via The Global Post, by John Donnelly
GlobalPost put that question to the Obama administration several weeks ago and US officials responded, saying that the government didn’t need more money because there has been nearly $1.5 billion stuck in the pipeline for 18 months or more.
In an interview with GlobalPost, Ambassador Eric Goosby, global AIDS coordinator, explained that $1.46 billion designated to fight AIDS hasn’t been used because of inefficient bureaucracies; major reductions in the cost of AIDS treatment; delays due to long negotiations on realigning programs with recipient country priorities; and a slowdown in a few countries because the AIDS problem was much smaller than originally estimated.
“What we’re doing is defining what money is available, and what’s left are our resources that we will put back into AIDS-free generation type activities — things that will not require continued year funding, could be a one-time funding effort,” Goosby said.
Read the Rest.
[Content that is linked from other sources is for informational purposes and should not construe a Mapping Pathways position.]
The Obama administration has set extraordinarily high goals in its fight against AIDS around the world. Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton said late last year that an “AIDS-free generation” is possible. And President Obama promised last December that the number of US-supported AIDS patients on treatment would rise to 6 million by the end of next year, up from the current 4 million.
So why did the administration submit a fiscal year 2013 budget that called for a $550 million reduction — an 11 percent cut — in its global AIDS program?
GlobalPost put that question to the Obama administration several weeks ago and US officials responded, saying that the government didn’t need more money because there has been nearly $1.5 billion stuck in the pipeline for 18 months or more.
In an interview with GlobalPost, Ambassador Eric Goosby, global AIDS coordinator, explained that $1.46 billion designated to fight AIDS hasn’t been used because of inefficient bureaucracies; major reductions in the cost of AIDS treatment; delays due to long negotiations on realigning programs with recipient country priorities; and a slowdown in a few countries because the AIDS problem was much smaller than originally estimated.
“What we’re doing is defining what money is available, and what’s left are our resources that we will put back into AIDS-free generation type activities — things that will not require continued year funding, could be a one-time funding effort,” Goosby said.
Read the Rest.
[Content that is linked from other sources is for informational purposes and should not construe a Mapping Pathways position.]
No comments:
Post a Comment