South Africa boosts HIV funding amid global crisis affecting children and young women
Image: Independent Newspapers Archives
As the world faces a historic HIV funding crisis that threatens to reverse decades of progress, South Africa is emerging as a beacon of commitment, funding 77 percent of its national HIV response and pledging further increases in health and HIV spending over the next three years.
According to UNAIDS' 2025 Global AIDS Update, released last week, South Africa's 2025 budget review includes a 5.9 percent annual increase in overall health expenditure and a 3.3 percent annual rise for HIV and tuberculosis programmes, along with plans to invest in health systems infrastructure, including a national chronic medicine dispensing system.
But the report, titled 'AIDS, Crisis and the Power to Transform', warns that South Africa is an exception in a world where funding cuts are devastating HIV services, particularly for children and young women in low- and middle-income countries.
In 2024, 620,000 children under 15 living with HIV did not receive treatment, leading to 75,000 AIDS-related child deaths. The year also saw 630,000 AIDS-related deaths globally, with 61 percent of them in sub-Saharan Africa.
'This is not just a funding gap: it's a ticking time bomb,' said UNAIDS Executive Director Winnie Byanyima. 'People, especially children and key populations, are being pushed out of care.'
Adolescent girls and young women aged 15 to 24 are being hit especially hard. In 2024, over 210,000 acquired HIV, an average of 570 new infections every day. Prevention programmes that once protected this group are vanishing as donor funding disappears.
Video Player is loading.
Play Video
Play
Unmute
Current Time
0:00
/
Duration
-:-
Loaded :
0%
Stream Type LIVE
Seek to live, currently behind live
LIVE
Remaining Time
-
0:00
This is a modal window.
Beginning of dialog window. Escape will cancel and close the window.
Text Color White Black Red Green Blue Yellow Magenta Cyan
Transparency Opaque Semi-Transparent Background Color Black White Red Green Blue Yellow Magenta Cyan
Transparency Opaque Semi-Transparent Transparent Window Color Black White Red Green Blue Yellow Magenta Cyan
Transparency Transparent Semi-Transparent Opaque
Font Size 50% 75% 100% 125% 150% 175% 200% 300% 400% Text Edge Style None Raised Depressed Uniform Dropshadow Font Family Proportional Sans-Serif Monospace Sans-Serif Proportional Serif Monospace Serif Casual Script Small Caps
Reset
restore all settings to the default values Done
Close Modal Dialog
End of dialog window.
Advertisement
Video Player is loading.
Play Video
Play
Unmute
Current Time
0:00
/
Duration
-:-
Loaded :
0%
Stream Type LIVE
Seek to live, currently behind live
LIVE
Remaining Time
-
0:00
This is a modal window.
Beginning of dialog window. Escape will cancel and close the window.
Text Color White Black Red Green Blue Yellow Magenta Cyan
Transparency Opaque Semi-Transparent Background Color Black White Red Green Blue Yellow Magenta Cyan
Transparency Opaque Semi-Transparent Transparent Window Color Black White Red Green Blue Yellow Magenta Cyan
Transparency Transparent Semi-Transparent Opaque
Font Size 50% 75% 100% 125% 150% 175% 200% 300% 400% Text Edge Style None Raised Depressed Uniform Dropshadow Font Family Proportional Sans-Serif Monospace Sans-Serif Proportional Serif Monospace Serif Casual Script Small Caps
Reset
restore all settings to the default values Done
Close Modal Dialog
End of dialog window.
Next
Stay
Close ✕
In Nigeria, monthly PrEP (pre-exposure prophylaxis) initiation fell from 40,000 to just 6,000 people, while more than 60 percent of women-led HIV organisations surveyed in early 2025 had lost funding or shut down. In Mozambique, over 30,000 health personnel were affected by funding-related disruptions.
If the crisis continues, UNAIDS estimates 6 million new HIV infections and 4 million AIDS-related deaths could occur between 2025 and 2029.
While 25 countries have pledged domestic increases totalling 180 million US dollars in 2026, UNAIDS warns this is not enough to replace the large-scale donor withdrawals.
