the economics and financing of harm reduction
DESCRIPTION
David Wilson and Nicole Fraser, Global HIV/AIDS Program, World Bank David Wilson, University of New South Wales, Australia Tuesday 10 June 2013 IHRA 2013. The Economics and Financing of Harm Reduction. Overview. Why worry? What works and what does it cost? What’s the coverage? - PowerPoint PPT PresentationTRANSCRIPT
The Economics and Financing of Harm Reduction
David Wilson and Nicole Fraser, Global HIV/AIDS Program, World BankDavid Wilson, University of New South Wales, Australia
Tuesday 10 June 2013IHRA 2013
Overview
Why worry?What works and what does it cost?What’s the coverage?How much is spent on harm reduction?How much is needed to scale-up harm reduction?What’s the cost-effectiveness/return on
investment?
Why worry?
Prevalence of Injecting Drug Use
Mathers et al, Lancet (2008)
Prevalence of HIV among PWID
Mathers et al, Lancet (2008)
HIV prevalence among PWID in Eastern and Central Asia
Source: Bradley Mathers, Lancet 2008
HIV infections in PWID as share of infections in Eastern Europe and Central Asia
Source: Own calculation based on data from EuroHIV (2007)
HIV prevalence among sex workers in Central Asia
Surging HIV epidemic among PWID in Greece
HIV, HCV and TB
• PWID have higher HCV and TB rates• 10 million PWID may have HCV - surpassing
HIV infection• HIV+ PWID 2 to 6-fold higher risk of TB
infection• TB risk 23-fold higher in prisons
Global State of Harm Reduction, 2012
What harm reduction interventions work and what do they cost?
Three proven priority interventionsNSPOSTARTWHO, UNODC and UNAIDS - three priority
interventions plus HCT, condoms, IEC, STI, HCV and TB prevention/treatment
Source: L. Degenhardt Lancet July 2010
What we know about NSP
HIV prevalence in 99 cities worldwide (MacDonald et al, 2003)19% per year in cities with NSP8% in cities without NSP
International evidence shows NSP effective (Wodak, 2008)
What we know about NSP
Source: L. Degenhardt Lancet July 2010
What we know about OST (versus compulsory detention)
Compulsory detention common especially in Asia and Eastern Europe
Detention costlyMinimum cost $1,000 annually in Asia –
mainly securityAverage OST cost $585 annually
Two evaluations in progress in Malaysia and Vietnam
What we know about OST (versus compulsory detention)
Effectiveness of community OST versus compulsory detention
Preliminary data from Malaysia95% relapse after compulsory detention7% relapse in community OST
All RCTs of OST positive (Mattick et al, 2003)
Large observational studies show OST decreases heroin use and criminal activity (Mattcick, 1998)
OST reduces injecting and increases safe injections (Cochrane Syst. Review; Gowing, 2008; Mattick, 2009)
Amsterdam cohort study (Van den Berg, 2007) showed OST and NSP reduced HIV incidence by 66%
Recent meta-analysis (Mcarthur BMJ2012) shows OST reduces HIV incidence by 50%
What we know about OST
What we know about ART in PWID
What we know about combined NSP+OST+ART
Modelling evidence: NSP+OST+ART combination: 5-year impact on HIV incidence
Source: Degenhardt et al, 2010
What are the cost ranges?NSP
NSP costs $23–71 /yr 1, but higher if all costs includedNSP costs vary by region and delivery system (pharmacies,
specialist programme sites, vending machines, vehicles or outreach)
NSP unit cost estimates, regional averages
70
21
62
158
62
15
020406080
100120140160180
South, East &SE Asia
Latin America& Caribbean
Middle East &North Africa
W Europe, NAmerica &
Aus
E Europe &Central Asia
Sub-SaharanAfrica
US
D
1 UNAIDS 2007 resource estimations; Schwartlaender et al 2011. 2 UNSW estimates, based on 10 studies identified in the 6 regions
2
What are the cost ranges?OST
OST cost : Methadone 80 mg: $363 - 1,057 / yr; Buprenorphine, low dose: $1,236 – 3,167 /yr 1
Few OST cost studies but consistently far higher than NSPOST unit cost estimates, regional averages
565
975 1,008
2,238
1,008 972
0
500
1,000
1,500
2,000
2,500
South, East &SE Asia
Latin America& Caribbean
Middle East &North Africa
W Europe, NAmerica &
Aus
E Europe &Central Asia
Sub-SaharanAfrica
US
D
1 UNAIDS 2007 resource estimations; Schwartlaender et al 2011. 2 UNSW estimates, based on 10 studies identified in the 6 regions
2
What are the cost ranges?ART
ART cost: UNAIDS estimate $1761
Estimated costs by authors $1,000-2,000 per HIV+ PWID
ART unit cost estimates, regional averages
885
1,3051,127
1,600
1,3051,189
0200400600800
1,0001,2001,4001,6001,800
South, East &SE Asia
Latin America& Caribbean
Middle East &North Africa
W Europe, NAmerica &
Aus
E Europe &Central Asia
Sub-SaharanAfrica
US
D
1 UNAIDS 2007 resource estimations; Schwartlaender et al 2011. 2 UNSW estimates, based on 10 studies identified in the 6 regions
2
What is the current coverage of NSP, OST and ART in PWID?
