PEPFAR reauthorization signing ceremony

Posted on July 30th, 2008 by joshbusby

As the global AIDS community prepares for the conference beginning Sunday in Mexico City, President Bush is signing the reauthorization bill for PEPFAR today. It has been named after Tom Lantos and Henry Hyde, Democratic and Republican members of Congress who passed away within the past year. When Elizabeth Dole attempted to name the bill for recently deceased Senator Jesse Helms, there was much backlash, given Helms’ early opposition in the 80’s and 90’s to AIDS spending, a disease he saw as a result of deviant behavior. Helms would go on to have a near deathbed conversion to support the cause of HIV/AIDS, at least in the developing world, but naming the bill after him would have been a bridge too far.

In any case, it is the Lantos and Hyde bill which includes authorization for $48bn for PEPFAR for 2009 (and, as I understand it, will require Congressional appropriation in the coming months). More than half of the money will have to go to treatment, but the restriction that 1/3 of the prevention money be spent on abstinence and fidelity programs has been lifted. Given that there were still more than 2.5 million new infections last year, the inadequate focus on prevention is troubling, as we have blogged about here and for which there is a new CGD blogpost.

The Washington Post has an interesting story on how the open-ended commitment to treatment is unprecedented in terms of U.S. foreign assistance. The article: “AIDS Funding Binds Longevity of Millions to U.S.: Open-Ended Commitment of Money Is Implied” is worth a read.

Foreign aid for health care has traditionally been used to put up buildings, buy equipment and train workers. Direct medical care of individuals was limited to one-time interventions such as vaccinations, emergency treatment after natural disasters, and curative treatments of limited duration for diseases such as tuberculosis or leprosy.

Bush’s program is fundamentally different. So far, it has purchased vast quantities of antiretroviral drugs and supported day-to-day medical care for more than 1.4 million people whose survival depends on continued treatment.

“It is the first time I can think of where we have foreign aid treating a chronic disease,” said Michael H. Merson, director of Duke University’s Global Health Institute and a former head of the World Health Organization’s AIDS office. “It’s a challenge to take this on. I think the questions it raises are going to be important ones for the future.”

We have a moral obligation to continue treatment for those who are on it already. Taking someone off treatment who is on it would constitute a death sentence. However, unless we really put much more emphasis on prevention, the treatment budget is going to continue to grow.

For our readers out there, I know that ARV therapy in the West has enabled people to live an indefinite amount of time. In developing countries, my understanding is that donors are extending ARV to people, for the most part, who are already very sick, meaning that treatment, on average, only extends people’s lives for years, maybe 3-5 years. However, we don’t actually have that many years of experience with people on treatment in developing countries so I wonder if those averages are being extended. For people who have experience administering these programs, we would welcome comments and feedback about how this is carried out in practice. I wonder if those worried about this “entitlement” have incorporated into their estimates of future costs that a good proportion of the people donors have “saved” will die in the coming years.

From a moral perspective, the important thing is that the lives of people on treatment are extended, giving them more hope for the future. They can hope they are among those who exceed the average and at the very least, they’ll have more time with their children before.

2 Comments »
Filed under: Politics and Policy

Senate moves on PEPFAR Reauthorization

Posted on July 14th, 2008 by joshbusby

The Senate voted 65-3 on a cloture motion on PEPFAR reauthorization last Friday. Here’s a story in today’s Times about PEPFAR reauthorization. More details on Kaiser.

Looks like Sen. Jim Demint made an ass of himself before his colleagues on Friday when he insisted on a Friday evening procedural vote on cloture and then didn’t show up. He called for cutting the bill’s pricetag down to $35bn.

In so doing, he likely ensured that the full $50 billion gets appropriated (which was more than what the President wanted). The bill no longer has a mandate that 55% of funding be spent on treatment (which was part of the previous PEPFAR authorizing language and what the bloc of holdout Senators wanted). The legislation leaves it a little vague and says more than half will be spent on treatment.

While this is good news, the bill hasn’t passed yet. Debate is this week. Republicans are offering a series of amendments to try to divert the spending for domestic purposes.

Here is an excerpt on Demint’s gift to his colleagues.

After finally breaking a procedural logjam, the Senate this week will move ahead with a $50 billion AIDS initiative that has the support of Democrats, Republicans and the White House. It would seem like a sure bet - except for Senator Jim DeMint.

