Subject(s)
Clinical Laboratory Techniques/standards , Tuberculosis, Pulmonary/diagnosis , Antitubercular Agents/therapeutic use , Clinical Laboratory Techniques/economics , DNA, Bacterial/analysis , Humans , Male , Mycobacterium tuberculosis/genetics , Mycobacterium tuberculosis/isolation & purification , Quality Control , Sputum/microbiology , Tuberculosis, Pulmonary/drug therapySubject(s)
Acquired Immunodeficiency Syndrome , HIV Infections , Acquired Immunodeficiency Syndrome/epidemiology , Acquired Immunodeficiency Syndrome/prevention & control , Acquired Immunodeficiency Syndrome/therapy , Adult , Attitude to Health , Child , Disease Outbreaks , Female , HIV Infections/epidemiology , HIV Infections/prevention & control , HIV Infections/therapy , HIV Seropositivity/epidemiology , HIV Seropositivity/therapy , Homosexuality, Male , Humans , Male , Physician-Patient Relations , Pregnancy , Professional-Family Relations , Social Support , Substance Abuse, Intravenous , United States/epidemiologyABSTRACT
Title II of the Ryan White Comprehensive AIDS Resources Emergency (CARE) Act of 1990 provides formula-based grants to States to help them improve the quality, availability, and organization of health care and support services for people with human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) infection. This article reviews State expenditures during the first year of CARE Act funding (April 1991-March 1992) within the context of Title II guidelines and the federally funded grant programs that preceded and helped shape Title II. The authors also discuss future challenges that require development of resources, the assessment of program impact, and the evaluation of the quality and appropriateness of HIV-related services. Ninety-one percent of the $77.5 million awarded to States during fiscal year 1991 went for the provision of medical and support services through HIV care consortia, drug reimbursement programs, home and community-based care programs, and health insurance initiatives. The remaining monies were used for planning, evaluation, and program administration. Forty States allocated $38.9 million for the establishment of HIV care consortia to assess service needs and to develop comprehensive continuums of health and support services in the areas most affected by HIV disease. Fifty States allocated an additional $28.3 million for the continuation or expansion of FDA-approved drug therapies for low-income people with HIV infection. Twenty-five States allocated $2.2 million for the provision of home- and community-based health services, and 16 States allocated $1.3 million for programs that help low-income people with HIV infection to purchase or maintain health insurance coverage.
Subject(s)
Financing, Government/legislation & jurisprudence , HIV Infections/economics , National Health Programs/legislation & jurisprudence , State Health Plans/economics , HIV Infections/therapy , Humans , Program Evaluation , State Health Plans/legislation & jurisprudence , United States , United States Health Resources and Services AdministrationABSTRACT
This is a review of (a) the emergency assistance for ambulatory HIV medical and support services provided in the first year by eligible metropolitan areas (EMAs) funded under Title I of the Ryan White Comprehensive AIDS Resources Emergency (CARE) Act of 1990, (b) the varied responses and processes by which the 16 urban areas receiving Title I funds in 1991 met legislative mandates, (c) the central nature of planning councils under Title I and their formation and functioning, and (d) issues related to current implementation and future expansion of Title I to additional eligible metropolitan areas. Integral to the review is a brief discussion of the history of AIDS and HIV infection, particularly in cities receiving CARE Act funding, an overview of Title I requirements, and a description of the organizational structures cities are using to implement Title I. Information on Title I EMAs is based on analysis of their 1991 applications, bylaws of their HIV service planning councils, intergovernmental agreements between Title I cities and other political entities, and contracts executed by Title I grantees with providers for the delivery of services. Interviews with personnel in several Title I EMAs, including planning council members and grantee staff members, provided additional information. This is the first descriptive accounting of activities related to the 1991 applications for and uses of Title I funds, and the administrative and service issues related to this process.