Harm reduction data challenges
Sources: UNGASS country progress reports 2012; Mathers et al., 2010; Global State of Harm Reduction, 2012
Limited population size estimates
Inconsistent service quality data
Surveys miss hidden populations
ATS increasingly used and injected but missed in surveys
Significant but undocumented scale-down of services
NSP coverage
The Global State of Harm Reduction, 2012
86 countries and territories implement NSPs
3 new NSPs since 2010 – South Africa, Tanzania, Laos-PDR
High coverage limited to Western Europe, Australia and Bangladesh (>200 NS/PWID/year)
NSP available as per policy(Black: community and prison, red: community only)
Global State of Harm Reduction, 2012
Gaps in NSP coverage
(1) Global State of Harm Reduction, 2012; (2) based on Mathers et al., 2010
NSP coverage < 20% in all regions - globally, <2 clean needles distributed /PWID /month
Since 2010, NSP provision scaled back in several countries in Asia (Pakistan, Nepal and Cambodia) and Eurasia (Belarus, Hungary, Kazakhstan, Lithuania and Russia)
72 countries with PWID without NSPs
Over 14 million PWID (90%) may not access NSP
Source: Authors’ literature and estimations, based on Mathers et al., 2010
Estimated NSP coverage of PWID in regions
4.005
2.160
2.911 3.287
1.7770.119
-
1
2
3
4
5
S, E & SEAsia
LA &Caribbean
M-East & N-Africa
W-Europe, N-America &Australasia
E-Europe &C-Asia
SSA
Mill
ion
sN
um
ber
of
PW
ID,
PWID accessing NSP NSP coverage gap (PWID in millions)
OST coverage
Global State of Harm Reduction, 2012
OST in 77 countries worldwide
7 new countries since 2010 (Cambodia, Bangladesh, Tajikistan, Kenya, Tanzania, Macau, Kosovo)
Primarily methadone and buprenorphine but also other formulations - slow-release morphine, codeine, heroin-assisted treatment
OST available as per policy(Black: community and prison, red: community only)
Global State of Harm Reduction, 2012
Gaps in OST coverage
6–12% of PWID access OST
Coverage limited in much of CIS and Asia
OST unavailable in 81 countries with PWID
ATS use increasing – and limited ATS harm response
Global State of Harm Reduction, 2012
Almost 15 million PWID (92%) may not use OST
Source: Authors’ literature and estimates, using Mathers et al., 2010
Estimated OST coverage of PWID in regions
4.260
2.202
2.5313.689
1.7770.120
-
1
2
3
4
5
S, E & SEAsia
LA &Caribbean
M-East & N-Africa
W-Europe, N-America &Australasia
E-Europe &C-Asia
SSA
Mill
ion
sN
um
ber
of
PW
ID,
PWID accessing OST OST coverage gap (PWID in millions)
ART coverage in HIV+ PWID
Source: Authors literature review and estimates, using Mathers et al. 2010
Large regional discrepancies
Uptake highest in Western Europe (89%) and Australasia (50%)
Elsewhere ART coverage < 5%
Largest gaps in Eastern Europe & Central Asia (1 million) and South, East & South-East Asia (700,000)
About 2.5 million HIV+ PWID (85%) may not access ART
Source: Authors’ literature and estimates, using Mathers et al. 2010
Estimated ART coverage in HIV+ PWID in regions
708,856598,455
79,188958,666
219,8953,500
-100,000200,000300,000400,000500,000
600,000700,000800,000900,000
1,000,000
S, E & SEAsia
LA &Caribbean
M-East & N-Africa
W-Europe, N-America &Australasia
E-Europe &C-Asia
SSA
Nu
mb
er o
f P
WID
HIV+ PWID accessing ART ART coverage gap (HIV+ PWID)
What is the global coverage of harm reduction services?
