Antibiotic Crisis: Hope Amid Institutional Decline
The fight against antimicrobial resistance (AMR) in sexually transmitted infections (STIs) stands at a critical crossroads. Despite a slight decline in U.S. STI rates in 2023, resistance to antibiotics continues to rise globally, particularly for gonorrhea. This creates a paradox: while we're seeing promising new treatments advancing toward approval, recent political decisions have dramatically weakened our ability to track resistance patterns. Meanwhile, funding and policy support for developing new antibiotics remain inadequate. This crisis demands urgent attention as resistant infections spread faster than new treatments can be developed, with serious implications for public health and patient care.
The Growing Threat of Antibiotic-Resistant STIs
For people living with chronic conditions or compromised immune systems, antibiotic-resistant STIs aren't just a public health statistic—they represent a serious and growing threat to wellbeing. While the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) reported fewer gonorrhea cases in the U.S. last year, the global picture is far more concerning.
Gonorrhea is becoming increasingly resistant to our last effective treatments. In Southeast Asia, the World Health Organization (WHO) identified a three-fold increase in extensively drug-resistant gonorrhea strains in Cambodia between 2022 and 2023. These hard-to-treat infections now make up over 12% of cases in the region.
What does this mean for patients? When first-line treatments fail, people face longer infectious periods, more complex and expensive treatments, and greater risk of complications. For people living with HIV or hepatitis C, these resistant infections can further compromise health and complicate disease management.
Breakthrough Treatments on the Horizon
Despite the grim outlook, two novel antibiotics represent genuine breakthroughs in the fight against resistant STIs after decades without new gonorrhea treatments.
Zoliflodacin, developed through a Global Antibiotic Research & Development Partnership (GARDP) and Innoviva Specialty Therapeutics partnership, completed the largest Phase 3 trial ever conducted for gonorrhea, with promising results. While its 91% cure rate appears slightly lower than the current standard's 96%, zoliflodacin's significance lies in its novel mechanism of action against resistant strains and its oral administration route. As resistant gonorrhea increasingly requires injectable treatments, an effective oral option represents a major advance for both accessibility and patient care.
Equally promising is gepotidacin, developed by GSK and already FDA-approved for urinary tract infections as of March 2025. This novel antibiotic showed a 92.6% success rate against gonorrhea through its unique dual-targeting mechanism that inhibits two critical bacterial enzymes, making it effective against resistant strains. GSK plans to submit for the gonorrhea indication later in 2025.
These developments showcase complementary partnership models: GARDP's non-profit approach ensures zoliflodacin's availability in low-income countries, while gepotidacin demonstrates successful public-private partnership between GSK and BARDA. Despite these advances, the WHO reports the broader antibiotic pipeline remains critically thin, with only 12 truly innovative antibiotics among 32 in development, and just 4 targeting the most critical pathogens.
Political Decisions Undermining Public Health
In a dangerous contradiction, just as resistance is rising and new treatments are on the horizon, political decisions have severely weakened our ability to monitor and respond to these threats.
Since early 2025, the current administration has eliminated approximately 20,000 jobs across health agencies and proposed cutting the HHS budget by about 26% ($127 billion).
The impact on STI programs has been particularly severe. The Washington Post reported that all 27 scientists at the only U.S. facility capable of tracking hepatitis outbreaks were fired. Additionally, 77 CDC staff members working on STI prevention were let go, including 49 experts embedded in state health departments who provided critical support to local efforts.
Most alarming for people at risk of STIs is the closure of the specialized lab that tests gonorrhea samples for antibiotic resistance. This lab was our early warning system—without it, doctors and patients won't know which antibiotics still work until treatment failures start mounting.
Prevention Strategies: Interrupting Transmission Chains
While developing new antibiotics is critical, prevention remains essential. Doxycycline Post-Exposure Prophylaxis (DoxyPEP) has emerged as an effective tool for breaking transmission chains. The CDC now recommends that men who have sex with men and transgender women with a history of bacterial STIs use DoxyPEP after sexual encounters.
Real-world data from San Francisco showed significant declines in chlamydia and syphilis among those using DoxyPEP, though gonorrhea reductions were less dramatic. While some concerns exist about the potential for DoxyPEP to contribute to broader antibiotic resistance, current evidence suggests this approach can effectively reduce STI transmission in high-risk groups—a crucial tool while we wait for new treatments.
