Abstract

Background: New medications for treating HIV/AIDS are effective, but expensive, and funding shortfalls have led many state AIDS Drug Assistance Programs (ADAPs) to ration these drugs. Little is known about the views of those most directly affected by rationing policies. This study explores attitudes of patients with HIV and the general public toward specific rationing strategies. Methods: A Likert-style, self-administered questionnaire about rationing expensive HIV medications in the context of a budget shortfall was administered to patients with HIV and shopping mall patrons in central Pennsylvania. Subjects were asked how much they agreed or disagreed with seven drug rationing policies. Results: In all, 100 patients and 101 shoppers completed the survey (response rate = 89%). A majority in both groups "strongly" or "somewhat" disagreed with six of the seven rationing policies described, and patients more strongly disagreed with the policies than did the public. The five policies actually used by state ADAPs (first come first serve, limiting expensive medicines, limiting new patient enrollment, giving the expensive medicines to the sickest, using a spending cap) lacked support in either group. Conclusions: HIV drug rationing policies currently in use do not reflect the preferences of patients and the public. Integrating the views of those affected by the rationing decisions would raise difficult challenges to current programs.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)56-62
Number of pages7
JournalJournal of Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndromes
Volume26
Issue number1
StatePublished - Jan 1 2001

Fingerprint

HIV
Anti-HIV Agents
Pharmaceutical Preparations
Patient Preference
Budgets
Public Policy
Acquired Immunodeficiency Syndrome
Surveys and Questionnaires

All Science Journal Classification (ASJC) codes

  • Infectious Diseases
  • Pharmacology (medical)

Cite this

@article{a7c12b9680844fb190b0426ad7349764,
title = "Rationing HIV medications: What do patients and the public think about allocation policies?",
abstract = "Background: New medications for treating HIV/AIDS are effective, but expensive, and funding shortfalls have led many state AIDS Drug Assistance Programs (ADAPs) to ration these drugs. Little is known about the views of those most directly affected by rationing policies. This study explores attitudes of patients with HIV and the general public toward specific rationing strategies. Methods: A Likert-style, self-administered questionnaire about rationing expensive HIV medications in the context of a budget shortfall was administered to patients with HIV and shopping mall patrons in central Pennsylvania. Subjects were asked how much they agreed or disagreed with seven drug rationing policies. Results: In all, 100 patients and 101 shoppers completed the survey (response rate = 89{\%}). A majority in both groups {"}strongly{"} or {"}somewhat{"} disagreed with six of the seven rationing policies described, and patients more strongly disagreed with the policies than did the public. The five policies actually used by state ADAPs (first come first serve, limiting expensive medicines, limiting new patient enrollment, giving the expensive medicines to the sickest, using a spending cap) lacked support in either group. Conclusions: HIV drug rationing policies currently in use do not reflect the preferences of patients and the public. Integrating the views of those affected by the rationing decisions would raise difficult challenges to current programs.",
author = "Michael Green and Steven Fong and David Mauger and Ubel, {Peter A.}",
year = "2001",
month = "1",
day = "1",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "26",
pages = "56--62",
journal = "Journal of Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndromes",
issn = "1525-4135",
publisher = "Lippincott Williams and Wilkins",
number = "1",

}

Rationing HIV medications : What do patients and the public think about allocation policies? / Green, Michael; Fong, Steven; Mauger, David; Ubel, Peter A.

In: Journal of Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndromes, Vol. 26, No. 1, 01.01.2001, p. 56-62.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

TY - JOUR

T1 - Rationing HIV medications

T2 - What do patients and the public think about allocation policies?

AU - Green, Michael

AU - Fong, Steven

AU - Mauger, David

AU - Ubel, Peter A.

PY - 2001/1/1

Y1 - 2001/1/1

N2 - Background: New medications for treating HIV/AIDS are effective, but expensive, and funding shortfalls have led many state AIDS Drug Assistance Programs (ADAPs) to ration these drugs. Little is known about the views of those most directly affected by rationing policies. This study explores attitudes of patients with HIV and the general public toward specific rationing strategies. Methods: A Likert-style, self-administered questionnaire about rationing expensive HIV medications in the context of a budget shortfall was administered to patients with HIV and shopping mall patrons in central Pennsylvania. Subjects were asked how much they agreed or disagreed with seven drug rationing policies. Results: In all, 100 patients and 101 shoppers completed the survey (response rate = 89%). A majority in both groups "strongly" or "somewhat" disagreed with six of the seven rationing policies described, and patients more strongly disagreed with the policies than did the public. The five policies actually used by state ADAPs (first come first serve, limiting expensive medicines, limiting new patient enrollment, giving the expensive medicines to the sickest, using a spending cap) lacked support in either group. Conclusions: HIV drug rationing policies currently in use do not reflect the preferences of patients and the public. Integrating the views of those affected by the rationing decisions would raise difficult challenges to current programs.

AB - Background: New medications for treating HIV/AIDS are effective, but expensive, and funding shortfalls have led many state AIDS Drug Assistance Programs (ADAPs) to ration these drugs. Little is known about the views of those most directly affected by rationing policies. This study explores attitudes of patients with HIV and the general public toward specific rationing strategies. Methods: A Likert-style, self-administered questionnaire about rationing expensive HIV medications in the context of a budget shortfall was administered to patients with HIV and shopping mall patrons in central Pennsylvania. Subjects were asked how much they agreed or disagreed with seven drug rationing policies. Results: In all, 100 patients and 101 shoppers completed the survey (response rate = 89%). A majority in both groups "strongly" or "somewhat" disagreed with six of the seven rationing policies described, and patients more strongly disagreed with the policies than did the public. The five policies actually used by state ADAPs (first come first serve, limiting expensive medicines, limiting new patient enrollment, giving the expensive medicines to the sickest, using a spending cap) lacked support in either group. Conclusions: HIV drug rationing policies currently in use do not reflect the preferences of patients and the public. Integrating the views of those affected by the rationing decisions would raise difficult challenges to current programs.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=0035141059&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=0035141059&partnerID=8YFLogxK

M3 - Article

C2 - 11176269

AN - SCOPUS:0035141059

VL - 26

SP - 56

EP - 62

JO - Journal of Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndromes

JF - Journal of Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndromes

SN - 1525-4135

IS - 1

ER -