Abstract
BACKGROUND: Widespread HIV screening and access to highly active antiretroviral treatment (ART) were cost effective in mathematical models, but population-level implementation has led to questions about cost, value, and feasibility. In 1996, British Columbia, Canada, introduced universal coverage of drug and other health-care costs for people with HIV/AIDS and and began extensive scale-up in access to ART. We aimed to assess the cost-effectiveness of ART scale-up in British Columbia compared with hypothetical scenarios of constrained treatment access. METHODS: Using comprehensive linked population-level data, we populated a dynamic, compartmental transmission model to simulate the HIV/AIDS epidemic in British Columbia from 1997 to 2010. We estimated HIV incidence, prevalence, mortality, costs (in 2010 CAN$), and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) for the study period, which was 1997-2010. We calculated incremental cost-effectiveness ratios from societal and third-party-payer perspectives to compare actual practice (true numbers of individuals accessing ART) to scenarios of constrained expansion (75% and 50% probability of accessing ART). We also investigated structural and parameter uncertainty. FINDINGS: Actual practice resulted in 263 averted incident cases compared with 75% of observed access and 676 averted cases compared with 50% of observed access to ART. From a third-party-payer perspective, actual practice resulted in incremental cost-effectiveness ratios of $23 679 per QALY versus 75% access and $24 250 per QALY versus 50% access. From a societal perspective, actual practice was cost saving within the study period. When the model was extended to 2035, current observed access resulted in cumulative savings of $25·1 million compared with the 75% access scenario and $65·5 million compared with the 50% access scenario. INTERPRETATION: ART scale-up in British Columbia has decreased HIV-related morbidity, mortality, and transmission. Resulting incremental cost-effectiveness ratios for actual practice, derived within a limited timeframe, were within established cost-effectiveness thresholds and were cost saving from a societal perspective. FUNDING: BC Ministry of Health, National Institute of Drug Abuse at the US National Institutes of Health.