Flat Funding for AIDS: The Human Cost
Last July, activists lambasted the Obama administration and other rich countries at the International AIDS Conference in Vienna, claiming that the current flat funding of global AIDS programs breaks prior commitments to universal treatment and threatens the lives of millions of people with HIV. The Obama administration has defended its commitment to fight HIV, but close examination shows a flattening of resources just when more people have joined the waiting lists for treatment.
The Facts on Funding
According to UNAIDS, annual funding for AIDS from all sources slowly crept up in the 1990s, from only $200 million to $1 billion. In contrast, between 2000 and 2009, AIDS commitments increased dramatically, from $1.4 billion to nearly $16 billion a year less than half of which comes from rich country donors. But in 2009, donor commitments plateaued and disbursements actually dropped for the first time.
First, it's important to distinguish between donors' stated commitments and the actual money spent. During the past eight years there has been a $7.9 billion difference between the two!
On the campaign trail, Barack Obama, Joe Biden, and Hillary Clinton all pledged $50 billion for global AIDS over five years. That would have meant increasing AIDS spending by nearly $1.5 billion a year for five years. In 2008, the Lantos-Hyde Act reauthorizing PEPFAR (the President's Emergency Fund for AIDS Relief) approved at least $39 billion for HIV and another $9 billion for TB and malaria. That would have meant a $.6 billion increase each year, from $5.4 billion in 2010 to $8.4 billion in 2013. Instead, we have had steady-state funding at roughly $6 billion for three straight years and projections of near flat-funding for the next three years as well.
Based on these data, it is hard to understand how the Obama administration claims that it has not flat-lined global AIDS funding. True, in absolute dollar figures, overall funding has increased $300 million, or 5%, over a three-year period. But once we take into account inflation, the actual rate of funding is flat or worse. Activists contrast what is actually being delivered to the promises made during the 2008 Presidential campaign. Then, Obama's AIDS platform stated: "He has pledged to provide at least $50 billion by 2013 for the global fight against HIV/AIDS, including our fair share of the Global Fund, in order to at least double the number of HIV-positive people on treatment and continue to provide treatments to one-third of all those who desperately need them."
But the Obama administration's new health policies may cement a funding stranglehold. Earlier this year, President Obama announced his Global Health Initiative (GHI), which plans to expand U.S. funding for maternal and child health, sexual and reproductive health, neglected diseases, and overall health system strengthening. The GHI proposes $63 billion over six years, including $51 billion for AIDS, TB, and malaria. This works out to only $8.5 billion a year for all three diseases, instead of the $9.6 authorized by the Lantos-Hyde Act. A leaked report from administration sources projected total AIDS spending of only $37 billion over six years, guaranteeing that flat funding will continue. Fully funding PEFPAR (as opposed to Obama's flat budgets) would mean:
Why is the administration cranking back the fiscal faucet? After all, President Obama has announced a domestic national AIDS policy for the first time, and he is committed to the benign exercise of U.S. global power. Moreover, he has mounted such a vigorous defense of his policy -- with reports he is "hurt" by the criticism -- that it would appear he does care about global health justice.
The President may have his own misconceptions, but he is also being bombarded with disinformation. He is partially under the sway of neo-orthodox health policy wonks like White House advisor Zeke Emanuel, who espouses investing in lower-cost public health initiatives. Using the deadly tools of cost-efficiency, Emanuel and other health pundits like Mead Over, Bill Easterly, and Laurie Garrett consistently advise the President that he must avoid escalating investments in treatment and must instead prioritize HIV prevention. They argue that we should shift investments to cheaper child and maternal health programs and overall health system strengthening.
