Is there scope for cost savings and efficiency gains in HIV services? A systematic review of the evidence from low- and middle-income countries.

OBJECTIVE: To synthesize the data available--on costs, efficiency and economies of scale and scope--for the six basic programmes of the UNAIDS Strategic Investment Framework, to inform those planning the scale-up of human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) services in low- and middle-income countries. METHODS: The relevant peer-reviewed and "grey" literature from low- and middle-income countries was systematically reviewed. Search and analysis followed Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses guidelines. FINDINGS: Of the 82 empirical costing and efficiency studies identified, nine provided data on economies of scale. Scale explained much of the variation in the costs of several HIV services, particularly those of targeted HIV prevention for key populations and HIV testing and treatment. There is some evidence of economies of scope from integrating HIV counselling and testing services with several other services. Cost efficiency may also be improved by reducing input prices, task shifting and improving client adherence. CONCLUSION: HIV programmes need to optimize the scale of service provision to achieve efficiency. Interventions that may enhance the potential for economies of scale include intensifying demand-creation activities, reducing the costs for service users, expanding existing programmes rather than creating new structures, and reducing attrition of existing service users. Models for integrated service delivery--which is, potentially, more efficient than the implementation of stand-alone services--should be investigated further. Further experimental evidence is required to understand how to best achieve efficiency gains in HIV programmes and assess the cost-effectiveness of each service-delivery model

Unit Costs for Delivery of Antiretroviral Treatment and Prevention of Mother-to-Child Transmission of HIV

BACKGROUND: As antiretroviral treatment (ART) for HIV/AIDS is scaled-up globally, information on per-person costs is critical to improve efficiency in service delivery and maximize coverage and health impact. OBJECTIVE: To review studies on delivery unit costs for adult and pediatric ART provision per-patient-year, and prevention of mother-to-child transmission (PMTCT) interventions per mother-infant pair screened or treated, in low- and middle-income countries. METHODS: Systematic review of English, French and Spanish publications from 2001 to 2009, reporting empirical costing that accounted for at least antiretroviral (ARV) medicines, laboratory testing and personnel. Expenditures were analyzed by country income level and cost component. All costs were standardized to 2009 US dollars. RESULTS: Analyses covered 29 eligible, comprehensive costing studies. In the base case, in low-income countries (LIC), median, ART cost per patient-year was $792 (mean:$839, range: $682-$1089); for lower-middle-income countries (LMIC), the median was $932 (mean:$1246, range: $156-$3904); and for upper-middle-income countries (UMIC) the median was $1454 (mean:$2783, range: $1230-$5667). ARV drugs were largest component of overall ART cost in all settings (62%, 50% and 47% in LIC, LMIC and UMIC respectively). Out of 26 ART studies, 14 report which drug regimes were used, and only one study explicitly reported second line treatment costs. The second cost driver was laboratory cost in LIC and LMIC (14% and 19.5%) whereas it was personnel costs in UMIC (26%). Two studies specified the types of laboratory tests costed, and three studies specifically included above-facility-level personnel costs. Three studies reported detailed PMTCT costs, and two studies reported on pediatric ART. CONCLUSIONS: There is a paucity of data on the full ART and PMTCT delivery unit costs, in particular for low-and middle-income countries. Heterogeneity in activities costed and insufficient detail regarding components included in the costing hampers standardization of unit cost measures. Evaluation of program-level unit costs would benefit from international guidance on standardized costing methods, and expenditure categories and definitions. Future work should help elucidate the sources for the large variations in delivery unit costs across settings with similar income and epidemiological characteristics