Author Topic: Optimal Treatment for 40,000 new HIV cases in U.S. will cost $12B Annually (Read 4894 times)

Oceanbeach · « **on:** November 03, 2006, 02:57:24 am »

KAISER DAILY HIV/AIDS REPORT
Thursday, November 2, 2006

Optimal treatment for the 40,000 new HIV cases in the U.S. each year will cost about $12.1 Billion annual, according to a study published in the November issue of the journal Medical Care, Reuters reports (Reuters 11/1). Bruce Shackman, head of health policy at Cornell University's Weill Medical College, and collegues examined the medical visits and hospitalizations of HIV-positive people and the efficacy of anti-retroviral drug regimens to project the lifetime cost of medical care for people living with HIV/AIDS. Based on a projected life expectancy of 24.2 years for HIV-positive people who recieve optimal medical care, the "undiscounted" lifetime cost cost of medical care is $618,900 for HIV-positive adults who begin antiretroviral treatment with CD4+Tcell counts greater than 350, according to the study. In addition, the study found that for HIV+positive people who begin antiretroviral treatment with CD4+ Tcell of 200 or greater, the anticipated life expectancy is 22.5 years, and the "undiscounted" lifetime cost for medical care is $567,000. According to the study, 73% of the cost is for antiretroviral drugs, 13% is for inpatient care, 9% is for outpatient care and 5% is for other HIV related labratory and medical costs (Schackman et al., Medical Care, November 2006). According to the researchers, the study is intended to supply policy makers with a guide for allocating funds to HIV/AIDS care and prevention. "If (policymakers) rely on outdated cost information, treatment programs will be underfunded and the economic value of HIV prevention will be understated," Schackman said (Reuters 11/1).

Have the best day
Michael

www.Commission-on-AIDS.org

Jeffreyj · « **Reply #1 on:** November 03, 2006, 04:50:52 am »

Wow! maybe it's time to start teaching our youth about HIV prevention in schools...Ya Think???

allopathicholistic · « **Reply #2 on:** November 03, 2006, 08:13:31 pm »

Jeff: Yes, thye should be shown the bad & the ugly (Notice I didn't say 'the good, the bad & the ugly')

Eldon · « **Reply #3 on:** November 03, 2006, 08:26:37 pm »

Hey Michael,

Again, this is where the Federal Government needs to be proactive and negotiate or regulate the costs of anti-viral medicines as well as the associated costs for treatment.

Make the BEST of each and every Day!

Cliff · « **Reply #4 on:** November 03, 2006, 11:59:45 pm »

I didn't look at the report in detail, but the title alone of the report doesn't add up. 40,000 new cases a year, costing $12 billion annually? Assuming treatment costs were $24,000 a year, that would still only come up to about $960 million per year. I don't understand how the $12 billion (annually) was derived. Plus (and more importantly), you don't go on treatment right away so even the $960 million figure is grossly inflated.

Jeffreyj · « **Reply #5 on:** November 04, 2006, 01:21:34 am »

Cliff...are you thinking the 40,000 new cases is inaccurate?

Cliff · « **Reply #6 on:** November 04, 2006, 05:40:14 am »

No, the 40,000 new cases a year seems about right. In order to get to $12 billion a year, with 40,000 new cases, that would mean that it cost (on average) $300,000 a year to treat someone just diagnosed with HIV each year. I question that amount.

aztecan · « **Reply #7 on:** November 04, 2006, 09:12:35 am »

Hey Cliff,
As I understand it, the $12 billion was calculated using not just medication and early onset treatment, but overall treatment.
As you said, some people test positive early enough not to need medications, etc. right away. But, unfortunately, many people don't find out they are positive until their immune system has already collapsed and they are experiencing opportunistic infections often coupled with lengthy hospitalizations.
It is a given that those who enter treatment early, prior to becoming seriously compromised, are less expensive to treat than those who don't. The costs of treating someone whose CD4s are below 200 at the time is more or less double that of those who begin treatment earlier, if my memory of this report is correct.
I believe that is where they are getting the figures.
Another thing to remember is in some cases, women who find out they are positive during pregnancy also are more expensive to treat because there is the baby to consider. The baby automatically will require treatment, followup and careful monitoring for at least a year after birth.
These are some of the factors being included in the overall $12 billion figure.
I still think it is a bit high, but one two- or three-week hospital stay, or, as is the case for some people I know, diagnosis after hospitalization followed by direct transfer to a nursing home, can be very costly.

