Objectives: In the USA, Medicaid is the principal payer of the health care
costs of patients with HIV infection. We wished to determine how the costs
to Medicaid of patients in Maryland infected with HIV have changed in the s
etting of highly active antiretroviral treatment.
Design: Observational cohort study.
Methods: Analysis of combined economic and clinical data of patients from t
he Johns Hopkins HIV Service, the provider of primary and sub-specialty car
e for a majority of HIV-infected patients in the Baltimore metropolitan reg
ion. All patients were enrolled in Medicaid and received care longitudinall
y in Maryland from 1 January 1995 through 31 December 1997. Monthly Medicai
d payments were calculated for all inpatient and outpatient services by fis
cal year, CD4 cell count, and use of protease inhibitors.
Results: For inpatients with a CD4 cell count less than or equal to 50 x 10
(6) cells/l, the total health care average monthly payments remained unchan
ged ($2629 in 1995, $2585 in 1997). Total mean monthly payments increased f
or those with a CD4 cell count > 50 x 10(6) cells/l (CD4 cell count 50-200
x 10(6) cells/l, $1172 in 1995 and $1615 in 1997, P < 0.05; CD4 cell count
201-500 x 10(6) cells/l, $1078 in 1995 and $1305 in 1997, P < 0.05). Howeve
r, when data were stratified according to use of a protease inhibitor-conta
ining regimen (used during approximately 50% of follow-up time in 1996-1997
) it was found that hospital inpatient payments decreased significantly in
all CD4 strata for patients on a protease inhibitor-containing regimen wher
eas pharmacy payments increased significantly. Inpatient payments associate
d with treating opportunistic illness were lower in 1996-1997 for patients
receiving protease inhibitor therapy compared with those not receiving prot
ease inhibitors. On balance, total health care payments tended to be slight
ly lower for patients receiving a protease inhibitor regimen.
Conclusion: Although protease inhibitor-containing antiretroviral regimens
are being used by only about half of our Medicaid-insured patients, when th
ey are used, there are significantly lower hospital inpatient and community
care costs, as well as lower costs associated with the treatment of opport
unistic illness. Even with the concurrent increase in their pharmacy costs,
total health care costs were stable or slightly lower for these patients.
We believe this is a favorable result suggesting a good clinical value bein
g achieved without an increase in costs. (C) 1999 Lippincott Williams & Wil
kins.