Community-led services, crucial for reaching vulnerable populations, are being slashed, while new punitive laws in countries like Uganda and Mali are pushing people further from care.
'There is still time to transform this crisis into an opportunity,' said Byanyima. 'Countries are stepping up with domestic funding. Communities are showing what works. We now need global solidarity to match their courage and resilience.'
'In a time of crisis, the world must choose transformation over retreat,' she added. 'Together, we can still end AIDS as a public health threat by 2030 if we act with urgency, unity, and unwavering commitment.'
THE MERCURY
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
TimesLIVE
10 hours ago
- TimesLIVE
Small win for activists, but SA's HIV projects won't get reopened
The $400m that US Congress hasn't cut with the rest of its funding programme doesn't undo the blow to global HIV and TB programmes By The $400m that the US Congress took off a list of programmes from which the Trump administration will now take back previously approved but unspent funds, doesn't mean the cuts to global HIV and TB programmes in February, including those in South Africa, are now reversed. HIV projects that have closed in South Africa, which were formerly funded by the US government, won't restart as a result of this decision. In fact, quite the opposite. The 'limited Pepfar waiver' that President Donald Trump announced in February remains in place. That means no HIV prevention activities, unless they intend to stop pregnant and breastfeeding women from infecting their babies, can be paid for with US government money, and projects that make it easier for teen girls and young women in Africa, trans people, sex workers, injecting drug users and gay and bisexual men — groups of people that have a higher chance to get HIV than the general population — cannot be funded. Without a proper explanation for it, the $400m seems to be a random amount that Trump's administration picked to take back from Pepfar, a US government programme that funds Aids projects in poorer countries with high HIV infection rates, such as South Africa. The amount is about 8.5% of Pepfar's $4.725bn budget for this financial year and was part of a larger $9.4bn 'rescissions package' — that has now been reduced to $9bn and passed as the H.R.4 Rescissions Act of 2025. Rescissions happen when the presidential administration wants to cancel funding that was approved by Congress and then use it for something else. What the decision to remove the $400m from the package does, however, mean is that activism could finally be starting to pay off. Activists have had hundreds of meetings with US senators and Congress committee chairs. There have been 'Save Pepfar' social media campaigns, and plenty of media coverage about the devastating consequences of the funding cuts. Tens of modelling studies have also projected what could happen if the lost funds are not replaced. Opposition from within Trump's Republican Party against nonevidence-based cuts to a programme that has, for two decades, been supported by both the Democrats and Republicans and has saved over 25-million lives, is now at last emerging. 'It's a small win within the bigger context, but nonetheless, a huge win for advocacy, and a reminder that activism is powerful and alive, and making an impact,' Jirair Ratevosian, a former head of staff at Pepfar and fellow at Duke University's Global Health Institute, told Bhekisisa at last week's Conference on HIV Science in Kigali. Around $8bn of the money was for foreign aid and development programmes, including global health, and just over $1bn for public broadcast stations that the Trump administration has accused of being biased because they're too liberal. But the Rescissions Act is, in itself, bad news. 'It opens the floodgates for the Trump administration to say 'we don't want this or that in the budget that Congress approved',' says Mitchell Warren, the head of international advocacy organisation Avac. 'It's trying to take the congressional power of the purse and put it in the executive branch to usurp the role of Congress in deciding how much money — and on what to spend it.' So how did this all happen, and does it hold any good in the long term for South Africa? We break it down. 1. How did we get here? In the US, Congress — it consists of the Senate and the House of Representatives — decides how much government money goes to who, just like parliament does in South Africa. Both the Senate and the House have to pass budgets. But, as analysts at the Centre for Budget and Policy Priorities in Washington, DC point out, President Trump wants more control over how his administration's money is spent. In March, he signed the 2025 budget that Congress approved into law. Three months later, in June, he decided he wanted to change some of that and submitted a $9.4bn rescission request, which the House of Representatives (it has