What is the average cost for hiv treatment

In addition to regular doctor's appointments for lab tests and HIV-related checkups, you may incur more medical bills if you develop an opportunistic infection. For this reason, the total cost of your medical bills can vary quite a bit from year to year. HIV medication makes up the bulk of lifetime care expenses.

Lab tests and medical visits can add up, though. Research shows that, while early HIV diagnosis and treatment improves health outcomes and life expectancy, it also comes with a higher lifetime cost. To investigate this, researchers separated 10, HIV-positive people into four groups based on the CD4 counts they had when first diagnosed.

The following chart compares each group's CD4 count, life expectancy, and lifetime cost after insurance and other financial aid:. At the end of the study, researchers made several conclusions:.

The results show that people diagnosed with HIV at an early stage—and who begin ART promptly—live longer and have better health outcomes. However, their lifetime cost is significantly higher because they spend more years taking ART. Many people live with HIV for several years before they are diagnosed. While undiagnosed people with HIV obviously don't have ART expenses, the study found that they pay nearly as much for doctor's appointments and emergency medical care as those who are diagnosed.

Undiagnosed people don't have the burden of ART expenses, but their lifetime medical bills are still high and their health outcomes are poorer. According to Anthony Fauci, MD, Director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, "We now have clear-cut proof that it is of significantly greater health benefit to an HIV-infected person to start antiretroviral therapy sooner rather than later. So while early diagnosis and treatment comes with greater care financial costs, the benefits are undeniable.

Fauci's statement is supported by numerous studies. This made an already expensive regimen that much more so. If you are finding it difficult to keep up with the cost of your HIV-related healthcare, talk to your doctor about the following options.

Taking generic ART drugs rather than name brand drugs may lower your lifetime cost by thousands of dollars. One team of researchers looked at the price difference between generic and brand name ART drugs. The U. They cost less than their brand name counterparts and are equally as effective. In some cases, switching to a generic ART regimen may increase the number of pills you have to take in one sitting. But it should not increase how many times per day you need to take those pills.

When discussing a generic ART regimen with your doctor, be sure to mention if having to take more pills would make it difficult for you to stick with your treatment. If so, a single-tablet ART may be a better option, so long as it fits your needs. A single-tablet regimen STR combines multiple drugs into one tablet.

There is always a chance that a drug will be temporarily or permanently discontinued from the market. Or, prescriptions for each drug in an ART regimen may not be refilled at the same time. STRs solve these problems, as there is only one tablet to keep track of.

It combines the drugs cabotegravir and rilpivirine into one treatment, allowing it to replace a multiple-pill ART regimen. They state that viral load testing should be considered the primary measure of treatment success, and it should be tested every three to four months to confirm it stays undetected.

For people with an undetectable viral load, the DHHS also recommends that:. If you are getting tested more frequently than this and you're not sure why, talk to your doctor. Ultimately, how often you get tested is a decision that must be made with them. Even when your CD4 count and viral load are considered stable, you should see your doctor any time you develop a new or worsening symptom.

If you are a U. This AIDS drug assistance program ADAP funds free or low-cost medications, healthcare, and support services for low-income people affected by the disease.

Since the program began in , its coverage has helped millions of people slow the progression of their disease. One study even found that people covered by Ryan White have significantly better health outcomes than people covered by private insurance, medicaid, or medicare. You can find out if you are eligible by calling your state's Ryan White program hotline. If you have no conflicts of interest, check "No potential conflicts of interest" in the box below.

The information will be posted with your response. Not all submitted comments are published. Please see our commenting policy for details.

This research was covered by a protocol approved by the institutional review board for Massachusetts General Hospital, the Partners Human Research Committee. Informed consent was not needed because this analysis is a synthesis of published data, and no individual-level data was used.

We used data from the Guidelines to determine the annual per person cost of each of the recommended initial regimens from to We calculated the trend in mean regimen costs annually and the percentage change over time for all regimens recommended for most PWH, as well as in certain clinical situations. Then, for each regimen that was recommended for most PWH and subsequently recommended only in certain clinical situations, we compared the changes in costs over time as those recommendations evolved.

All cost trends were compared with the consumer price index US city average; all urban consumers. We used the urban consumer price index rather than the medical care component of the consumer price index because of its standard use in discounting and rebating formulas for Federal and Medicaid Ceiling Pricing.

Regimens recommended for most PWH increased 2. Increases in ART costs far outpaced the overall inflation rate. Limitations of this study include use of AWP. We acknowledge that AWP is often used as a benchmark and not reflective of patient out-of-pocket expenses. Complex systems of discounts and rebates help insulate public and private insurers from the full brunt of high ART costs, and federally funded safety nets may minimize costs for patients.

