1 / 15

David Wilson

Cost-effectiveness of HIV financing. David Wilson. Global HIV resourcing. Resulted in tremendous health and economic savings. E.g. Avahan achieved scale and coverage HIV prevalence declined significantly 19.6% to 16.4% among FSWs ( aOR =0.81, p=0.04).

lyneth
Download Presentation

David Wilson

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Cost-effectiveness of HIV financing David Wilson

  2. Global HIV resourcing

  3. Resulted in tremendous health and economic savings • E.g. Avahan achieved scale and coverage • HIV prevalence declined significantly • 19.6% to 16.4% among FSWs (aOR=0.81, p=0.04) Source: Ramesh BM. IBBA two rounds analysis with FSWs in Karnataka, 5 districts. STI 2010; 86 (Suppl 1): i17; http://www.aidstar-one.com/sites/default/files/technical_consultations/mixed_epidemics/day_2/Avahan_program_Gina_Dallabetta.pdf

  4. But not enough money to do everything • 2.3 (1.9-2.7) million newly infected in 2012 • 35.3 (29.1-35.3) million PLHIV and growing Source: UNAIDS 2013 global report

  5. Much money has been wasted • Administrative and ‘other management’ costs • Programs have not operated most efficiently • Programs have not achieved scale and coverage • Available money has not been allocated to programs which have the largest impact • Proven effective and feasible programsof the greatest cost-effectiveness • Many implemented programs have not been cost-effective (Craig et al JIAS 2014)

  6. Epidemiology of HIV in Asia-Pacific • 86% of all 5 million PLHIV in Asia-Pacific are in 5 countries (India, China, Thailand, Indonesia, Vietnam) • 97% in 10 countries • 70% of new infections in the KAPs Source: Kirby Institute estimates based on UNAIDS HIV and AIDS data hub for Asia Pacific

  7. Inefficient allocations • HIV prevention funding in Asia poorly targeted Source: UNAIDS The Gap Report (2014): UNAIDS HIV and AIDS data hub for Asia Pacific based on AIDSinfo Online Database; Craig et al JIAS (2014) 17:18822

  8. Need to focus limited resources by geography and population group • 27/77 provinces in Thailand account for 70% of new HIV infections • 43% of Philippines epidemicin Manila MSM • 73% in just 3 cities

  9. Investing for the biggest impact: optimization / allocative efficiency • Deciding HIV budget allocations / GF concept sheets / operational plans • Know your epidemic, know your program costs, know your program impact, know your desired outcome • Allocate based on all this knowledge to have the best possible (i.e. optimal) impact

  10. Allocations should be based on objectives Different objectives Different allocations • Minimize incidence • Minimize deaths • Minimize DALYs • Minimize money to achieve multiple targets in a national strategy • Determine the allocation of resources or spending required that best meets the objective

  11. Mathematical optimization • Formal mathematical approach, with epidemiological model, taken to find the precise “best” / “optimal” solution to meet the objective according to the known epidemiology, costs and outcomes of programs Current allocation programme 2 programme 1 Allocation minimizing outcome UNSW- World Bank allocative efficiency tool

  12. E.g. An African country (specific country not disclosed) $5.6 million per year Packages include condoms, HTC, SBCC Same money, but avert 15% incidence Expected new infections, 2013-2020 Infections (‘000s)

  13. Minimize incidence: different budget amountsAn example from an Asian country

  14. Large amounts of money on indirect or other management costs $5.6 million per year Large indirect costs: ~50% • Program efficiency can free up this money for direct program efforts for greater impact • E.g. Efficiency study in Ukraine (UNSW, WB, UNAIDS) • NSP costs can reduce by 18% • OST costs can reduce by at least half (stand alone); 43% for integrated sites • ART costs can reduce by 28% (1st line) and 41% (2nd line)

  15. Great need to invest smarter: focussed and efficient investments “I simply wish that in a matter which so closely concerns the wellbeing of the human race, no decision shall be made without all the knowledge which a little analysis and calculation can provide”. - Daniel Bernoulli, 1760

More Related