Featured news from NHIVNA
HIV-related news from NAM
Local spending on HIV prevention in England plunges to 70p per person, per year
Roger Pebody, 2015-02-24 18:00:00
HIV prevention in England is underfunded and deprioritised, says the National AIDS Trust (NAT). Whereas £55 million was allocated to local activities in 2001-02, the figure for high-prevalence areas in 2014-15 was just over £10 million – which works out as just 70p (US$1) per person, per year. The charity says that this level of spending is unlikely to have any impact on the rate of new infections.
While NAT only analysed spending on local activities, it has also become clear that England's national HIV prevention programme’s budget will be cut. This programme is HIV Prevention England (HPE), funded by central government, with activities carried out by Terrence Higgins Trust and several dozen partner organisations, including NAM.
Speaking at the HPE conference last week, Rosemary Gillespie of Terrence Higgins Trust confirmed that the programme’s £2.4 million annual budget would be halved to £1.2 million. While protests against news of the cut appear to have pushed the government into committing itself to maintaining £2.4 million as the total budget for national HIV prevention activities, only half of this sum will go to the HIV Prevention England programme in 2015-16.
There is no clarity over what the remaining money will be spent on, whether new activities will be supported or when the decision will be announced. Kay Orton of the Department of Health told the conference that it has yet to be decided how the overall funding will be used.
Returning to the local situation, NAT’s report focused on the 58 local authorities with a high prevalence of HIV (where there are two or more people living with diagnosed HIV per 1000 people). Spending in the 94 lower prevalence areas was not counted, but is unlikely to be substantial.
Public health officials were asked for information on spending on health promotion services targeting people who are HIV negative (‘primary HIV prevention’) and which are delivered outside sexual health clinics. They were also asked for information on HIV testing services provided outside sexual health clinics. As well as funding by local authorities themselves, when the HIV Prevention England programme funded locally delivered activities (such as outreach or community testing), this was included. Of note, spending was not counted on STI or HIV treatment services, harm reduction services for people who use drugs, generic condom distribution programmes or support services for people with HIV.
Gathering the data was difficult. Some local authorities gave very full accounts of their HIV prevention work, while others provided very little information or could not separate their HIV prevention budget from those of other activities.
Source:1
