Global-Health Groups Upset by President's Budget Proposal

May 07, 2009

2010 Federal Budget
Global-Health Groups Upset by President's Budget Proposal

President Obama’s proposal to spend $8.6-billion next year on what he dubbed a “new, comprehensive global-health strategy” has drawn ire from some global-health charities, which say he has requested far less to fight AIDS, tuberculosis, and malaria than he had previously pledged.

In a statement released this week and in the budget proposal released today, Mr. Obama described a new approach to global health that would support President Bush’s popular President’s Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief while also putting greater emphasis on efforts to prevent deaths of mothers and children and improving health systems in poor countries.

Mr. Obama’s budget proposal calls for $63-billion to be spent over six years, approximately $51-billion of which would be spent to fight AIDS, tuberculosis, and malaria. The budget calls for increases of $366-million this year for AIDS, tuberculosis, and malaria programs, and $100-million more for projects focused on other health priorities.

But some health activists expressed disappointment. Joanne Carter, executive director of the advocacy group Results, said the figures were far less than what was called for in legislation passed last summer to extend the AIDS fund. And as a candidate, Mr. Obama had pledged to increase spending on the AIDS fund by $1-billion a year.

“The president fails to put us on a path to meeting objectives laid out in that legislation,” she said in a conference call today. Ms. Carter said the president’s plan “halts the dramatic scale up of funding we’ve seen” for AIDS under the Bush administration; provides “disturbingly low” support for fighting tuberculosis, and provides no increase in support for the Global Fund to Fight Aids, Tuberculosis, and Malaria.

She and other health activists said they were alarmed that Mr. Obama seemed to be putting the breaks on expanding programs like Pepfar and the Global Fund, while the other priorities he emphasized — child and maternal health and improving local health systems — likewise would receive only small increases.

But others in the philanthropic and charity world were supportive of Mr. Obama’s budget proposal and his plan to integrate health priorities.

“Today, ‘Doctor Obama leads the next chapter in the U.S. response to global health crises, building on the record of results from the previous administration and bipartisan support from Congress,” Bono, the musician and One campaign founder, said on the charity’s blog.

Groups that work on so-called “neglected tropical diseases” such as hookworm and leprosy were also pleased with the president’s plans. Mr. Obama requested $70-million for such diseases, an 180 percent jump.

— Caroline Preston

Comments

In the current (April 2009) issue of “The Rotarian”, Dr. Paul Farmer argues persuasively that broad health initiatives focused on maternal health and children offer the most effective programs, as well as the best financial investment for aid dollars. Dr. Farmer argues, from his own extensive experience in Haiti and Rwanda,that funding comprehensive public health care SYSTEMS as opposed to focusing on interventions for specific diseases, provides the greatest benefit for individual lives and to the collective welfare of communities and countries. I applaud President Obama’s plans; integrated policies would seem to be not just the best, but the only way to accomplish the Millenium Development Goals which are explicitly and necessarily interdependent. Poverty, disease and conflict are fellow-travelers.

— Marc California May 8, 05:22 PM #
Dr. Farmer in fact was recently on Capitol Hill arguing for more funding for the HIV/AIDS program. And his organization’s medical director recently published an oped in the Boston Globe also appealing for full funding for PEPFAR and Global Fund. I think the reason is that both of these programs have made a very substantial contribution to strengthening public health care SYSTEMS. Plus, with the changes Congress enacted last year, PEPFAR is required to do even more to support SYSTEMS. So, I think it’s important to avoid false dichotomies in this debate, look at what programs are actually doing, and look at the actual details of what is in Obama’s FY 2010 proposal, since that is what really counts. I go into this a bit more in my blog posting here:
http://sciencespeaks.wordpress.com/2009/05/08/further-budget-analysis-from-global-center/

— David Bryden May 12, 01:56 PM #

Commenting is closed for this article.

Previous: Budget Requests 29% Increase for Corporation for National and Community Service
Next: Corporation for Public Broadcasting Would Get Small Increase Under Obama Plan

2010 Federal Budget Global-Health Groups Upset by President's Budget Proposal

Comments

2010 Federal Budget
Global-Health Groups Upset by President's Budget Proposal