- Thomas, Marilyn D;
- Vittinghoff, Eric;
- Koester, Kimberly A;
- Dahiya, Priya;
- Riano, Nicholas S;
- Cournos, Francine;
- Dawson, Lindsey;
- Olfson, Mark;
- Pinals, Debra A;
- Crystal, Steven;
- Walkup, James;
- Shade, Starley;
- Mangurian, Christina;
- Arnold, Emily A
Background
People with schizophrenia experience unique barriers to routine HIV testing, despite increased risk of HIV compared with the general US population. Little is known about how health care delivery system factors affect testing rates or whether there are testing differences for people with schizophrenia.Setting
Nationally representative sample of Medicaid enrollees with and without schizophrenia.Methods
Using retrospective longitudinal data, we examined whether state-level factors were associated with differences in HIV testing among Medicaid enrollees with schizophrenia compared with frequency-matched controls during 2002-2012. Multivariable logistic regression estimated testing rate differences between and within cohorts.Results
Higher HIV testing rates for enrollees with schizophrenia were associated with higher state-level Medicaid spending per enrollee, efforts to reduce Medicaid fragmentation, and higher federal prevention funding. State-level AIDS epidemiology predicted more frequent HIV testing for enrollees with schizophrenia versus controls. Living in rural settings predicted lower HIV testing, especially for people with schizophrenia.Conclusion
Overall, state-level predictors of HIV testing rates varied among Medicaid enrollees, although rates were generally higher for those with schizophrenia than controls. Increased HIV testing for people with schizophrenia was associated with coverage of HIV testing when medically necessary, higher Centers for Disease Control and Prevention prevention funding, and higher AIDS incidence, prevalence, and mortality when compared with controls. This analysis suggests that state policymaking has an important role to play in advancing that effort. Overcoming fragmented care systems, sustaining robust prevention funding, and consolidating funding streams in innovative and flexible ways to support more comprehensive systems of care delivery deserve attention.