Optimizing resource allocation in United States AIDS drug assistance programs.

BACKGROUND US acquired immunodeficiency syndrome (AIDS) Drug Assistance programs (ADAPs) provide medications to low-income patients with human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) infection/AIDS. Nationally, ADAPs are in a fiscal crisis. Many states have instituted waiting lists, often serving clients on a first-come, first-served basis. We hypothesized that CD4 cell count-based ADAP eligibility would improve ADAP outcomes, allowing them to serve more-diverse patient populations and to prioritize persons who are at greatest risk of HIV-related mortality. METHODS We used Massachusetts ADAP administrative data to create a retrospective cohort of Massachusetts ADAP clients from fiscal year 2003. We then used a model-based analysis to apply potential eligibility criteria for a limited program and to compare characteristics of patients included under CD4 cell count-based and first-come, first-served eligibility criteria. RESULTS In fiscal year 2003, Massachusetts ADAPs served 3560 clients at a direct cost of 10.3 million dollars. With use of CD4 cell count-based eligibility (with an eligibility criterion of a current or nadir CD4 cell count < or = 350 cells/microL), it would have served 2253 clients (37% fewer than in fiscal year 2003) and appreciated savings of 2.7 million dollars. Given the same budget constraint and using first-come, first-served eligibility, Massachusetts ADAPs would have served 2406 clients (32% fewer than in fiscal year 2003). The first-come, first-served approach would have excluded patients with median CD4 cell count of 257 cells/microL (interquartile range, 124-377 cells/microL) in favor of serving patients with median CD4 cell count of 659 cells/microL (interquartile range, 511-841 cells/microL). In addition, a CD4 cell count-based scheme would have served a greater proportion of nonwhite individuals (65% vs. 55%; P<.0001), non-English speakers (24% vs. 19%; P=.03), and unemployed people (69% vs. 61%; P=.0009), compared with the population that would have been served by a first-come, first-served policy. CONCLUSIONS With limited resources, ADAPs will serve more-diverse populations and patients with significantly more advanced HIV disease by using CD4 cell count-based enrollment criteria rather than a first-come, first-served approach.

[1]  N. Daniels.  Fair process in patient selection for antiretroviral treatment in WHO's goal of 3 by 5 , 2005, The Lancet.

[2]  P. Easterbrook,et al.  Ethnic differences in stage of presentation of adults newly diagnosed with HIV‐1 infection in south London , 2005, HIV medicine.

[3]  Richard D Moore,et al.  Racial and Gender Disparities in Receipt of Highly Active Antiretroviral Therapy Persist in a Multistate Sample of HIV Patients in 2001 , 2005, Journal of acquired immune deficiency syndromes.

[4]  C. Sabin,et al.  Late presenters in the era of highly active antiretroviral therapy: uptake of and responses to antiretroviral therapy , 2004, AIDS.

[5]  J. Robins,et al.  Effect of highly active antiretroviral therapy on time to acquired immunodeficiency syndrome or death using marginal structural models. , 2003, American journal of epidemiology.

[6]  James R. Anderson,et al.  Racial/ethnic differences in CD4 T cell count and viral load at presentation for medical care and in follow-up after HIV-1 infection. , 2002, AIDS.

[7]  R. Walensky,et al.  AIDS Drug Assistance Programs: highlighting inequities in human immunodeficiency virus-infection health care in the United States. , 2002, Clinical infectious diseases : an official publication of the Infectious Diseases Society of America.

[8]  H. Palacio,et al.  Access to and Use of HIV Antiretroviral Therapy: Variation by Race/Ethnicity in Two Public Insurance Programs in the U.S. , 2002, Public health reports.

[9]  E. Vittinghoff,et al.  Predictors of Use of Highly Active Antiretroviral Therapy (HAART) Among Persons With AIDS in San Francisco, 1996‐1999 , 2001, Journal of acquired immune deficiency syndromes.

[10]  Julio S. G. Montaner,et al.  Rates of disease progression by baseline CD4 cell count and viral load after initiating triple-drug therapy. , 2001, JAMA.

[11]  M C Weinstein,et al.  The cost effectiveness of combination antiretroviral therapy for HIV disease. , 2001, The New England journal of medicine.

[12]  D. McCaffrey,et al.  Expenditures for the care of HIV-infected patients in the era of highly active antiretroviral therapy. , 2001, The New England journal of medicine.

[13]  Norman Daniels,et al.  Justice, Health, and Healthcare , 2001, The American journal of bioethics : AJOB.

[14]  J. Fleishman,et al.  Prevalence and Predictors of Highly Active Antiretroviral Therapy Use in Patients With HIV Infection in the United States , 2000 .

[15]  J. Fleishman,et al.  Prevalence and predictors of highly active antiretroviral therapy use in patients with HIV infection in the united states. HCSUS Consortium. HIV Cost and Services Utilization. , 2000, Journal of acquired immune deficiency syndromes.

[16]  S. Morton,et al.  Access of vulnerable groups to antiretroviral therapy among persons in care for HIV disease in the United States. HCSUS Consortium. HIV Cost and Services Utilization Study. , 2000, Health services research.

[17]  R. Sorelle.  United Network for Organ Sharing. , 1997, Circulation.

[18]  J. Chmiel,et al.  Survival from early, intermediate, and late stages of HIV infection. , 1996, JAMA.

[19]  R. Chaisson,et al.  Racial differences in the use of drug therapy for HIV disease in an urban community. , 1994, The New England journal of medicine.

[20]  N. Daniels.  Rationing fairly: programmatic considerations. , 1993, Bioethics.

[21]  J. Levi,et al.  Maximizing Access to Medications through Efficient Use of CARE Act Resources , 2003 .

[22]  Mardge H. Cohen,et al.  Use of highly active antiretroviral therapy in a cohort of HIV-seropositive women. , 2002, American journal of public health.

[23]  Lead Visual Information Specialist , 2001 .

[24]  John W. Mellors,et al.  Panel on Clinical Practices for Treatment of HIV Infection , 2000 .

[25]  C. Goodman.  United Network for Organ Sharing , 1988 .