The Funding Gap and Market Failure
The fundamental problem in antibiotic development is an economic one: the market doesn't adequately reward the creation of new antibiotics, especially those held in reserve to combat resistance.
The experiences of both zoliflodacin and gepotidacin highlight this challenge. Zoliflodacin required non-profit involvement through GARDP to advance through clinical trials, while gepotidacin needed significant government funding through BARDA. As Henry Skinner of the AMR Action Fund notes, "The funds needed to support this ecosystem, particularly in late-stage development, won't be there in a couple of years unless something unanticipated happens."
The AMR Action Fund, backed by pharmaceutical companies, aims to invest $1 billion to bring 2-4 new antibiotics to patients by 2030. The Fund has deployed over $100 million in capital to companies developing promising antimicrobials. However, experts recognize this as a stopgap measure rather than a solution to the underlying market failure.
A more sustainable approach is proposed in the PASTEUR Act, which has been introduced in multiple congressional sessions without passing. This legislation would create subscription contracts with developers of critical antimicrobials, ensuring financial returns regardless of how sparingly the drugs are used—essentially paying for access rather than volume.
This "Netflix model" for antibiotics would help align public health needs with market incentives. However, despite bipartisan support, the Act faces an uncertain future in the current political climate of budget cutting and deregulation.
Disproportionate Impact on Vulnerable Communities
Antimicrobial resistance operates within complex syndemics, where multiple health conditions interact and amplify each other within populations experiencing social inequities. People living with HIV stand at the intersection of these overlapping epidemics.
Research shows people living with HIV have higher rates of drug-resistant gonorrhea co-infection, each condition worsening the other. This syndemic intensifies with hepatitis C—a Department of Veterans Affairs study found 37% of people with HIV were also HCV-positive, with significantly higher rates of mental health issues and substance use disorders among these co-infected patients.
Among people who inject drugs with HIV, HCV rates reach up to 71% in some settings, according to a global review. These aren't coincidental occurrences—structural factors create environments where these epidemics cluster and interact.
The dismantling of surveillance infrastructure creates a dangerous blind spot in tracking these syndemics. Without specialized CDC labs monitoring resistant gonorrhea, we've lost our early warning system for emerging resistance patterns in vulnerable communities. Simultaneously, new restrictions on health equity research effectively discourage scientists from studying social factors that increase vulnerability to antimicrobial resistance.
A Patient-Centered Path Forward
From a patient and advocate perspective, five key policy areas require immediate attention:
Restore critical infrastructure. The dismantling of STI surveillance labs has left both patients and providers flying blind. Congress must fund restoration of these capabilities and hold administration officials accountable so we can track resistance patterns, update treatment guidelines, and support state and local health departments.
Support innovative development models. The GARDP partnership for zoliflodacin and the GSK-BARDA collaboration that produced gepotidacin demonstrate effective approaches to antibiotic development. These models—balancing commercial viability with public health needs—warrant expanded funding and replication.
Implement pull incentives. The PASTEUR Act would create a subscription-based model rewarding companies for developing critically-needed antibiotics without encouraging overuse, aligning market incentives with public health priorities.
Strengthen integrated care models. People at highest risk of resistant infections often face multiple health challenges. HIV, HCV, and STI services should be integrated to address overlapping needs, following the Ryan White HIV/AIDS Program's comprehensive care model.
Expand prevention strategies. While new treatments are essential, preventing infections reduces suffering and limits resistance. Expanded access to DoxyPEP, increased STI screening in high-risk populations, and vaccine research represent critical prevention strategies.
The antimicrobial resistance crisis in STIs reveals a stunning act of self-sabotage: just as scientific innovation finally delivers promising new treatments like zoliflodacin and gepotidacin, the misguided decimation of public health infrastructure has crippled our ability to track and respond to resistant infections. This isn't poor timing—it's the cavalier dismemberment of critical surveillance systems by ill-equipped partisans wielding policy chainsaws with no regard for consequences. The resulting wreckage threatens to undo decades of progress against STIs, particularly for communities already navigating systemic barriers to care.
The path forward demands both hope and principled outrage. Patients and advocates must forcefully reject further cuts to public health infrastructure, demand immediate restoration of STI surveillance capabilities, and hold elected officials accountable for the consequences of their decisions. We must insist on passage of the PASTEUR Act to fix the broken economics of antibiotic development while ensuring that promising science reaches those who need it most, not just those with wealth, power, and access.
