HIV PREVENTION PRACTICES AND NON-FEDERAL FUNDING AMONG U.S. STATES AND NON-STATE REGIONS: A Survey of HIV/AIDS Directors
AUTHORS
Ronald
P. Hattis, MD, MPH; Richel Y. Strydom, MD, MPH; Josileide Gaio, MPH; Deanna C.
Stover, PhD, RN, FNP, CNS, COHN-S
Published February 2019, AIDS Education and Prevention, Volume 31,
No. 1 https://doi.org/10.1521/aeap.2019.31.1.82
Online
abstract and journal information https://guilfordjournals.com/doi/abs/10.1521/aeap.2019.31.1.82?mobileUi=0
Corresponding
author: Ronald P. Hattis, MD, MPH, Beyond AIDS Foundation, 404 New York St.
#7718, Redlands, CA 92373, 909-838-4157, email: ronhattis@beyondaids.org.
Abstract
and Conclusions provided here, including recommendations for CDC and HRSA:
ABSTRACT
We
surveyed U.S. HIV/AIDS Directors or designees in states and non-state regions,
regarding factors influencing HIV viral suppression: 1) non-federal prevention funding;
2) contacting newly-reported patients and providers, for care linkage and
partner services; 3) follow-up of non-received viral load reports, to identify untreated
patients; and 4) genotype/phenotype surveillance, to monitor drug resistance.
The survey was conducted April-July 2015; 50 (87.7%) participated. Of jurisdictions, 80% contacted all newly-reported
patients; 60% contacted all providers. HIV resistance tests were reportable in 38%;
66% contacted providers and/or patients about missed viral loads. Non-federal
funding was significantly associated with annual diagnoses (p=0.0001) and
population (p=0.0002), but not with other factors studied. Many jurisdictions
lacked non-federal funding (28%), or experienced unrestored reductions since
2008 (33%). Jurisdictions’ funding and
preventive practices varied greatly. HIV viral suppression could be enhanced by
restoring (or establishing) non-federal prevention funding, and by more
standardized surveillance/outreach practices.
CONCLUSIONS AND
RECOMMENDATIONS
(ENDORSED BY BOARD OF
DIRECTORS, BEYOND AIDS FOUNDATION)
After several
years of economic recovery, restoration of recession funding cutbacks for HIV
prevention was overdue at jurisdictional and local levels. Federal matching of
non-federal funds could incentivize this. Restored
(or newly established) non-federal funding could help monitor and facilitate
progression through the HCC, especially if used in part for outreach to
patients and their providers after new diagnoses or if viral load results were
not received for a year, and for collection and forwarding of viral resistance
data to CDC. However, such services, which were not yet specifically funded
routinely by CDC, showed no statistical association with non-federal funding,.
Public health
practices relating to follow-up of newly reported HIV diagnoses and missed
viral load results, and reporting of genotypes and phenotypes, varied widely
among states and NSRs. CDC could revise
guidelines to encourage a more uniform system of HIV surveillance and
monitoring, based on HCC stages and goals.
Linkage to care
and partner services were already endorsed by CDC, but inconsistently applied. They could become a required use of CDC
prevention funding, with specifications regarding the types of outreach
expected.
Public health
tracking of non-received viral load results (an indicator of infected persons
who may not be in treatment), with outreach to providers and patients, may facilitate
two more stages of the HCC: retention in care and antiretroviral treatment.
Despite lack of specific funding by CDC, a majority of jurisdictions already
claimed engagement in this activity. Patient progression through the HCC could
be facilitated by making it a required use for CDC and/or HRSA funding. To make
this a universal surveillance activity, jurisdictions that do not have
mandatory laboratory reporting of all viral loads, regardless of result, would
need to institute such reporting.
CDC considered genotype
surveillance optional, did not collect phenotypes, and neither was
reportable in most jurisdictions. Uniform
reporting, with submission to CDC for nationwide analysis, could produce a more
complete database for monitoring antiretroviral resistance.
CDC could require grant
application objectives to address jurisdiction-specific shortfalls in these
areas, and opportunities for improvement.
Surveys
like this may prove valuable in increasing awareness among public health
advocates about funding gaps and potentials for expanded surveillance and
outreach within their jurisdictions. Such awareness could stimulate discussions
about policy and any necessary political action.