Prevention vs. Treatment
Suggesting a battle between prevention and treatment has been a long-standing mantra from certain public-health advocates, starting with the World Bank in the 1990s. You can't read an article about global AIDS without quotes from Bill Gates or Dr. Emanuel saying, "We can't treat our way out of this pandemic." Certainly, the U.S. needs to increase its investments in evidence-based, comprehensive prevention strategies that address the epidemic's structural, behavioral, and biological drivers. Certainly it should continue to spend a significant portion of its resources on comprehensive sex education, male and female condoms, promotion of delayed sexual initiation, partner reduction, circumcision, needle exchange, and new technologies like microbicides. But we must simultaneously continue the scale-up of treatment -- saving lives and achieving prevention goals are both important.
Behavioral changes are linked to people knowing their HIV status and receiving prevention counseling -- and the greatest incentive to HIV testing is the availability of treatment. Moreover, growing evidence shows that HIV treatment reduces transmission -- one study found that people in treatment were 92% less likely to transmit HIV to their spouses than those who were not. Community reductions in viral load are linked to reduced transmission in those communities. But despite this new evidence supporting treatment as prevention, the administration continues to assert that it must divert funding from treatment to its "neglected sister," prevention.
Pitting HIV against maternal and child health is equally irrational. AIDS is the leading cause of death of women of reproductive age worldwide and a leading cause of child mortality in Africa. By placing health needs in a cage of mortal combat, the administration is creating a false universe of fixed resources. Instead, women's access to HIV treatment and prevention of mother-to-child transmission should be linked with maternal health programs. Just as success in combating HIV and TB are linked, so too are public health campaigns that address neglected and noninfectious diseases. Expanding the health care workforce, strengthening health systems, and funding community-based programs will improve health outcomes across the board.
The President has also adopted the rhetoric of "country control" and "sustainability." When translated, these terms mean that the U.S. should get out of the funding game and focus on technical support -- that it should gradually reduce spending so that countries, no matter how poor, will eventually take over the fiscal burdens of prevention, treatment, and care. The President has been sold this canard because of the projected costs of future AIDS entitlements, which some cynically call the "treatment mortgage." Seeing the long line of people with HIV (34 million and counting) and the escalating costs of new first- and second-line regimens, foreign policy advisors assert that AIDS will eat up the whole health budget and that the
President will lose his ability to leverage U.S. influence through carefully managed, carrot-and-stick foreign aid. President Obama is steadfast in his pursuit of efficiency, due to the 2008 economic meltdown. Admittedly, there has been much inefficiency in U.S. AIDS programming. PEPFAR has had irrational prevention policies that emphasize abstinence-only messaging, require a mandatory anti-prostitution pledge, and ban needle exchange programs. The U.S. at first wasted money on expensive brand-name medicines, on high overhead and fees to consultants and non-governmental organizations, and on repetitive trainings. With new efficiencies, task-shifting in the health workforce, and lower costs for generic drugs, however, the per-person cost of treatment has fallen from more than $1,000 a year to around $400. Coupled with increased monies from the countries receiving PEPFAR funding, this allowed an additional 1.2 million people to begin treatment in 2009, despite donors' reneging on promised funding increases.
The most understandable defense of flat funding is the current fiscal crisis. Government revenues have plummeted and stimulus spending has added to the national debt. At some point, analysts argue, the books must be balanced and tough choices must be made to cut spending. Global AIDS Ambassador Eric Goosby and former President Bill Clinton have argued that some of those cuts will necessarily occur in the funding promised for PEPFAR.
Activists are not arguing that the financial crisis isn't real, but that it is ultimately political -- that where there is political will, there is a way. The U.S. still has a huge economy, a huge government budget, and multiple opportunities to change priorities. If the U.S. can find hundreds of billion of dollars for war efforts in Iraq and Afghanistan, $85 billion for the auto industry, and over a trillion dollars to bail out the financial industry, surely we can find a few extra billion dollars for global health and HIV.
This article was provided by ACRIA and GMHC. It is a part of the publication Achieve. Visit ACRIA's website and GMHC's website to find out more about their activities, publications and services.
Add Your Comment:
(Please note: Your name and comment will be public, and may even show up in
Internet search results. Be careful when providing personal information! Before
adding your comment, please read TheBody.com's Comment Policy.)