Estimating the cost of HIV services for key populations provided by the LINKAGES program in Kenya and Malawi

Together with their partners, key populations (KPs) at higher risk of HIV infection—including men who have sex with men (MSM), sex workers (SW), people who inject drugs (PWID), and transgender women (TGW)—are estimated to comprise 65% of new HIV infections globally [1]. In sub-Saharan Africa, new infections among KPs and their partners make up 72% of new HIV infections in West and Central Africa and 32% in Southern and Eastern Africa and there is growing concern that as HIV epidemics in the general population are better controlled, the relative importance of KPs will increase [1‐3]. Forty years since the first cases of AIDS were reported, KPs continue to be marginalized and criminalized in many countries, HIV prevention services for KPs continue to be inaccessible to many, and providing HIV testing and treatment services to KPs living with HIV remains a challenge even in countries with high performing HIV programs [1]. To achieve HIV epidemic control, countries around the world, including in sub-Saharan Africa, will need to significantly scale up effective HIV services for KPs [2‐4].

Global guidance on HIV services for KPs describes a package of clinical services—many of which are the same services as for the general population [5]. However, effective HIV services for KPs differ in important ways from HIV services for general populations. To address the challenges and barriers often faced by KPs, clinical services for KPs need to be implemented interdependently with structural interventions that address stigma, discrimination, and violence [6‐8]. In addition, besides service-level activities, effective KP HIV services also comprise important efforts below- and above-service level [9‐11]. KPs often require substantial outreach conducted by peers in the community to facilitate service utilization and retention in care [12‐14]. Effective KP programs include differentiated service delivery models and community-based and community-led approaches to service delivery [5, 15]. Likewise, community organization staff and volunteers often need substantial support, including program management support, technical assistance, training, and oversight. Moreover, pre-service delivery activities, including population mapping and size estimation, are integral to the effective delivery of KP HIV services [16‐18]. Critically, these non-clinical features are viewed as core elements of comprehensive HIV services for KPs and not as optional extras [4].

To scale up HIV services for KPs, additional resources will need to be allocated to these services. To date, KP HIV services globally have been significantly under-funded with expenditures on KP HIV services much lower than would be expected given the burden of HIV among KPs [19, 20] and representing only a fraction of estimated resource needs [21]. Developing investment cases for additional resources and allocating available resources efficiently across HIV services requires accurate and timely information on the costs of HIV services. Though there is a growing literature on the costs of HIV services for general populations in low- and middle-income countries, data remain scarce on the costs of HIV services for KPs and these mostly focus on the delivery of clinical services alone [22]. We are aware of only one costing study of a KP HIV program that considered the costs of clinical and non-clinical service elements, including interventions required to reach and engage KPs and project management [10].

The objective of this study was to bridge this gap in the literature by estimating the unit costs of the HIV services delivered to KPs in the Linkages Across the Continuum of HIV Services for Key Populations Affected by HIV (LINKAGES) program in Kenya and Malawi. LINKAGES was led by FHI 360 and funded by the United States President’s Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief (PEPFAR) from 2014 to 2021. Implemented in over 30 countries in Africa, Asia, and the Caribbean, the program provided a comprehensive package of services to KPs with the goal of reducing HIV transmission among KPs and their sexual partners and improving KP enrollment and retention in HIV treatment services. We estimated the unit costs of the following clinical HIV services delivered to KPs as part of LINKAGES in Kenya and Malawi: post-exposure prophylaxis (PEP), pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP), HIV testing services (HTS), antiretroviral therapy (ART), sexually transmitted infection (STI) services, sexual and reproductive health (SRH) services, and management of sexual violence (MSV). Our unit cost estimates also reflect the cost of non-clinical services delivered alongside these clinical services (peer outreach, structural interventions that address stigma, discrimination, and violence, KP empowerment) and the pre-service (KP mapping and size estimation) and above-service program management and data monitoring that was an integral part of the LINKAGES program.

Table 1 shows the number of clinical services provided in DICs in Kenya and Malawi during FY 2019. All clinical services were delivered in both countries except for PEP, which was only provided in Kenya. Though most DICs in Kenya provided PrEP, only three DICs in Malawi did so. In both countries, only DICs serving FSW delivered SRH services. Almost all DICs in both countries provided HTS, ART, STI, and MSV services. The vast majority of services delivered in both countries were STI services and HTS. In Kenya, STI screenings and HIV tests each comprised 46% of all services DICs delivered by DICs. In Malawi, STI screenings and HIV tests made up 73% and 17% of all services provided. The number of services and visits for each clinical service varied substantially by DIC in both countries. Facilities in Kenya tended to have significantly more clients than those in Malawi for all services except SRH services.

