Ashman J; AcademyHealth. Meeting (2004 : San Diego, Calif.).
Abstr AcademyHealth Meet. 2004; 21: abstract no. 1261.
DHHS/HRSA, HIV/AIDS Bureau Office of Science and Epidemiology, 5600 Fishers Lane, Room 7-90, Parklawn Building, Rockville, MD 20857 Tel. 301.443.4364 Fax 301.594.2511
RESEARCH OBJECTIVE: To examine whether the characteristics of and clients served by Ryan White Title III agencies that were funded by the Minority AIDS Initiative were different from other Title III agencies. STUDY DESIGN: The Means procedure in SPSS as well as Standard chi-square tests, when appropriate, were used to test for statistically significant differences (p<0.05) between the characteristics of and clients served by organizations receiving MAI funding with those agencies that did not receive MAI funding. POPULATION STUDIED: Data are from the 2002 CARE Act Data Report, a required annual report for agencies receiving funding through the Ryan White Comprehensive AIDS Resources Emergency (CARE) Act. The 415 Title III agencies, all of which provide comprehensive primary health care services for individuals living with HIV disease, were divided into two groups, those that received funding through the Minority AIDS Initiative (MAI) (n=109) and those that did not (n=306). Congress established the MAI in 1999 in response to both the disproportionate impact of the HIV epidemic in minority communities and the disparities in documented morbidity and mortality data for African American persons with HIV/AIDS. The MAI was implemented as part of the existing Title III program and used to expand Title III funding to organizations serving communities of color in order to increase access to HIV primary care for highly impacted and/or underserved communities. PRINCIPAL FINDINGS: MAI-funded agencies were 1.5 times more likely to be located in the Southeast (34% vs. 20%) and Midwest (12% and 8%) and half as likely to be located in the Northeast, Northwest, Rocky Mountain, and Plains states (8% and 22%). They were equally likely to be located in CA, NJ, NY, and the Mid-Atlantic States. They were more likely to be publicly-funded community health centers (47% vs. 29%) and less likely to be hospitals (18% vs. 32%). Twice as many of the MAI funded agencies (56% vs. 27%) had over 50% of their staff and board members who were members of minority groups. The size of the agency, as measured by the number of HIV positive clients served, was the same for both groups. However, a larger percentage of patients at MAI-funded agencies were new HIV positive patients (an average of 33% of patients vs. 27%) and African American patients (an average of 56% of patients vs. 39%), and a smaller percentage of patients were White (on average 29% of patients vs. 45%) and male (on average 65% of patients vs. 69%). CONCLUSIONS: The Minority AIDS Initiative is a success. On average, they are reaching a larger percentage of new HIV patients as well as a larger percentage of African American patients than other Title III agencies, suggesting that they may be better equipped to outreach to these groups. IMPLICATIONS FOR POLICY, DELIVERY OR PRACTICE: The MAI is reaching and providing quality care to African American patients living in areas that are disproportionately impacted by the HIV epidemic, and Congress should continue to earmark part of the Ryan White CARE Act Title III appropriation to this worthwhile program.
Publication Types:
Keywords:
- Acquired Immunodeficiency Syndrome
- African Americans
- Budgets
- Comprehensive Health Care
- Delivery of Health Care
- Disease Outbreaks
- Financial Management
- Government Agencies
- HIV Infections
- HIV Seropositivity
- Health Services Needs and Demand
- Humans
- Male
- Minority Groups
- Research
- United States Health Resources and Services Administration
- economics
- hsrmtgs
UI: 103624295
From Meeting Abstracts