Expanded HIV Screening in the United States: What Will It Cost Government Discretionary and Entitlement Programs? A Budget Impact Analysis

Abstract

Objective The US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) recently revised their HIV screening guidelines to promote testing and earlier entry to care. Prior analyses have examined the policy’s cost-effectiveness but have not evaluated its impact on government budgets. Methods We used a simulation model of HIV screening, disease, and treatment to determine the budget impact of expanded HIV screening to US government discretionary, entitlement, and testing programs. We estimated total and incremental testing and treatment costs over a five-year time horizon under current and expanded screening scenarios. We used CDC estimates of HIV prevalence and annual incidence, and considered variations in screening frequency, test return rates, linkage to care, test characteristics, and eligibility for government screening and treatment programs. Results Under current practice, 177,000 new HIV cases will be identified over five years. Expanded screening will identify an additional 46,000 cases at an incremental five-year cost of $2.7 billion. The financial burden of expanded HIV screening will fall disproportionately on discretionary programs that fund care for newly identified patients and will not be offset by entitlement program savings. Testing will represent a small proportion (18%) of the total budget increase. Costs are sensitive to the frequency of screening and the proportion linked to care. Conclusions The expanded HIV screening program will have a large downstream impact on government programs that fund HIV care. Expanded HIV screening will not meet early treatment goals unless government programs have sufficient budgets to expand testing and provide care for newly-identified cases.

Planning for HIV Screening, Testing, and Care at the Veterans Health Administration

“…This implies that while setting screening rates, one has to understand budgets and its implications on treatment. This is consistent with the public health literature (Martin et al 2010). …”

“…These rates were considered to be reasonable and achievable. Further they are consistent with research on HIV screening rates in other health care settings (Martin et al 2010). The rates from the FSSS and the FSNS can be used to compute how many patients could be estimated to be present at the primary care, laboratory and the infectious disease specialty over time.…”

The Clinical Impact and Cost-Effectiveness of Routine, Voluntary HIV Screening in South Africa

“…In a resource-limited setting, affordability is as important as cost-effectiveness. While budget impact is beyond the scope of the present paper, it merits more attention than it has received to date in the HIV-related literature 53. Although many univariate and multi-way assessments were conducted, a more complete sensitivity analysis might examine the question of cost-effectiveness over a range of willingness-to-pay thresholds and examine the simultaneous interaction of all input parameters.…”

Updating the HIV-Testing Guidelines — A Modest Change with Major Consequences

“…The same month, the Pacific Northwest Evidencebased Practice Center's unambiguous review of the evidence favoring routine HIV screening had been published. 5 The debate over HIV screening has extended over 25 years, driven initially by concerns about discrimination and the appropriate rigor of consent procedures. More recently, controversy has centered on the scope of screening efforts -whether they should be targeted at the groups at highest risk or should be a routine element of clinical practice.…”

“…In addition, in recent years, most HIV infections have occurred in members of lowincome minority groups, many of whom are currently uninsured and rely on safety-net programs. 5 The most visible ACA provisions for expanded insurance coverage of HIV care are the subsidized state-based health insurance exchanges and Medicaid expansion. These provisions are combined with various measures for encouraging greater use of primary care, including redirecting federal funds from safety-net hospitals to community health centers, funding for training of primary care providers, and increased Medicare and Medicaid payments to primary care providers.…”