five more Republican than Democrat members) passed on June 12. When it was the Senate's turn to vote on this, some Republican senators weren't happy with the $400m Pepfar cut, signalling they wouldn't sign off on the deal unless the Pepfar part was removed. Because there was a danger of them swinging the vote, the Republicans removed the $400m from the Rescissions Bill and got the House to pass that too. All that's left is for Trump to now sign the Act. 2. What was the $400m that was removed from the Rescissions Act for? In short, no one really knows, because the Trump administration hasn't said what it was for — or what it plans to do with it. But what we do know is that the US law that governs rescissions, the Impoundment Control Act, says that the president can only request that Congress takes back funding that it previously approved, if the money has not yet been obligated — that means funds hadn't yet been given to a particular recipient, for instance, an HIV project in South Africa. We also know that the $400m was part of the financial budget for 2025, says Warren, but because the law gives Pepfar permission to spend money over five years, that money doesn't have to be legally spent until 2029. 3. What will the $400m now be used for? Again, no one knows. We don't even know if it will be used, because over the past few months, the Trump administration's main strategy has 'simply been to illegally impound funds — by announcing a 'funding freeze' or 'programmatic review' with no public notice at all — and force those harmed by the impoundments to pursue relief in court', the Centre on Budget and Policy Priorities explains in an analysis. But we do know what the money can't be used for. Unless the rules of Trump's 'limited waiver' are changed, Pepfar funds can mostly not be spent on any of the evidence-based strategies it paid for before Trump was elected in January. Pepfar used to focus on groups of people and areas where people have the highest chance of getting infected with HIV — that way, the programme got the biggest bang for its buck. In South Africa, for instance, Pepfar worked in the 27 districts with the highest infection rates and groups known as 'key populations' — sex workers, gay and bisexual men, trans people, injecting drug users and African women between the ages of 15 and 24 — that are much more likely to get newly infected with HIV than other South Africans. Now those projects, which studies show stopped many new infections, have been closed down and the Trump administration says it's not prepared to buy HIV prevention medicine for any group other than pregnant and breastfeeding women. 'It used to be all about evidence,' Warren says. 'Now it's all about ideology.' 4. What do scientists and activists want the $400m to be used for? Ratevosian says this moment should be used to gain Republican support to change the waiver rules, so that Pepfar money can cover more of the populations and services needed for HIV prevention. Lenacapavir, a pricey twice-a-year anti-HIV jab, which scientists believe could help to stop HIV in its tracks if it's rolled out properly, could be used to convince Republican Congress members, says Ratevosian. 'Pepfar has long wanted to get countries to transition to taking more ownership [read: pay more] for their HIV responses. So now activists are arguing: 'Preventing more new infections with the jab, will make it easier for countries to take ownership because the pandemic will be easier to manage.'' In December, Pepfar said it would join another organisation, the Global Fund for HIV, TB and Malaria to buy enough lenacapavir for two-million people over three years. But in July, the Global Fund had to go ahead with the deal by itself, because Pepfar seemed to no longer be on board. Warren says: 'If I were in charge, I would take the $400m and double the two million people the Global Fund is planning to cover, because that's how you build a market, prevent new infections more quickly and drive the price down.' 5. What will Pepfar look like in future? Trump's funding cuts didn't kill Pepfar — at least not in theory, but it's a shell of its former self. What it will look like, will depend on the size of its next budget (the Trump administration wants to cut it by 40% but, so far, the House hasn't agreed to that, (the Senate still needs to sit on it) and how much support Republicans who believe in Pepfar can gain to have waiver rules changed. But, Warren points out, 'we're not going to get pre-January projects back; we have to build something different. 'This has been the most seismic shift in democracy. We didn't think we lived in an earthquake zone, but January 20 [when Trump retook office] taught us: you need to be prepared for that earthquake and you therefore need a different infrastructure. 'In an earthquake you don't build back the same thing. You build better, something that is more resilient.' This story was produced by the Bhekisisa Centre for Health Journalism. Sign up for the