The volume-weighted mean unit costs for the clinical services implemented in Kenya and Malawi are shown in Table 2. For each service, Table 2 also shows the breakdown of the mean total unit cost into the following components: direct clinical service costs, condom and lubricant promotion and distribution costs, and indirect costs. Given the small number of outputs, we did not calculate the unit cost for PrEP in Malawi. When looking at the overall unit cost, the mean unit cost per clinical service ranged from US$18 (95% CI: 16, 21) for STI services to US$635 (95% CI: 484, 785) for PrEP in Kenya and from US$41 (95% CI: 37, 44) for STI services to US$1,240 (95% CI 1156, 1324) for MSV in Malawi. Considering the direct clinical service unit cost, the mean unit cost per clinical service ranged from US$2 (95% CI: 2, 3) for STI to US$162 (95% CI: 125, 198) for ART in Kenya and from US$9 (95% CI: 7, 10) for STI services to US$362 (95% CI: 242, 367) for MSV in Malawi. Clinical costs, including both direct clinical service costs and the costs of condom and lubricant promotion and distribution, accounted for between 21% (MSV) and 59% (ART) of unit costs in Kenya, and between 25% (MSV) and 38% (ART) in Malawi. Total unit costs were lower in Kenya than they were in Malawi and the difference was especially large for MSV services.

Table 3 displays the breakdown of the total volume-weighted mean unit costs shown in Table 2 by LINKAGES program area. These program areas do not line up perfectly with the unit cost components shown in Table 2. However, they provide additional insight into the relative importance of start-up costs, other KP interventions implemented with clinical services, and above-service level support. The clinical service program area accounted for the largest proportion of total mean unit cost for most services. However, this represented between 20% (MSV) and 54% (ART) of total mean unit costs in Kenya and between 24% (MSV) and 34% (ART) of the costs in Malawi. Program management and monitoring and data use accounted for between 27% (ART) and 42% (SRH and MSV services) of mean unit costs in Kenya and between 31% (PrEP) and 40% (STI services) in Malawi. The KP interventions implemented alongside clinical services (peer outreach, structural interventions, and KP empowerment) accounted for between 15% (ART) and 34% (PEP) of total mean unit costs in Kenya and between 25% (ART) and 31% (MSV) in Malawi. KP mapping and size estimation accounted for between 3% (ART) and 5% (SRH and MSV services) of costs in Kenya and between 6% (PrEP, HTS, ART) and 7% (STI, SRH, and MSV services) in Malawi.

Figure 1 shows scatterplots of the relationship between total unit cost and number of services provided for each clinical intervention across DICs (see data in Table S5). The figure shows that for all services, there was a great deal of variation in unit costs in DICs within and between countries. Overall, unit costs tended to be lower at sites providing larger numbers of services consistent with the existence of economies of scale, though the association between unit cost and number of services provided varied across services and was weaker for STI services. DICs in Malawi tended to have fewer clients than those in Kenya for most services and the highest unit costs for ART, HTS, and MSV services were in the DICs in Malawi that provided the fewest services––mostly DICs serving MSM/TGW. Even at comparable volumes of services delivered, unit costs tended to be higher in DICs in Malawi, especially for ART, STI, and SRH services.

This study describes the costs of PEP, PrEP, HTS, ART, STI, SRH, and MSV services delivered to KPs as part of the LINKAGES program in Kenya and Malawi. We found that mean total unit costs for PEP and PrEP were US$356 and US$456 in Kenya. Across the two countries, total unit costs for HTS, ART, STI, SRH, and MSV services ranged between US$24-US$84, US$368-US$757, US$18-US$41, US$95-US$108, and US$90-US$1240 respectively. Direct clinical service costs accounted for between 21 and 59% of total mean unit costs in Kenya, and between 25 and 38% of unit costs in Malawi. Our results show that in comprehensive HIV programs for KPs, considering direct clinical service costs alone grossly underestimates the cost of service delivery to KPs.

Our assessment of clinical service unit costs by LINKAGES program area shows that above-service program management and data monitoring and non-clinical services delivered to KPs alongside clinical services––deemed to be essential by experts––made up large components of service costs [4]. Program management and data monitoring accounted for between 27–42% (Kenya) and 31–32% (Malawi) of mean unit costs for the seven clinical services. KP interventions implemented alongside clinical services (peer outreach, structural interventions that address stigma, discrimination, and violence, and KP empowerment) accounted for between 18–34% (Kenya) and 25–31% (Malawi) of total service unit costs.

We found differences in mean unit costs between the two countries with the mean unit cost for everything except condoms lower in Kenya than in Malawi. Comparing the two countries is difficult, even though the costing methods applied in both countries were the same. We know that in both Kenya and Malawi, KPs face important structural barriers that impact their vulnerability to HIV infection and impede their access to health services [26]. However, from the information available, it is difficult to ascertain the heterogeneity in the levels of stigma, discrimination, and violence against KPs between the two countries. In general, organizations in Kenya delivered significantly more services than those in Malawi. This was true for almost all service categories, and it was especially true for MSV which had the largest difference in unit cost. The differences in service volumes across DICs likely plays an important role in cost differences in the two countries and these could be due to overall differences in site maturity [34]. Another factor contributing to the differences in cost between the two countries is that headquarter and country office costs were proportionally higher in Malawi. Summaries of LINKAGES program achievements in Kenya and Malawi suggest that the program in Malawi may have had a larger portfolio of above-service level activities playing key roles in national HIV policy and guideline development [35, 36].

