HIV patient testing falls in South Africa after US aid cuts, data shows
A nurse draws a blood sample from a child for an HIV test at a clinic in Diepsloot, north of Johannesburg, South Africa, March 12, 2025. REUTERS/Siphiwe Sibeko
A nurse takes a blood sample from a child for an HIV test while the child's mother looks on at a clinic in Diepsloot, north of Johannesburg, South Africa, March 12, 2025. REUTERS/Siphiwe Sibeko
JOHANNESBURG - Testing and monitoring of HIV patients across South Africa have fallen since the United States cut aid that funded health workers and clinics, with pregnant women, infants and youth the most affected, previously unpublished government data shows.
South Africa has the world's highest burden of HIV, with about 8 million people - one in five adults - living with the virus. The United States was funding 17% of the country's HIV budget until President Donald Trump slashed aid early this year.
Data from the National Health Laboratory Service, a government entity, showed that viral load testing fell by up to 21% among key groups in the last two months, which four HIV experts said appeared to be due to the loss of U.S. funding.
Viral load testing measures how much virus is in the blood of people living with HIV who are on anti-retroviral treatment. It is normally done at least once a year.
It checks whether the treatment is working and whether the virus is sufficiently suppressed to prevent it spreading to others.
With less testing, fewer people who may transmit the virus will be identified. Missing a test can also indicate that a patient has dropped out of the system and may be missing treatment.
It is especially important for pregnant women who may be at risk of transmitting HIV through childbirth, and for infants who need to be diagnosed and treated early to survive.
Trump froze many foreign aid programmes early in his presidency, before reinstating some lifesaving assistance, including parts of the United States President's Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief (PEPFAR), its global HIV initiative. But South Africa was also specifically targeted, with an executive order cutting all funding to the country in February.
South Africa did not rely on U.S. funding for its HIV drugs, but about 15,000 health workers' salaries were paid by PEPFAR, which previously gave South Africa over $400 million a year. Most of that funding has been withdrawn, though it is unclear exactly how much.
The health workers did HIV testing and counselling in districts with a high prevalence of HIV, and followed up when patients missed a check-up or dropped off treatment, which is common.
The PEPFAR funding also supported NGO-run clinics which have now closed. The government has urged HIV patients who did check-ups at those clinics to go to public health centres instead, but public health centres often have long lines and staff can be unwelcoming to certain groups like sex workers or gay men.
'SHOCKING FIGURES'
According to the data seen by Reuters, the number of viral load tests conducted for people aged 15-24 fell by 17.2% in April compared to April last year, after dropping 7.8% year-on-year in March. Total population testing was down 11.4% in April.
Maternal viral load testing was down 21.3% in April after falling by 9.1% in March, and early infant diagnostic testing was down 19.9% in April after falling by 12.4% in March, the same data showed.
The percentage of people who were virally suppressed among those tested also fell nationwide by 3.4% in March and 0.2% in April, with steeper declines for young adults, a further sign that patients may have had their treatment interrupted, the data showed.
The data has not been made public.
"These are shocking figures, with profound implications for maternal and child health across the country," said Francois Venter, executive director of the Ezintsha Research Centre in Johannesburg.
Given a summary of the data, Foster Mohale, a spokesperson for South Africa's Department of Health, said more analysis was needed and that South Africa already had challenges with patient retention and viral load testing before the aid cuts.
But HIV experts have said for months that the health ministry was downplaying the impact of the funding loss in South Africa, and that a drop in testing figures might be an early warning sign - followed by a rise in new cases and deaths.
The U.S. State Department did not immediately respond to a request for comment.
"This data demonstrates what previous models have shown regarding the impact of PEPFAR/USAID cuts on pregnant women and their infants," said Dvora Joseph Davey, an epidemiologist working on maternal and infant HIV at the University of Cape Town.
She said the impact was clear at five public health clinics where she works in Cape Town, which since the U.S. aid cuts have been under-staffed, with fewer nurses to draw blood which is needed for viral load tests.
'GOING TO DIE'
HIV experts said that diagnostic testing was likely impacted by the funding cuts too, though that data was not available.
The counsellors who used to do rapid diagnostic HIV tests are also gone, and pregnant women are no longer being put on preventative HIV drugs (PrEP) because the counsellors are the ones who used to offer that, Davey said.
