Housing Works Response and Recommendations Regarding the National HIV/AIDS Strategy
August 2, 2010
Housing Works welcomes the introduction of the National HIV/AIDS Strategy for the United States (NHAS). We have been part of a long line of advocates and activists who have been fighting since before the 2008 election for a plan that addresses ending the domestic epidemic and are glad to see the work of the Office of National AIDS Policy (ONAP), community advocates and activists come to fruition. However, we would be remiss if we did not frankly address the notable limitations of the NHAS and discuss our concerns with both the Obama administration and the AIDS community.
Read an editorial by Housing Works' CEO Charles King about why the organization is speaking out about the plan.
One of the most jarring aspects of the NHAS is that the stated ambitions far outstrip the actual plan. The first page of the document is a vision statement that calls for a United States where "new HIV infections are rare and when they do occur, every person, regardless of age, gender, race/ethnicity, sexual orientation, gender identity, or socio-economic circumstance, will have unfettered access to high quality, life extending care, free from stigma and discriminations."
Yet the NHAS sets a modest target of reducing new infections by 25% by 2015 (from 56,300 to 42,225). In the best of circumstances, we would still have more than 267,000 new infections in this country over the next 5 years -- nobody's idea of "rare." According to ONAP staff these targets were "developed in consultation with the Federal HIV Interagency Working Group and reflect our collective judgments about what is achievable. These targets were set based on a review of current epidemiological trends, informed by research and mathematical modeling about the likely course of the epidemic. ... For the HIV incidence target, this was set against a backdrop of potentially increasing incidence, and in light of minimal progress toward lowering annual incidence rates during past efforts where a goal was set to cut HIV incidence in half." How can we be confident in the aggressiveness of these targets? We know, for example, that women and youth are under-represented in HIV research -- a point underscored by the fact that the NHAS itself does not call for research on either population.
The NHAS plan also does nothing to address an unprecedented AIDS Drug Assistance Program crisis that has left nearly 2,400 poor Americans with no access to treatment, let alone the "high-quality, life extending care" called for in the vision statement.
While there are many intelligent recommendations in the NHAS, these two high-profile examples are an unfortunate indicator of its overall lack of vision. The NHAS is a plan to manage the growth of the AIDS epidemic, not to end it. In particular, we believe that the strategy largely ignores one of the fundamental causes of the AIDS epidemic: poverty. The plan's failure to embrace well-documented structural interventions to cut the link between poverty, and homelessness in particular, and AIDS is all the more disappointing given that both the Centers for Disease Control and Obama's Federal Strategic Plan to Prevent and End Homelessness have recognized the critical importance of such interventions.
The NHAS is divided into four sections: 1) Reducing New HIV Infections; 2) Increasing Access to Care and Improving Health Outcomes for People Living with HIV; 3) Reducing HIV Related Disparities in Health Inequities; and 4) Achieving a More Coordinated National Response to the HIV Epidemic. Housing Works' response to the NHAS addresses each of these sections in turn.
1) Reducing New HIV Infections
Less than a week after the release of the NHAS, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention held a press conference at the International AIDS Conference to report on a first-of-its-kind analysis showing that 2.1 percent of heterosexuals living in high-poverty urban areas in the United States are infected with HIV. That astonishing statistic means that HIV is now a generalized epidemic in these poor communities and that all sexually active adults are at high risk of becoming infected. The analysis also shows that poverty is the single most important demographic factor associated with HIV infection among inner-city heterosexuals. Contrary to severe racial disparities that characterize the overall U.S. epidemic, researchers found no differences in HIV prevalence by race/ethnicity in this population. "These findings have significant implications for how we think about HIV prevention. We can't look at HIV in isolation from the environment in which people live," said Jonathan Mermin, M.D., director of CDC's Division of HIV/AIDS Prevention, at the press conference. "We need to address larger environmental issues, such as poverty, homelessness and substance abuse, which are well beyond the traditional scope of HIV intervention. Addressing those is as essential to HIV prevention as providing condoms."
Another researcher who participated in the study, Dr. Kevin Fenton, director of the CDC's National Center for HIV/AIDS, Viral Hepatitis, STD and TB Prevention, observed that, "There is also a growing recognition that to significantly reduce new HIV infection in the United States, we need to address the larger environmental and structural risk factors that fuel HIV, such as poverty, homelessness and substance abuse."
By far the most disappointing gap in the NHAS is the failure to acknowledge housing as an evidence-based prevention intervention. There is only one small reference to housing in the prevention section of the strategy.
Homelessness and unstable housing are linked to greater HIV risk, inadequate care, poor health outcomes and early mortality for people living with HIV/AIDS. The conditions of homelessness and extreme poverty -- the pressures of daily survival needs, the inability to maintain intimate relationships, and substance use as a response to stress and/or mental health problems -- leave homeless and unstably housed persons extremely vulnerable to HIV infection. It is projected that at least one-half of homeless persons in any community fall into one or more of the highest-risk categories. Moreover, proven HIV risk-reduction interventions are less effective among persons who are homeless or unstably housed.
The unique vulnerability to HIV infection of black women, persons of transgender experience, and formerly incarcerated persons (all mentioned in the NHAS), as well as street-involved youth (not mentioned in the NHAS) has been linked to housing instability, violence and other structural factors. We know that the rate of new infections among homeless persons has been found to be as much as 16 times the rate in the general population.
The Obama administration's own United States Interagency Council on Homelessness report Opening Doors: Federal Strategic Plan to Prevent and End Homelessness recognizes housing as an evidence-based, cost-effective HIV prevention intervention. According to Opening Doors, "Housing status has been identified as a key structural factor affecting access to treatment and health behaviors among people living with HIV/AIDS. Research shows that housing assistance is associated over time with reduced HIV risk behaviors and improved health care outcomes, controlling for a wide range of individual characteristics (poverty, race/ethnicity, substance abuse, mental illness) and service use (primary care, case management, substance abuse, and mental health treatment) variables. Housing assistance coupled with health care has been shown to decrease overall public expense and make better use of limited public resources, such as use of emergency rooms and hospitals." (Citing: Auerbach, J. 2009. Transforming social structures and environments to help in HIV prevention, Health Affairs, 28(6): 1655-1665.)
Likewise, the Opening Doors plan recognizes the high cost, in lives and money, of heightened HIV risk among homeless youth: "More needs to be known about the cost associated with youth homelessness. But we know that high rates of medical and behavioral health issues and incarceration are costly. These costs compound over a lifetime, as today's homeless youth become tomorrow's homeless adults, or when risky behaviors or sexual exploitation result in HIV infection."
However, the NHAS "recommended actions" for HIV prevention fail to acknowledge housing as an HIV prevention strategy. The plan simply recommends that, "Government agencies should fund and evaluate demonstration projects to test which combinations of effective interventions are cost-efficient, produce sustainable outcomes, and have the greatest impact on preventing HIV in specific communities." Structural factors such as housing are barely mentioned in the NHAS discussion of gaps in prevention knowledge and directions for future research. The U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development is not even included as a participating federal agency.
Therefore, the NHAS should:
The NASC recommends the development of goals to end the epidemic among injection drug users (IDUs). The NHAS does target IDUs as a priority population and includes access to sterile needles and syringes. Increasing the percentage of PLWHA who know their serostatus to 90% is the type of ambitious goal we would liked to have seen more of throughout the NHAS.
This article was provided by Housing Works. It is a part of the publication Housing Works AIDS Issues Update. Visit Housing Works' 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.)