BACKGROUND: Human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) screening is cost-effective and recommended in populations with low disease prevalence. However, because screening is not cost-saving, its financial feasibility must be understood. STUDY OBJECTIVES: We forecast the costs of two Emergency Department-based HIV testing programs in the Veterans Administration: 1) implementing a non-targeted screening program and providing treatment for all patients thusly identified (Rapid Testing); and 2) treating patients identified due to late-stage symptoms (Usual Care); to determine which program was the most financially feasible. METHODS: Using a dynamic decision-analysis model, we estimated the financial impact of each program over a 7-year period. Costs were driven by patient disease-severity at diagnosis, measured by CD4+ category, and the proportion of patients in each disease-severity category. Cost per CD4+ category was modeled from chart review and database analysis of treatment-naïve HIV-positive patients. Distributions of CD4+ counts differed in patients across the Rapid Testing and Usual Care arms. RESULTS: A non-targeted Rapid Testing program was not significantly more costly than Usual Care. Although Rapid Testing had substantial screening costs, they were offset by lower inpatient expenses associated with earlier identification of disease. Assuming an HIV prevalence of 1% and 80% test acceptance, the cost of Rapid Testing was $1,418,088, vs. $1,320,338 for Usual Care (p=0.5854). Results support implementation of non-targeted rapid HIV screening in integrated systems. CONCLUSIONS: This analysis adds a new component of support for HIV screening by demonstrating that rapid, non-targeted testing does not cost significantly more than a diagnostic testing approach.
BACKGROUND:Human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) screening is cost-effective and recommended in populations with low disease prevalence. However, because screening is not cost-saving, its financial feasibility must be understood. STUDY OBJECTIVES: We forecast the costs of two Emergency Department-based HIV testing programs in the Veterans Administration: 1) implementing a non-targeted screening program and providing treatment for all patients thusly identified (Rapid Testing); and 2) treating patients identified due to late-stage symptoms (Usual Care); to determine which program was the most financially feasible. METHODS: Using a dynamic decision-analysis model, we estimated the financial impact of each program over a 7-year period. Costs were driven by patient disease-severity at diagnosis, measured by CD4+ category, and the proportion of patients in each disease-severity category. Cost per CD4+ category was modeled from chart review and database analysis of treatment-naïve HIV-positive patients. Distributions of CD4+ counts differed in patients across the Rapid Testing and Usual Care arms. RESULTS: A non-targeted Rapid Testing program was not significantly more costly than Usual Care. Although Rapid Testing had substantial screening costs, they were offset by lower inpatient expenses associated with earlier identification of disease. Assuming an HIV prevalence of 1% and 80% test acceptance, the cost of Rapid Testing was $1,418,088, vs. $1,320,338 for Usual Care (p=0.5854). Results support implementation of non-targeted rapid HIV screening in integrated systems. CONCLUSIONS: This analysis adds a new component of support for HIV screening by demonstrating that rapid, non-targeted testing does not cost significantly more than a diagnostic testing approach.
Authors: J Cook; E Dasbach; P Coplan; L Markson; D Yin; A Meibohm; B Y Nguyen; J Chodakewitz; J Mellors Journal: AIDS Res Hum Retroviruses Date: 1999-04-10 Impact factor: 2.205
Authors: Josephine A Mauskopf; Sean D Sullivan; Lieven Annemans; Jaime Caro; C Daniel Mullins; Mark Nuijten; Ewa Orlewska; John Watkins; Paul Trueman Journal: Value Health Date: 2007 Sep-Oct Impact factor: 5.725
Authors: A David Paltiel; Rochelle P Walensky; Bruce R Schackman; George R Seage; Lauren M Mercincavage; Milton C Weinstein; Kenneth A Freedberg Journal: Ann Intern Med Date: 2006-12-05 Impact factor: 25.391
Authors: Bernard M Branson; H Hunter Handsfield; Margaret A Lampe; Robert S Janssen; Allan W Taylor; Sheryl B Lyss; Jill E Clark Journal: MMWR Recomm Rep Date: 2006-09-22
Authors: Gillian D Sanders; Ahmed M Bayoumi; Vandana Sundaram; S Pinar Bilir; Christopher P Neukermans; Chara E Rydzak; Lena R Douglass; Laura C Lazzeroni; Mark Holodniy; Douglas K Owens Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2005-02-10 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: A David Paltiel; Milton C Weinstein; April D Kimmel; George R Seage; Elena Losina; Hong Zhang; Kenneth A Freedberg; Rochelle P Walensky Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2005-02-10 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Shawn L Fultz; Melissa Skanderson; Larry A Mole; Neel Gandhi; Kendall Bryant; Stephen Crystal; Amy C Justice Journal: Med Care Date: 2006-08 Impact factor: 2.983
Authors: Douglas K Owens; Vandana Sundaram; Laura C Lazzeroni; Lena R Douglass; Gillian D Sanders; Kathie Taylor; Ronald VanGroningen; Vera M Shadle; Valerie C McWhorter; Teodora Agoncillo; Noreen Haren; Jill Nyland; Patricia Tempio; Walid Khayr; Dennis J Dietzen; Peter Jensen; Michael S Simberkoff; Samuel A Bozzette; Mark Holodniy Journal: Am J Public Health Date: 2007-10-30 Impact factor: 9.308
Authors: Amy C Justice; Matthew B Goetz; Cameron N Stewart; Brenna C Hogan; Elizabeth Humes; Paula M Luz; Jessica L Castilho; Denis Nash; Ellen Brazier; Beverly Musick; Constantin Yiannoutsos; Karen Malateste; Antoine Jaquet; Morna Cornell; Tinei Shamu; Reena Rajasuriar; Awachana Jiamsakul; Keri N Althoff Journal: Lancet HIV Date: 2022-02-23 Impact factor: 16.070