In the Johannesburg township of Diepsloot, HIV activist and community leader Sophy Moatshe said it was hard to get HIV patients to seek care because of the stigma, and that without health workers reaching out when they miss an appointment, many fall through the cracks.
"These people, they don't want to go to the clinic," she said outside a community centre in the crowded informal settlement. "If there is nobody to check them, they're going to die."
The long-term future of HIV-related U.S. assistance remains uncertain in South Africa and globally, as Trump pursues significant cuts to the international aid budget in line with his "America First" agenda.
The cuts have also hit research, including HIV vaccine trials.
Department of Health spokesperson Mohale said the government was speaking to prospective local and international donors about covering funding gaps, but declined to give details.
The data on testing in April, however, was "a good indication of what's going to happen in the future," said Davey. REUTERS
Join ST's Telegram channel and get the latest breaking news delivered to you.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
AsiaOne
3 hours ago
- AsiaOne
China to make all hospitals offer epidurals to incentivise childbirth, China News
HONG KONG (Reuters) — China said that by the end of this year all tertiary level hospitals must offer epidural anaesthesia during childbirth, a move it said would help promote a "friendly childbearing environment" for women. Tertiary hospitals — those with more than 500 beds, must provide epidural anaesthesia services by 2025 while secondary hospitals — those containing more than 100 beds — must provide the services by 2027, China's National Health Commission (NHC) said in a statement last week. Authorities are struggling to boost birth rates in the world's second largest economy after China's population fell for a third consecutive year in 2024 with experts warning the downturn will worsen in the coming years. Around 30 per cent of pregnant women in China receive anaesthesia to relieve pain during childbirth, compared with more than 70 per cent in some developed countries, the official China Daily said. The World Health Organisation recommends epidurals for healthy pregnant women requesting pain relief and it is widely utilised in many countries around the world, including France, where around 82 per cent of pregnant women opt to have one, and in the United States and Canada where more than 67 per cent do. The move will "improve the comfort level and security of medical services" and "further enhance people's sense of happiness and promote a friendly childbearing environment," the NHC said. A growing number of provinces across China are also beginning to include childbirth anaesthesia costs as part of their medical insurance schemes to encourage more women to have children. High childcare costs as well as job uncertainty and a slowing economy have discouraged many young Chinese from getting married and starting a family. In June, health authorities in China's southwestern Sichuan province proposed to extend marriage leave up to 25 days and maternity leave up to 150 days, to help create a "fertility-friendly society". [[nid:707662]]
Straits Times
5 hours ago
- Straits Times
China to make all hospitals offer epidurals to incentivise childbirth
A growing number of provinces across China are also beginning to include childbirth anaesthesia costs as part of their medical insurance schemes. PHOTO: REUTERS HONG KONG - China said that by the end of 2025 all tertiary level hospitals must offer epidural anaesthesia during childbirth, a move it said would help promote a "friendly childbearing environment" for women. Tertiary hospitals - those with more than 500 beds, must provide epidural anaesthesia services by 2025 while secondary hospitals - those containing more than 100 beds - must provide the services by 2027, China's National Health Commission (NHC) said in a statement last week. Authorities are struggling to boost birth rates in the world's second-largest economy after China's population fell for a third consecutive year in 2024 with experts warning the downturn will worsen in the coming years. Around 30 per cent of pregnant women in China receive anaesthesia to relieve pain during childbirth, compared with more than 70 per cent in some developed countries, the official China Daily said. The World Health Organisation recommends epidurals for healthy pregnant women requesting pain relief, and it is widely utilised in many countries around the world, including France, where around 82 per cent of pregnant women opt to have one, and in the United States and Canada where more than 67 per cent do. The move will "improve the comfort level and security of medical services" and "further enhance people's sense of happiness and promote a friendly childbearing environment," the NHC said. A growing number of provinces across China are also beginning to include childbirth anaesthesia costs as part of their medical insurance schemes to encourage more women to have children. High childcare costs as well as job uncertainty and a slowing economy have discouraged many young Chinese from getting married and starting a family. In June, health authorities in China's south-western Sichuan province proposed to extend marriage leave up to 25 days and maternity leave up to 150 days, to help create a "fertility-friendly society." REUTERS Join ST's Telegram channel and get the latest breaking news delivered to you.
