Pubdate: Sat, 31 Mar 2007 Source: New York Times (NY) Copyright: 2007 The New York Times Company Contact: http://www.nytimes.com/ Details: http://www.mapinc.org/media/298 Author: Donald G. McNeil Jr Bookmark: http://www.mapinc.org/find?136 (Methadone) Bookmark: http://www.mapinc.org/find?137 (Needle Exchange) BUSH'S GLOBAL AIDS EFFORT LIMITED BY RESTRICTIONS President Bush's $15 billion plan to fight AIDS globally is seriously hampered by restrictions imposed by Congress and the administration, a panel of medical experts said yesterday. The country's most prestigious medical advisory panel, the Institute of Medicine, was asked by Congress to assess the five-year plan at midway. The 13 members of the panel praised the efforts, saying the plan had "demonstrated what many doubted could be done." But it needs to move from an emergency response to a long-term battle plan, the panel said, and its members listed these three restrictions that they felt were the most hindering: - -- The requirement that 33 percent of all money for prevention be spent teaching chastity and fidelity, even in countries where most cases are spread by drug injection. - -- The need for separate Food and Drug Administration approval of AIDS drugs that the World Health Organization has already approved. - -- Laws forbidding the use of taxpayer money to give clean needles to drug addicts. Ruth Macklin, a bioethicist at the Albert Einstein College of Medicine in the Bronx and a panel member, called the restrictions "hamstrings or shackles," though Dr. Macklin said the report diplomatically referred to them as "earmarks or budget allocations." "There's a feeling that when reporting to Congress you have to pussyfoot around a bit and show respect for the legislation," she said. Dr. Mark R. Dybul, the global AIDS coordinator who oversees the President's Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief, known as Pepfar, said he welcomed the report as "quite an endorsement of our program," but disagreed with the panelists on some aspects. "I don't think we're hampered too much by the restrictions," Dr. Dybul said. The $15 billion that Mr. Bush promised in his State of the Union address in 2003 is far more than any other country has spent fighting AIDS outside its borders and far more than any previous administration spent. Though the ambitious plan has not yet helped as many people as its original goals envisioned, the panel endorsed financing it beyond its 2009 expiration date. "Over all, Pepfar is doing quite well, has made a good start, but it needs to transition from emergency mode to a sustainable effort," said Dr. Jaime Sepulveda, director of the National Institutes of Public Health in Mexico and the panel chairman. With its limited money, the program has to focus much more on prevention than treatment. "Otherwise," Dr. Sepulveda said, "the epidemic will never end." He added that the plan needed more freedom to tailor its responses to each of its 15 "focus countries," Guyana, Haiti, Vietnam and 12 African countries. Congress requires that 55 percent of the budget be spent on treatment, 15 percent on care for the dying and 10 percent on children and orphans. Of the 20 percent left for prevention, a third must be spent on promoting abstinence until marriage. The law against using taxpayer dollars for needle swaps predates Pepfar. Critics have said that under pressure from those directives and conservative Christians, the plan tends to give condoms to prostitutes and truckers but only abstinence advice to young people and counseling rather than clean needles to drug addicts, and does too little for women and girls likely to be infected by rape or by their husbands. The rules forbid using the money to distribute condoms in schools, the panel said, and "returning to abstinence" is a primary message for youths having sex. "Given the reported early average age of sexual debut (and sometimes marriage) in many countries, Pepfar may wish to re-examine its exclusive AB focus for younger adolescents," the report said. AB is short for "abstinence/be faithful." Dr. Dybul has often rejected such criticisms, saying that young children should be given abstinence messages and that his agency can still tailor its approach because the mandates apply to overall expenditures. "A lot of what they suggest is exactly what we're trying to do," he said. "I'd be worried, for instance, if we didn't have a mandate that we spend 10 percent on orphans, because without it we wouldn't have made such progress there." When the panel visited AIDS treatment programs in Africa, Dr. Charles C. J. Carpenter, head of AIDS research at the Brown University medical school and a panel member, said doctors complained that they could buy three times as much medicine if the program accepted W.H.O. approvals. Dr. Dybul should assess the W.H.O. approval process, Dr. Carpenter said, and, "if it's equally good, we think we should accept it." Dr. Dybul said he saw little need for that because he felt that the foreign doctors' complaints were outdated. The F.D.A. has recently approved more low-priced generic drugs, including three-in-one antiretroviral cocktails. He also disagreed that the program should pay for clean needle programs, saying it paid for methadone for infected addicts. "Needle exchange just continues the condition," Dr. Dybul said. "If other countries want to fund it, that's fine with us." At its halfway point, the program is not halfway toward meeting its goals, which included treatment for 2 million people, caring for 10 million and preventing 7 million new cases of AIDS by 2010. As of September, the program was underwriting treatment for 822,000 people. - --- MAP posted-by: Beth Wehrman