Optimal allocation of HIV prevention funds for state health departments

• Published in: PloS one Vol. 13; no. 5; p. e0197421
• Main Authors: Yaylali, Emine, Farnham, Paul G, Cohen, Stacy, Purcell, David W, Hauck, Heather, Sansom, Stephanie L
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: United States Public Library of Science 16.05.2018; Public Library of Science (PLoS)
• Subjects: Acquired immune deficiency syndrome; AIDS; Analysis; Antiretroviral agents; Antiretroviral therapy; Biology and Life Sciences; Budgeting; Disease control; Disease prevention; Expenditures; Funds; Government finance; Health aspects; Health risks; Highly active antiretroviral therapy; HIV; HIV infections; Human immunodeficiency virus; Medical diagnosis; Medicine and health sciences; Optimization; People and Places; Prevention; Preventive medicine; Public health; Sensitivity analysis; Sexually transmitted diseases; Social Sciences; STD; United States; Turkey; Istanbul Turkey; Atlanta Georgia; United States > US
• ISSN: 1932-6203; 1932-6203
• DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0197421

To estimate the optimal allocation of Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) HIV prevention funds for health departments in 52 jurisdictions, incorporating Health Resources and Services Administration (HRSA) Ryan White HIV/AIDS Program funds, to improve outcomes along the HIV care continuum and prevent infections. Using surveillance data from 2010 to 2012 and budgetary data from 2012, we divided the 52 health departments into 5 groups varying by number of persons living with diagnosed HIV (PLWDH), median annual CDC HIV prevention budget, and median annual HRSA expenditures supporting linkage to care, retention in care, and adherence to antiretroviral therapy. Using an optimization and a Bernoulli process model, we solved for the optimal CDC prevention budget allocation for each health department group. The optimal allocation distributed the funds across prevention interventions and populations at risk for HIV to prevent the greatest number of new HIV cases annually. Both the HIV prevention interventions funded by the optimal allocation of CDC HIV prevention funds and the proportions of the budget allocated were similar across health department groups, particularly those representing the large majority of PLWDH. Consistently funded interventions included testing, partner services and linkage to care and interventions for men who have sex with men (MSM). Sensitivity analyses showed that the optimal allocation shifted when there were differences in transmission category proportions and progress along the HIV care continuum. The robustness of the results suggests that most health departments can use these analyses to guide the investment of CDC HIV prevention funds into strategies to prevent the most new cases of HIV.