Straits Times
12 hours ago
- Straits Times
The Trump effect on high drug prices
US President Donald Trump said on May 11 that he wants prices of drugs sold in the US to reflect the cheapest prices globally. PHOTO: AFP News analysis The Trump effect on high drug prices Salma Khalik explains why US leader Donald Trump is up in arms against high drug prices, how pharmaceutical companies have reacted, and what effect his executive order could have on the rest of the world. SINGAPORE – If US President Donald Trump had his way, the price of medication in the US would fall drastically – while the rest of the world would end up paying more, possibly a lot more. His declaration on Facebook on May 11 that he wants prices of drugs sold in the US to reflect the cheapest prices globally sent shares of large pharmaceutical companies tumbling across the world, with several losing 3 per cent or more of their stock market value within hours. But the steep plunge reversed just as abruptly once the executive order signed by Mr Trump on the morning of May 12 was made public. This was because the order lacked details, which led some observers to note that there was more bark than bite in his words . Today, the US, with 340 million people, or less than 5 per cent of the world's population, spends about US$5 trillion (S$6.5 trillion) a year on healthcare – and accounts for about 45 per cent of global pharmaceutical sales. One reason is that people in the US consume more medicine per capita than the rest of the world. Since they use more, they buy more, and hence spend more on drugs. Another reason, which is what upsets Mr Trump, is that prices of drugs, particularly those still under patent, are generally much higher in the US than anywhere else in the world. Pharmaceutical companies say the high prices paid in the US allow consumers there to be among the first to get any new treatments. Mr Trump gave the example of a 'fat drug', without naming it, that costs 10 times more in the US than in some other countries. He was likely referring to the highly popular diabetes drug Ozempic, which is also prescribed for weight loss under the trade name Wegovy. A 2023 comparison of prices by the independent Peterson-KFF Health System Tracker found 'the list price for one month of Ozempic in the US (US$936) is over five times that in Japan (US$169), and about 10 times more than in Sweden, the United Kingdom, Australia and France'. Drug companies have historically priced their products differently in different countries. Generally, richer countries tend to pay more than poorer countries with lower purchasing power. The Singapore Association of Pharmaceutical Industries (Sapi) told The Straits Times: 'Pharmaceutical companies work with local governments and healthcare systems to offer flexible and tailored pricing solutions based on each country's needs, helping make medicine and vaccines more affordable and accessible, especially in countries with fewer resources. 'Tiered pricing is one of the most effective and sustainable ways in which pharmaceutical companies help to improve and sustain access to medicine globally.' The cost of medication in Singapore, for example, is much higher than in neighbouring countries, so it is not uncommon for people to cross the Causeway, where savings could be significant, to buy their medicine. Having said that, rich countries also can get drugs more cheaply because of their buying power and ability to negotiate better prices. Australia, for example, sets a cap on the price of drugs it allows to be sold in the country. This can mean, however, that fewer drugs are available in Australia – compared with Singapore, for instance – as some pharmaceutical companies will refuse to sell at the designated prices. Even within the US, drug prices do vary. But the US does not benefit from its large purchasing power because the prices were negotiated individually between drug companies and their buyers – typically insurance companies, pharmacy chains and hospitals. Mr Trump's executive order states: 'The inflated prices in the United States fuel global innovation while foreign health systems get a free ride.' Associate Professor Wee Hwee Lin of the Saw Swee Hock School of Public Health said one of the main reasons drug prices are so high in the US is that there has been no direct price control mechanism, unlike in many other developed countries. Drugs have to prove only safety, efficacy and quality – but not cost-effectiveness, as is required in some other countries. She added that many pharmaceutical companies also choose to launch in the US first, as they can command the highest prices there, thus setting the bar for the rest. This may change with the passage of the Inflation Reduction Act (IRA) in 2022, which, for the first time, empowered Medicare to negotiate prices directly with drug companies. It had previously been legally prohibited from negotiating drug prices under a 'non-interference clause' in the Medicare Prescription Drug, Improvement and Modernisation Act 2003. Medicare, the national insurance for people over 65 and those with disabilities, is the single largest payer of healthcare in the US, and covers more than 55 million Americans for outpatient prescription drugs. Said Prof Wee, whose