Rationing Antiretroviral Therapy for HIV/AIDS in Africa: Efficiency, Equity, and Reality

OpenBU

Show simple item record

dc.contributor.author Rosen, Sydney
dc.contributor.author Sanne, Ian
dc.contributor.author Collier, Alizanne
dc.contributor.author Simon, Jonathon L.
dc.date 2004-02-01
dc.date.accessioned 2010-01-28T19:25:43Z
dc.date.available 2010-01-28T19:25:43Z
dc.date.issued 2010-01-28T19:25:43Z
dc.identifier.uri http://sph.bu.edu/cihd/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=381&Itemid=617095 en_US
dc.identifier.uri http://hdl.handle.net/2144/1298
dc.description.abstract Background: Rationing of access to antiretroviral therapy already exists in sub-Saharan Africa and will intensify as national treatment programs develop. The number of people who are medically eligible for therapy will far exceed the human, infrastructural, and financial resources available, making rationing of public treatment services inevitable. Methods: We identified 15 criteria by which antiretroviral therapy could be rationed in African countries and analyzed the resulting rationing systems across 5 domains: clinical effectiveness, implementation feasibility, cost, economic efficiency, and social equity. Findings: Rationing can be explicit or implicit. Access to treatment can be explicitly targeted to priority subpopulations such as mothers of newborns, skilled workers, students, or poor people. Explicit conditions can also be set that cause differential access, such as residence in a designated geographic area, co-payment, access to testing, or a demonstrated commitment to adhere to therapy. Implicit rationing on the basis of first-come, first-served or queuing will arise when no explicit system is enforced; implicit systems almost always allow a high degree of queue-jumping by the elite. There is a direct tradeoff between economic efficiency and social equity. Interpretation: Rationing is inevitable in most countries for some period of time. Without deliberate social policy decisions, implicit rationing systems that are neither efficient nor equitable will prevail. Governments that make deliberate choices, and then explain and defend those choices to their constituencies, are more likely to achieve a socially desirable outcome from the large investments now being made than are those that allow queuing and queue-jumping to dominate. en_US
dc.relation.ispartofseries HDDP No 4.;Health & Development Paper Series
dc.subject HIV/AIDS en_US
dc.subject Sub-Saharan Africa en_US
dc.subject Rationing en_US
dc.subject Health economics en_US
dc.subject Antiretroviral therapy en_US
dc.title Rationing Antiretroviral Therapy for HIV/AIDS in Africa: Efficiency, Equity, and Reality en_US
dc.type Working Paper en_US

Files in this item

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record

Search OpenBU


Advanced Search

Browse

Deposit Materials