Mr. DeMint, a Republican from South Carolina, forced the Senate last week to take a rare Friday evening procedural vote in order to begin debate on the legislation that seeks to step up AIDS treatment and prevention efforts in Africa, Asia and elsewhere. He then missed the vote he had instigated, provoking scattered boos from the floor – an occurrence more typical of the House than the Senate.

In one of the chief challenges to the AIDS bill, Mr. DeMint is scheduled to offer a proposal to reduce the five-year cost of the legislation to $35 billion. He has complained that Democrats were unfairly trying to limit efforts to change the bill. Given that both Republicans and Democrats were very unhappy with his decision to force them to take a Friday vote he then missed, it is hard to envision a successful outcome for his proposal.

No Comments »
Filed under: Politics and Policy

Global health reporting

Posted on June 2nd, 2008 by joshbusby

The Kaiser Family Foundation (supported by the Gates Foundation) hosts this site of news sources on global health, including upcoming events. I will add to the blogroll but here is the link to globalhealthreporting.org.

1 Comment »
Filed under: Resources

Japan announces $560mn contribution to the Global Fund

Posted on May 31st, 2008 by joshbusby

In advance of the Hokkaido G8 summit in July, Japan just announced last week a new contribution to the Global Fund of $560mn, spread out over an unspecified period of years. This is the second reasonably large pledged contribution from Japan since then Prime Minister Koizumi pledged $500mn back in 2005. Here is summary from the Kaiser Foundation’s news archive:

Japan on Friday announced that it had pledged $560 million to the Global Fund To Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria, AFP/Google.com reports. Prime Minister Yasuo Fukuda said the funds will be allocated “in the coming years” from 2009, but he did not specify over how many years the aid will be disbursed. A foreign ministry official said that the pledge aims to “demonstrate Japan’s diplomatic efforts to help Africa” as Japan prepares to host an internal conference on aid to the continent next week, as well as the Group of Eight industrialized nations summit in July. According to AFP/Google.com, Japan hopes to make Africa a primary focus while it chairs the G8.

The Japanese appear to be wanting to make a big splash at the upcoming G8 meeting. These summits seem to occasions in which international donors like to fall over themselves to make grand promises. Germany did something similar last year when it hosted the G8 Summit. Campaigners have done a good job making global health a popular development cause, and this may prove to be a more politically tractable issue for the Japanese to garner international prestige compared to climate change, which has been touted as another signature issue for the Japanese at the upcoming G8 meeting (lots of luck there with the Bush Administration!).

Japan’s changing position on international AIDS funding is interesting. They have lagged behind other contributors, as I’ve written about here. They are just coming out of a long recession, during which Japan’s ODA contributions declined dramatically. Anybody with an inside story of these transformations in Japan’s approach to global AIDS funding (which still seems largely directed multilaterally rather than bilaterally like other donors) should e-mail me.

I have written on the particular salience of international cooperation for the Japanese in my piece on debt relief that came out in International Studies Quarterly last year. On the issue of AIDS, the Japanese appear to be particularly proud that the idea for the Global Fund came out of a meeting hosted in Japan by Prime Minister Mori in 2000. I also have a draft manuscript on the politics of HIV/AIDS donors that I’ve been working on for about three years. Get in touch if either piece is of interest.

As promising as this change in Japan’s policy promises to be, there is some concern in the advocacy community about the ambiguous time frame for when Japan will actually make good on its pledge. Japan’s move I understand may also signal a renewed concern from the donor community to address support for health systems, as I have previously supported here on this blog before (see here, here).

On that theme, Michael Reich and his co-authors have an important article in March 2008 Lancet on Japan opportunity to boost support for health systems at the upcoming G-8 Summit. They write:

The G8 summit in Toyako offers Japan, as the host government, a special opportunity to influence collective action on global health. At the last G8 summit held in Japan, the Japanese government launched an effort to address critical infectious diseases, from which a series of disease-specific programmes emerged. This year’s summit provides another chance to catalyse global action on health, this time with a focus on health systems.

