HIV and gay men and other men who have sex with men: an expanding and underfunded epidemic

Financing the response to HIV among gay men and other men who have sex with men: case studies from eight diverse countries.

Grosso A, Ryan O, Tram KH, Baral S. Glob Public Health. 2015 Dec;10(10):1172-84. doi: 10.1080/17441692.2015.1043314. Epub 2015 Jul 3.

Despite reductions in the number of new HIV infections globally, the HIV epidemic among men who have sex with men (MSM) is expanding. This study characterises financing of HIV programmes for MSM and the impact of criminalisation on levels of funding, using data from five countries that criminalise same-sex sexual practices (Ethiopia, Mozambique, Guyana, India and Nigeria) and three that do not (China, Ukraine and Vietnam). For each country, all publicly available documents from the Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria for approved HIV/AIDS grants in Rounds 5-9 and Country Operational Plans detailing investments made through the President's Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief (PEPFAR) from US fiscal year (FY) 2007-2009 were examined. Eleven of 20 HIV proposals to the Global Fund contained programmes for MSM totalling approximately $40 million or 6% of proposed budgets. In six countries providing activity-level data on MSM programming, PEPFAR funding that served this population and others ranged from $23.3 million in FY2007 to $35.4 million in FY2009, representing 0.5-25.9% of overall, non-treatment funding over this period. Countries that criminalise same-sex sexual practices spend fewer resources on HIV programmes serving MSM. However, they also show consistent underfunding of programmes serving MSM regardless of context or geography.

 Abstract access [1]

Editor’s notes: Despite encouraging indicators on the reduction of new HIV infections worldwide, the epidemic among gay men and other men who have sex with men continues to grow. This is due to both biological and structural factors. With many governments failing to take responsibility for this at-risk population, funding for gay men and other men who have sex with men-specific programmes often comes from international donors. This study looks at Global Fund and PEPFAR financing of programmes for gay men and other men who have sex with men, comparing funding availability and services offered both in settings where homosexuality is criminalised and settings where it is not.

The study finds that most proposed funding focuses on behaviour change communication, and less frequently on improving sexual health services, community outreach and education. Nations that criminalise homosexuality allocated about 2% of funding towards gay men and other men who have sex with men services, while countries without punitive measures allocated close to 7%. Importantly, both were felt to be inadequately small sums of money in relation to the size of the epidemic. Key stakeholder interviews from criminalising countries suggest that legal restrictions make it more difficult to provide services focused on gay men and other men who have sex with men. Although, little is known about the degree to which gay men and other men who have sex with men access services focused on the general population. The authors also note that countries that criminalise homosexuality may request funds for gay men and other men who have sex with men believing that donors will look favourably on budgets that include these activities. After receiving funds, these countries may re-programme activities, reducing or removing these focussed programmes.

There is comparatively little research done on HIV and gay men and other men who have sex with men in low- and middle-income countries, in particular in African settings. This article contributes to an expanding literature on the subject and raises questions about the role that international donors should play in ensuring an equitable access to services, particularly in the context of reprogramming. This highlights how real impact on the incidence of HIV among gay men and other men who have sex with men requires both demand generation and accountability in equal measure.

Africa [7], Asia [8], Europe [9], Latin America [10]
China [11], Ethiopia [12], Guyana [13], India [14], Mozambique [15], Nigeria [16], Ukraine [17], Viet Nam [18]
  • [19]