Focus on Hepatitis B: WHO's New Guidelines and Their Global Implications
At the 2024 Asian Pacific Conference for the Study of Liver Disease in Kyoto, the World Health Organization (WHO) introduced transformative guidelines for the prevention, diagnosis, care, and treatment of chronic Hepatitis B virus (HBV) infection. HBV is a major global health challenge affecting approximately 296 million people worldwide. If left untreated, it results in nearly 900,000 deaths annually from complications like liver disease and cancer.
The new guidelines aim to increase testing access and expand treatment eligibility, particularly in sub-Saharan Africa which accounts for 70% of all new HBV infections. They provide evidence-based recommendations based on updated scientific data about antiviral effectiveness, diagnostic test performance, and service delivery models. By simplifying testing and extending treatment eligibility, these guidelines address longstanding access barriers. They represent a significant step towards achieving the 2030 goal of eliminating HBV as a major public health threat.
Key Changes in the New Guidelines
The WHO's new guidelines focus on making HBV testing and treatment more accessible for those who need it most. Key changes include:
Simplified Testing Recommendations
The WHO's revisions highlight the importance of streamlined testing methods such as dried blood spot sampling and point-of-care viral load assessments. The goal is to expand early diagnosis. Coupled with community-based testing, these methods aim to enhance accessibility, particularly in areas with limited resources. They facilitate early intervention and aim to reduce the stigma associated with traditional diagnostic procedures.
There is also an emphasis on expanding testing among pregnant women to prevent transmission of HBV from mother to child during birth or through breastfeeding, which is the primary way the virus is transmitted.
Previous recommendations advised pregnant women with active HBV infection to receive temporary treatment until their child was fully vaccinated against the disease. The new guidelines take into account that not every health facility has the tests to determine if a woman has an active infection. They suggest that health care providers consider administering prophylaxis to pregnant women with HBV, even if they cannot determine the status of their infection.
Expanded Treatment Eligibility and Access
Nearly 300 million people currently live with HBV, and the disease causes approximately 820,000 deaths each year. Prior guidelines typically limited treatment to those with advanced liver disease or significant fibrosis, which made it challenging for patients to access care until their conditions had substantially deteriorated. The new guidelines propose a more inclusive treatment approach, expanding eligibility for antiviral therapy to millions more people. This change should increase the portion of people living with HBV eligible for treatment from the current 8% to 15% to around 50%. The World Health Organization now strongly recommends treatment for all people aged 12 and older who have chronic HBV and exhibit early signs of liver damage or other indicators, including co-infections such as HIV. The previous guidelines often recommended treatment only at more advanced disease stages and for patients above 30 years old, a significant hardship considering that 25% of infections in the region occur in people under 20.
The updated guidelines provide a more comprehensive approach to the management of hepatitis B virus (HBV) infection. These guidelines notably broaden the recommended treatments. Previously, the guidelines strongly advocated for single-drug therapies as the preferred treatment option. However, in recognition of the ongoing shortage of these single-drug therapies in some low- and middle-income countries, the updated guidelines now also endorse two dual regimens as alternate treatment options when the preferred monotherapies are not readily accessible.
This shift in treatment recommendations is a direct response to the pressing need to ensure that effective therapies are available in all regions, irrespective of their economic status. The scarcity of the preferred monotherapies in some parts of the world has necessitated the inclusion of the dual regimens in the guidelines.
Furthermore, the expansion of the recommended treatments is grounded in a growing body of scientific evidence. This evidence increasingly suggests that initiating treatment at an earlier stage of the disease can have a significant positive impact on long-term health outcomes for people living with HBV infection. Early intervention also has the potential to markedly reduce transmission rates. By taking this approach, we can address the global HBV burden more effectively and ensure a healthier future for those affected by this disease.
Improving Patient Support
Improvements in patient support mechanisms, such as the introduction of peer support and digital adherence tools, show a thorough and empathetic understanding of the many challenges faced by people living with chronic Hepatitis B virus (HBV) infection. These patient-focused initiatives, an evolution of the regulations that governed HIV testing and treatment, are based on real-world experiences and insights. They are carefully designed with two critical objectives in mind.
First, they aim to significantly enhance treatment adherence. This is crucial, as consistent adherence to prescribed treatment regimens is a key factor in the success of long-term antiviral therapy. Without proper adherence, the effectiveness of the treatment is compromised, potentially leading to less than optimal health outcomes for the people affected.