However, as optimistic as they are about this emerging direction of the donor community, it is unclear if anybody actually knows how to build health systems. It seems like the record on this may be as poor as the one on broader development and good governance. Reich et al. write:

What can be done when a health system is broken—ie, when a health system is unable to deliver its services effectively, or efficiently, or fairly? Governments around the world (in both rich and poor countries) have struggled with this question for decades. One conclusion is clear: there are no easy solutions to the problems that arise in health systems. National efforts aimed at reforming such systems have achieved mixed results.

The mechanics and politics of health systems support requires much greater development. The U.S. Congress, for example, strongly supports treatment programs in part because you can scale up quickly, in part with American contractors, and track the number of people on drugs. How can you judge success in health systems capacity? It’s not, as Reich et al. note, just a function of training doctors and counting them up. This is a huge task, and one that foreigners may fail at markedly, particularly in places where the quality of governance is so bad.  I think this is why Senator Coburn, as short-sighted as his logic may be, wants to support treatment so heavily as part of PEPFAR. From his perspective, money spent on health systems will get siphoned off in ways that ultimately don’t generate capacity, only graft and consultancy fees.

One interesting question is how can islands of excellence be established? I’m reading Tracy Kidder’s account of Paul Farmer’s clinics in Haiti. Certainly, some people have more success than others in building local capacity. Are these scale-able? We’ll certainly revisit this topic.

No Comments »
Filed under: Politics and Policy

PEPFAR Reauthorization in Danger

Posted on May 14th, 2008 by joshbusby

Just when it looked like PEPFAR would be reauthorized and that Congress would appropriate even more money than the president asked for, seven Senators, led by Tom Coburn of Oklahoma (along with Jim DeMint, Jeff Sessions, Saxby Chambliss, David Vitter, Jim Bunning, Richard Burr), have placed a hold on the bill, dramatically reducing the chances that it will pass this Congress. A hold is an obscure procedure in the U.S. Senate that enables any Senator to stop a bill that they do not like by preventing it from coming to the floor.

Michael Gerson, Bush’s former speechwriter, flagged this egregious action to set up an internal Republican dispute. As Gerson notes, Coburn objects that more of PEPFAR money is being spent on things other than treatment.

The seven, led by Coburn, complain that the reauthorization is too costly. They object to “mission creep” — the funding of “food, water, treatment of other infectious diseases, gender empowerment programs, poverty alleviation programs” — as though people surviving on AIDS treatment do not need to eat, work or get their TB treated.

They want 55% by law to be spent on treatment (which was how the first PEPFAR authorization worked) but this is stupid, as we’re not succeeding on prevention, meaning that more and more people are getting HIV and ultimately needing treatment. As Gerson writes:

Given that there are about 2.5 new HIV infections for every person starting on AIDS drugs, there is no way to control the pandemic through treatment alone. And because treatment is less expensive than it used to be, PEPFAR is meeting its treatment goal for less money. The 55 percent treatment floor would force the program to waste money in pursuit of an arbitrary, nonsensical spending target — the worst kind of congressional earmark.

You may want to give Coburn and company an earful about this nonsense. The ONE campaign has a letter to sign here. Direct contact info is available here.

UPDATE: Here is part of Coburn’s response where he rails against Gerson, touts his own credentials as a physician who has cared for AIDS patients and a consistent champion of HIV/AIDS programs. What he seems to be worried about is that the absence of a directive that 55% of PEPFAR money be spent on treatment will result in the program spending more money on consultants rather than services. I’m not sure if those funding directives are the best or only way to ensure that problem doesn’t occur.

Part of Gerson’s moral outrage is focused on my controversial stance that AIDS treatment dollars be spent on treatment. I want to preserve PEPFAR’s original formula that sends at least 55 percent of all dollars to AIDS treatment so widows and orphans and actual patients, not program officers and consultants, will be the primary beneficiaries of the program. This formula is made all the more important because the new authorization calls for a three-fold increase in funding from $15 billion over five years to $50 billion over five years. Moreover, this smart and well-designed policy, which Gerson once supported but now scorns, is a major reason why PEPFAR has been a Marshall Plan-like response, rather than a Katrina-like response, to the AIDS crisis in Africa.

Gerson’s determination to critique not just our policy concerns but our morality suggests that he is viewing this debate as proxy battle in the broader struggle in the Republican Party between what he views as “seedy” or “anti-government” conservatism and the “compassionate” conservatism he helped shape in the White House. That’s a broader debate that I welcome.

