Limits...
Diagnoses, prevalence, and state-based federal spending for HIV prevention and treatment in the United States, 2006-2009.

Oglesby WH, Smith JL, Alemagno SA - AIDS Res Ther (2014)

Bottom Line: In response to an article published in 2012 by officials at the US Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS), an independent analysis of state-based federal resource allocation for HIV was conducted to determine if the funding accurately reflected diagnosis and prevalence rates.Total state-based federal funding for HIV, state-based funding for HIV prevention, and state-based funding for HIV treatment were compared to state-based HIV diagnosis and prevalence rates from 2006-2009.Total state-based federal funding for HIV and funding for HIV prevention and treatment were highly correlated with HIV diagnosis and prevalence rates during the time horizon of the study; however, correlations between state-based HIV prevention funding and state-based HIV diagnosis rates were lower than the correlations between state-based HIV treatment funding and HIV prevalence.

View Article: PubMed Central - HTML - PubMed

Affiliation: Department of Health Policy & Management, College of Public Health, Kent State University, PO Box 5190, Kent, OH 44242, USA.

ABSTRACT

Background: In response to an article published in 2012 by officials at the US Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS), an independent analysis of state-based federal resource allocation for HIV was conducted to determine if the funding accurately reflected diagnosis and prevalence rates.

Methods: Total state-based federal funding for HIV, state-based funding for HIV prevention, and state-based funding for HIV treatment were compared to state-based HIV diagnosis and prevalence rates from 2006-2009.

Results: Total state-based federal funding for HIV and funding for HIV prevention and treatment were highly correlated with HIV diagnosis and prevalence rates during the time horizon of the study; however, correlations between state-based HIV prevention funding and state-based HIV diagnosis rates were lower than the correlations between state-based HIV treatment funding and HIV prevalence.

Conclusions: Our findings suggest that state-based federal resource allocation for HIV prevention and treatment may be better aligned with HIV diagnosis and prevalence rates than previously reported; however resource allocation for HIV prevention is less aligned than funding for HIV treatment signaling the need to reexamine state-based federal funding for HIV prevention.

No MeSH data available.


Correlations between total state-based federal funding for HIV treatment and HIV diagnosis and prevalence rates by year.
© Copyright Policy - open-access
Related In: Results  -  Collection

License 1 - License 2
getmorefigures.php?uid=PMC4061532&req=5

Figure 3: Correlations between total state-based federal funding for HIV treatment and HIV diagnosis and prevalence rates by year.

Mentions: As seen in Table 1, the Pearson’s and Spearman’s correlations between total state-based federal funding for HIV treatment and HIV diagnosis rates ranged between .718 to .745 and .817 to .915, respectively. Pearson’s and Spearman’s correlations between HIV treatment funding and HIV prevalence rates were mostly higher and ranged between .824 to .843 and .797 to .915, respectively. As shown in Figure 3, Pearson’s correlations between HIV treatment funding and HIV prevalence rates remained fairly consistent from 2006 to 2009, but correlations with HIV diagnosis rates declined from 2007 to 2009. Spearman’s correlations between HIV treatment funding and HIV diagnosis and prevalence rates were very similar to each other, with a sharp drop in 2008.


Diagnoses, prevalence, and state-based federal spending for HIV prevention and treatment in the United States, 2006-2009.

Oglesby WH, Smith JL, Alemagno SA - AIDS Res Ther (2014)

Correlations between total state-based federal funding for HIV treatment and HIV diagnosis and prevalence rates by year.
© Copyright Policy - open-access
Related In: Results  -  Collection

License 1 - License 2
Show All Figures
getmorefigures.php?uid=PMC4061532&req=5

Figure 3: Correlations between total state-based federal funding for HIV treatment and HIV diagnosis and prevalence rates by year.
Mentions: As seen in Table 1, the Pearson’s and Spearman’s correlations between total state-based federal funding for HIV treatment and HIV diagnosis rates ranged between .718 to .745 and .817 to .915, respectively. Pearson’s and Spearman’s correlations between HIV treatment funding and HIV prevalence rates were mostly higher and ranged between .824 to .843 and .797 to .915, respectively. As shown in Figure 3, Pearson’s correlations between HIV treatment funding and HIV prevalence rates remained fairly consistent from 2006 to 2009, but correlations with HIV diagnosis rates declined from 2007 to 2009. Spearman’s correlations between HIV treatment funding and HIV diagnosis and prevalence rates were very similar to each other, with a sharp drop in 2008.

Bottom Line: In response to an article published in 2012 by officials at the US Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS), an independent analysis of state-based federal resource allocation for HIV was conducted to determine if the funding accurately reflected diagnosis and prevalence rates.Total state-based federal funding for HIV, state-based funding for HIV prevention, and state-based funding for HIV treatment were compared to state-based HIV diagnosis and prevalence rates from 2006-2009.Total state-based federal funding for HIV and funding for HIV prevention and treatment were highly correlated with HIV diagnosis and prevalence rates during the time horizon of the study; however, correlations between state-based HIV prevention funding and state-based HIV diagnosis rates were lower than the correlations between state-based HIV treatment funding and HIV prevalence.

View Article: PubMed Central - HTML - PubMed

Affiliation: Department of Health Policy & Management, College of Public Health, Kent State University, PO Box 5190, Kent, OH 44242, USA.

ABSTRACT

Background: In response to an article published in 2012 by officials at the US Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS), an independent analysis of state-based federal resource allocation for HIV was conducted to determine if the funding accurately reflected diagnosis and prevalence rates.

Methods: Total state-based federal funding for HIV, state-based funding for HIV prevention, and state-based funding for HIV treatment were compared to state-based HIV diagnosis and prevalence rates from 2006-2009.

Results: Total state-based federal funding for HIV and funding for HIV prevention and treatment were highly correlated with HIV diagnosis and prevalence rates during the time horizon of the study; however, correlations between state-based HIV prevention funding and state-based HIV diagnosis rates were lower than the correlations between state-based HIV treatment funding and HIV prevalence.

Conclusions: Our findings suggest that state-based federal resource allocation for HIV prevention and treatment may be better aligned with HIV diagnosis and prevalence rates than previously reported; however resource allocation for HIV prevention is less aligned than funding for HIV treatment signaling the need to reexamine state-based federal funding for HIV prevention.

No MeSH data available.