Second, these initiatives also aim to reduce the risk of drug resistance. Drug resistance is a major concern in managing chronic diseases like HBV, as it can make first-line treatments less effective over time. This can complicate the disease management process and potentially lead to worse health outcomes.
By addressing the dual challenges of treatment adherence and drug resistance, these improved patient support mechanisms represent a significant step forward in the comprehensive and patient-centered management of chronic HBV.
Integrating HBV into Existing Services
The guidelines suggest integrating existing HIV, tuberculosis, and primary care programs to offer streamlined services for Hepatitis B Virus (HBV). This leverages the existing infrastructures, resources, and patient engagement strategies of these programs, potentially resulting in early detection and effective management of HBV.
By making use of these existing programs, healthcare systems can effectively expand HBV services. This method ensures patients receive coordinated care for their various health needs, fostering a more holistic patient care approach. Not only does this integration yield immediate patient benefits, but it also presents long-term advantages for the entire healthcare system, aiding healthcare providers in efficient resource allocation and reducing overall costs. Additionally, the improved patient outcomes resulting from this integration could decrease the long-term expenses associated with managing chronic conditions.
Potential Impact of the Guidelines
The global impact of these guidelines could be transformative. By simplifying the diagnostic process and expanding treatment access, the WHO aims to significantly increase the rate of early HBV diagnoses. This method aims to improve health outcomes for people living with HBV, reducing liver cancer, cirrhosis, and other disease-related complications. Additionally, preventing HBV progression to severe liver diseases could substantially lessen the economic burden on global healthcare systems. This aligns with the WHO's goal of eliminating HBV as a public health threat by 2030. Experts anticipate:
Increased Diagnosis and Treatment: Expanded eligibility and easier testing could lead to more HBV diagnoses and access to lifesaving antiviral therapy.
Improved Health Outcomes: Earlier intervention and broader treatment may reduce rates of liver cancer, cirrhosis, and HBV-related deaths.
Reduced Healthcare Costs: Preventing long-term HBV consequences could alleviate strains on healthcare systems and lower economic burdens.
Considerations for the United States
The WHO's new Hepatitis B guidelines could have significant implications for U.S. healthcare policy. Domestic adoption could improve HBV management in the U.S. and demonstrate the country's commitment to global health initiatives. While the WHO guidelines provide a global framework, their implementation in the U.S. requires policy-level action. Advocates could focus on:
Streamlining Screening Programs: Encouraging community-based testing and simplifying recommendations could raise diagnosis rates, particularly in underserved populations.
Expanding Access to Treatment: Prioritizing the removal of insurance-based barriers and addressing treatment access disparities.
Implementing Supportive Care Models: Exploring strategies like peer support programs to improve patient adherence and ensure everyone benefits from treatment.
Aligning with the WHO's Hepatitis B guidelines requires substantial shifts in U.S. public health policy. This includes integrating streamlined testing protocols into existing healthcare frameworks for more accessible diagnostic services. Expanding treatment eligibility may require revising healthcare policies to include a broader range of HBV-affected populations. This could mean changes in insurance coverage and healthcare provider guidelines to implement broader treatment protocols.
The U.S. can lead global efforts in adopting these guidelines through its role in global health initiatives. By advocating for and implementing these guidelines, the U.S. can demonstrate the effectiveness of simplified and accessible HBV care, encouraging other nations to follow. This leadership role can include providing technical support, sharing best practices, and offering financial assistance to resource-limited countries, thereby enhancing global health security and moving closer to eliminating HBV as a public health threat by 2030. Researchers have estimated that $6 billion annually is needed to meet the global hepatitis targets in 67 low- and middle-income countries alone.
The WHO's revised guidelines for Hepatitis B management represents a significant step towards addressing this global health challenge. They provide a plan for simple, accessible, and effective HBV care, with a focus on early diagnosis and expanded treatment eligibility to enhance patient outcomes and reduce transmission.
The Prescription for Curing Stigma
The prescription for curing HIV-related stigma begins with acknowledging a critical disconnect: over four decades into the HIV epidemic, medicine has advanced, yet societal attitudes remain anchored in the past. This enduring stigma casts a long shadow over those living with HIV, affecting mental health and quality of life, and fueling the virus's persistence. A recent UK survey highlights this stark reality, illustrating the urgent need to address stigma as a critical part of our HIV response.