teaching areas include pharmacy practice: 'Prior to the IRA, Medicare was explicitly prohibited from negotiating prices directly with pharmaceutical companies. Therefore, drug prices in the US may be considered to be market-based pricing, based on supply and demand.' Even with the passing of the IRA, the cheaper negotiated prices will start to take effect only from 2026. Since the IRA was passed, Medicare has completed negotiations on 10 drugs that alone cost it US$50.5 billion in 2022, or about 20 per cent of its gross total drug spending . The drugs, which are used to treat chronic diseases such as diabetes and cancer, will have maximum prices that are 38 per cent to 79 per cent cheaper from January 2026. The IRA allows it to negotiate prices for 10 drugs in the first year, 15 in the next two years, and 20 a year thereafter. It has embarked on negotiations for the next 15 drugs, also for chronic diseases like diabetes, cardiovascular disease and cancer, to take effect from January 2027. Ozempic is one of them. Legal challenges have been mounted against the drug negotiation programme. According to a US Congress report, 'beginning in June 2023, several pharmaceutical manufacturers and trade associations filed lawsuits in various federal district courts alleging that the programme was unconstitutional'. So far, most have failed, but some court cases are still ongoing. In contrast, some Congress members want to expand the programme to more drugs in the market. Prof Wee said most other developed countries exert some control over drug prices by government intervention that will 'thus introduce market failure'. Britain's National Institute for Health and Care Excellence is a forerunner of healthcare technology assessment, which looks at whether the benefits of new treatments justify the price asked for. If they do not, the treatment would not be recommended to the National Health Service, which pays for almost all drugs used in the country. Many other countries in Europe and Asia have similar agencies to control the cost of new and expensive treatments. Singapore recently tasked the Agency for Care Effectiveness with studying new treatments and deciding if they provide value for money – changing the nation from being a passive price taker to one that has some clout in deciding the 'correct' pricing for the benefits from a treatment. It resulted in the Cancer Drug List, a list of treatments approved for insurance coverage, which has led to across-the-board savings of about 30 per cent in the public sector. At the upper ranges, the prices of cancer drugs fell by as much as 60 per cent. Pharmaceutical companies are still free to sell their cancer drugs at any price – but unless their price to the public sector is deemed cost-effective, they cannot be covered by MediShield Life or Integrated Shield Plan insurance, which pays for the vast majority of cancer treatments here. Singapore, being a small market, continues to pay a lot more than places like Australia, Taiwan and South Korea for many other drugs. Prof Wee pointed out that another major reason for the high drug prices in the US is the use of middlemen such as pharmacy benefits managers (PBMs). She said PBMs were originally intended to streamline procurement processes and help drive down costs for insurers and employers. 'However, over time, many unintended consequences arose. For example, there is a lack of transparency as regard the amount of rebates PBMs receive from the pharmaceutical companies relative to the list price,' she said. On the day the US President's executive order was signed, Mr Stephen J. Ubl, president and chief executive of the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America, released a statement saying: 'The US is the only country in the world that lets PBMs, insurers and hospitals take 50 per cent of every dollar spent on medicine. 'The amount going to middlemen often exceeds the price in Europe. Giving this money directly to patients will lower their medicine costs and significantly reduce the gap with European prices.' Prof Wee said the influence of PBMs goes beyond just taking a big cut from the sale of drugs: 'PBMs may purchase based on how much rebate they can obtain rather than what is the least-cost option. Many of the PBMs are also owned by insurance companies. 'It is not clear how the financial interests of the insurance companies are prioritised over cost savings or patient outcomes.' Many drug companies argue that a large drop in their revenue could affect their ability to research and develop new treatments, which would be a sad loss to the world. However, there is no evidence to suggest this would actually happen. Mr Trump, who has not mentioned the Medicare programme, nevertheless wants drugs in the US to be sold at the 'most-favoured-nation price'. If that happens, prices of drugs elsewhere could go up as a result. The order said: 'My administration will take immediate steps to end global freeloading and, should drug manufacturers fail to offer American consumers the most-favoured-nation lowest price, my administration will take additional aggressive action.' However, it did not spell out what such aggressive actions might be. Furthermore, Mr Trump had tried something similar in his first term