Projecting the Potential Clinical and Economic Impact of Human Immunodeficiency Virus Prevention Resource Reallocation in Tennessee.

Background: In 2023, Tennessee replaced $6.2 M in US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) prevention funding with state funds to redirect support away from men who have sex with men (MSM), transgender women (TGW), and heterosexual Black women (HSBW) and to prioritize instead first responders (FR), pregnant people (PP), and survivors of sex trafficking (SST).
Methods: We used a simulation model of HIV disease to compare the clinical impact of Current, the present allocation of condoms, preexposure prophylaxis (PrEP), and HIV testing to CDC priority risk groups (MSM/TGW/HSBW); with Reallocation, funding instead increased HIV testing and linkage of Tennessee-determined priority populations (FR/PP/SST). Key model inputs included baseline condom use (45%-49%), PrEP provision (0.1%-8%), HIV testing frequency (every 2.5-4.8 years), and 30-day HIV care linkage (57%-65%). We assumed Reallocation would reduce condom use (-4%), PrEP provision (-26%), and HIV testing (-47%) in MSM/TGW/HSBW, whereas it would increase HIV testing among FR (+47%) and HIV care linkage (to 100%/90%) among PP/SST.
Results: Reallocation would lead to 166 additional HIV transmissions, 190 additional deaths, and 843 life-years lost over 10 years. HIV testing reductions were most influential in sensitivity analysis; even a 24% reduction would result in 287 more deaths compared to Current. With pessimistic assumptions, we projected 1359 additional HIV transmissions, 712 additional deaths, and 2778 life-years lost over 10 years.
Conclusions: Redirecting HIV prevention funding in Tennessee would greatly harm CDC priority populations while conferring minimal benefits to new priority populations.
Competing Interests: Potential conflicts of interest . A. L. A. discloses participation on the advisory boards of Gilead, ViiV, consulting for Merck, Site principal investigator for multisite studies funded by Gilead, Merck, and 1 investigator-initiated study funded by Gilead. All other authors report no potential conflicts. All authors have submitted the ICMJE Form for Disclosure of Potential Conflicts of Interest. Conflicts that the editors consider relevant to the content of the manuscript have been disclosed.
(© The Author(s) 2024. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of Infectious Diseases Society of America.)