Optimal Allocation of Testing Dollars: The Example of HIV Counseling, Testing, and Referral

Rochelle P. Walensky, Milton C. Weinstein, Heather E. Smith, Kenneth A. Freedberg and A. David Paltiel
Additional contact information
Rochelle P. Walensky: Divisions of Infectious Disease and General Medicine and the Partners AIDS Research Center, Department of Medicine, Massachusetts General Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, rwalensky@partners.org
Milton C. Weinstein: Department of Health Policy and Management and Center for Risk Analysis, Harvard School of Public Health, Boston, MA
Heather E. Smith: Divisions of Infectious Disease and General Medicine and the Partners AIDS Research Center, Department of Medicine, Massachusetts General Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston
Kenneth A. Freedberg: Divisions of Infectious Disease and General Medicine and the Partners AIDS Research Center, Department of Medicine, Massachusetts General Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Department of Health Policy and Management and Center for Risk Analysis, Harvard School of Public Health, Boston, MA
A. David Paltiel: Yale School of Medicine, New Haven, CT

Medical Decision Making, 2005, vol. 25, issue 3, 321-329

Abstract: Background . Health screening programs can be represented as a pathway of sequential processes: offering a test, obtaining consent, conducting the test, providing results, and linking to appropriate care. Using the example of HIV testing, the authors explore the optimal targeting of funds within this pathway. Methods . The authors develop a microsimulation of HIV testing services and decompose the likelihood that an unidentified HIV-infected person will receive care into the probability of testing [P (test)] and the probability of follow-up [P (follow)] defined as returning for results and linking to care. The authors examine the clinical impact and cost-effectiveness of alternative investments in these component probabilities. Results . At 1% undiagnosed HIV prevalence, cost-effectiveness ratios for HIV testing cluster around $33,000/QALY (quality-adjusted life year) gained. A program with a yield of 0.16 via P (test) = 0.20 and P (follow) = 0.80 has a cost-effectiveness ratio of $32,900/QALY compared with $36,300/QALY for a program where P (test) = 0.80 and P (follow) = 0.20. Interventions that improve the probability of success in later stages in the testing pathway [P (follow)] are more cost-effective than investments devoted to earlier stages [P (test)]. Conclusions . Equivalent pathway outcomes in a screening program do not confer equal value. Limited screening resources are best targeted toward returning for results and linkage among those already identified with disease rather than offering testing to additional people.

Keywords: screening test; HIV; linkage; cost-effectiveness (search for similar items in EconPapers)
Date: 2005
References: View references in EconPapers View complete reference list from CitEc
Citations: View citations in EconPapers (1)

Downloads: (external link)
https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0272989X05276955 (text/html)

Related works:
This item may be available elsewhere in EconPapers: Search for items with the same title.

Export reference: BibTeX RIS (EndNote, ProCite, RefMan) HTML/Text

Persistent link: https://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:sae:medema:v:25:y:2005:i:3:p:321-329

DOI: 10.1177/0272989X05276955

Access Statistics for this article

More articles in Medical Decision Making
Bibliographic data for series maintained by SAGE Publications ().