IOL News
20 hours ago
- IOL News
Why the world must aim to eliminate PEPFAR and end the HIV epidemic
Last week, the President's Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief narrowly escaped a devastating $400 million budget cut thanks to Republican Sens. Susan Collins (Maine) and Lisa Murkowski (Alaska), who voted alongside their Democratic colleagues to protect the program. That was a relief: Since its creation under President George W. Bush in 2003, the anti-HIV/AIDS program has saved an estimated 26 million lives and allowed 7.8 million babies to be born HIV-free. But preserving PEPFAR shouldn't be seen as the end goal. Instead, global health officials should be working toward the day when the world no longer needs it. That ambitious goal might sound far-fetched, given that an estimated 1.3 million people were newly infected with HIV in 2023 globally. But consider this: Last month, the Food and Drug Administration approved a drug called lenacapavir, a twice-yearly injectable treatment that clinical trials have shown is 100 percent effective at preventing HIV infection among young women and 96 percent effective among gay and bisexual men and transgender people. The drug has the potential to be a groundbreaking improvement over the current standard for HIV prevention, oral PrEP (pre-exposure prophylaxis treatment). For all its promise, oral PrEP has confronted the difficult realities of human behaviour. Adhering to a daily medication regimen is challenging under any circumstances, but especially so in communities where HIV-related stigma is pervasive. Even in wealthier countries, gay men who take the medication have been disparaged. Oral PrEP also tends to be less effective in women, though studies differ on whether this is due to lower adherence and access barriers or biological differences in how the medication is absorbed in female anatomy. Lenacapavir, manufactured by Gilead Sciences, could help address these challenges. It is discreet and can be administered privately in a clinical setting. It requires dosing only twice a year, and it is easier and less painful to administer than previous injectable drugs to prevent HIV. In the United States, lenacapavir costs more than $28,000 per person per year before insurance. But Gilead has licensed six generic manufacturers to produce the drug at cost for 120 low- and middle-income countries. Together with the Global Fund, the company has pledged to distribute 2 million doses - still a drop in the bucket compared to what's needed for population-level protection, but a meaningful start. Video Player is loading. Play Video Play Unmute Current Time 0:00 / Duration -:- Loaded : 0% Stream Type LIVE Seek to live, currently behind live LIVE Remaining Time - 0:00 This is a modal window. Beginning of dialog window. Escape will cancel and close the window. Text Color White Black Red Green Blue Yellow Magenta Cyan Transparency Opaque Semi-Transparent Background Color Black White Red Green Blue Yellow Magenta Cyan Transparency Opaque Semi-Transparent Transparent Window Color Black White Red Green Blue Yellow Magenta Cyan Transparency Transparent Semi-Transparent Opaque Font Size 50% 75% 100% 125% 150% 175% 200% 300% 400% Text Edge Style None Raised Depressed Uniform Dropshadow Font Family Proportional Sans-Serif Monospace Sans-Serif Proportional Serif Monospace Serif Casual Script Small Caps Reset restore all settings to the default values Done Close Modal Dialog End of dialog window. Advertisement Next Stay Close ✕ Ad loading Of course, the drug is no silver bullet. Unfortunately none of the licensed generic manufacturers are based in sub-Saharan Africa, the region with the greatest need, and scaling up production could take years. So far, the U.S. is the only country to approve it, and regulatory timelines elsewhere are likely to lag. Nevertheless, lenacapavir is exciting for what it represents: An innovation that can draw PEPFAR into a new era defined not by fighting HIV, but ending it. Advocates of the program should remember that it was designed as an emergency response to an uncontained pandemic; for it to become a permanent fixture of global health would constitute a failure of its mission. Moreover, the program is far from perfect. Like many HIV prevention programs, it often sacrifices preventative care for treatment when budgets tighten. Those trade-offs stand in the way of HIV elimination. The program is also, regrettably, subject to the whims of U.S. politics. In February, Secretary of State Marco Rubio restricted HIV prevention aid so that only pregnant and breastfeeding women can receive it - as if to invite more AIDS epidemics. The world has a long way to go until PEPFAR can safely be shuttered. After all, foundations and private companies cannot replace the program, which provides nearly 70 percent of global financing for HIV/AIDS response. But it's possible to imagine a future in which biomedical science and investments into a sustainable health infrastructure make the program obsolete. That's something the world should strive for. - The Washington Post
