Why does this page look this way?
It appears that you are using either an older, classic Web browser or a hand-held device that allows you to view our content but may not work with every feature of our site. If you are using an older browser, please upgrade for the best experience.
Navigation
home > by publication type > backgrounders > AIDS: The U.S. Anti-AIDS Program
| Author: | Sharon Otterman |
|---|
November 28, 2003
Congress has authorized $2.4 billion for the first year of President Bush's landmark $15 billion, 5-year plan to dramatically reduce HIV/AIDS infections worldwide. However, the money has not yet begun to flow because of delays in passing congressional spending bills. The legislation appropriating the funds is expected to be approved by December or January, and the program will begin soon afterward.
It's some $1 billion more than U.S. international HIV/AIDS funding in 2003, and some $1.4 billion more than in 2002. U.S. spending on global HIV/AIDS activities has shot up since 2000, when it totaled less than $500 million.
Yes. The legislation passed by Congress--the United States Leadership Against HIV/AIDS, Tuberculosis, and Malaria Act of 2003--authorizes $3 billion to be spent in each of the next five years. The White House originally asked for $2 billion for 2004, saying that ramping up spending on the program over time would be more efficient. AIDS activists criticized this decision. Congress ultimately raised the funding level in the appropriations bill to $2.4 billion.
Of the $15 billion:
In part, it will increase the U.S. contribution to the Global Fund. President Bush's plan calls for $200 million to be given to the agency annually, which some critics charge is insufficient. The contribution will now be about $400 million, according to Erin Chapman, policy director for DATA--Debt, AIDS, Trade, Africa--the nonprofit organization founded by Bono, the singer for the Irish rock band U2, to raise awareness of Africa's debt and health crises.
Experts agree that the program dwarfs other global efforts to fight the disease. The 2002 USAID HIV/AIDS budget was $790 million, which already made the U.S. government the world's largest bilateral donor of HIV/AIDS assistance. The new plan will, over five years, nearly triple this amount--making it "certainly the largest single increase in funding for global health in memory," says Dr. Nils Daulaire, president of the Global Health Council. While much remains to be done--and while the effectiveness of the new effort is still untested--the president's AIDS plan is "a very strong indication that health has moved to center stage in U.S. foreign policy," Daulaire says.
Almost $15 billion annually, including $2.6 billion for vaccine and cure research, according to the White House.
The World Bank estimates that some $10 billion in donations to low and middle income countries is required annually.
In 2002, some $1.8 billion was spent on international HIV/AIDS programs, according to UNAIDS, a U.N. agency that coordinates anti-AIDS efforts.
Major donors included the European Community, the United Kingdom, Japan, Germany, and the Netherlands. World Bank loans accounted for $95 million in aid, and the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation contributed more than $100 million.
There are 12 countries in Africa and two in the Caribbean.
Adult HIV-infection rates (the percentage of people aged 15-49 with the disease) in these countries range from 38.8 percent in Botswana--the world's worst-afflicted country--to 3.1 percent in Guyana, according to statistics compiled by the World Health Organization (WHO) and UNAIDS.
Some do, but there are some countries with extremely high infection rates missing from the list. Among them: Zimbabwe, with 33.7 percent of adults infected; Swaziland, with 33.4 percent of adults infected; Lesotho, with 31 percent of adults infected; and Malawi, with 15 percent of adults infected.
White House officials say they have chosen countries with "among the highest prevalence of HIV-infection" but have not explained why some countries were included and others not. AIDS experts say the decisions appear to be based on a variety of factors. In some highly populated countries, such as Nigeria and Kenya, the total number of cases is very high, even if the rate of infection is lower than in other nations. Cote d'Ivoire has fewer HIV sufferers than some non-targeted nations, but the highest rate in West Africa. Another factor: the White House appears to have selected countries with which it already has a good working relationship, DATA's Chapman says.
No. "If you put a bunch of AIDS experts in a room, you'd get a room full of different opinions," Daulaire says. There is also a discussion among experts about whether more spending should go to regional or multilateral programs such as the Global Fund. On the other hand, there is broad agreement that all the countries included are in desperate need of help.
Yes, AIDS activists say. Some experts hope that in the future, the program will also target nations outside Africa and the Caribbean where the epidemic is starting to explode. India--which already has 4 million infected--is a key nation that needs more assistance, says Dr. Helene D. Gayle, the director of HIV, TB, & Reproductive Health at the Gates Foundation. "Should there be more consideration given to where we know the disease will spread over the next decade? That question needs to be asked," she says.
Congressional legislation mandates that:
It's not yet clear, AIDS experts say. In large part, this is because many details about how the program will be implemented have not been worked out. If the statute is interpreted strictly, $1 billion over five years in funding would be reserved for abstinence-only education, with $2 billion for other prevention efforts. A looser interpretation would allow abstinence funds to be spent on programs that encourage abstinence along with other behaviors, such as the approach used to help control the epidemic in Uganda. That country's ABC program--Abstain, Be Faithful, Use a Condom--has had impressive success in curbing Uganda's AIDS epidemic. But experts warn that local conditions differ from country to country, and that what worked in Uganda may not work elsewhere. "There is no one-size-fits-all approach," says Todd Summers, the deputy director of the White House Office of National AIDS policy under President Bill Clinton and now president of Progressive Health Partners.