As we aim for the 2030 goal of halting new HIV transmissions, it's clear that our approach must evolve. Curing stigma involves more than just medical breakthroughs; it requires a transformative shift in societal attitudes. This shift entails challenging deep-rooted misconceptions, prioritizing science over politics, and amplifying the voices of those living with HIV to educate our communities toward empathy and healing for all.
The Nature and Impact of HIV-Related Stigma
Manifestations in Healthcare Settings
HIV-related stigma in healthcare settings significantly undermines the quality of care and dignity of patients. This stigma manifests in various forms, from overt discrimination to subtle biases in patient-provider interactions. The American Medical Association's Journal of Ethics notes, "Despite legal protections...health care personnel have been known to stigmatize patients with HIV, in some cases refusing to treat them or providing substandard care." This highlights the ethical challenges and the need for empathy in healthcare.
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) advocates for a status-neutral approach in healthcare, focusing on high-quality, culturally sensitive care. This approach is vital in HIV care, where financial and insurance barriers often limit access to services. The CDC's framework aims to normalize HIV treatment and prevention, helping to reduce stigma.
Stigma in healthcare affects individuals' mental well-being and their willingness to seek care, adhere to treatment, and disclose their status. Furthermore, fear of judgment and discrimination can delay diagnosis and treatment, complicating HIV management.
Addressing healthcare providers' stigmatizing attitudes is a critical step in addressing stigma. It requires policy intervention, training, and sensitization to ensure all healthcare providers offer compassionate, stigma-free care to everyone, regardless of HIV status. This is essential for advancing public health and respecting the dignity of those affected by HIV.
Stigma in the Workplace and Society
HIV-related stigma transcends healthcare, significantly impacting workplaces and our broader society. In professional settings, people living with HIV face bias and misunderstanding. The International Labour Organization (ILO) reveals that workplace stigma threatens job security and mental well-being for people living with HIV.
Alarmingly, the ILO found that nearly 40% of respondents believe people living with HIV should not work in close contact with others. This misconception fosters a hostile work environment, leading to isolation and discrimination. Chidi King from the ILO states, “It is shocking that...myths and misconceptions are still so widespread... This survey is a wake-up call to reinvigorate HIV prevention and education programmes.”
Workplace stigma has extensive repercussions, violating workers' rights and hindering inclusive workplace efforts. The ILO advocates for dismantling stigma through education, policy reform, and promoting an empathetic work culture.
Beyond the workplace, societal stigma manifests in social ostracization and stereotypes, affecting daily life and influencing public opinion and policy. This stigma creates barriers to open HIV discussions, testing, and treatment.
Mental Health Implications
HIV-related stigma has a profound impact on the mental health of those living with the virus. Internalized stigma often leads to feelings of shame and guilt, heightening the risk of depression and anxiety. A significant study in AIDS Journal underscores the link between mental health disorders and HIV, revealing that in the U.S., HIV prevalence is notably higher among adults with serious mental illness (SMI), and among people living with HIV (PLWH), rates of major depression and generalized anxiety disorder are substantially higher than in the general population.
The study points out, "Mental health problems can increase the risk of HIV acquisition... Screening and treatment for mental health problems are essential to preventing vulnerable populations from acquiring HIV."
Stigma-induced isolation exacerbates mental health issues and impedes effective HIV management. Societal stigma, driven largely by misconceptions held over from the early days of the epidemic, inhibits open discussions about HIV, testing, and status disclosure, limiting access to tailored mental health resources.
Addressing these challenges requires integrating mental health services into HIV care, public education to counter stigma, and supportive environments in healthcare and communities. By taking a holistic approach to care and community, we can enhance the quality of life of people living with and affected by HIV and bolster the overall response to the epidemic.
The Role of Education in Shaping Attitudes
Comprehensive Sex Education
The fight against HIV-related stigma isn't confined to healthcare facilities or policy discussions; it begins in the classroom with comprehensive sex education, which is key to fostering the understanding and empathy required to eliminate stigma. Leading this educational charge are organizations like the Sexuality Information and Education Council of the United States (SIECUS) and Planned Parenthood Action, advocating for an educational approach that goes beyond traditional biology lessons.
Comprehensive sex education includes a wide range of topics such as sexual orientation, gender identity, relationships, consent, and crucially, HIV and other sexually transmitted infections (STIs). This type of education challenges myths and fears with factual, medically accurate information, fostering a more informed and empathetic understanding among young people.