HUGS,

Mark

Cliff · « **Reply #8 on:** November 04, 2006, 09:20:45 am »

Ah! Good point Mark. Thanks

Miss Philicia · « **Reply #9 on:** November 04, 2006, 06:10:20 pm »

Quote

anticipated life expectancy is 22.5 years

Let's see. I have about four year left until my expiration date come up. Comforting!

Oceanbeach · « **Reply #10 on:** November 04, 2006, 11:01:51 pm »

The 40,000 new cases each year is a figure I have seen in other reports. The most recent Epidemiology report I have is for Sonoma County 2005. In that report there are 700 people in care and an "estimated" 1300 living with HIV in our small county.

One of my concerns is what will happen to the care services if that 1300 estimated goes into care. I am looking forward to receiving the 2006 Epi report as 2005 was stated to mirror national trends. Have the best day
Michael

www.Commission-on-AIDS.org

Life · « **Reply #11 on:** November 05, 2006, 12:02:46 am »

Someone stamps an expiration date on me - I am going to fuck someone up!

Jeffreyj · « **Reply #12 on:** November 05, 2006, 11:12:41 am »

LoL Eric

Micheal, why does it take so long for the CDC and NIH take so long to gather up numbers on HIV??? I mean, it's not like we are trying to count votes for an election!

Oceanbeach · « **Reply #13 on:** November 05, 2006, 03:00:50 pm »

Hi Jeff,

You have posed an interesting question. I am just leaving to get out of town for a couple of days and will be back before the polls close. I have the answer to your question in a file and will be back online with the excuses. I posted a letter to the CDC on the front page of my website www.Commission-on-AIDS.org. The answer may be in the letter of the included news article on PEMS. Have the best day
Michael

Edited to add note to Eric

Hey Eric, that is the best! My T-cells were much lower than the test cases, I have exceeded my expiration date and am quite proud of that. Now, I have to decide what to do with the rest of my life. Have the best day, Be well
Michael

aztecan · « **Reply #14 on:** November 06, 2006, 10:46:43 am »

Hey Eric, how about a "freshness date." LOL

I could see it now: "Eric's freshness date is coming close, we'd better use him soon!"

Before my mind goes completely into the gutter, I'll just leave it at that!

HUGS,

Mark

Life · « **Reply #15 on:** November 06, 2006, 11:12:25 am »

Feel like the Stay Puff Marshmellow man! (with an attitude)

Eldon brought up something that has me thinking... So, if more of the population is becoming infected such as in the US, what does this mean??

I know its terrible that 40k more are diagnosed this year, but when this happens, does this not draw attention to the crisis as well as to goverment. Won't this eventually break the goverment budget?? This purhaps facilitating the goverment putting price controls on the cost of meds?? Or even better, to push even harder for a better solution to the pandemic with better drugs and maybe even pushing for a cure.

Right now it would seem that pharma is not heavily regulated when it comes to the price of meds and this could be taken care of thru our goverment?? I am not sure why after 25 years, that something has not been done for this..

I realize that there is costs for discovery etc. I think the goverment labs should get off their asses if they are on them and stop this in its deep tracts...

Miss Philicia · « **Reply #16 on:** November 06, 2006, 04:08:46 pm »

Quote from: Eric

I am not sure why after 25 years, that something has not been done for this..

Are you joking? It's called "Republicans."

Life · « **Reply #17 on:** November 06, 2006, 05:16:28 pm »

well fuck them then!

Miss Philicia · « **Reply #18 on:** November 06, 2006, 05:53:57 pm »

*chuckle*

That's been how I've felt my entire life.

Forums Index

Welcome

Author Topic: Optimal Treatment for 40,000 new HIV cases in U.S. will cost $12B Annually (Read 4894 times)