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.

Treatment of HIV/AIDS at South Africa's Largest Employers: Myth and Reality

Background: In the past three years, many large employers in South Africa have announced publicly their intention of making antiretroviral treatment (ART) available to employees. Reports of the scope and success of these programs have been mostly anecdotal. This study surveyed the largest private sector employers in South Africa to determine the proportion of employees with access to ART through employer-sponsored HIV/AIDS treatment programs. Methods: All 64 private sector and parastatal employers in South Africa with more than 6,000 employees were identified and contacted. Those that agreed to participate were interviewed by telephone using a structured questionnaire. Results: 52 companies agreed to participate. Among these companies, 63% of employees had access to employer-sponsored care and treatment for HIV/AIDS. Access varied widely by sector, however. Approximately 27% of suspected HIV-positive employees were enrolled in HIV/AIDS disease management programs, or 4.4% of the workforce overall. Fewer than 4,000 employees in the entire sample were receiving antiretroviral therapy. In-house (employer) disease management programs and independent disease management programs achieved higher uptake of services than did medical aid schemes. Conclusions: Publicity by large employers about their treatment programs should be interpreted cautiously. While there is a high level of access to treatment, uptake of services is low and only a small fraction of employees medically eligible for antiretroviral therapy are receiving it.