The Global Pulse Journal Blog

Today’s post continues to explore the debate over U.S. contribution to funding for combating global AIDS. It features contributions by Anand Reddi, author of the article highlighted earlier (United States global health policy: HIV/AIDS, maternal and child health, and The President’s Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief).  A former Fulbright Scholar, Anand serves on the board of directors of the AIDS Healthcare Foundation, and is a student at the University of Colorado School of Medicine.

In a recent article on Huffington Post, Dr. Ezekiel J. Emanuel, special advisor for health policy in the OMB, defends the Obama Administration’s decision to shift some of the funding away from successful AIDS treatment efforts:

This comprehensive and integrated approach is what the President’s Global Health Initiative is all about. It recognizes that we can’t treat our way out of the HIV-AIDS epidemic. The key to ending it is to reduce the number of those who become HIV-positive in the long-term – and that takes improving their overall health and the health systems around them. After all, patients don’t come to doctors with one disease or condition, and our response shouldn’t focus on one as well.

Dr. Emanuel writes in response to widespread criticism of the Obama Administration during the International AIDS Conference in Vienna, as well as to the July 20^th New York Times op-ed by Archbishop Desmond Tutu, who writes:

During my life, I’ve witnessed amazing advances in medical science. New treatments turn H.I.V. infection from a death sentence to a manageable illness. The cost of treating it is a small fraction of what it was 10 years ago. Meanwhile, more and more African nations have invested in the public health infrastructure needed to distribute AIDS drugs. I appreciate that tough financial times require the United States government to cut spending. But scaling back America’s financial commitments to AIDS programs could wipe away decades of progress in Africa.

Anand Reddi responds on Huffington Post and specifically counters the argument that “we can’t treat our way out” of the epidemic:

Results by Dr. Julio Montaner published in The Lancet demonstrated that provision of antiretroviral therapy in British Columbia halved the rate of new infections. The Economist writes the study by Montaner is “the strongest confirmation yet that treatment and prevention are two sides of the same coin.”  Treating our way out is indeed possible.  In our recent article in AIDS, Sarah Leeper and I demonstrated the unique dynamic-reciprocal relationship that HIV/AIDS, TB, and Malaria have on maternal and child health and vice-versa in the resource limited setting. I salute Dr. Emanuel for forwarding the dialogue on global health and advocating for comprehensive, integrated, cost-effective models of care that advance not just HIV/AIDS but other important health priorities including maternal and child health. Given that the provision of antiretroviral treatment can actually lead to prevention, eradication of new HIV infections is possible if the world community remains fully committed to funding cost-effective antiretroviral treatment initiatives.

Further reading:

• Anand Reddi’s previous article about AIDS funding on Huffington Post.
• The CID journal article by Rochelle Walensky and Daniel Kuritzkes, from the Center for AIDS Research at Harvard Medical School, that Archbishop Tutu references in his letter.

Is funding for global HIV/AIDS programs too “vertical”?  Faced with funding shortfalls, should donor countries put the brakes on AIDS funding in favor of other  initiatives, ones that propose to address a broader range of health problems?  This proposal has drawn the anger of AIDS activists the world over, and is now the subject of passionate debate in Vienna. Back home, two medical students examine the Obama Administration’s plan to let PEPFAR funding flatline while promoting a new Maternal and Child Health (MCH) initiative.  In a commentary published in AIDS, Sarah C. Leeper (Warren Alpert Medical School of Brown University) and Anand Reddi (University of Colorado School of Medicine) take on the claim one argument at a time:

The architects of the Obama administration’s Global Health Initiative recommend funding the Mother and Child Campaign at the expense of future funding increases for PEPFAR. The idea that differing global health initiativesmust compete with each other lacks not only ethical legitimacy but also scientific merit. Confronting illness in isolation – whether by funding PEPFAR at the expense of programs that targetMCH or vice versa – cannot be our way forward. Policies that de-emphasize PEPFAR threaten to undermine,rather than support, MCH in countries with high HIV/AIDS prevalence [PubMed; full-text].

The strongest scientific-journal rebuttal yet to the Obama Administration’s proposal to shift resources to maternal and child health at the expense of HIV/AIDS treatment scale up comes from two medical students, who in a commentary just published in AIDS make a clear and convincing case that such a move would actually undermine the health of women and children around the globe, not improve it.

UNAIDS estimates that the cost needed to continue global HIV treatment in 2009 will be about US$9 billion.

Related reading:

• Denny CC and Emanuel EJ. “US Health Aid Beyond PEPFAR: The Mother & Child Campaign.” (JAMA,  11/2008.)
• “At Front Lines, AIDS War Is Falling Apart” (NYTimes, 05/05/2010)
• “Donor AIDS” (The Lancet Student, 05/14/2010)
• Jennifer Weinberg’s post on the Administration’s effort to address global maternal, newborn, and child health needs (GP Blog, 06/17/2010)
• “Obama ‘hurt’ by AIDS funding criticism” (The Guardian, 06/21/2010)

From Science Speaks, an excellent blog from the staff of the Infectious Diseases Center for Global Health Policy, comes an interview with Dr. Eric Goosby, the U.S. Global AIDS ambassador.

Q: Roxana Rogers, USAID’s South Africa health team leader, said recently in South Africa that, “US government funding is going to come down dramatically over the next five years.” True?
Read the rest of this entry →