in office, only to be blocked by the courts. Most attempts to control drug prices will need congressional approval – something that could take years to achieve, if at all possible. Mr Trump ordered his Secretary of Health and Human Services, Mr Robert F. Kennedy Jr, to establish a mechanism through which American patients can buy their drugs directly from manufacturers, bypassing middlemen. This sounds promising on paper, as it would cut the price of drugs by half. But in reality, it is far more complex. If the current intermediaries between drug company and patients are removed, some other mechanism needs to take their place to ensure drugs get to patients. It might cut the price, but there would certainly be some distribution cost. Mr Trump also suggested importing 'prescription drugs on a case-by-case basis from developed nations with low-cost prescription drugs'. Even if the laws in the US can be amended to allow for this, the quantities imported are unlikely to be large enough to move the needle. Prof Wee said that to systematically bring down the prices at which drugs are sold, the US first needs to define the set of countries that it will refer to for international reference pricing – and whether this is based on the list price or the net amount paid after negotiations, including volume discounts. While list prices are readily available, negotiated prices are usually kept confidential. She added that the US would also need to conduct health technology assessments to decide on what drug pricing is justifiable, at a national level. Any moves in this direction will certainly be challenged as unconstitutional, as it could prevent patients from assessing treatments deemed not to provide value for money. In contrast, many countries in Europe and Asia, including Singapore, are willing to forgo access to new therapies if they are found to be too costly for the additional benefits provided. In spite of the difficulties in implementing Mr Trump's directive, his declaration of war against high drug costs in the US is likely to result in some price reduction. Most industry experts expect pharmaceutical companies to reduce prices somewhat in an effort to allay his wrath. This will be especially for drugs that are nearing the end of their patent – so that Mr Trump can declare his move a success. Prof Wee said it is 'hard to say at the moment how the pharmaceutical companies will respond'. Should there be significant cuts in drug prices in the US, she anticipates a chain effect, which will lead to a new equilibrium in pricing globally, including in Singapore. US Secretary of Health and Human Services Robert F. Kennedy Jr at a news conference about prescription drug prices at the White House on May 12. PHOTO: AFP Going forward, exactly what will happen remains anybody's guess. But should the US government try to impose severe price cuts, the drug companies will likely take legal action to block such moves, given that billions of dollars are at stake. And pharmaceutical companies have deep pockets – with the top handful each raking in revenues in excess of US$50 billion in 2024. Mr Trump's diatribe on high drug prices in the US appears to target Europe. Referring to how countries there 'force' pharmaceutical companies to cut the cost of drugs, he said 'the European Union has been brutal, brutal. And the drug companies actually told me stories, it was just brutal'. So, rather than going after the pharmaceutical industry directly, he just might penalise countries that he feels are 'suppressing' drug prices to the detriment of the US. Mr Trump is known for doing the unexpected, such as linking a 20 per cent tariff on goods from China to the inflow of fentanyl to the US. So, the penalty could be anything, including higher tariffs on totally unrelated goods to something no one has even thought about. Any changes, big or small, in drug prices in the US will likely have some spillover effect for Singapore. Ms Poh Hwee Tee, president of Sapi, told ST: 'While it is too early to determine the full extent of the impact of the US government's most-favoured-nation executive order, Sapi and its members are closely monitoring the developments and remain committed to working in close partnership with the Ministry of Health and other stakeholders to identify and address any potential challenges. 'Our focus remains on supporting Singapore's healthcare ecosystem and working collaboratively with stakeholders to ensure sustainable access to innovative medicine and vaccines for patients in Singapore.' Singapore spends about $1 billion a year on medicine. If prices were to go up by, say, 20 per cent across the board, that would be an additional $200 million a year. While this might not amount to much for government coffers and much of the price increase for subsidised patients might be cushioned by higher subsidies, the increase may be significant for private patients. A reassuring thought is that any increase in prices will affect only drugs that are still under patent. A lot of commonly used drugs here for conditions like diabetes, high cholesterol and blood pressure, are generic, and hence cheap. There is unlikely to be any impact on these. Join ST's Telegram channel and get the latest breaking news delivered to you.