I don’t see a coherent answer to Gerson’s concern about prevention. I suppose that with an increased budget there would be enough money for treatment and prevention, even with the 55% limit, but 55% seems like an arbitrary Congressional mandate.

4 Comments »
Filed under: Politics and Policy

The AIDS Entitlement Crisis?

Posted on May 7th, 2008 by joshbusby

Mead Over of the Center of Global Development has a new paper, identifying a problem I wrote about before (see here). Unless the U.S. government gets a handle on AIDS prevention, the extension of ARV therapy will consume a larger and larger share of U.S. foreign assistance. In effect, we have created an external entitlement for foreigners. In the worst case scenario, a disruption in our funding would consign those people to death. Right now, the political support for sustained and increased spending is strong. However, as the pricetag rises for an ever larger population of people sick enough to need ARVs, the U.S. government needs a new commitment to prevention strategies. Over emphasizes the importance of male circumcision, as I have recently in a CSIS op-ed. Here is the abstract of Over’s paper:

U.S. global AIDS spending is helping to prolong the lives of more than a million people and is widely seen as a foreign policy and humanitarian success. Yet this success contains the seeds of a future crisis. Life-long treatment costs are increasing as those on treatment live longer, and the number of new HIV infections continues to outpace the number of people receiving treatment. Escalating treatment costs coupled with neglected prevention measures threaten to squeeze out U.S. spending on other global health needs, even to the point of consuming half of the entire U.S. foreign assistance budget by 2016.

This paper describes the dimensions of these problems and argues that the United States has unwittingly created a new global “entitlement” to U.S.-funded AIDS treatment that currently costs about $2 billion per year and could grow to as much as $12 billion a year by 2016— more than half of what the United States spent on total overseas development assistance in 2006. And the AIDS treatment entitlement would continue to grow, squeezing out spending on HIV prevention measures or on other critical development needs, all of which would be considered “discretionary” by comparison.

Over suggests ways to substantially restructure the President’s Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief (PEPFAR) in order to avert a crisis in which Americans would have to choose among indefinitely increasing foreign assistance spending on an entitlement, eliminating half of other foreign aid programs, or withdrawing the medicine that millions of people depend upon to stay alive. His suggestions include consolidating treatment success and leveraging treatment for prevention by making the extension of further AIDS treatment financing conditional on success in both treatment adherence and prevention outreach; shifting to a focus on prevention by underwriting male circumcision efforts and expanding HIV testing and counseling for couples more so than for individuals; and intensifying the effects of
prevention interventions by mapping high risk locations and targeting them with tailor-made prevention programs.

1 Comment »
Filed under: Politics and Policy

New Op-ed on male circumcision and HIV Prevention

Posted on March 4th, 2008 by joshbusby

Over at the CSIS Africa Policy Forum, I have a new op-ed on male circumcision and HIV prevention. Here are some excerpts:

In the past few years, clinical trials in Kenya, Uganda, and South Africa confirmed that male circumcision (MC) reduces the risk of transmission of HIV infection by approximately 60%.

In its Fourth Annual Report, the program [PEPFAR] announced that it had allocated $16 million in fiscal year 2007 for MC activities, up from $600,000 the year before. In FY 2008, funding may rise to $30 million.

The average cost to circumcise an individual has been estimated to be about $50. Thus, the $16 million for FY 2007 could be providing services to large numbers of people. Even assuming high start-up costs for training and administration, if only a quarter of these resources were dedicated to actual service delivery, that would still mean that more than 80,000 men could have received MC services by now. Unfortunately, while PEPFAR does a good job counting the number of individuals on anti-retroviral treatment, analogous data for circumcision services are not available. However, there is concern among experts and observers in the field that the number of people who have received MC services to date through PEPFAR is very, very low – probably fewer than 2,000.

A large part of the problem is that there are simply not a sufficient number of trained professionals nor properly equipped facilities to safely carry out the circumcision surgery for the large numbers of people who might request it. More worrisome still is the concern that MC funds are not being dedicated to organizations with the most experience and/or capacity to train people to carry out the procedure. In some cases, funds may be targeted to social marketing of the procedure and to encouraging local populations to support MC, without sufficient investment in the actual capacity and infrastructure necessary to meet that demand.

