Tables A-E.

Table A. This table provides additional detail regarding the testing costs based on the type of testing performed at a site. Table B. This table provides additional detail on the average hours and wages of pre-test counseling, HIV antibody testing, and post-test counseling, by type of testing site (clinic, hospital or community based organization). Table C. This table illustrates the findings from the cost-effectiveness analysis when Western Blot test results are incorporated into the model. Targted testing continues to have a lower cost per transmission averted with an incremental cost ratio of $178,328. Table D. This table illustrates the findings from the cost-effectiveness analysis when Western Blot test results are incorporated into the model and sites are further stratified by type of testing site (clinic, hospital or community based organization). With the addition of Western Blot testing, clinic based testing had the highest cost per averted transmission, mostly likely due to the high labor costs. Table E. This table highlights the findings from a senstivity analysis which compared differing HIV tranmission rates by testing approach. The main cost effectiveness analysis of routine and targeted testings used a simple weighted average transmission rate for test takers of both routine and targeted testing, which is 2.72% (= 0 X 84% + 17 X 16%). However, newly identified persons living with HIV who underwent targeted testing may engage in risky behaviors more than those who tested through routine testing. Hence, in this table, we doubled the portion of people who engage in risky behaviors, and found a higher transmission rate of 5.44% (= 0 X 68% + 17 X 32%). When the portion of people with risky behaviors is doubled, the cost per averted transmission is $53,091, which is 57.1% higher than the previous cost effectiveness ratio for targeted testing. In this scenario, the targeted testing is still more cost effective than routine testing in Washington, DC. (DOCX)