line with analyses on previous periods, they suggest that the EU did not implement any effective policy measures to improve the unfair allocation of research grants.

Dataset Information

Optimal allocation of HIV prevention funds for state health departments.

Publications

Optimal allocation of HIV prevention funds for state health departments.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets