REACH: A Practical HIV Resource Allocation Tool for Decision Makers

  • Sabina S. Alistar
  • Margaret L. Brandeau
  • Eduard J. Beck
Chapter
Part of the International Series in Operations Research & Management Science book series (ISOR, volume 190)

Abstract

With more than 34 million people currently living with HIV and 1.8 million dying from HIV annually, there is a great need for continued HIV control efforts. However, funds for HIV prevention and treatment continue to fall short of estimated need and are further jeopardized by the current global economic downturn. Thus, efficient allocation of resources among interventions for preventing and treating HIV is crucial. Decision makers, who face budget constraints and other practical considerations, need tools to help them identify sets of interventions that will yield optimal results for their specific settings in terms of their demographic, epidemic, cultural, and economic contexts and resources available to them. Existing theoretical models are often too complex for practical use by decision makers, whereas the practical tools that have been developed are often too simple. As a result, decisions are often made based on historical patterns, political interests, and decision maker heuristics, and may not make the most effective use of limited HIV control resources. To address this gap between theory and practice, we developed a planning tool for use by regional and country-level decision makers in evaluating potential resource allocations. The Resource Allocation for Control of HIV (REACH) model, implemented in Microsoft Excel, has a user-friendly design and allows users to customize key parameters to their own setting, such as demographics, epidemic characteristics and transmission modes, and economic setting. In addition, the model incorporates epidemic dynamics; accounts for how intervention effectiveness depends on the target population and the level of scale up; captures benefit and cost differentials for combinations of interventions versus single interventions, including both treatment and prevention interventions; incorporates key constraints on potential funding allocations; identifies optimal or near-optimal solutions based on epidemic characteristics, local realities, and available level of investment; and estimates the impact of HIV interventions on the health care system and resulting resource needs. In this chapter we describe the model and then present example analyses for three different settings, Uganda, Ukraine, and Saint Petersburg, Russia. We conclude with a discussion of insights gained from application of the model thus far, and we describe our ongoing work in further developing and applying the model.

Keywords

Europe Syringe Expense 

Notes

Acknowledgments

This work was supported by grant number R01-DA15612 from the National Institute on Drug Abuse. Sabina Alistar was also supported by a Stanford Graduate Fellowship.

