Article

Does funding for HIV and sexually transmitted disease prevention matter? Evidence from panel data.

Division of STD Prevention, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, USA.
Evaluation Review (Impact Factor: 1.2). 03/2005; 29(1):3-23. DOI: 10.1177/0193841X04270613
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT Since the onset of the AIDS epidemic, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) has allocated several billion dollars for the prevention of HIV and other sexually transmitted diseases (STDs) in the United States. Using state-level data from 1981 to 1998, the authors found that greater amounts of prevention funding in a given year are associated with reductions in reported gonorrhea incidence rates in subsequent years. The authors conclude that funding for STD and HIV prevention, on the whole, appears to have a discernable impact on the incidence of STDs.

0 Followers
 · 
75 Views
 · 
0 Downloads
  • Source
    • "To put this estimate in perspective, the annual public investment in STD prevention (federal, state, and local) in 1995 (the most current year for which estimates of combined federal, state, and local STD prevention funding are available) was about $311 million (in 2003 U.S. dollars) (Institute of Medicine, 1997). It is likely that prevention efforts have contributed to the $5.0 billion decline in STD costs (Chesson et al., 2005; Chesson, in press). Had there been no prevention efforts, STD rates could have increased since 1990. "
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Prevention efforts can reduce the considerable health and economic burdens imposed by sexually transmitted diseases (STDs). The objective of this study was to estimate the reduction in direct medical costs associated with reductions in gonorrhea and syphilis incidence in the United States from 1990 to 2003. Using published estimates of the per-case costs of STDs, we estimated the annual costs from 1990 to 2003 of four main outcomes: primary and secondary (P&S) syphilis, congenital syphilis, gonorrhea, and HIV costs attributable to the facilitative effects of gonorrhea and syphilis on HIV transmission and acquisition. Reductions in syphilis and gonorrhea from 1990 to 2003 have saved an estimated 5.0 billion dollars (in 2003 U.S. dollars): 1.1 billion dollars in costs associated with P&S syphilis, congenital syphilis, and gonorrhea, and 3.9 billion dollars in HIV costs attributable to syphilis and gonorrhea. In additional analyses, the estimated reductions in disease burden were substantially lower (1) when calculated incrementally (rather than cumulatively) and (2) when long-term costs of STDs were excluded. These estimated reductions in the burden of gonorrhea and syphilis show the economic benefits of reducing the incidence of these STDs and preventing their resurgence.
    Preventive Medicine 11/2006; 43(5):411-5. DOI:10.1016/j.ypmed.2006.06.013 · 2.93 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: The importance of state investment in sexually transmitted disease (STD) prevention has been discussed since the mid-1990s; however, little has become known about state public health funding for STD prevention. To establish a baseline understanding of state STD prevention funding, financial data for fiscal year 2007 were gathered by survey of state STD, immunization, laboratory, and hepatitis program directors. Results revealed that on average states funded 25.8 percent of their total STD prevention budgets and invested $0.23 per capita in STD prevention. The percentage of state funding in the total state STD prevention budget ranged from 0 percent to 70.2 percent, and state investment in STD prevention ranged from $0.00 to $1.55 per capita. The direction and expenditure of state STD prevention resources was also examined. This study strengthens the national understanding of what states are doing to fund STD prevention, and it broadens state public health awareness of the overall STD prevention investment at the state level. The inclusion of Medicaid data and expenditure of federal resources by states would strengthen the study and assist longitudinal analyses focused on the impact of investment on epidemiologic indicators.
    Journal of public health management and practice: JPHMP 01/2010; 16(3):232-9. DOI:10.1097/PHH.0b013e31819d818f · 1.47 Impact Factor
  • Source
Show more