Blythe Adamson1, Wafaa El-Sadr2, Dobromir Dimitrov3, Theresa Gamble4, Geetha Beauchamp3, Josh J Carlson5, Louis Garrison5, Deborah Donnell3. 1. The Comparative Health Outcomes, Policy, and Economics (CHOICE) Institute, Department of Pharmacy, University of Washington, Seattle, WA, USA; Vaccine and Infectious Diseases Division, Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center, Seattle, WA, USA. Electronic address: blythem@uw.edu. 2. ICAP at Columbia University, New York, NY, USA. 3. Vaccine and Infectious Diseases Division, Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center, Seattle, WA, USA. 4. HPTN Leadership and Operations Center, Science Facilitation Department, FHI 360, Durham, NC, USA. 5. The Comparative Health Outcomes, Policy, and Economics (CHOICE) Institute, Department of Pharmacy, University of Washington, Seattle, WA, USA.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the cost-effectiveness of financial incentives for human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) viral suppression compared to standard of care. STUDY DESIGN: Mathematical model of 2-year intervention offering financial incentives ($70 quarterly) for viral suppression (<400 copies/ml3) based on the HPTN 065 clinical trial with HIV patients in the Bronx, NY and Washington, D.C. METHODS: A disease progression model with HIV transmission risk equations was developed following guidelines from the Second Panel on Cost-Effectiveness in Health and Medicine. We used health care sector and societal perspectives, 3% discount rate, and lifetime horizon. Data sources included trial data (baseline N = 16,208 patients), CDC HIV Surveillance data, and published literature. Outcomes were costs (2017 USD), quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), HIV infections prevented, and incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER). RESULTS: Financial incentives for viral suppression were estimated to be cost-saving from a societal perspective and cost-effective ($49,877/QALY) from a health care sector perspective. Compared to the standard of care, financial incentives gain 0.06 QALYs and lower discounted lifetime costs by $4210 per patient. The model estimates that incentivized patients transmit 9% fewer infections than the standard-of-care patients. In the sensitivity analysis, ICER 95% credible intervals ranged from cost-saving to $501,610/QALY with 72% of simulations being cost-effective using a $150,000/QALY threshold. Modeling results are limited by uncertainty in efficacy from the clinical trial. CONCLUSIONS: Financial incentives, as used in HTPN 065, are estimated to improve quality and length of life, reduce HIV transmissions, and save money from a societal perspective. Financial incentives offer a promising option for enhancing the benefits of medication in the United States.
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the cost-effectiveness of financial incentives for human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) viral suppression compared to standard of care. STUDY DESIGN: Mathematical model of 2-year intervention offering financial incentives ($70 quarterly) for viral suppression (<400 copies/ml3) based on the HPTN 065 clinical trial with HIVpatients in the Bronx, NY and Washington, D.C. METHODS: A disease progression model with HIV transmission risk equations was developed following guidelines from the Second Panel on Cost-Effectiveness in Health and Medicine. We used health care sector and societal perspectives, 3% discount rate, and lifetime horizon. Data sources included trial data (baseline N = 16,208 patients), CDC HIV Surveillance data, and published literature. Outcomes were costs (2017 USD), quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), HIV infections prevented, and incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER). RESULTS: Financial incentives for viral suppression were estimated to be cost-saving from a societal perspective and cost-effective ($49,877/QALY) from a health care sector perspective. Compared to the standard of care, financial incentives gain 0.06 QALYs and lower discounted lifetime costs by $4210 per patient. The model estimates that incentivized patients transmit 9% fewer infections than the standard-of-care patients. In the sensitivity analysis, ICER 95% credible intervals ranged from cost-saving to $501,610/QALY with 72% of simulations being cost-effective using a $150,000/QALY threshold. Modeling results are limited by uncertainty in efficacy from the clinical trial. CONCLUSIONS: Financial incentives, as used in HTPN 065, are estimated to improve quality and length of life, reduce HIV transmissions, and save money from a societal perspective. Financial incentives offer a promising option for enhancing the benefits of medication in the United States.
Authors: Rochelle P Walensky; Eric L Ross; Nagalingeswaran Kumarasamy; Robin Wood; Farzad Noubary; A David Paltiel; Yoriko M Nakamura; Sheela V Godbole; Ravindre Panchia; Ian Sanne; Milton C Weinstein; Elena Losina; Kenneth H Mayer; Ying Q Chen; Lei Wang; Marybeth McCauley; Theresa Gamble; George R Seage; Myron S Cohen; Kenneth A Freedberg Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2013-10-31 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Michael P Girouard; Paul E Sax; Robert A Parker; Babafemi Taiwo; Kenneth A Freedberg; Roy M Gulick; Milton C Weinstein; A David Paltiel; Rochelle P Walensky Journal: Clin Infect Dis Date: 2015-12-09 Impact factor: 9.079
Authors: Gillian D Sanders; Peter J Neumann; Anirban Basu; Dan W Brock; David Feeny; Murray Krahn; Karen M Kuntz; David O Meltzer; Douglas K Owens; Lisa A Prosser; Joshua A Salomon; Mark J Sculpher; Thomas A Trikalinos; Louise B Russell; Joanna E Siegel; Theodore G Ganiats Journal: JAMA Date: 2016-09-13 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: Timothy B Hallett; Jared M Baeten; Renee Heffron; Ruanne Barnabas; Guy de Bruyn; Íde Cremin; Sinead Delany; Geoffrey P Garnett; Glenda Gray; Leigh Johnson; James McIntyre; Helen Rees; Connie Celum Journal: PLoS Med Date: 2011-11-15 Impact factor: 11.069
Authors: Elizabeth Greene; Allison Pack; Jill Stanton; Victoria Shelus; Elizabeth E Tolley; Jamilah Taylor; Wafaa M El Sadr; Bernard M Branson; Jason Leider; Natella Rakhmanina; Theresa Gamble Journal: PLoS One Date: 2017-02-09 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: Alexsandra Andrawis; James Tapa; Ivo Vlaev; Daniel Read; Kelly Ann Schmidtke; Eric P F Chow; David Lee; Christopher K Fairley; Jason J Ong Journal: Curr HIV/AIDS Rep Date: 2022-08-05 Impact factor: 5.495
Authors: Natalie A Blackburn; Vivian F Go; Quynh Bui; Heidi Hutton; Radhika P Tampi; Teerada Sripaipan; Tran Viet Ha; Carl A Latkin; Shelley Golden; Carol Golin; Geetanjali Chander; Constantine Frangakis; Nisha Gottfredson; David W Dowdy Journal: AIDS Behav Date: 2021-01-03
Authors: Yesim Tozan; Ariadna Capasso; Sicong Sun; Torsten B Neilands; Christopher Damulira; Flavia Namuwonge; Gertrude Nakigozi; Abel Mwebembezi; Barbara Mukasa; Ozge Sensoy Bahar; Proscovia Nabunya; Claude A Mellins; Mary M McKay; Fred M Ssewamala Journal: J Int AIDS Soc Date: 2021-06 Impact factor: 6.707