Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2023 May;35(5):714-718.
doi: 10.1080/09540121.2021.1995838. Epub 2021 Nov 27.

4th Generation HIV screening in the emergency department: net profit or loss for hospitals?

Affiliations

4th Generation HIV screening in the emergency department: net profit or loss for hospitals?

Martin Hoenigl et al. AIDS Care. 2023 May.

Abstract

ABSTRACTThe objective of this study was to determine hospital costs and revenue of universal opt-out HIV ED screening. An electronic medical record (EMR)-directed, automated ED screening program was instituted at an academic medical center in San Diego, California. A base model calculated net income in US dollars for the hospital by comparing annual testing costs with reimbursements using payor mixes and cost variables. To account for differences in payor mixes, testing costs, and reimbursement rates across hospitals in the US, we performed a probabilistic sensitivity analysis. The base model included a total of 12,513 annual 4th generation HIV tests with the following payor mix: 18% Medicare, 9% MediCal, 28% commercial and 8% self-payers, with the remainder being capitated contracts. The base model resulted in a net profit for the hospital. In the probabilistic sensitivity analysis, universal 4th generation HIV screening resulted in a net profit for the hospital in 81.9% of simulations. Universal 4th generation opt-out HIV screening in EDs resulted in a net profit to an academic hospital. Sensitivity analysis indicated that ED HIV screening results in a net-profit for the majority of simulations, with higher proportions of self-payers being the major predictor of a net loss.

Keywords: HIV; cost analysis; emergency department; insurance; testing.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

MH, CJC, JB, TCSM and SJL reported grant funding from Gilead Sciences, Inc. SJL has also received funding for consulting from Gilead Sciences, Inc. All other authors have no conflicts.

References

    1. Altman D, & Beatrice DF (1990). Perspectives on the Medicaid program. Health care financing review, Spec No(Suppl), 2–5. Retrieved from https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/10113494 https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4195152/ - PMC - PubMed
    1. Branson BM, Handsfield HH, Lampe MA, Janssen RS, Taylor AW, Lyss SB, & Clark JE (2006). Revised recommendations for HIV testing of adults, adolescents, and pregnant women in health-care settings. MMWR Recomm Rep, 55(Rr-14), 1–17; quiz CE11–14. - PubMed
    1. Bush H, Gerber LH, Stepanova M, Escheik C, & Younossi ZM (2018). Impact of healthcare reform on the payer mix among young adult emergency department utilizers across the United States (2005–2015). Medicine (Baltimore), 97(49), e13556. doi:10.1097/md.0000000000013556 - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Chaillon A, Hoenigl M, Freitas L, Feldman H, Tilghman W, Wang L, … Mehta SR (2020). Optimizing Screening for HIV. Open Forum Infect Dis, 7(2), ofaa024. doi:10.1093/ofid/ofaa024 - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Dijkstra M, Lin TC, de Bree GJ, Hoenigl M, & Schim van der Loeff MF (2020). Validation of the San Diego Early Test Score for Early Human Immunodeficiency Virus Infection Among Amsterdam Men Who Have Sex With Men. Clin Infect Dis, 70(10), 2228–2230. doi:10.1093/cid/ciz895 - DOI - PMC - PubMed

Publication types