The funding landscape for HIV in Asia and the Pacific

Abstract

IntroductionDespite recent and robust economic growth across the Asia-Pacific region, the majority of low- and middle-income countries in the region remain dependent on some donor support for HIV programmes. We describe the availability of bilateral and multilateral official development assistance (ODA) for HIV programmes in the region.MethodsThe donor countries considered in this analysis are Australia, Canada, Denmark, France, Germany, Netherlands, Norway, Sweden, the United Kingdom and the United States. To estimate bilateral and multilateral ODA financing for HIV programmes in the Asia-Pacific region between 2004 and 2013, we obtained funding data from the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development Creditor Reporting System database. Where possible, we checked these amounts against the funding data available from government aid agencies. Estimates of multilateral ODA financing for HIV/AIDS were based on the country allocations announcement by the Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria (the Global Fund) for the period 2014 to 2016.ResultsCountries in the Asia-Pacific region receive the largest share of aid for HIV from the Global Fund. Bilateral funding for HIV in the region has been relatively stable over the last decade and is projected to remain below 10% of the worldwide response to the epidemic. Bilateral donors continue to prioritize ODA for HIV to other regions, particularly sub-Saharan Africa; Australia is an exception in prioritizing the Asia-Pacific region, but the United States is the bilateral donor providing the greatest amount of assistance in the region. Funding from the Global Fund has increased consistently since 2005, reaching a total of US$1.2 billion for the Asia-Pacific region from 2014 to 2016.ConclusionsEven with Global Fund allocations, countries in the Asia-Pacific region will not have enough resources to meet their epidemiological targets. Prevention funding is particularly vulnerable and requires greater domestic leadership and coordination. Bilateral donors are still crucially important in the response to HIV throughout the Asia-Pacific region.

Voluntary Counseling and Testing, Antiretroviral Therapy Access, and HIV-Related Stigma: Global Progress and Challenges

“…This is due to the uneven distribution of HIV treatment centers across the country’s approximately 7000 islands [ 74 ]. Despite the launching of a 2025 agenda to end HIV transmission, PLWH in Australia are challenged with the high cost of ART and HIV-related stigma, and in the WHO South-East Asia region as in the Eastern Mediterranean region, the over dependence on donor assistance, which has been dwindling over the years [ 75 ], has negatively impacted ART coverage.…”

Key populations and power: people-centred social innovation in Asian HIV services

“…Increasingly, funding for HIV services in Asia is shifting from foreign aid to domestic funding. 50 To ensure sustained services and active participation of key populations, innovative financing schemes are needed to remove the persistent financial barriers to HIV service delivery. 51 Several different financial models for supporting key population HIV services have been developed, including government, private, public-private, and social enterprise.…”

The relationship between health policy and public health interventions: a case study of the DRIVE project to “end” the HIV epidemic among people who inject drugs in Haiphong, Vietnam

“…Because the Asia–Pacific region has in general relied on donors who are reducing their support, host governments are left to fill daunting funding gaps [14]. The Lao People’s Democratic Republic has no national health insurance and people living with HIV there face catastrophic out-of-pocket costs [15].…”