Rationing Antiretroviral Therapy for HIV/AIDS in Africa: Efficiency, Equity, and Reality

Background: Rationing of access to antiretroviral therapy already exists in sub-Saharan Africa and will intensify as national treatment programs develop. The number of people who are medically eligible for therapy will far exceed the human, infrastructural, and financial resources available, making rationing of public treatment services inevitable. Methods: We identified 15 criteria by which antiretroviral therapy could be rationed in African countries and analyzed the resulting rationing systems across 5 domains: clinical effectiveness, implementation feasibility, cost, economic efficiency, and social equity. Findings: Rationing can be explicit or implicit. Access to treatment can be explicitly targeted to priority subpopulations such as mothers of newborns, skilled workers, students, or poor people. Explicit conditions can also be set that cause differential access, such as residence in a designated geographic area, co-payment, access to testing, or a demonstrated commitment to adhere to therapy. Implicit rationing on the basis of first-come, first-served or queuing will arise when no explicit system is enforced; implicit systems almost always allow a high degree of queue-jumping by the elite. There is a direct tradeoff between economic efficiency and social equity. Interpretation: Rationing is inevitable in most countries for some period of time. Without deliberate social policy decisions, implicit rationing systems that are neither efficient nor equitable will prevail. Governments that make deliberate choices, and then explain and defend those choices to their constituencies, are more likely to achieve a socially desirable outcome from the large investments now being made than are those that allow queuing and queue-jumping to dominate.

Behind the Great wall : the story of the C.E.Z.M.S. work and workers in China with numerous illustrations

http://www.archive.org/details/behindthegreatw00barnuoft/

Workers' compensation in the United States: high costs, low benefits

Studies suggest that income replacement is low for many workers with serious occupational injuries and illnesses. This review discusses three areas that hold promise for raising benefits to workers while reducing workers' compensation costs to employers: improving safety, containing medical costs, and reducing litigation. In theory, workers' compensation increases the costs to employers of injuries and so provides incentives to improve safety. Yet, taken as a whole, research does not provide convincing evidence that workers' compensation reduces injury rates. Moreover, unlike safety and health regulation, workers' compensation focuses the attention of employers on individual workers. High costs may lead employers to discourage claims and litigate when claims are filed. Controlling medical costs can reduce workers' compensation costs. Most studies, however, have focused on costs and have not addressed the effectiveness of medical care or patient satisfaction. Research also has shown that workers' compensation systems can reduce the need for litigation. Without litigation, benefits can be delivered more quickly and at lower costs.

Cancer mortality in IBM endicott plant workers, 1969-2001: An update on a NY production plant

BACKGROUND: In response to concerns expressed by workers at a public meeting, we analyzed the mortality experience of workers who were employed at the IBM plant in Endicott, New York and died between 1969-2001. An epidemiologic feasibility assessment indicated potential worker exposure to several known and suspected carcinogens at this plant. METHODS: We used the mortality and work history files produced under a court order and used in a previous mortality analysis. Using publicly available data for the state of New York as a standard of comparison, we conducted proportional cancer mortality (PCMR) analysis. RESULTS: The results showed significantly increased mortality due to melanoma (PCMR = 367; 95% CI: 119, 856) and lymphoma (PCMR = 220; 95% CI: 101, 419) in males and modestly increased mortality due to kidney cancer (PCMR = 165; 95% CI: 45, 421) and brain cancer (PCMR = 190; 95% CI: 52, 485) in males and breast cancer (PCMR = 126; 95% CI: 34, 321) in females. CONCLUSION: These results are similar to results from a previous IBM mortality study and support the need for a full cohort mortality analysis such as the one being planned by the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health.

Shifting the Burden of HIV/AIDS

As the economic burden of HIV/AIDS increases in sub-Saharan Africa, the allocation of the burden among levels and sectors of societies is changing. The private sector has greater scope than government, households, or NGOs to avoid the economic burden of AIDS, and a systematic shifting of the burden away from the private sector is underway. Common practices that shift the AIDS burden from businesses to households and government include pre-employment screening, reduced employee benefits, restructured employment contracts, outsourcing of less skilled jobs, selective retrenchments, and changes in production technologies. In South Africa, more than two thirds of large employers have reduced health care benefits or required larger contributions by employees. Most firms have replaced defined benefit retirement funds, which expose the firm to large annual costs but provide long-term support for families, with defined contribution funds, which eliminate firm risk but provide little to families of younger workers who die of AIDS. Contracting out of previously permanent jobs also shields firms from costs while leaving households and government to care for affected workers and their families. Many of these changes are responses to globalization and would have occurred in the absence of AIDS, but they are devastating for employees with HIV/AIDS. This paper argues that the shifting of the economic burden of AIDS is a predictable response by business to which a thoughtful public policy response is needed. Countries should make explicit decisions about each sector’s responsibilities if a socially desirable allocation is to be achieved.