Incentives Versus Defaults: Cost-Effectiveness of Behavioral Approaches for HIV Screening
- 72 Downloads
Many HIV positive individuals are still undiagnosed, which has led health systems to try many approaches to expand HIV testing. In a randomized controlled trial, we found that behavioral economics interventions (opt-out testing and financial incentives) each improved HIV testing rates and these approaches are being implemented by several hospital systems. However, it is unclear if these strategies are cost-effective. We quantified the cost-effectiveness of different behavioral approaches to HIV screening—opt-out testing, financial incentives, and their combination—in terms of cost per new HIV diagnosis and infections averted. We estimated the incremental number of new HIV diagnoses and program costs using a mathematical screening model, and infections averted using and HIV transmission model. We used a 1-year time horizon and a hospital perspective. Switching from opt-into opt-out results in 39 additional diagnoses (56% increase) after 1-year at a cost of $3807 per new diagnosis. Switching from no incentive to a $1, $5, or $10 incentive adds 14, 13, and 28 new diagnoses (20, 19, and 41% increases) at a cost of $11,050, $17,984, and $15,298 per new diagnosis, respectively. Layering on financial incentives to opt-out testing enhances program effectiveness, though at a greater marginal cost per diagnosis. We found a similar pattern for infections averted. This is one of the first cost-effectiveness analyses of behavioral economics interventions in public health. Changing the choice architecture from opt-into opt-out and giving financial incentives for testing are both cost-effective in terms of detecting HIV and reducing transmission. For hospitals interested in increasing HIV screening rates, changing the choice architecture is an efficient strategy and more efficient than incentives.
KeywordsBehavioral economics Cost-effectiveness HIV testing Incentives Defaults
Compliance with Ethical Standards
Conflict of interest
All authors have no conflict of interest to declare.
The study received institutional review board approval from the University of California, San Francisco.
- 1.Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. HIV in the United States: At A Glance.Google Scholar
- 2.Hall HI, An Q, Tang T, et al. Prevalence of diagnosed and undiagnosed HIV infection—United States, 2008–2012. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep. 2015;64(24):657–62.Google Scholar
- 3.Center for Disease Control and Prevention. Diagnoses of HIV Infection in the United States and Dependent Areas, 2017, 2017.Google Scholar
- 4.Branson BM, Handsfield HH, Lampe MA, et al. Revised recommendations for HIV testing of adults, adolescents, and pregnant women in health-care settings. Morb Mortal Wkly Rep. 2006;55(14):1-CE.Google Scholar
- 5.Organization WH. Scaling up HIV testing and counselling in the WHO European Region as an essential component of efforts to achieve universal access to HIV prevention, treatment, care and support: policy framework. Scaling up HIV testing and counselling in the WHO European Region as an essential component of efforts to achieve universal access to HIV prevention, treatment, care and support: policy framework; 2010.Google Scholar
- 6.European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control. HIV testing: increasing uptake and effectiveness in the European Union. ECDC; 2010.Google Scholar
- 8.Stringer EM, Stringer JS, Cliver SP, Goldenberg RL, Goepfert AR. Evaluation of a new testing policy for human immunodeficiency virus to improve screening rates. Obstet Gynecol. 2001;98(6):1104–8.Google Scholar
- 12.UNAIDS. Getting to zero: 2011–2015 strategy Joint United Nations Programme on HIV/AIDS (UNAIDS); 2010.Google Scholar
- 16.Khullar D. How Behavioral Economics Can Produce Better Health Care: New York Times (The Upshot); 2017.Google Scholar
- 21.United States Census Bureau. QuickFacts, San Francisco County, California. https://www.census.gov/quickfacts/fact/table/sanfranciscocountycalifornia/PST045216. 2017. Accessed 12 June 2017.
- 27.Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services. Clinical Laboratory Fee Schedule; 2016.Google Scholar
- 28.San Francisco Department of Public Health. The HIV Epidemiology Annual Report 2013. San Francisco, CA, 2014.Google Scholar
- 29.RC Team. R: a language and environment for statistical computing. Vienna: RC Team; 2013.Google Scholar