Search

Sometimes compared to the post‐war U.S. aid package for Europe, the Marshall Plan, the U.S. President's Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief (PEPFAR) is among the most successful U.S. foreign aid [...]

Introduction: The United States President's Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief (PEPFAR) is a large bilateral funder of the global HIV response whose policy decisions on key populations (KPs) programming determine the shape of the key populations' response in many countries. Understanding the size and relative share of PEPFAR funds going to KPs and the connection between PEPFAR's targets and resulting programming is crucial for successfully serving key populations. Methods: Publicly available PEPFAR budgets for key populations' services were assessed by country and geographical region for all 52 countries with budget data in fiscal year (FY) 2020. For the 23 countries which completed a full planning process in FY 2018 and 2019, PEPFAR targets for HIV testing and treatment initiation for key populations were assessed. Expenditures for KP programming were calculated to determine whether shifts in targets translated into programming. Implementing partners were characterized by the level of specialization using the share of assigned targets made up by KPs. The average target per year and implementing partner was calculated for each KP group and indicator. Results: PEPFAR country KP budgets ranged from US$35,000 to $15.2 million, and the proportion of funding to key populations varied by region, with Eastern and Southern African countries having the lowest proportion. Between FY 2018 and 2019, the KP targets for HIV testing and treatment among KPs increased, whereas expenditures on key populations decreased from US$115.4 to $111.0 million. Of the 11 countries with an increase in HIV testing targets, seven had a decrease in KP expenditures. Of the nine countries with an increase in treatment initiation targets, five had a decrease in KP expenditures. The proportion of targets assigned to partners which do not specialize in key populations increased from FY 2018 to 2019. Conclusions: Current key population policies have not resulted in a tight connection between targets and expenditures. This includes assigning a large proportion of key populations programming to partners who do not specialize in key populations, which may weaken the performance management role of the targets. These results signal that a new approach to key populations programming is needed. Keywords: key populations; HIV; funding; health policy; PEPFAR; programme targets; key and vulnerable populations; policy, 1 | INTRODUCTION UNAIDS estimates that 62% of new HIV infections every year are among key populations (KPs), including men who have sex with men (MSM), female sex workers (FSW), [...]

Introduction: Despite international commitment to achieving the end of HIV as a public health threat, progress is off-track and existing gaps have been exacerbated by COVID-19's collision with existing pandemics. Born out of models of political accountability and historical healthcare advocacy led by people living with HIV, community-led monitoring (CLM) of health service delivery holds potential as a social accountability model to increase the accessibility and quality of health systems. However, the effectiveness of the CLM model in strengthening accountability and improving service delivery relies on its alignment with evidence-based principles for social accountability mechanisms. We propose a set of unifying principles for CLM to support the impact on the quality and availability of health services., Discussion: Building on the social accountability literature, core CLM implementation principles are defined. CLM programmes include a community-led and independent data collection effort, in which the data tools and methodology are designed by service users and communities most vulnerable to, and most impacted by, service quality. Data are collected routinely, with an emphasis on prioritizing and protecting respondents, and are then be used to conduct routine and community-led advocacy, with the aim of increasing duty-bearer accountability to service users. CLM efforts should represent a broad and collective community response, led independently by impacted communities, incorporating both data collection and advocacy, and should be understood as a long-term approach to building meaningful engagement in systems-wide improvements rather than discrete interventions., Conclusions: The CLM model is an important social accountability mechanism for improving the responsiveness of critical health services and systems to communities. By establishing a collective understanding of CLM principles, this model paves the way for improved proliferation of CLM with fidelity of implementation approaches to core principles, rigorous examinations of CLM implementation approaches, impact assessments and evaluations of CLM's influence on service quality improvement., (© 2024 The Author(s). Journal of the International AIDS Society published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of International AIDS Society.)