Male circumcision offers the same sort of compounded benefit that most effective vaccines offer to populations – herd immunity. As more men are circumcised, not only is their own risk of acquiring HIV reduced, but their current and future partners and their partners’ partners also are at lower risk.

While concerns about cultural acceptance should inform where and when MC services are provided, the main problem holding back the wider availability of such services appears to be supply, not demand. If training and infrastructure are the primary barriers to more expansive rollout of MC services, then it is incumbent on PEPFAR, now undergoing reauthorization before Congress, as well as on other donors, to respond. They need to do a better job channeling funding to those purposes and to implementing organizations that can translate support into effective service provision. To miss the potential of MC through squandered resources, oversensitivity to cultural concerns , and ineffective programming will only prolong the tragedy of HIV/AIDS in Africa.

No Comments »
Filed under: Politics and Policy

Compromise on PEPFAR Reauthorization

Posted on February 29th, 2008 by joshbusby

It looks like a bipartisan compromise on PEPFAR reauthorization has been reached which will do several things:

(1) provide even more money than President Bush asked for (which already represented a doubling over the previous five year program)

(2) ease the rules and restrictions that directed a portion of prevention money to abstinence, and

(3) invest in the training of more than a 140,000 health care workers.

These are all good things. Here is an excerpt from the Times editorial:

The House Foreign Affairs Committee this week approved a bipartisan compromise, crafted in negotiations between House leaders and the White House, that would authorize a hefty $50 billion over the next five years to support campaigns against AIDS, tuberculosis and malaria. This represents a huge increase over the $19 billion appropriated in the first five years of the program and a significant increase over the new funding requested by President Bush. The president had originally proposed $30 billion over five years, primarily to fight AIDS, whereas the new bill would authorize perhaps $37 billion to $41 billion to the AIDS struggle.

In one farsighted move, money will be used to train some 144,000 new health care workers over the next five years to care for people infected with H.I.V., the virus that causes AIDS. That is at best a start on easing the severe shortage of health care workers in the developing world, which some estimates peg in the millions.

The most troublesome ideological constraint on the program — a requirement that one-third of the funds used for prevention services be spent on abstinence education — has been greatly eased…. It requires countries to report if abstinence and fidelity funding falls below a certain percentage, but it sets no firm percentage that has to be met.

No Comments »
Filed under: Politics and Policy

Uganda begins production of $9 per month ARVs

Posted on February 1st, 2008 by Ben

From the KaiserNetwork.org

A pharmaceutical plant in Uganda this week will begin production of generic antiretroviral drugs following an order from the Ugandan
government for drugs worth 17 billion Ugandan shillings, or about $10 million, the East African Business Week reports (Etyang, East African Business Week, 1/28).

Ugandan President Yoweri Museveni in October 2007 commissioned the 15-acre pharmaceutical plant, which will produce triple-therapy combination antiretroviral and first-line malaria treatments. Ugandan pharmaceutical importer Quality Chemical Industries and Indian
pharmaceutical company Cipla will produce the drugs. The factory will manufacture the antiretroviral combination therapy Triomune, which contains lamivudine, stavudine and nevirapine. In addition, the factory will produce the first-line antimalarial combination treatment Lumartem, which contains artemisinin and lumefantrin (Kaiser Daily HIV/AIDS Report, 11/26/07)…

…According to the Business Week, about 100,000 Ugandans currently have access to no-cost antiretroviral treatment, but about
238,000 people in the country are expected to need the drugs by 2012. In 2005, about 42% of people in need of antiretrovirals had access to them, according to statistics (East African Business Week, 1/28).

No Comments »
Filed under: Uncategorized

Life insurance for HIV+ in South Africa

Posted on January 28th, 2008 by Ben

I belatedly discovered podcasts in my final weeks in Mbarara (Uganda) last December.  Two series, PRI radio programs on Health and Technology, have short stories that may interest readers.  The Health coverage includes a subset of HIV-specific podcasts.

One story from March 2007 reported on the new life insurance market for HIV+ residents in South Africa signaling a dramatic shift in access to HIV treatment. Interestingly, life insurance can be one requirement for securing a home mortgage.  According to the report, until recently without a life insurance policy, even well-off HIV+ individuals would have had a more difficult time trying to buy a home.

2 Comments »
Filed under: Uncategorized

Next Page »
Protected by Akismet • Blog with WordPress