However, in response to mounting ART costs and prolonged survival among PWH, insurers are increasingly seeking to manage ART access through formulary design, utilization management, and cost-sharing. Corresponding Author: Rochelle P. Published Online: February 3, As a result of a global campaign in the s to improve access to HIV treatment, low-income countries typically have licensing agreements with pharmaceutical companies which mean they can access HIV drugs at much lower prices.

Pharmaceutical companies then charge higher prices to high-income countries to offset this discount. Generic drugs contain the same active ingredients as branded drugs, and have comparable strength, safety, efficacy and quality.

A substance that acts against retroviruses such as HIV. There are several classes of antiretrovirals, which are defined by what step of viral replication they target: nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitors; non-nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitors; protease inhibitors; entry inhibitors; integrase strand transfer inhibitors.

Cost-effectiveness analyses compare the financial cost of providing health interventions with their health benefit in order to assess whether interventions provide value for money.

The presence of one or more additional health conditions at the same time as a primary condition such as HIV. However, prices also vary considerably between high-income countries.

It is reasonable that higher income countries pay more for HIV treatment to improve equitable access to HIV treatment globally while allowing pharmaceutical companies to recoup their investment in developing HIV drugs.

Using generic instead of branded drugs can dramatically reduce HIV treatment costs. Two-thirds of the savings came from patients switching to generic medication and a third from renegotiating contracts with pharmaceutical companies, who were under pressure to lower prices.

However, switching to generic medications should only be done if clinically appropriate, and in some cases the most effective treatments are only available in branded versions. Some people may also experience greater side-effects or other problems with a generic treatment.

Consequently, reducing the prices of branded drugs is also important for making savings on HIV treatment. In part, this can be achieved through greater transparency around price-setting and the costs of research, development, and production of HIV treatment.

In , savings to the U. With substantial improvements in the long-term safety and effectiveness of contemporary ART, a number of regimens and regimen components in Table 6 remain listed beyond their patent protection date and are or will be available as lower-cost generic options. Some research informs the cost impact of using specific generic ARV regimens or regimen components.

A number of generic options of ARV regimen components included in Table 6 are commercially available. There is keen interest in assessing the economic value of using newer, more expensive drugs compared with older, less expensive drugs that have established clinical safety and efficacy. Generic TDF was approved in The use of DTG plus generic 3TC for initial therapy has been evaluated in a cost-containment analysis. Because all commercially available STRs, including those containing ARV components that are no longer patent protected, are branded products, use of generics in the United States may necessitate modest increases in pill burden, but without changes in drug frequency.

Data to support or refute the superiority of once-daily STRs versus once-daily multi-tablet regimens, particularly based on virologic outcomes and especially following viral suppression, remain limited. One large observational cohort study demonstrated a small but statistically significant virologic efficacy benefit associated with STRs.

Importantly, when the costs of brand-name drug products and generic ARV drugs are compared, savings associated with generic ARV drugs may vary when branded drugs are subject to discounts or rebates across public and private payer systems.

Although generic drug products may be associated with societal cost savings and, specifically, savings for public payers, commercial insurers, and people with HIV with significant out-of-pocket pharmacy expenses, manufacturer copay assistance is not generally available to commercially insured individuals.

In cases where manufacturer copay assistance may be available for a brand-name ARV product but not for an equivalent generic ARV product, the generic drug prescription paradoxically may result in higher out-of-pocket costs. However, the overall budget impact of such regimens would be relatively small, given the limited number of people for whom IBA would be necessary.

In the context of lifelong ART, the amount of money to be saved by performing infrequent or one-time tests e. Even so, judicious use of laboratory testing, without compromising patient care, can still be an important way to reduce costs. For patients with deductibles for laboratory tests, decreasing the use of tests with limited clinical value could reduce patient costs and improve adherence to a care plan.

Several studies have examined the value of laboratory services in HIV care. The results of these modeling studies suggest that additional clinical research is needed to define the role of genotypic resistance testing before initiation of an INSTI plus 2-NRTI regimen.

Importantly, these modeling data do not apply to two-drug ARV regimens, which are being prescribed increasingly in clinical practice. It should be noted that the Panel continues to recommend baseline testing for clinically relevant protease and reverse transcriptase mutations see Drug-Resistance Testing. Comprehensive, patient-centered HIV care offers substantial clinical benefits.

Integrated services can improve engagement in care and virologic suppression among people with HIV and require investment and resources. Several cost-effectiveness analyses have demonstrated that integrated care programs can offer excellent value, especially if delivered to people at increased risk of disengagement in care. Health care access in the United States can be inequitable and limited, depending on location and income.