However, the implementation of comprehensive sex education faces significant challenges, particularly due to the prevalence of abstinence-only programs. The Guttmacher Institute reports that the U.S. federal government spends $110 million annually on these programs, which are proven to be ineffective. Data shows that abstinence-only programs do not effectively prevent STIs or reduce sexual activity or pregnancy among teens. In fact, these programs often deny young people essential, life-saving information about their bodies, reproductive health, and sexuality. Consequently, fewer than half of high schools and only a fifth of middle schools in the U.S. teach the sexual health topics that the CDC considers essential for healthy young people.
The lack of comprehensive and accurate sex education perpetuates HIV stigma. Misconceptions about HIV transmission and the experiences of those living with the virus continue unchallenged, leading to fear and discrimination. This gap in knowledge isolates individuals living with HIV and hinders efforts to end the epidemic.
Navigating the Roadblocks to Inclusive Sex Education
Campaigns documented by the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) reveal a troubling trend towards abstinence-only education in public schools. This approach omits critically information about HIV, sexually transmitted infections (STIs), and broader sexual health topics. Notably, such curricula frequently overlook the experiences and needs of LGBTQ+ students, contributing to their marginalization and perpetuating HIV-related stigma.
The landscape of sex education across the United States is inconsistent, as highlighted by the National Conference of State Legislatures. While 19 states mandate sexuality education and 34 require HIV/AIDS instruction, the depth and breadth of these programs vary widely. In some regions, educators face restrictions on discussing topics like intercourse, contraception, and diverse sexual orientations, leaving a significant gap in students' sexual health knowledge.
Resistance from certain community groups and parents, often based on cultural or religious beliefs, adds another layer of complexity to the implementation of inclusive sex education. This opposition can sway local school boards and state legislatures, rendering the content and quality of sex education curricula largely ineffective and quite frankly, useless.
A critical shortfall in trained educators capable of delivering comprehensive, inclusive sex education exacerbates these challenges. Educators require proper training and resources to effectively navigate sensitive topics, including HIV. Without this support, the opportunity to dispel stigma and misinformation is lost.
Addressing these barriers necessitates a concerted effort to advocate for policies supporting comprehensive, inclusive, and medically accurate sex education. Engaging communities and parents in meaningful dialogue about the importance of such education is crucial for fostering a generation well-equipped to understand, empathize with, and support people living with HIV. This approach not only contributes to reducing HIV stigma but also aligns with broader public health goals.
Strategies for Dismantling Stigma
Policy and Community Initiatives
To dismantle the pervasive stigma surrounding HIV, a comprehensive strategy encompassing policy reform and community engagement is required. This approach should involve several key elements:
1. Policy Reform:
Comprehensive Sex Education: Policies should mandate comprehensive sex education in schools. This education must be medically accurate, culturally appropriate, and inclusive of all sexual orientations and gender identities.
Workplace Policies: Public and private sector policies should be implemented to protect people living with HIV from discrimination in the workplace. This includes creating supportive work environments and providing education about HIV to dispel myths and fears.
Healthcare Reforms: Healthcare policies should promote a status neutral approach, ensuring that people living with HIV receive stigma-free, high-quality care. Training healthcare providers to address their biases and provide empathetic care is crucial.
2. Community Engagement:
Public Awareness Campaigns: Utilizing platforms for public education to challenge misconceptions about HIV. Campaigns should focus on normalizing conversations about HIV, promoting understanding, and reducing fear.
Empowering Voices of People Living with HIV: Encouraging people living with HIV to share their stories and experiences can humanize the condition and challenge stigma. This aligns with the broader public health goals of organizations like the White House's National HIV/AIDS Strategy.
Community-Based Programs: Implementing community-based programs that focus on resilience and support for people living with HIV. These programs can provide a platform for education, advocacy, and peer support.
3. Legal Advocacy Against Discriminatory Laws
Addressing Criminalization: Modernizing laws that criminalize HIV exposure and transmission is vital. In the U.S., 32 states and two territories still have such laws, impacting 68% of people living with HIV. These laws often result in severe penalties, including extended prison terms and mandatory sex offender registration.
Reform and Impact: Efforts to reform these laws have seen progress, with several states repealing or modernizing HIV-specific laws and removing sex offender registration for revised law convictions. This legal advocacy is key to reducing stigma and supporting the rights of marginalized communities affected by HIV.
4. Global Perspective: Learning from International Success
Australia's Model: Australia's success in reducing HIV rates highlights the effectiveness of community-led initiatives and government collaboration. Their approach emphasizes peer support and progressive policies.