The Star
a day ago
- The Star
WHO announces lenacapavir as a groundbreaking HIV prevention method
Tracy-Lynn Ruiters | Published 1 week ago The World Health Organization (WHO) announced a landmark policy at the 13th International AIDS Society Conference (IAS 2025) on HIV Science in Kigali, Rwanda, releasing new guidelines that recommend injectable lenacapavir (LEN) as a twice-yearly pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP) option for HIV prevention. This development has the potential to significantly reshape the global HIV response. LEN is the first twice-yearly injectable PrEP product, offering a highly effective, long-acting alternative to daily oral pills and shorter-acting prevention methods. With just two doses a year, LEN marks a transformative step in HIV prevention, particularly for individuals who face challenges with daily adherence, stigma, or limited access to health care. 'While an HIV vaccine remains elusive, lenacapavir is the next best thing: a long-acting antiretroviral shown in trials to prevent almost all HIV infections among those at risk," said Dr Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus, WHO Director-General. 'The launch of WHO's new guidelines, alongside the FDA's recent approval, marks a critical step forward in expanding access to this powerful tool. WHO is committed to working with countries and partners to ensure this innovation reaches communities as quickly and safely as possible.' The new guidelines come at a pivotal time, as global HIV prevention efforts have stalled, with 1.3 million new infections recorded in 2024. Key and priority populations — including sex workers, men who have sex with men, transgender individuals, people who inject drugs, those in prisons, as well as children and adolescents — continue to be disproportionately affected. WHO's endorsement of LEN marks a significant step toward broadening and diversifying HIV prevention strategies, empowering people with more choices to protect their health in ways that align with their needs and circumstances. WHO has recommended a simpler, more accessible approach to HIV testing using rapid tests to support the rollout of long-acting injectable PrEP like LEN and CAB-LA. This change removes a major barrier by cutting out complex, expensive procedures and allowing delivery through local clinics, pharmacies, and tele-health. LEN now joins other WHO-approved HIV prevention options — including daily oral PrEP, injectable cabotegravir, and the dapivirine vaginal ring. Although access to LEN outside clinical trials is still limited, WHO is calling on governments and health partners to begin implementing it within national HIV prevention programmes while gathering data on its real-world use and impact. For the first time, WHO now recommends long-acting injectable cabotegravir and rilpivirine (CAB/RPV) as an option for adults and adolescents who are already virally suppressed on oral antiretroviral therapy (ART) and don't have hepatitis B. This is especially helpful for people who struggle with daily pill-taking. WHO also updated its guidance on inte grating HIV care with other health services, such as treating high blood pressure, diabetes, mental health conditions (like depression, anxiety, and alcohol use disorders), and improving ART adherence. The organisation now recommends STI screening (gonorrhoea and chlamydia) for key and priority populations, even when no symptoms are present. For people living with HIV who have or are at risk of mpox (formerly monkeypox), WHO strongly recommends starting ART quickly, especially if they've never started treatment or have had long interruptions. HIV and syphilis testing is also advised for anyone with suspected or confirmed mpox. Given funding challenges facing global HIV programmes, WHO released new guidance to help countries maintain essential HIV services. This includes advice on how to prioritise services, manage risks, and keep health systems resilient. Dr Meg Doherty, WHO's HIV programme director, emphasised the urgency of acting on these guidelines: 'We have the tools and the knowledge to end AIDS as a public health problem. What we need now is bold implementation of these recommendations, grounded in equity and powered by communities.' HIV continues to be a major public health issue, with an estimated 40.8 million people living with the virus globally by the end of 2024. While treatment access is growing — 31.6 million people are now on ART — new infections and deaths remain high, particularly in the WHO African Region. With these updated guidelines, WHO said it is offering countries practical tools to make HIV responses more efficient, equitable, and sustainable. The focus now shifts to putting these strategies into action. [email protected] Weekend Argus
