Featured news from NHIVNA
HIV-related news from NAM
They say we can “end AIDS”, but who will pay for it?
Mara Kardas-Nelson, 2012-07-24 04:30:00
With leaders from Mark Dybul to Michel Sidibé to Hillary Clinton to Anthony Fauci all saying that "we can end AIDS", the question is, who will pay for it?
Speaking at a Monday session solely dedicated to financing the HIV response, experts from medical organisations, academia, UNAIDS and government stressed the need for increased financing while recognising that sustainability was key to ensuring a long-term and uninterrupted response.
International funding has been key to the massive scale-up of the HIV response: the President's Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief (PEPFAR) and the Global Fund to Fight HIV, Tuberculosis and Malaria alone account for the majority of the nearly 7 million people in low- and middle-income countries currently receiving antiretroviral (ARV) treatment. But given the global economic recession and "donor fatigue", international funding for HIV has flatlined in recent years.
Most notably, due to a significant financial shortfall, the Global Fund announced in November of last year that an expected funding round would not be launched, and that new money would only be available in 2014. According to Sharonann Lynch of Médicins sans Frontières (MSF), who spoke at the session, "the Global Fund was closed for 2012" which had a "chilling effect for countries' ambitions, and was a shock to the global HIV community".
After intense international pressure, in May, the Global Fund stated that new funding could be available as early as September; but while Lynch said that damage could be "reversed if concerted action is taken", she also noted that unstable funding opportunities can deal a devastating blow to the HIV response.
"It's not only how much money is going to HIV, and how quickly it goes out the door…it does come back to…the timing of these rounds. Not only have the size of the rounds been decreasing over time, but also the time in between rounds has been increasing." Lynch also noted that the Global Fund financial turmoil happened just as other international donors were pulling back, leaving programmes vulnerable.
Describing the situation as a "hot potato", with responsibility passed from one donor to the next, she said that other funders pulled out of programmes "expecting the Global Fund to pick up the pace. But of course without the Global Fund being scaled up, much is at stake."
Lynch warns that, while new money should be released soon, a proposed new funding structure could render some countries ineligible, or only able to apply for specific projects, or unable to renew of their grants as expected. "The new funding model could turn on its head the core foundation of the Global Fund that was meant to be a model that was country-driven and demand-driven," said Lynch.
Source:1
