BMC Public Health (Dec 2011)

The costs of HIV prevention for different target populations in Mumbai, Thane and Banglalore

  • Chandrashekar Sudha,
  • Vassall Anna,
  • Reddy Bhaskar,
  • Shetty Govindraj,
  • Vickerman Peter,
  • Alary Michel

DOI
https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2458-11-S6-S7
Journal volume & issue
Vol. 11, no. Suppl 6
p. S7

Abstract

Read online

Abstract Background Avahan, the India AIDS Initiative, delivers HIV prevention services to high-risk populations at scale. Although the broad costs of such HIV interventions are known, to-date there has been little data available on the comparative costs of reaching different target groups, including female sex workers (FSWs), replace with ‘high risk men who have sex with men (HR-MSM) and trans-genders. Methods Costs are estimated for the first three years of Avahan scale up differentiated by typology of female sex workers (brothel, street, home, lodge based, bar based), HR-MSM and transgenders in urban districts in India: Mumbai and Thane in Maharashtra and Bangalore in Karnataka. Financial and economic costs were collected prospectively from a provider perspective. Outputs were measured using data collected by the Avahan programme. Costs are presented in US$2008. Results Costs were found to vary substantially by target group. Non-governmental organisations (NGOs) working with transgender populations had a higher mean cost (US $116) per person reached compared to those dealing primarily with FSWs (US $75-96) and MSWs (US $90) by the end of year three of the programme in Mumbai. The mean cost of delivering the intervention to HR-MSMs (US $42) was higher than delivering it to FSWs (US $37) in Bangalore. The package of services delivered to each target group was similar, and our results suggest that cost variation is related to the target population size, the intensity of the programme (in terms of number of contacts made per year) and a number of specific issues related to each target group. Conclusions Based on our data policy makers and program managers need to consider the ease of accessing high risk population when planning and budgeting for HIV prevention services for these populations and avoid funding programmes on the basis of target population size alone.