Cost-Effective Allocation of Government Funds for Preventing HIV

Deborah A. Cohen, Shin-Yi Wu, Thomas Farley

Research SummaryPublished Nov 25, 2005

There are approximately 40,000 new HIV infections in the United States each year. The estimated average lifetime cost of treating one HIV infection is $195,000. Relative to the size and costliness of the epidemic, government funds for prevention are scarce. To help decisionmakers allocate funds effectively, the RAND Corporation developed a mathematical model of the cost of a wide variety of HIV prevention interventions. The model uses a constant total budget of $400 million annually, which is within the $415 million budgeted in 2004 to state and local health departments for HIV prevention. The most cost-effective interventions (those that prevented the largest number of infections per dollar spent) are shown in the table.

Cost-Effective Interventions to Prevent HIV Infections

Intervention People Reached Annual Cost of Intervention Infections Prevented Cost Per Infection Prevented
Educational videos in STD clinics 2,000,000 $2,700,000 580 $4,700
Notifying sexual partners 54,000 $13,500,000 2,230 $6,100
Community outreach (Mpowerment modela) 600,000 $109,096,000 8,921 $12,000
STD screening at HIV clinics 467,000 $18,680,000 1,606 $12,000
Implementing needle exchange in high-prevalence areas 1,000,000 $30,380,000 2,291 $13,000
Mass media campaigns 70,000,000 19,999,000 1,131 $18,000
Opinion leaders programs 600,000 $22,851,000 994 $23,000
Implementing needle exchange in medium-prevalence areas 600,000 $18,228,000 388 $47,000
Increasing condom availability/accessibility 24,905,725 $90,566,000 1,920 $47,000
HIV counseling and testing (one-on-one) 1,000,000 $74,000,000 700 $110,000
Total NA $400,000,000 20,761 NA

a This model allows gay people in each community to tailor and run the intervention. For more information, go to http://www.mpowerment.org/.

  • The most cost-effective interventions are targeted at high-risk groups, such as men who have sex with men and users of intravenous drugs.
  • The single most effective intervention (potentially preventing nearly 9,000 infections per year) is community outreach using the Mpowerment model.
  • HIV patients who have other sexually transmitted diseases have a much greater risk of transmitting HIV to their sexual partners. Screening and treating HIV patients for other STDs can significantly reduce the incidence of HIV.
  • Interventions aimed at low-prevalence populations (such as mass media campaigns) can be cost-effective if they reach a large number of people.
  • Allocating funds across all ten interventions achieved the best results: prevention of an estimated 20,000 infections annually.

Available for Download

Topics

Document Details

Citation

RAND Style Manual
Cohen, Deborah A., Shin-Yi Wu, and Thomas Farley, Cost-Effective Allocation of Government Funds for Preventing HIV, RAND Corporation, RB-9132, 2005. As of September 12, 2024: https://www.rand.org/pubs/research_briefs/RB9132.html
Chicago Manual of Style
Cohen, Deborah A., Shin-Yi Wu, and Thomas Farley, Cost-Effective Allocation of Government Funds for Preventing HIV. Santa Monica, CA: RAND Corporation, 2005. https://www.rand.org/pubs/research_briefs/RB9132.html.
BibTeX RIS

This publication is part of the RAND research brief series. Research briefs present policy-oriented summaries of individual published, peer-reviewed documents or of a body of published work.

This document and trademark(s) contained herein are protected by law. This representation of RAND intellectual property is provided for noncommercial use only. Unauthorized posting of this publication online is prohibited; linking directly to this product page is encouraged. Permission is required from RAND to reproduce, or reuse in another form, any of its research documents for commercial purposes. For information on reprint and reuse permissions, please visit www.rand.org/pubs/permissions.

RAND is a nonprofit institution that helps improve policy and decisionmaking through research and analysis. RAND's publications do not necessarily reflect the opinions of its research clients and sponsors.