Yes. While churches and other religious networks have partnered with USAID in the past to some degree, there is specific language in the new legislation encouraging that money be channeled through faith-based organizations. In large part, this reflects the reality on the ground in Africa, where religious organizations are often the primary provider of health and social care and "harnessing these organizations is a good idea," Summers says. However, some activists have expressed concern that church groups may withhold services based on a patient's religion, or proselytize, directly or indirectly, with the funds.
It is unclear. The appropriations bill before Congress stipulates that the new AIDS program will be subject to a current U.S. policy that bars funding of international family planning organizations that perform or promote abortions, even if they use their own money to do so. The policy has been enforced by every Republican president since Ronald Reagan; it was lifted during the Clinton administration and restored by the Bush administration. Because, in some parts of the world, clinics that perform abortions may be the only health-care provider available, "I think this policy compromises our ability to respond to the disease to some degree," says Sandra Thurman, the president of the non-profit International AIDS Trust and former head of President Clinton's White House AIDS office. Some Bush administration officials have said publicly that, when it comes to anti-AIDS efforts, the administration may exercise a degree of flexibility in applying the policy.
If the plan is funded at its full amount, the White House projects it will:
It's still being decided. President Bush has emphasized that the highest quality drugs will be used, whether name-brand or generic. The cheapest name-brand drugs available in developing countries cost approximately $675 per person per year; that figure can drop to less than $300 for generic drugs. Further cutting costs, the Clinton Foundation HIV/AIDS Initiative recently negotiated an agreement with four generic drugmakers in India and South Africa to provide ATV drugs for $132 a year. Many AIDS experts say that given the number of patients the initiative plans to treat, low-cost generic drugs are the only option in the program's price range, though experts also warn these drugs can vary in quality. Because of patent protections and other costs, ATV prices in the United States and other developing countries remain high, often topping $12,000 per year.
Randall Tobias, the chairman of major U.S. pharmaceutical company Eli Lilly and Company from 1993 to 1999, was confirmed as President Bush's Global AIDS coordinator in early October. He has the rank of ambassador and will be responsible for overseeing all U.S. international HIV/AIDS assistance and coordinating the efforts of the various agencies and departments that deliver it.
Weigh in on this issue by emailing CFR.org.
To order Task Force reports, Council Special Reports, and Critical Policy Choices, please call, fax, or order online from our distributor, the Brookings Institution Press: phone +1.800.537.5487, fax +1.410.516.6998.
For information on other reports that are not for sale, or for general publications information, please call +1.212.434.9516 or email publications@cfr.org.
Start-Up Nation addresses the trillion-dollar question: How is it that Israel—a country of 7.1 million, only sixty years old, surrounded by enemies— produces more start-up companies than large, peaceful, and stable nations like Japan, China, India, Korea, Canada, and the UK? With the insights of geopolitical experts and investors, the authors examine this nation’s adversity-driven culture to answer this question and offer prescriptions for a global economy on the rebound.
In Forces of Fortune, Vali Nasr presents a paradigm-changing revelation that will transform the understanding of the Muslim world at large. He reveals that there is a vital but unseen rising force in the Islamic world—a new business-minded middle class—that is building a vibrant new Muslim world economy and that holds the key to winning the cold war against Iran and extremists.
In Cuba: What Everyone Needs to Know, Julia E. Sweig presents a remarkably accessible portrait of Cuba's unique place on the world stage over the past fifty years, including its internal politics, its often fraught relationship with the United States, and its shifting relationship with the global community.
Complete list of CFR Books
The report of this bipartisan Task Force of distinguished leaders and experts represents a strong consensus on the importance of repairing America's immigration policy. It makes the case that maintaining America's political and economic leadership depends on attracting talented and hard-working immigrants, and on securing the country's borders in a smart, effective, and humane way.
This report finds that nuclear weapons will remain a fundamental element of U.S. national security in the near term, and makes recommendations on how to ensure the safety, security, and reliability of the U.S. deterrent nuclear force, prevent nuclear terrorism, and strengthen the nuclear nonproliferation regime.
About Independent Task Forces at CFR
Complete list of Task Force reports
Identifying international threats and acting on them may be the most difficult job for U.S. policymakers. This report
provides an actionable road map for managing international threats before they erupt into crises and makes a strong case that preventive action is not a luxury but a necessity.
For more than a decade, the United States has mostly watched from the sidelines as Asian countries organize themselves into an alphabet soup of new multilateral groups. In this report, the authors review the relationship between pan-Asian and trans-Pacific institutions and suggest policy guidelines for a new U.S. approach to this new Asian landscape.
Complete list of Council Special Reports
To request permission to reprint or reuse CFR material, please fill out this permissions request form (PDF), referring to the instructions on page 1.
Browse Content By Region IssuePublication TypeThe Think TankFor The MediaFor Educators About CFR
Copyright 2009 by the Council on Foreign Relations. All Rights Reserved.
