Advertisement

Demand and Supply Motivations for Antiretroviral Drugs in Illicit Street Markets: The Case of Atlanta, Georgia

  • Antonio Saravia
  • Robert Mueller
Original Paper

Abstract

We studied the motivations behind supply and demand of antiretroviral drugs (ARVs) in the illicit street markets of the metropolitan statistical area of Atlanta, Sandy Springs, and Roswell, Georgia. We found that these two market actions were largely interdependent: 39.53% of participants said that they sold their ARVs to pay for personal needs, and 20.93% said that they bought ARVs because they had previously sold them to pay for personal needs. The pattern that emerged suggests that illicit street markets have become mechanisms through which HIV patients cooperate to achieve competing goals: cover personal needs and keep up, however imperfectly, with their medication regime. We also found that HIV patients used illicit street markets because they faced institutional deficiencies, such as exclusion from the Ryan White/ADAP program, long waiting times to see a doctor, and prescription delays.

Keywords

HIV ARVs Diversion Illicit Markets Atlanta Georgia 

Resumen

Estudiamos las motivaciones de demanda y oferta de medicamentos antiretrovirales (ARVs) en el mercado negro del área metropolitana conformada por Atlanta, Sandy Springs y Roswell en Georgia. Encontramos que estas dos acciones de mercado son considerablemente interdependientes: 39.53% de los participantes indicaron que vendieron sus ARVs para pagar por necesidades personales, y 20.93% de los mismos indicaron que compraron ARVs porque los habían previamente vendido para pagar por necesidades personales. El patrón que emerge de estos resultados sugiere que los mercados negros de ARVs se han convertido en mecanismos a través de los cuales pacientes con HIV cooperan para satisfacer multiples objetivos: cubrir necesidades personales y mantener, aunque no perfectamente, su régimen medico. También encontramos que pacientes con HIV recurren a mercados negros de ARVs porque enfrentan deficiencias institucionales como la exclusión del programa Ryan White/ADAP, largos tiempos de espera para ser atendidos por un doctor y demoras en obtener sus prescripciones.

Notes

Funding

This study was funded by The Quality Enhancing Program office at Mercer University (grant awarded on February 25, 2016).

Compliance with Ethical Standards

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Ethical Approval

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.

Informed Consent

Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.

Supplementary material

10461_2018_2359_MOESM1_ESM.xls (58 kb)
Supplementary material 1 (xls 58 KB)

References

  1. 1.
    Bangsberg DR, Perry S, Charlebois ED, Clark RA, Roberston M, Zolopa AR, Moss A. Non-adherence to highly active antiretroviral therapy predicts progression to AIDS. AIDS. 2001;15(9):1181–3.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Associated Press. AIDS drugs surface on the black market. New York Times. 1995.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Dorschner J. Activists: HIV care scam uses homeless. Miami Herald. 2005;30:2005.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Flaherty M, Gaul G. Florida Medicaid fraud costs millions, report says. Washington Post. 2003;19:2003.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Glasgow K. The new dealers: they’re poor, black, and HIV-positive. Their product? The AIDS medications intended to cure them. Miami New Times. 1999;21:1999.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Tsuyuki K, Surratt H, Levi-Minzi M, O’Grady C, Kurtz S. The demand for antiretroviral drugs in the illicit marketplace: implications for HIV disease management among vulnerable populations. Aids Behav. 2014;19:857–68.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Surratt H, Kurtz S, Levi-Minzi M, Chen M. Environmental influences on HIV medication adherence: the role of neighborhood disorder. Am J Public Health. 2015;105(8):1660–6.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Surratt H, Kurtz S, Levi-Minzi M, Tsuyuki K, O’Grady C. Pain treatment and antiretroviral medication adherence among vulnerable HIV-positive. AIDS Patient Care STDs. 2015;29(4):186–92.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Surratt H, Kurtz S, Cicero T, O’Grady C, Levi-Minzi M. Antiretroviral medication diversion among HIV-positive substance abusers in South Florida. Am J Public Health. 2013;103(6):1026–8.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Surratt H, O’Grady C, Levi-Minzi M, Kurtz S. Medication adherence challenges among HIV-positive substance abusers: the role of food and housing insecurity. AIDS Care. 2015;27(3):307–14.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Levi-Minzi M, Surratt H. HIV stigma among substance abusing people living with HIV/AIDS: implications for HIV treatment. AIDS Patient Care STDs. 2014;28(8):442–51.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of Economic Analysis Regional Data. GDP and personal income. https://www.bea.gov/iTable/index_regional.cfm. Accessed 15 Jan 2018.
  13. 13.
    Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. HIV surveillance report. 2016;28. https://www.cdc.gov/hiv/library/reports/hiv-surveillance.html. Accessed 16 Jan 2018.
  14. 14.
    Staples G. Despite progress, Atlanta’s HIV epidemic is worse. Atlanta J. Const. 2017;30:2017.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Georgia Department of Public Health. HIV surveillance fact sheet 2015. 2017. https://dph.georgia.gov. Accessed 10 Jan 2018.
  16. 16.
    Bloeme S. The Atlanta HIV epidemic that remains. The Signal. Georgia State University. 2018:16:2018. http://georgiastatesignal.com/hiv-epidemic-remains/. Accessed 29 Dec 2017.
  17. 17.
    Georgia Department of Public Health, HIV/AIDS Epidemiology Program. HIV care continuum surveillance report, Georgia, 2014. 2016. https://dph.georgia.gov. Accessed 28 Dec 2017.
  18. 18.
    Braunstein M. Sampling a hidden population: noninstitutionalized drug users. AIDS Educ Prev. 1993;5(2):131–9.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Watters J, Biernacki P. Targeted sampling: options for the study of hidden populations. Soc Probl. 1989;36(4):416–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Carlson R, Wang J, Siegal H, Falck R, Guo J. An ethnographic approach to targeted sampling: problems and solutions in AIDS prevention research among injection drug and crack-cocaine users. Hum Organ. 1994;53(3):279–86.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Coyle S. Women’s drug use and HIV risk: findings from NIDA’s cooperative agreement for community-based outreach/intervention research program. Women Health. 1998;27(1/2):1–18.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Abbott A. Methods of discovery: heuristics for the social sciences. New York: Norton; 2004.Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Strauss A, Corbin JM. Basics of qualitative research: grounded theory procedures and techniques. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications; 1990.Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Georgia Department of Public Health, Division of Health Protection. Georgia Ryan White Part B, AIDS Drug Assistance Program (ADAP), and Health Insurance Continuation Program (HICP) Policies & Procedures 2017. 2017.Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    U.S. Department of Justice, Drug enforcement Administration. Drugs of Abuse: A DEA Resource Guide. 2017.Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Georgia Department of Public Health. Ryan White required rocuments checklist 2016. www.gacapus.com. Accessed 20 Feb 2018.
  27. 27.
    Positive Impact Health Centers. HIV resources and support in metro Atlanta. https://www.positiveimpacthealthcenters.org/advocacy-resources/hiv-advocacy/. Accessed 25 Feb 2018.

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Stetson School of Business and EconomicsMercer UniversityMaconUSA

Personalised recommendations