Comparing Cost-Effectiveness of HIV Testing Strategies: Targeted and Routine Testing in Washington, DC.

BACKGROUND: Routine HIV testing is an essential approach to identifying undiagnosed infections, linking people to care and treatment, and preventing new infections. In Washington, DC, where HIV prevalence is 2.4%, a combination of routine and targeted testing approaches has been implemented since 2006. METHODS: We sought to evaluate the cost effectiveness of the District of Columbia (DC) Department of Health's routine and targeted HIV testing implementation strategies. We collected HIV testing data from 3 types of DC Department of Health-funded testing sites (clinics, hospitals, and community-based organizations); collected testing and labor costs; and calculated effectiveness measures including cost per new diagnosis and cost per averted transmission. RESULTS: Compared to routine testing, targeted testing resulted in higher positivity rates (1.33% vs. 0.44%). Routine testing averted 34.30 transmissions per year compared to targeted testing at 17.78. The cost per new diagnosis was lower for targeted testing ($2,467 vs. $7,753 per new diagnosis) as was the cost per transmission averted ($33,160 vs. $104,205). When stratified by testing site, both testing approaches were most cost effective in averting new transmissions when conducted by community based organizations ($25,037 routine; $33,123 targeted) compared to hospitals or clinics. CONCLUSIONS: While routine testing identified more newly diagnosed infections and averted more infections than targeted testing, targeted testing is more cost effective per diagnosis and per transmission averted overall. Given the high HIV prevalence in DC, the DC Department of Health's implementation strategy should continue to encourage routine testing implementation with emphasis on a combined testing strategy among community-based organizations.

HIV testing implementation in two urban cities: practice, policy, and perceived barriers.

BACKGROUND: Although funding has supported the scale up of routine, opt-out HIV testing in the US, variance in implementation mechanisms and barriers in high-burden jurisdictions remains unknown. METHODS: We conducted a survey of health care organizations in Washington, DC and Houston/Harris County to determine number of HIV tests completed in 2011, policy and practices associated with HIV testing, funding mechanisms, and reported barriers to testing in each jurisdiction and to compare results between jurisdictions. RESULTS: In 2012, 43 Houston and 35 DC HIV-testing organizations participated in the survey. Participants represented 85% of Department of Health-supported testers in DC and 90% of Department of Health-supported testers in Houston. The median number of tests per organization was 568 in DC and 1045 in Houston. Approximately 50% of organizations in both DC and Houston exclusively used opt-in consent and most conducted both pre- and post-test counseling with HIV testing (80% of organizations in DC, 70% in Houston). While the most frequent source of funding in DC was the Department of Health, Houston organizations primarily billed the patient or third-party payers. Barriers to testing most often reported were lack of funding, followed by patient discomfort/refusal with more barriers reported in DC. CONCLUSIONS: Given unique policies, resources and programmatic contexts, DC and Houston have taken different approaches to support routine testing. Many organizations in both cities reported opt-in consent approaches and pre-test counseling, suggesting 2006 national HIV testing recommendations are not being followed consistently. Addressing the barriers to testing identified in each jurisdiction may improve expansion of testing.

Temporal association between expanded HIV testing and improvements in population-based HIV/AIDS clinical outcomes, District of Columbia.

In 2006, the District of Columbia Department of Health (DC DOH) launched initiatives promoting routine HIV testing and improved linkage to care in support of revised the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) HIV-testing guidelines. An ecological analysis was conducted using population-based surveillance data to determine whether these efforts were temporally associated with increased and earlier identification of HIV/AIDS cases and improved linkages to care. Publically funded HIV-testing data and HIV/AIDS surveillance data from 2005 to 2009 were used to measure the number of persons tested, new diagnoses, timing of entry into care, CD4 at diagnosis and rates of progression to AIDS. Tests for trend were used to determine whether statistically significant changes in these indicators were observed over the five-year period. Results indicated that from 2005 to 2009, publically funded testing increased 4.5-fold; the number of newly diagnosed HIV/AIDS cases remained relatively constant. Statistically significant increases in the proportion of cases entering care within three months of diagnosis were observed (p < 0.0001). Median CD4 counts at diagnosis increased over the five-year time period from 346 to 379 cells/µL. The proportion of cases progressing from HIV to AIDS and diagnosed with AIDS initially, decreased significantly (both p < 0.0001). Routine HIV testing and linkage to care efforts in the District of Columbia were temporally associated with earlier diagnoses of cases, more timely entry into HIV-specialized care, and a slowing of HIV disease progression. The continued use of surveillance data to measure the community-level impact of other programmatic initiatives including test and treat strategies will be critical in monitoring the response to the District's HIV epidemic.

Implementing a novel citywide rapid HIV testing campaign in Washington, D.C.: findings and lessons learned.

OBJECTIVES: In June 2006, the District of Columbia (DC) Department of Health launched a citywide rapid HIV screening campaign. Goals included raising HIV awareness, routinizing rapid HIV screening, identifying previously unrecognized infections, and linking positives to care. We describe findings from this seminal campaign and identify lessons learned. METHODS: We applied a mixed-methods approach using quantitative analysis of client data forms (CDFs) and qualitative evaluation of focus groups with DC residents. We measured characteristics and factors associated with client demographics, test results, and community perceptions regarding the campaign. RESULTS: Data were available on 38,586 participants tested from July 2006 to September 2007. Of those, 68% had previously tested for HIV (44% within the last 12 months) and 23% would not have sought testing had it not been offered. Overall, 662 (1.7%) participants screened positive on the OraQuick® Advance™ rapid HIV test, with non-Hispanic black people, transgenders, and first-time testers being significantly more likely to screen positive for HIV than white people, males, and those tested within the last year, respectively. Of those screening positive for HIV, 47% had documented referrals for HIV care and treatment services. Focus groups reported continued stigma regarding HIV and minimal community saturation of the campaign. CONCLUSIONS: This widespread campaign tested thousands of people and identified hundreds of HIV-infected individuals; however, referrals to care were lower than anticipated, and awareness of the campaign was limited. Lessons learned through this scale-up of population-based HIV screening resulted in establishing citywide HIV testing processes that laid the foundation for the implementation of test-and-treat activities in DC.