Pattern and levels of spending allocated to HIV prevention programs in low- and middle-income countries

The Heller School for Social Policy and Management, Brandeis University, Boston, MA, USA.
BMC Public Health (Impact Factor: 2.26). 03/2012; 12:221. DOI: 10.1186/1471-2458-12-221
Source: PubMed


AIDS continues to spread at an estimated 2.6 new million infections per year, making the prevention of HIV transmission a critical public health issue. The dramatic growth in global resources for AIDS has produced a steady scale-up in treatment and care that has not been equally matched by preventive services. This paper is a detailed analysis of how countries are choosing to spend these more limited prevention funds.
We analyzed prevention spending in 69 low- and middle-income countries with a variety of epidemic types, using data from national domestic spending reports. Spending information was from public and international sources and was analyzed based on the National AIDS Spending Assessment (NASA) methods and classifications.
Overall, prevention received 21% of HIV resources compared to 53% of funding allocated to treatment and care. Prevention relies primarily on international donors, who accounted for 65% of all prevention resources and 93% of funding in low-income countries. For the subset of 53 countries that provided detailed spending information, we found that 60% of prevention resources were spent in five areas: communication for social and behavioral change (16%), voluntary counselling and testing (14%), prevention of mother-to-child transmission (13%), blood safety (10%) and condom programs (7%). Only 7% of funding was spent on most-at-risk populations and less than 1% on male circumcision. Spending patterns did not consistently reflect current evidence and the HIV specific transmission context of each country.
Despite recognition of its importance, countries are not allocating resources in ways that are likely to achieve the greatest impact on prevention across all epidemic types. Within prevention spending itself, a greater share of resources need to be matched with interventions that approximate the specific needs and drivers of each country's epidemic.


Available from: Carlos Avila
  • Source
    • "However, available funding continues to fall short of the global need to achieve global targets (such as the Millennium Development Goals); and after the rise in international funding slowed down due to the global crisis over 2009–12, it is now essentially flat or decreasing [2]–[4]. Better mechanisms are needed to enhance efficiency and optimize HIV allocations, on both donor and recipient sides, in relation to disease burden, as well as marginalized and vulnerable groups [1], [5]–[7]. "
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Global HIV control funding falls short of need. To maximize health outcomes, it is critical that national governments sustain reasonable commitments, and that international donor assistance be distributed according to country needs and funding gaps. We develop a country classification framework in terms of actual versus expected national domestic funding, considering resource needs and donor financing. With UNAIDS and World Bank data, we examine domestic and donor HIV program funding in relation to need in 84 low- and middle-income countries. We estimate expected domestic contributions per person living with HIV (PLWH) as a function of per capita income, relative size of the health sector, and per capita foreign debt service. Countries are categorized according to levels of actual versus expected domestic contributions, and resource gap. Compared to national resource needs (UNAIDS Investment Framework), we identify imbalances among countries in actual versus expected domestic and donor contributions: 17 countries, with relatively high HIV prevalence and GNI per capita, have domestic funding below expected (median per PLWH $143 and $376, respectively), yet total available funding including from donors would exceed the need ($368 and $305, respectively) if domestic contribution equaled expected. Conversely, 27 countries have actual domestic funding above the expected (medians $294 and $149) but total (domestic+donor) funding does not meet estimated need ($685 and $1,173). Across the 84 countries, in 2009, estimated resource need totaled $10.3 billion, actual domestic contributions $5.1 billion and actual donor contributions $3.7 billion. If domestic contributions would increase to the expected level in countries where the actual was below expected, total domestic contributions would increase to $7.4 billion, turning a funding gap of $1.5 billion into a surplus of $0.8 billion. Even with imperfect funding and resource-need data, the proposed country classification could help improve coherence and efficiency in domestic and international allocations.
    PLoS ONE 07/2013; 8(7):e67565. DOI:10.1371/journal.pone.0067565 · 3.23 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: The legislation reauthorizing the President's Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief (PEPFAR) in 2008 recognized the need for HIV/AIDS programs directed to most-at-risk populations, including men who have sex with men and people who inject drugs. To examine whether that goal is being met, we analyzed data from PEPFAR's Operational Plans for fiscal years 2009 and 2010. The eighteen countries in our study accounted for nearly two-thirds of overall PEPFAR financing for those fiscal years and approximately 60 percent of the total number of people living with HIV in the world in 2010. After controlling in each country for the number of people living with HIV, total population, and per capita income, we found that countries where HIV transmission occurs primarily among men who have sex with men and people who inject drugs received on average $235 million less in 2009 and 2010 than countries with widespread HIV epidemics among the general population. These findings raise questions about whether the country allocations of PEPFAR fully address needs based on the epidemiology of HIV infection in individual countries. Administrators should ensure that funding allocations directed to various countries reflect the best epidemiological data and latest science and best practices, and are devoid of bias against most-at-risk populations; they should also be more transparent about where PEPFAR's dollars go. Otherwise, it is unlikely that PEPFAR will realize its established goal of achieving an AIDS-free generation.
    Health Affairs 07/2012; 31(7):1519-28. DOI:10.1377/hlthaff.2012.0216 · 4.97 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: In this report, using nationally representative data on HIV testing uptake from 47 surveys in 29 sub-Saharan African countries that the DHS project conducted between 2003 and 2011, we examine four aspects of HIV testing uptake: (1) uptake by individual and household characteristics; (2) increases in uptake over time; (3) the role of HIV testing during ANC in overall uptake; and (4) uptake by HIV serostatus.
Show more