State-based federal resource allocations for human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) prevention and treatment may be better aligned with HIV diagnosis and prevalence rates than previously reported, according to a new study conducted by Kent State University, published in AIDS Research & Therapy on June 6. However, resource allocation for HIV prevention may be less aligned than funding for HIV treatment, signaling the need to reexamine state-based federal funding for HIV prevention.
The purpose of the study was to better understand the relationship between state-based federal spending for HIV prevention and treatment and HIV diagnosis and prevalence rates in the United States. An independent analysis was conducted to determine whether funding accurately reflects diagnosis and prevalence rates. The inquiry focused on 40 states with confidential name-based HIV reporting and used data from the National Alliance of State and Territorial AIDS Directors and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
Total state-based federal funding for HIV and funding for HIV prevention and treatment were highly correlated with HIV diagnosis and prevalence rates. However, correlations between state-based HIV prevention funding and state-based HIV diagnosis rates were lower than the correlations between state-based HIV treatment funding and HIV prevalence.
“Overall, state-based federal resource allocation for HIV appears to be better aligned with the HIV burden than previously believed,” says Dr. Willie H. Oglesby, assistant professor of health policy and management at Kent State’s College of Public Health. “However, our examination shows that additional research is needed to determine the optimal resource allocation model for federal HIV funding so that resources are directed to states that need it the most,” Dr. Oglesby says.
The Kent State analysis responds to a 2012 article in the Journal of Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndromes, in which U.S. Department of Health and Human Services officials called for further research to better assess the alignment of federal resource allocation for HIV funding with the actual epidemiologic profile.
[Photo: Dr. Willie H. Oglesby]