References

  1. 1.
    United Nations (UN) (2009) The millennium development goals report 2009. United Nations, New York, NYGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Joint United Nations Programme on HIV/AIDS (UNAIDS) (2010) UNAIDS Report on the Global AIDS Epidemic 2010. UNAIDS, Geneva, SwitzerlandGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Avila C (2011) Personal communication: updated estimates for HIV resource needs. UNAIDS, Geneva, SwitzerlandGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Cohen MS et al. (2011) Prevention of HIV-1 infection with early antiretroviral therapy. New Engl J Med 365(6):493–505CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Joint United Nations Programme on HIV/AIDS (UNAIDS) (2008) Report on the global AIDS epidemic. UNAIDS, Geneva, SwitzerlandGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Alistar SS, Brandeau ML (2012) Decision making for HIV prevention and treatment scale up: bridging the gap between theory and practice. Med Decis Making 32(1):105–117 Epub ahead of printGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Lasry AC, Malvankar MW, Zaric GS (2011) Allocating funds for HIV/AIDS: the case of kwaDukuza, South Africa. Health Policy Plann 26(1):33–42CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Ruiz M et al. (eds) (2001) No time to lose: getting more from HIV prevention. National Academy Press, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Coates TJ, Richter L, Caceres C (2008) Behavioural strategies to reduce HIV transmission: how to make them work better. Lancet 372(9639):669–684CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Piot P et al. (2008) Coming to terms with complexity: a call to action for HIV prevention. Lancet 372(9641):845–859CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Potts M et al. (2008) Reassessing HIV prevention. Science 320(5877):749–750CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Collins C, Coates TJ, Curran J (2008) Moving beyond the alphabet soup of HIV prevention. AIDS 22(Suppl 2):S5–S8CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Horton R, Das P (2008) Putting prevention at the forefront of HIV/AIDS. Lancet 372(9637):421–422CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Bautista-Arredondo S et al. (2008) Optimizing resource allocation for HIV/AIDS prevention programmes: an analytical framework. AIDS 22(Suppl 1):S67–S74CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Brandeau ML, Zaric GS (2009) Optimal investment in HIV prevention programs: more is not always better. Health Care Manage Sci 12(1):27–37CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Kumaranayake L (2008) The economics of scaling up: cost estimation for HIV/AIDS interventions. AIDS 22:S23–S33CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Long EF, Brandeau ML, Owens DK (2010) The cost effectiveness and population outcomes of expanded HIV screening in the United States. Ann Intern Med 153(12):778–789Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Alistar SS, Owens DK, Brandeau ML (2011) Effectiveness and cost effectiveness of expanding harm reduction and antiretroviral therapy in a mixed HIV epidemic: a modeling analysis for Ukraine. PLoS Med 8(3):e1000423CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Dandona L et al. (2008) Changing cost of HIV interventions in the context of scaling-up in India. AIDS 22(Suppl 1):S43–S49CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Kaplan EH (1995) Economic analysis of needle exchange. AIDS 9(10):1113–1119CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Lasry A, Richter A, Lutscher F (2009) Recommendations for increasing the use of HIV/AIDS resource allocation models. BMC Public Health 9 (Suppl 1):S8CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Brandeau ML, Zaric GS, Richter A (2003) Resource allocation for control of infectious diseases in multiple independent populations: beyond cost-effectiveness analysis. J Health Econ 22(4):575–598CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Richter A, Brandeau ML, Owens DK (1999) An analysis of optimal resource allocation for prevention of infection with human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) in injection drug users and non-users. Med Decis Making 19(2):167–179CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Zaric GS, Brandeau ML (2001) Optimal investment in a portfolio of HIV prevention programs. Med Decis Making 21(5):391–408Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Zaric GS, Brandeau ML (2001) Resource allocation for epidemic control over short time horizons. Math Biosci 171(1):33–58CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Futures Group (2011) Goals model. http://futuresgroup.com/resources/software/goals-model/. Accessed 8 Feb 2011
  27. 27.
    Brandeau ML, Zaric GS, De Angelis V (2005) Improved allocation of HIV prevention resources: using information about prevention program production functions. Health Care Manage Sci 8(1):19–28CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Marseille E et al. (2007) HIV prevention costs and program scale: data from the PANCEA project in five low and middle-income countries. BMC Health Serv Res 7(1):108CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Long EF et al. (2006) Slowing the HIV epidemic in St. Petersburg, Russia: effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of expanded antiretroviral therapy. AIDS 20(17):2207–2215CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Zaric GS, Brandeau ML, Barnett PG (2000) Methadone maintenance treatment and HIV prevention: a cost effectiveness analysis. Manage Sci 46(8):1013–1031CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Sanders GD et al. (2005) Cost effectiveness of screening for HIV in the era of highly active antiretroviral therapy. New Engl J Med 352(6):32–47CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Joint United Nations Programme on HIV/AIDS (UNAIDS) (2007) Practical guidelines for intensifying HIV prevention—towards universal access. UNAIDS, Geneva, SwitzerlandGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Government of Uganda (2010) United Nations General Assembly Special Session (UNGASS) country progress report, Uganda: January 2008—December 2009. Uganda Ministry of Health, Kampala, UgandaGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Joint United Nations Programme on HIV/AIDS (UNAIDS) (2008) Ukraine—national report on monitoring progress towards the UNGASS declaration of commitment on HIV/AIDS. UNAIDS, Geneva, SwitzerlandGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Kruglov YV et al. (2008) The most severe HIV epidemic in Europe: Ukraine's national HIV prevalence estimates for 2007. Sex Transm Infect 84(Suppl 1):i37–i41CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Heimer R, White E (2010) Estimation of the number of injection drug users in St. Petersburg, Russia. Drug Alcohol Depend 109(1–3):79–83CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    World Health Organization (WHO) (2005) Summary country profile for HIV/AIDS treatment scale-up: Russian Federation, June 2005. World Health Organization, Geneva, SwitzerlandGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Niccolai LM et al. (2009) The potential for bridging of HIV transmission in the Russian Federation: sex risk behaviors and HIV prevalence among drug users (DUs) and their non-DU sex partners. J Urban Health 85(Suppl 1):131–143CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Niccolai LM et al. (2010) High HIV prevalence, suboptimal HIV testing, and low knowledge of HIV-positive serostatus among injection drug users in St. Petersburg, Russia. AIDS Behav 14(4):932–941CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Joint United Nations Programme on HIV/AIDS (UNAIDS) (2011) Toward an improved framework for HIV investments, draft report. UNAIDS, Geneva, SwitzerlandGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  • Sabina S. Alistar
    • 1
  • Margaret L. Brandeau
    • 1
  • Eduard J. Beck
    • 2
  1. 1.Department of Management Science and EngineeringStanford UniversityStanfordUSA
  2. 2.Department of the Deputy Executive Director, Programme BranchUNAIDSGeneva 27Switzerland

Personalised recommendations