HEALTHWATCH
HIV/AIDS
Early
Treatment Saves Lives
By James Allen
LEF Web Contributor
The Early Treatment for HIV
Act (ETHA), currently pending in Congress, aims
to solve a shortcoming in the current Medicaid
approach to HIV coverage. Many low income individuals
need Medicaid assistance to help pay for expensive
HIV treatments. Without Medicaid, they can't afford
the $10,000-$18,500 yearly cost for HIV medication
and monitoring.
Currently, Medicaid will only
pay HIV treatment costs for people who (1) are
defined as low income and (2) are parents, minor
children, elderly, or disabled. However, many
low income HIV positive individuals are not parents,
minor children, or elderly, so they are covered
only if they meet the Supplemental Security Insurance
(SSI) definition for disability. Unfortunately,
the SSI disability definition includes only those
HIV positive individuals who have developed full-blown
AIDS. Accordingly, Medicaid currently offers no
help until a person has AIDS.
Waiting to treat an HIV positive
person until they have full blown AIDS flies in
the face of common sense, compassion and current
medical guidelines, which stress the importance
of treatment in the earlier stages of HIV. Right
now, HIV positive individuals must wait until
they get very sick before Medicaid will cover
them. The situation is as unwise as it is cruel.
ETHA will allow states to develop
Medicaid programs that offer treatment options
for low income HIV positive individuals long before
they develop full-blown AIDS. The legislation
is patterned after the Breast and Cervical Cancer
Prevention Treatment Act of 2000 (BCCPT), which
has allowed states to expand Medicaid coverage
to include women who are in the early stages of
breast or cervical cancer. Forty-eight states
and the District of Columbia have implemented
BCCPT programs, and there is no reason to believe
that they would not do the same with ETHA.
ETHA Saves Lives
ETHA will help save lives by
both extending the lives of HIV positive individuals
and reducing the transmission of the virus. Under
current Medicaid rules, low income HIV positive
individuals become eligible for coverage only
when they have developed AIDS. By this time, they
have either contracted an opportunistic infection
(including certain forms of cancer and pneumonia
seen only in individuals with compromised immune
systems) or manifested some other overt symptom
of AIDS. Waiting to treat HIV until the onset
of AIDS defies current Centers for Disease Control
(CDC) guidelines, which recommend that treatment
begin much earlier to avoid the serious complications
associated with AIDS. Under the current guidelines,
low income HIV positive individuals must suffer
the cruelty of knowing that they are becoming
sicker, knowing that they should be on an HIV
treatment program, and knowing that they will
not get the help they need from Medicaid until
they are terribly ill.
ETHA will correct the existing
approach and keep more low income HIV positive
individuals alive and healthy. A recent Price
Waterhouse Coopers (PWC) study says that over
a ten year period, ETHA will reduce the death
rate for HIV positive individuals on Medicaid
by 50 The study also estimates that over ten years,
ETHA will result in thousands more individuals
with healthier immune systems than under the current
Medicaid program. A Stanford study indicates that
the health benefits of ETHA may be even greater.
In any event, both studies show that ETHA will
lead to more low income HIV positive individuals
living longer and feeling better.
ETHA will also help prevent
the transmission of HIV. Early treatment of HIV
significantly reduces a person's viral load (the
amount of virus inside a person's body), and a
2004 study published in AIDS indicates that HIV
therapies reduce HIV positive individuals' infectiousness
by 60 This reduction makes it more difficult for
them to transmit HIV to another person. Accordingly,
ETHA will likely prevent some individuals that
might otherwise have contracted the disease from
doing so.
ETHA Is Cost-Effective
PWC's economic analysis of
ETHA demonstrates that the legislation is cost-effective.
PWC estimates that the dollar-amount cost of ETHA
will be $359 million over five years and $2.4
billion over ten years. It is important to note
that $192.8 million of the costs associated with
ETHA are the result of HIV-positive individuals
living longer. This cost is a testament to ETHA's
success; people will be receiving treatment longer
because they will be living longer, so the treatment
cost rises.
The benefits of ETHA far outweigh
the costs. First, this legislation would reduce
unnecessary and costly hospital admissions for
opportunistic infections that early HIV treatment
would prevent. After all, it costs a great deal
less to provide early HIV treatment than to deal
with the opportunistic infections and other conditions
associated with full-blown AIDS. Second, it would
increase federal tax revenue by allowing HIV positive
individuals to live longer and work longer. More
people working means more people paying taxes.
Third, the reduced transmission rate will save
Medicaid from ever having to cover some individuals
who, without ETHA, might have contracted HIV.
Taking these and other savings into account, PWC
forecasts that ETHA will actually save Medicaid
$31.7 million over ten years.
Medicaid Section 1115 Waivers
and the CARE Act Are Not Enough
Currently, Medicaid Section
1115 allows states to develop demonstration programs
that explore new Medicaid policies and uses. In
1997, the Clinton administration suggested that
section 1115 be used to develop HIV treatment
programs. Since then, at least ten states have
applied for section 1115 waivers, but only Massachusetts,
Maine, and the District of Columbia have received
approval.
The problem with section 1115
waivers is that it can take years for states to
get them approved and implemented. They are also
subject to rigid requirements, including budget
neutrality within five years. ETHA, because it
would allow states the traditional flexibility
they enjoy in developing Medicaid programs, would
cover more low income HIV positive individuals
in a shorter period of time.
The Ryan White Care Act is
equally unable to deal with Medicaid's current
shortcomings. Since 1996, the act has tried to
provide coverage for low income individuals who
do not qualify for Medicaid assistance. However,
CARE was never meant to serve as a primary provider
of HIV treatment services. Rather, it was intended
to fill gaps in existing services that were preventing
HIV positive individuals from receiving the best
treatment. Because of the strain that the current
Medicaid approach to HIV is exerting on the CARE
Act, several states have placed restrictions on
treatment access, and others have waiting lists
for medications. ETHA would take the strain off
the CARE Act and allow it to resume its intended
role as a gap-filler in HIV care.
We Need ETHA Today
Medicaid's current approach
to HIV treatment leaves low income individuals
in the earlier stages of the disease without coverage.
ETHA will save lives and reduce HIV transmission.
Over a ten-year period it will actually save the
Medicare program millions of dollars. ETHA will
eliminate the rigidity of the section 1115 waiver
programs and remove the strain put on the CARE
Act. In the final analysis, ETHA is a win-win
for everyone. It makes fiscal sense. It will lower
HIV infections. And the program will improve the
lives of tens of thousands of people living with
HIV.
back to
top | Back
to main HIV/AIDS
|