Designing an optimal HIV programme for South Africa: Does the optimal package change when diminishing returns are considered?

Chiu, Calvin; Johnson, Leigh F; Jamieson, Lise; Larson, Bruce A; Meyer-Rath, Gesine

Designing an optimal HIV programme for South Africa: Does the optimal package change when diminishing returns are considered?

Journal Article

2017

Journal Title

BMC Public Health

Link to Journal

https://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12889-017-4023-3

Department

Centre for Infectious Disease Epidemiology and Research

Faculty

Faculty of Health Sciences

Abstract

Abstract Background South Africa has a large domestically funded HIV programme with highly saturated coverage levels for most prevention and treatment interventions. To further optimise its allocative efficiency, we designed a novel optimisation method and examined whether the optimal package of interventions changes when interaction and non-linear scale-up effects are incorporated into cost-effectiveness analysis. Methods The conventional league table method in cost-effectiveness analysis relies on the assumption of independence between interventions. We added methodology that allowed the simultaneous consideration of a large number of HIV interventions and their potentially diminishing marginal returns to scale. We analysed the incremental cost effectiveness ratio (ICER) of 16 HIV interventions based on a well-calibrated epidemiological model that accounted for interaction and non-linear scale-up effects, a custom cost model, and an optimisation routine that iteratively added the most cost-effective intervention onto a rolling baseline before evaluating all remaining options. We compared our results with those based on a league table. Results The rank order of interventions did not differ substantially between the two methods- in each, increasing condom availability and male medical circumcision were found to be most cost-effective, followed by anti-retroviral therapy at current guidelines. However, interventions were less cost-effective throughout when evaluated under the optimisation method, indicating substantial diminishing marginal returns, with ICERs being on average 437% higher under our optimisation routine. Conclusions Conventional league tables may exaggerate the cost-effectiveness of interventions when programmes are implemented at scale. Accounting for interaction and non-linear scale-up effects provides more realistic estimates in highly saturated real-world settings.