IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/sae/medema/v25y2005i3p321-329.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

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

Author

Listed:
  • 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)

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.

Suggested Citation

  • Rochelle P. Walensky & Milton C. Weinstein & Heather E. Smith & Kenneth A. Freedberg & A. David Paltiel, 2005. "Optimal Allocation of Testing Dollars: The Example of HIV Counseling, Testing, and Referral," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 25(3), pages 321-329, May.
  • Handle: RePEc:sae:medema:v:25:y:2005:i:3:p:321-329
    DOI: 10.1177/0272989X05276955
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0272989X05276955
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1177/0272989X05276955?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Albert L. Nichols & Milton C. Weinstein, 1978. "Optimal Resource Allocation in Community Hypertension Programs," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 24(14), pages 1526-1537, October.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Benjamin P Linas & Devra M Barter & Jared A Leff & Sabrina A Assoumou & Joshua A Salomon & Milton C Weinstein & Arthur Y Kim & Bruce R Schackman, 2014. "The Hepatitis C Cascade of Care: Identifying Priorities to Improve Clinical Outcomes," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 9(5), pages 1-11, May.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Zanakis, Stelios H. & Mandakovic, Tomislav & Gupta, Sushil K. & Sahay, Sundeep & Hong, Sungwan, 1995. "A review of program evaluation and fund allocation methods within the service and government sectors," Socio-Economic Planning Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 29(1), pages 59-79, March.
    2. Heidenberger, Kurt, 1996. "Dynamic project selection and funding under risk: A decision tree based MILP approach," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 95(2), pages 284-298, December.
    3. Kılıç, Hakan & Güneş, Evrim Didem, 2024. "Patient adherence in healthcare operations: A narrative review," Socio-Economic Planning Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 91(C).
    4. Tinglong Dai & Kelly Gleason & Chao‐Wei Hwang & Patricia Davidson, 2021. "Heart analytics: Analytical modeling of cardiovascular care," Naval Research Logistics (NRL), John Wiley & Sons, vol. 68(1), pages 30-43, February.
    5. Marion S. Rauner & Walter J. Gutjahr & Kurt Heidenberger & Joachim Wagner & Joseph Pasia, 2010. "Dynamic Policy Modeling for Chronic Diseases: Metaheuristic-Based Identification of Pareto-Optimal Screening Strategies," Operations Research, INFORMS, vol. 58(5), pages 1269-1286, October.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:sae:medema:v:25:y:2005:i:3:p:321-329. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: SAGE Publications (email available below). General contact details of provider: .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.