Policy- and county-level associations with HIV pre-exposure prophylaxis use, the United States, 2018

PURPOSE:HIV pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP) is highly efficacious, and yet most individuals indicated for it are not currently using it. To provide guidance for health policymakers, researchers, and community advocates, we developed county-level PrEP use estimates and assessed locality and policy associations. METHODS:Using data from a national aggregator, we applied a validated crosswalk procedure to generate county-level estimates of PrEP users in 2018. A multilevel Poisson regression explored associations between PrEP use and (1) state policy variables of Medicaid expansion and state Drug Assistance Programs (PrEP-DAPs) and (2) county-level characteristics from the U.S. Census Bureau. Outcomes were PrEP per population (prevalence) and PrEP-to-need ratio (PnR), defined as the ratio of PrEP users per new HIV diagnosis. Higher levels of PrEP prevalence or PnR indicate more PrEP users relative to the total population or estimated need, respectively. RESULTS:Our 2018 county-level data set included a total of 188,546 PrEP users in the United States. Nationally, PrEP prevalence was 70.3/100,000 population and PnR was 4.9. In an adjusted model, counties with a 5% higher proportion of black residents had 5% lower PnR (rate ratio (RR): 0.95, 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.93, 0.96). Similarly, counties with higher concentration of residents uninsured or living in poverty had lower PnR. Relative to states without Medicaid expansion or PrEP-DAPs, states with only one of those programs had 25% higher PrEP prevalence (RR: 1.25, 95% CI: 1.09, 1.45), and states with both programs had 99% higher PrEP prevalence (RR: 1.99, 95% CI: 1.60, 2.48). There was a significant linear trend across the three policy groups, and similar findings for the relation between PnR and the policy groups. CONCLUSIONS:In a data set comprising approximately 80% of PrEP users in the United States, we found that Medicaid expansion and PrEP-DAPs were associated with higher PrEP use in states that adopted those policies, after controlling for potential confounders. Future research should identify which components of PrEP support programs have the most success and how to best promote PrEP among groups most impacted by the epidemic. States should support the admirable health decisions of their residents to get on PrEP by implementing policies that facilitate access.