Report argues US should not pay more than rest of world to fight HIV/A
http://www.100md.com
《英国医生杂志》
International contributions to fight HIV/AIDS in low and middle income countries reached $3.6bn (?.1bn; �3bn) in 2004, according a report by the Kaiser Family Foundation and UNAIDS. It was released at a forum on 21 July in Washington, DC.
The report evaluated bilateral efforts and contributions to the Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis, and Malaria from the G7 industrialised nations and the European Community. They supplied 87% of total funding, said Jennifer Kates, an analyst with the foundation, who wrote the report. The United States contributed 45.4% of the total and the United Kingdom 16.6%; all other nations?contributions were in single digits.
Many of the G7 nations channel their efforts through international agencies and through direct payments to host nation governments, in part because they have less of an infrastructure within those nations to administer other types of programmes. The US distributes a greater portion of its money through bilateral channels (one-on-one agreements that bypass third parties such as multilateral organisations and host governments). These include contracts and support for indigenous non-governmental organisations.
The report used a variety of methodologies to assess "fair share" of national contributions and concluded that no single approach captures all of the complexity of the question.
"We will not have an AIDS-free generation without a vaccine or a microbicide," Mark Dybul, deputy coordinator and chief medical officer of the US international effort, said at the forum. The US funds 80% of all activities in those areas, he said, arguing that they should be part of the tally.
Dr Dybul believes that the US is contributing well over half of all funding on international HIV/AIDS activities. That will increase, given the commitments it has made. He said, "The US should not be giving more than the rest of the world combined."
Allen Moore, who until recently was policy director for Senate majority leader Bill Frist, said that financing health care was a growing domestic concern for the US. In Senator Frist抯 home state of Tennessee, the state run health insurance programme is removing 300 000 people from the rolls and is reducing benefits for the million people left.
"It is a very natural question for to ask, why are we doing all of this health stuff overseas when we are cutting back at home?" Dr Moore said.
Princeton Lyman, former US ambassador to Nigeria and South Africa and a scholar at the Council on Foreign Relations, discussed polling and focus groups that delved into US citizen抯 views on HIV/AIDS. He found a certain degree of moral judgment. One aspect of that moralist view supports international funding and bringing treatment to people.
"But when you say that there is a high prevalence among teachers or among government personnel the reaction is, 慚y god, what a perverse society that must be, it抯 hopeless. If the leaders in society are so susceptible, there抯 something wrong.?
All of the speakers agreed that programmes must be held accountable and must show measurable success to justify future support.(Washington Bob Roehr)
The report evaluated bilateral efforts and contributions to the Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis, and Malaria from the G7 industrialised nations and the European Community. They supplied 87% of total funding, said Jennifer Kates, an analyst with the foundation, who wrote the report. The United States contributed 45.4% of the total and the United Kingdom 16.6%; all other nations?contributions were in single digits.
Many of the G7 nations channel their efforts through international agencies and through direct payments to host nation governments, in part because they have less of an infrastructure within those nations to administer other types of programmes. The US distributes a greater portion of its money through bilateral channels (one-on-one agreements that bypass third parties such as multilateral organisations and host governments). These include contracts and support for indigenous non-governmental organisations.
The report used a variety of methodologies to assess "fair share" of national contributions and concluded that no single approach captures all of the complexity of the question.
"We will not have an AIDS-free generation without a vaccine or a microbicide," Mark Dybul, deputy coordinator and chief medical officer of the US international effort, said at the forum. The US funds 80% of all activities in those areas, he said, arguing that they should be part of the tally.
Dr Dybul believes that the US is contributing well over half of all funding on international HIV/AIDS activities. That will increase, given the commitments it has made. He said, "The US should not be giving more than the rest of the world combined."
Allen Moore, who until recently was policy director for Senate majority leader Bill Frist, said that financing health care was a growing domestic concern for the US. In Senator Frist抯 home state of Tennessee, the state run health insurance programme is removing 300 000 people from the rolls and is reducing benefits for the million people left.
"It is a very natural question for to ask, why are we doing all of this health stuff overseas when we are cutting back at home?" Dr Moore said.
Princeton Lyman, former US ambassador to Nigeria and South Africa and a scholar at the Council on Foreign Relations, discussed polling and focus groups that delved into US citizen抯 views on HIV/AIDS. He found a certain degree of moral judgment. One aspect of that moralist view supports international funding and bringing treatment to people.
"But when you say that there is a high prevalence among teachers or among government personnel the reaction is, 慚y god, what a perverse society that must be, it抯 hopeless. If the leaders in society are so susceptible, there抯 something wrong.?
All of the speakers agreed that programmes must be held accountable and must show measurable success to justify future support.(Washington Bob Roehr)