Stigma Reduction and Policy Change: Australia's commitment to reducing stigma and removing non-evidence-based laws criminalizing HIV transmission is a key part of their HIV prevention strategy. This approach is seen as a pathway to virtually eliminate HIV transmission by 2025.
Adopting Global Lessons: Embracing Australia's strategies, which combine policy reform, community engagement, and education, can guide other nations in transforming their HIV response from stigma to understanding and support.
In our journey to eradicate the shadows of HIV stigma, the path forward is clear and urgent. We stand at a pivotal moment where collective will and action can transform the landscape of HIV understanding and care. The Prescription for Curing Stigma is not just a metaphor—it's a call to action, a blueprint for change.
This change demands more than passive acknowledgment; it requires active engagement from every corner of society. Policymakers, healthcare providers, educators, business leaders, and community members must unite in this cause. We need policies that are inclusive and empathetic, healthcare that is stigma-free and compassionate, education that is comprehensive and enlightening, and community support that is unwavering and inclusive.
The voices of those living with HIV are not just stories; they are powerful testimonies that can shatter misconceptions and humanize the epidemic. Their experiences and insights are the most potent weapons in our arsenal against stigma. By amplifying these voices, we not only challenge outdated beliefs but also pave the way for a future where HIV is met with understanding, not fear; with support, not judgment.
As we look towards a future where HIV infections are prevented and every person with HIV lives a life free from stigma and discrimination, let's remember that the power to effect this change lies within each of us. It's time to move beyond awareness to action, beyond empathy to advocacy. Together, we can dismantle the barriers of stigma and fear, creating a world where every person affected by HIV can achieve their full potential for health and well-being.
The Prescription for Curing Stigma is more than a concept—it's a commitment to action, a promise for a better tomorrow. Let's embrace this challenge with determination and hope, knowing that our united efforts will lead us to a stigma-free future and ending the HIV epidemic once and for all.
Biden Administration’s Healthcare Future is One of Promise & Peril
Last month, the Biden Administration issued a press release outlining a look toward the future of American health care policy. Priorities in the presser include ever elusive efforts around prescription drug pricing and items with steep price tags like expanding Medicare coverage to include dental, hearing, and vision benefits, a federal Medicaid look-alike program to fill the coverage gaps in non-expansion states, and extending Affordable Care Act (ACA) subsidies enhancements instituted under the American Rescue Plan (ARP) in March. Many of these efforts are tied to the upcoming $3.5 trillion reconciliation package.
President Biden renewed his call in support of the Democrats effort to negotiate Medicare prescription drug costs, enshrined in H.R. 3. Drug pricing reform has been an exceptional challenge despite relatively popular support among the voting public, in particular among seniors. The pharmseutical industry has long touted drug prices set by manufacturers do not represent the largest barriers to care and mandating lower drug costs would harm innovation and development of new products. Indeed, for most Americans, some form of insurance payer, public or private, is the arbiter of end-user costs by way of cost-sharing (co-pays and co-insurance payments). To even get to that point, consumers need to be able to afford monthly premiums which can range from no-cost to the enrollee to hundreds of dollars for those without access to Medicaid or federal subsidies. The argument from the drug-making industry giants is for Congress to focus efforts that more directly impact consumers’ own costs, not health care industry’s costs. Pharmaceutical manufacturers further argue mandated price negotiation proposals would harm the industry’s ability to invest the development of new products. To this end, the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) recently released a report giving some credence to this claim. The CBO’s report found immediate drug development would hardly be impacted as those medications currently “in the pipeline” would largely be safe, but a near 10% reduction in new drugs over the next 30 years. While new drug development has largely been focused on “personalized” medicine – or more specific treatments for things like cancer – implementing mRNA technology into vaccines is indeed a matter of innovation (having moved from theoretical to shots-in-arms less than a year ago). With a pandemic still bearing down on the globe, linking the need between development and combating future public health threats should be anticipated.
