Who’s Blowing Smoke on Energy Poverty and the Global Disease Burden?
Me, perhaps. In my last post on why President Obama should make electricity his signature Africa policy initiative, I claimed:
Me, perhaps. In my last post on why President Obama should make electricity his signature Africa policy initiative, I claimed:
The US government spends about $6.4 billion a year on preventing and treating HIV/AIDS in the developing world, and 4.5 million AIDS patients depend mostly on US generosity each day for the AIDS medicines that keep them alive.
Recently, the American Journal of Tropical Medicine & Hygiene published a paper by Shepard et al. evaluating the impact of HIV/AIDS funding on Rwanda’s health system. The headline of the press release was catchy and assertive: “Six-year Study in Rwanda Finds Influx of HIV/AIDS Funding Does Not Undermine Health Care Services for Other Diseases. Study Addresses Long-standing Debate about Funding Imbalances for Global Diseases.”
There is no doubt that the United States has shown tremendous leadership and brought about remarkable results in the global fight against AIDS over the past decade. U.S. investments through the Presidents Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief (PEPFAR) have strengthened overall health systems, built and sustained capacity to address HIV and a host of other diseases, and helped scale up treatment to save millions of lives.
Yesterday I attended the USAID and World Bank sponsored debate on “Treatment as Prevention,” where debaters were asked to support or oppose the proposition that countries should spend the majority of flat or declining HIV prevention budgets on “treatment as prevention”, building off the results of the HPTN 052 study which found a relative reduction of 89% in the total number of HIV-1 transmissions resulting from the early initiation of antiretroviral therapy.
I moderated a debate this morning, one in a series on HIV/AIDS issues sponsored by the World Bank and USAID. This was the topic: “Countries should spend a majority of what is likely to be a flat or even declining HIV prevention budget on ‘treatment as prevention.’” The pro and con sides were each represented by two eminent and articulate medical doctor/scientist/researcher/public health experts.
Yesterday, Secretary Clinton made an eloquent and morale boosting speech in support of the United States' continued leadership in the global effort towards an “AIDS-free generation.” Her remarks demonstrated a clear focus on prevention as the way forward, highlighting recent advances in prevention of mother to child transmission (PMTCT), male circumcision
What if by taking a pill every day, all 33 million HIV-infected people in the world could not only fend off the deterioration of their own health, but also reduce their chances of infecting uninfected sex partners by 96 %? This is the prospect that is offered by newly announced results of the HPTN 052 trial. (See the Kaiser Foundation report here, the UNAIDS announcement here
After growing impatient with the U.S Global Health Initiative’s (GHI) lack of transparency about progress in the field, my interest piqued once again with a flurry of spring time releases—the final
I am one of four panelists who will debate on Monday morning whether it is ethical for a government to offer material incentives in order to prevent HIV infections.
UPDATE 2/17/2011: The videocast has now been posted. To view it, click here, scroll to “DEBATE 5” and click on the phrase “Click here for videocast".