The influence of constraints on the efficient allocation of resources for HIV prevention.

Objective: To investigate how ‘real-world’ constraints on the allocative and technical efficiency of HIV prevention programmes affect resource allocation and the number of infections averted. Methods: We simulated different HIV prevention programmes, and first determined the most efficient allocation of resources, in which the HIV prevention budget is shared among specific interventions, risk-groups and provinces to maximize the number of infections averted. We then identified the efficient allocation of resources and achievable impact given the following constraints to allocative efficiency: earmarking [provinces with budgets fund pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP) for low-risk women first], meeting targets [provinces with budgets fund universal test-and-treat (UTT) first] and minimizing changes in the geographical distribution of funds. We modelled technical inefficiencies as a reduction in the coverage of PrEP or UTT, which were factored into the resource allocation process or took effect following the allocation. Each scenario was investigated over a range of budgets, such that the impact reaches its maximum. Results: The ‘earmarking’, ‘meeting targets’ and ‘minimizing change’ constraints reduce the potential impact of HIV prevention programmes, but at the higher budgets these constraints have little to no effect (approximately 35 billion US$ in Tanzania). Over-estimating technical efficiency can result in a loss of impact compared to what would be possible if technical efficiencies were known accurately. Conclusion: Failing to account for constraints on allocative and technical efficiency can result in the overestimation of the health gains possible, and for technical inefficiencies the allocation of an inefficient strategy. (cid:2)

[1]  Isaac J Stopard,et al.  The influence of constraints on the efficient allocation of resources for HIV prevention: authors' response. , 2019, AIDS.

[2]  H. Haghparast-Bidgoli,et al.  Applying the ‘no-one worse off’ criterion to design Pareto efficient HIV responses in Sudan and Togo , 2019, AIDS.

[3]  Maarten J. IJzerman,et al.  Application of Constrained Optimization Methods in Health Services Research: Report 2 of the ISPOR Optimization Methods Emerging Good Practices Task Force. , 2018, Value in health : the journal of the International Society for Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research.

[4]  Kelsey L. Grantham,et al.  How should HIV resources be allocated? Lessons learnt from applying Optima HIV in 23 countries , 2018, Journal of the International AIDS Society.

[5]  Kelsey L. Grantham,et al.  The global Optima HIV allocative efficiency model: targeting resources in efforts to end AIDS. , 2018, The lancet. HIV.

[6]  Kelsey L. Grantham,et al.  Optima Nutrition: an allocative efficiency tool to reduce childhood stunting by better targeting of nutrition-related interventions , 2018, BMC Public Health.

[7]  A. Gawande,et al.  Universal health coverage and intersectoral action for health: key messages from Disease Control Priorities, 3rd edition , 2017, The Lancet.

[8]  Cliff C. Kerr,et al.  Maximizing the impact of malaria funding through allocative efficiency: using the right interventions in the right locations , 2017, Malaria Journal.

[9]  Feng Zhao,et al.  Optimizing investments in Belarus' Tuberculosis response , 2017 .

[10]  Maarten J. IJzerman,et al.  Constrained Optimization Methods in Health Services Research-An Introduction: Report 1 of the ISPOR Optimization Methods Emerging Good Practices Task Force. , 2017, Value in health : the journal of the International Society for Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research.

[11]  Emiko Masaki,et al.  Kazakhstan can achieve ambitious HIV targets despite expected donor withdrawal by combining improved ART procurement mechanisms with allocative and implementation efficiencies , 2017, PloS one.

[12]  N. Tromp,et al.  Evidence for scaling up HIV treatment in sub-Saharan Africa: A call for incorporating health system constraints , 2017, PLoS medicine.

[13]  L. Johnson,et al.  Designing an optimal HIV programme for South Africa: Does the optimal package change when diminishing returns are considered? , 2017, BMC Public Health.

[14]  T. Bärnighausen,et al.  Changing HIV treatment eligibility under health system constraints in sub-Saharan Africa: investment needs, population health gains, and cost-effectiveness , 2016, AIDS.

[15]  David P. Wilson,et al.  In the interests of time: improving HIV allocative efficiency modelling via optimal time-varying allocations , 2016, Journal of the International AIDS Society.

[16]  Cliff C Kerr,et al.  Optima: A Model for HIV Epidemic Analysis, Program Prioritization, and Resource Optimization , 2015, Journal of acquired immune deficiency syndromes.

[17]  David P. Wilson,et al.  Scaling up of HIV treatment for men who have sex with men in Bangkok: a modelling and costing study. , 2015, The lancet. HIV.

[18]  B. Eampokalap,et al.  Declining prevalence of drug-resistant tuberculosis among HIV/tuberculosis co-infected patients receiving antiretroviral therapy. , 2007, Journal of the Medical Association of Thailand = Chotmaihet thangphaet.

[19]  S. Blower,et al.  Predicting the epidemiological impact of antiretroviral allocation strategies in KwaZulu-Natal: The effect of the urban–rural divide , 2006, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

[20]  David P. Wilson,et al.  Designing Equitable Antiretroviral Allocation Strategies in Resource-Constrained Countries , 2005, PLoS medicine.