We also found important differences in unit costs across facilities within countries. This variation suggests that efficiency of service provision might be improved in certain DICs. Our mapping of DIC service unit costs against numbers of services provided suggests the potential for economies of scale as DICs expand the volume of services delivered, although we recognize that there may be a tension between large volume increases and the provision of services to marginalized and hard to reach populations. It is also possible that there are economies of scope and that DICs that provide more categories of services are more efficient than DICs providing fewer categories of services [37, 38]. Finally, there could be differences in the management of DICs that account for some of the variation in unit costs [39]. Though these issues are beyond the scope of this paper, we will explore the relationships between unit cost and service scale, scope, and facility management in future analyses.

We are not aware of previous studies that have captured the unit costs of a combination of clinical services delivered to KPs in Kenya or Malawi. However, we can compare the mean clinical-service unit costs of HTS, ART, and PrEP to those of previous studies conducted in Kenya and Malawi. Our direct clinical service unit costs of US$5 for HTS in Kenya is similar to previous estimates [40, 41] though our unit costs of US$162 and US$127 for ART and PrEP are slightly lower than earlier studies [42‐47]. Our direct clinical service unit costs of US$25 for HTS and US$260 for ART in Malawi are somewhat higher than those of previous studies [48‐53]. Of course, comparisons across cost studies should be done with caution as input utilization and costs vary over time and methods differ across studies.

The only other costing study of a comprehensive HIV program for KPs that we are aware of is the costing study of the Avahan program in India [4, 10]. Cost analysis of the Avahan program also considered non-clinical service elements including interventions to reach and engage FSW, MSM, and TGW. Like our study, the Avahan costing study also captured the full costs of program implementation including service-level and above-service level costs. The Avahan program components differ and are difficult to compare with those of the LINKAGES program and the scope of the clinical services provided in the Avahan program was more limited focusing mostly on the provision of STI services. It is however possible to compare the proportion of program management and monitoring across the two studies. The proportion of program management and monitoring we found in this study was consistent with the 37% program management component in the costing study of the Avahan program [10].

Given the decline in HIV resources in recent years, there is a growing urgency to understand the cost of HIV services to make sure that HIV resources can be allocated effectively and efficiently [21, 54]. This study provides detailed information on the costs of seven HIV services provided to KPs in Kenya and Malawi. These data together with information on the costs of other HIV services including those for the general population, data on the effectiveness of interventions, as well as epidemiological and demographic data, can be used to inform investment cases, strategic plans, and other budgeting exercises. One of the strengths of this study is that the data analyzed are the result of a unique collaboration with the LINKAGES program in which all levels of the LINKAGES program made data available. The study also benefited from the underlying costing frameworks we developed for each country which mapped out activities and associated inputs and outputs and captured all the activities undertaken at all levels of program implementation.

The following limitations should be kept in mind when considering our findings. We used allocation weights based on staff time allocation to allocate above-service level costs to DICs, to allocate indirect input costs to clinical services, and to allocate unspecified costs to LINKAGES program areas. Staff time allocation in our study was based on self-reported time which can be less reliable when staff activities are irregular [31]. We were unable to use time motion direct observation which is generally viewed as the gold standard though this method is not without limitations (i.e., bias from the observer effect) [31, 55]. Confidentiality concerns in settings with significant stigma, discrimination, and violence against KPs as well as resource constraints made it impossible for us to directly observe staff providing services to KPs. One possibility for future studies on the cost of KP services might be to use text messaging to collect information on current activity for a representative sample of providers, days, and hours. Another limitation was that no information was available on the outputs for peer outreach, structural interventions, KP empowerment, for example, and the overlap between these outputs and the outputs of each of the clinical services. An additional challenge was that we used routine monitoring data to capture information on outputs. Though the LINKAGES program had a reasonably robust system for data reporting and verification, the level of detail, quality, and completeness of routine data varied across IPs and DICs. The documentation of donated goods also varied across IPs and DICs and some misreporting of in-kind contributions is possible. Finally, we acknowledge that this study focuses on the costs of services provided to KPs as part of the LINKAGES program in Kenya and Malawi and we do not capture the costs of any referrals from DICs to public health facilities. Similarly, we do not capture information on the costs of HIV services provided to KPs who access services directly from public health facilities.

A better understanding of the cost of HIV services is highly relevant for budgeting and planning purposes and for optimizing HIV services. This descriptive analysis of the costs of HIV services for KPs in Kenya and Malawi shows that when considering all service delivery costs of a comprehensive HIV service package for KPs, costs of services can be significantly higher than when considering direct clinical service costs alone. These estimates can be used to inform investment cases, strategic plans and other budgeting exercises in Kenya and Malawi. They can also be used to pressure test the cost of KP services used in planning and budgeting exercises in other countries where no similar data are available. Additional studies on the cost of comprehensive KP services are urgently needed.