Source: Authors’ literature review and estimates, using Mathers et al. 2010
Few PWID access all three priority interventions
Female PWID far lower access than males
An estimated 10% access NSP
About 14% of HIV+ PWID
access ART
An estimated 8% access OST
How much is spent on harm reduction?
Sources: Stimson et al 2010 (three cents report), UNAIDS 2009; UNAIDS Progress report 2012; Global State of Harm Reduction, 2012; Bridge et al 2012
Estimated $160 million in LMIC in 2007 (3 cents per PWID per day): 90% from international donors
Global Fund largest HR funder (estimated $430 million 2002-2009) > 50% to Eastern Europe and Central Asia
Global Fund PWID investments by region (US$)
Sources: Bridge 2012, summarised in Global State of Harm Reduction, 2012
30% Ukraine 10% Russ Fed 8% Kazakhstan
17% Thailand 15% Viet Nam 14% China
How much is needed to scale up priority harm reduction interventions?
NSP coverage
(%)
Needles / PWID /year
OST uptake
(%)
ART uptake of HIV+ PWID
(%)
Current estimated level 10 22 8 14
Scenarios: Mid target 20 100 20 25
High target 60 200 40 75
Very preliminary resource estimates based on regional estimates of current NSP /OST /ART coverage, population sizes and unit costs
Mid and high target scenarios costed
How much needed to scale up priority harm reduction interventions – preliminary estimates
Summary: Estimated annual cost of scale-up of NSP, OST and ART for PWIDs
Mid target20% NSP coverage20% OST coverage25% ART coverage
High target60% NSP coverage40% OST coverage75% ART coverage
South, East & South East Asia 527M 1,49B
Latin America & Caribbean 625M 1,47B
Middle East & North Africa 26M 55M
W- Europe, N- America & Australasia 17M 1,19B
Eastern Europe & Central Asia 1.04B 2,51B
Sub-Saharan Africa 414M 901M
Total per year 2,65B 7,62B
1: Mathers et al, Lancet (2010) 2: Scale-up calculations by UNSW
Annual scale-up costs by region and intervention
Costs dominated by Eastern Europe and Central Asia
E-Europe & C-Asia 38%
SSA16%
S, E & SE Asia20%
LA & Caribbean
24%
W-Europe, N-America & Australasia
1%
M-East & N-Africa
1%1: Mathers et al, Lancet (2010) 2: Scale-up calculations by UNSW
Cost-effectiveness and relative return on investment ranges by region
() number of studies in literature
Western Europe, North America & Australasia
CE1:ROI2:
$402-$34,278 (9)$1.1-$5.5 (3)
Sub-Saharan Africa
Eastern Europe & Central Asia
The Middle East & North Africa South, East & South East Asia
Latin America & The Caribbean
CE1:ROI2:
$97-$564 (3)$1.4 (1)
CE1: $1,456-$2,952 (1) CE1:ROI2:
$71-$2,800 (7)$1.2-$8.0 (4)
1: Cost per HIV infection averted 2: Total future return per $1 invested (3% discount rate)
Harm reduction cost-effectiveness
Harm reduction cost-effective in all regions, with costs per HIV infection averted from $100 -$1,000
Harm reduction returns positive, with total future returns per $ from $1.1 – $8.0 (3% discount rate)
Also
Unit costs fall as interventions scaled-upCombined, integrated interventions reduce overheadsIntervention synergies increase effectiveness
Australia invested A$243 million in NSPPrevented estimated 32,050 HIV infections and
96,667 HCV cases A$1.28 billion saved in direct healthcare costsIncluding patient/client costs and productivity
gains and losses, net present value of NSPs is $5.85 billion
Source: Return on Investment 2, Department of Health and Ageing, Australian Government
ROI - A$27 per A$1 invested
Australia’s example: Economic benefits of a supportive legal and policy
environment
Inaction costlyNOT the equivalent of nothing happeningHard to reverse epidemic once established
Whereas harm reduction is Effective - in terms of HIV cases avertedCost-effective - in terms of healthy years gained and costsSocial benefits exceed treatment costs
And benefits the whole populationSubstance abuse treatment can benefit more non-drug
users than drug users
Global best buy
CONCLUSION