The administration’s effort to leverage Medicare isn’t limited to drug pricing. Another tectonic plate-sized move would seek to expand “basic” Medicare to include dental, hearing, and vision coverage. Congressional Democrats, while generally open to the idea, are already struggling with timing of such an expansion, angering Senator Bernie Sanders (I-VT) by suggesting a delay until 2028. While any patient with any ailments related to their oral health, hearing, and vision will readily tell you these are critical and necessary coverages, even some of the most common of needs, the private health care insurance industry generally requires adult consumers to get these benefits as add-ons and the annual benefit cap is dangerously low (with dental coverage rarely offering more than $500 in benefit and vision coverage capping at one set of frames, both with networks so narrow as to be near meaningless for patients with transportation challenges). While the ACA expanded a mandatory coverage for children to include dental and vision benefits in-line with private adult coverage caps, the legislation did nothing to mandate similar coverages for adults and did not require private payers to make access to these types of care more meaningful (expanded networks and larger program benefits to more accurately match costs of respective care).
The other two massive proposals the Biden Administration is seeking support for, more directly impact American health care consumers than any other effort from the administration: maintaining expanded marketplace subsidies and a federal look-a-like for people living in the 12 states that have not yet expanded Medicaid under the ACA’s Medicaid expansion provisions. The administration has decent data to back this idea, as the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention released a report showing a drop in the uninsured rate from 2019 to 2020 by 1.9 million people, largely attributed by pandemic-oriented programs requiring states to maintain their Medicaid rolls. The administration and Congressional Democrats are expected to argue subsequently passed legislation allowing for expanded subsidies and maintained Medicaid rolls improved access to and affordability of care for vulnerable Americans during the pandemic. As the nation rides through another surge of illness, hospitalizations, and death from the same pandemic “now isn’t the time to stop”, or some argument along those lines, will likely be the rhetoric driving these initiatives.
Speaking of the pandemic, President Biden outlined his administration’s next steps in combating COVID-19 on Thursday, September 9th. The six-pronged approach, entitled “Path out of the Pandemic”, includes leveraging funding to support mitigation measures in schools (including back-filling salaries for those affected by anti-mask mandates and improving urging the Food and Drug Administration [FDA] to authorize vaccines for children under the age of 12), directing the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) to issue a rule mandating vaccines or routinized testing for employers with more than 100 employees (affecting about 80 million employees) and mandating federally funded health care provider entities to require vaccination of all staff, pushing for booster shots despite the World Health Organization’s call for a moratorium until greater global equity in access can be attained, supporting small businesses through previously used loan schemes, and an effort to expand qualified health care personnel to distribute COVID-19 related care amid a surge threatening the nation’s hospitals ability to provide even basic care. Notably missing from this proposal are infrastructure supports for schools to improve ventilation, individual financial support (extension of pandemic unemployment programs or another round of direct stimulus payments), longer-term disability systems to support “long-COVID” patients and any yet-unknown post-viral syndromes, and housing support – which is desperately needed as the administration’s eviction moratorium has fallen victim to ideological legal fights, states having been slow to distribute rental assistance funds, and landlords are reportedly refusing rental assistance dollars in favor of eviction. While the plan outlines specific “economic recovery”, a great deal is left to be desired to ensure families and individuals succeed in the ongoing pandemic. Focusing on business success has thus far proven a limited benefit to families and more needs to be done to directly benefit patients and families navigating an uncertain future.
President Biden did not address global vaccine equity in his speech, later saying a plan would come “later”. The problem, of course, is in a viral pandemic, variant development has furthered risks to wealthy countries with robust vaccine access and threatened the economic future of the globe.
To top off all of this policy-making news, Judge Reed O’Connor is taking another swing at dismantling some of the most popular provisions of the ACA. Well, rather, yet another plaintiff has come to the sympathetic judge’s court in an effort to gut the legislation’s preventative care provisions by both “morality” and “process” arguments in Kelley v. Becerra. The suit takes exception to a requirement that insurers must cover particular preventative care as prescribed by three entities within the government (the Health Resources Services Administration – HRSA, the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices – ACIP, and the Preventative Services Takes Force – PSTF), which require coverage of contraceptives and pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP) with no-cost sharing to the patient, among a myriad of other things – including certain vaccine coverage. By now, between O’Connor’s rabid disregard for the rights of lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender Americans and obsessive effort to dismantle the ACA at every chance he can – both to his own humiliation after the Supreme Court finally go their hands on his rulings – Reed O’Connor may finally have his moment to claim a victory – I mean – the plaintiffs in Kelley may well succeed due to the Supreme Court’s most recent makeover.
As elected officials are gearing up for their midterm campaigns, how these next few months play out will be pretty critical in setting the frame for public policy “successes” and “failures”. Journalists would do well to tap into the expertise of patient advocates in contextualizing the real-world application of these policies, both during and after budget-making lights the path to our future – for better or worse.