Suchergebnisse

AbstractInternational mechanisms failed to achieve equitable distribution of COVID‐19 vaccines—prolonging and deepening the pandemic. To understand why, we conduct process tracing of the first year of international policymaking on vaccine equity. We find that, in the absence of a single venue for global negotiation, two competing law and policy paradigms emerged. One focused on demand and voluntary action by states and firms, while the alternative focused on opening knowledge and expanding production through national and international law. While these could have been complementary, power inequalities between key actors kept the second paradigm from gaining traction on the global agenda. The failure of the prevailing policy paradigm to secure equity is explained, not by unforeseen technical and financing challenges as some suggest, but by a fundamental misalignment with the political environment. While norm entrepreneurs encouraged sharing, political incentives pushed governments towards securing and hoarding doses. Firms responded to the latter. Mechanisms like COVAX proved incapable of countering these predictable international and domestic political forces. Earlier funding would not likely have changed the behaviour of states or firms in the absence of legal commitment. Barring significant geopolitical changes, a shift to include open/supply‐focused policies will be necessary to achieve equity in future pandemics.

Why do some countries rapidly adopt policies suggested by scientific consensus while others are slow to do so? Through a mixed methods study, we show that the institutional political economy of countries is a stronger and more robust predictor of health policy adoption than either disease burden or national wealth. Our findings challenge expectations in scholarship and among many international actors that policy divergence is best addressed through greater evidence and dissemination channels. Our study of HIV treatment policies shows that factors such as the formal structures of government and the degree of racial and ethnic stratification in society predict the speed with which new medical science is translated into policy, while level of democracy does not. This provides important new insights about the drivers of policy transfer and diffusion and suggests new paths for practical efforts to secure adoption of 'evidence-based' policies.

IntroductionThe scale of the HIV pandemic – and the stigma, discrimination and violence that surrounded its sudden emergence – catalyzed a public health response that expanded human rights in principle and practice. In the absence of effective treatment, human rights activists initially sought to protect individuals at high risk of HIV infection. With advances in antiretroviral therapy, activists expanded their efforts under international law, advocating under the human right to health for individual access to treatment.DiscussionAs a clinical cure comes within reach, human rights obligations will continue to play a key role in political and programmatic decision‐making. Building upon the evolving development and implementation of the human right to health in the global response to HIV, we outline a human rights research agenda to prepare for HIV cure access, investigating the role of human rights law in framing 1) resource allocation, 2) international obligations, 3) intellectual property and 4) freedom from coercion.ConclusionsThe right to health is widely recognized as central to governmental, intergovernmental and non‐governmental responses to the pandemic and critical both to addressing vulnerability to infection and to ensuring universal access to HIV prevention, treatment, care and support. While the advent of an HIV cure will raise new obligations for policymakers in implementing the right to health, the resolution of past debates surrounding HIV prevention and treatment may inform claims for universal access.

Law and policy differences help explain why, as HIV-related science has advanced swiftly, some countries have realised remarkable progress on AIDS while others see expanding epidemics. We describe the structure and findings of a new dataset and research platform, the HIV Policy Lab, which fills an important knowledge gap by measuring the HIV-related policy environment across 33 indicators and 194 countries over time, with online access and visualisation. Cross-national indicators can be critical tools in international governance—building social power to monitor state behaviour with the potential to change policy and improve domestic accountability. This new and evolving effort collects data about policy through review of legal documents, official government reports and systematic review of secondary sources. Alignment between national policy environments and global norms is demonstrated through comparison with international public health guidance and agreements. We demonstrate substantial variation in the content of law and policies between countries, regions and policy areas. Given progress in basic and implementation science, it would be tempting to believe most countries have adopted policies aligned with global norms, with a few outliers. Data show this is not the case. Globally, alignment is higher on clinical and treatment policies than on prevention, testing and structural policies. Policy-makers, researchers, civil society, finance agencies and others can use these data to better understand the policy environment within and across countries and support reform. Longitudinal analysis enables evaluation of the impact of laws and policies on HIV outcomes and research about the political drivers of policy choice.

Recent years have seen significant advances in the science of using antiretroviral medicines (ARVs) to fight HIV. Where not long ago ARVs were used late in disease to prevent sick people from dying, today people living with HIV can use ARVs to achieve viral suppression early in the course of disease. This article reviews the mounting new scientific evidence of major clinical and prevention ARV benefits. This has changed the logic of the AIDS response, eliminating competition between 'treatment' and 'prevention' and encouraging early initiation of treatment for individual and public health benefit. These breakthroughs have implications for the health-related human rights duties of States. With medical advance, the 'highest attainable standard' of health has taken a leap, and with it the rights obligations of States. We argue that access to early treatment for all is now a core State obligation and restricting access to, or failing to provide accurate information about, it violates both individual and collective rights. In a context of real political and technical challenges, however, in this article we review the policy implications of evolving human rights obligations given the new science. National and international legal standards require action on budget, health and intellectual property policy, which we outline. Adapted from the source document.

AbstractIntroductionKey populations bear a disproportionate HIV burden and have substantial unmet treatment needs. Routine viral load monitoring represents the gold standard for assessing treatment response at the individual and programme levels; at the population‐level, community viral load is a metric of HIV programme effectiveness and can identify "hotspots" of HIV transmission. Nevertheless, there are specific implementation and ethical challenges to effectively operationalize and meaningfully interpret viral load data at the community level among these often marginalized populations.DiscussionViral load monitoring enhances HIV treatment, and programme evaluation, and offers a better understanding of HIV surveillance and epidemic trends. Programmatically, viral load monitoring can provide data related to HIV service delivery coverage and quality, as well as inequities in treatment access and uptake. From a population perspective, community viral load data provides information on HIV transmission risk. Furthermore, viral load data can be used as an advocacy tool to demonstrate differences in service delivery and to promote allocation of resources to disproportionately affected key populations and communities with suboptimal health outcomes. However, in order to perform viral load monitoring for individual and programme benefit, health surveillance and advocacy purposes, careful consideration must be given to how such key population programmes are designed and implemented. For example, HIV risk factors, such as particular sex practices, sex work and drug use, are stigmatized or even criminalized in many contexts. Consequently, efforts must be taken so that routine viral load monitoring among marginalized populations does not cause inadvertent harm. Furthermore, given the challenges of reaching representative samples of key populations, significant attention to meaningful recruitment, decentralization of care and interpretation of results is needed. Finally, improving the interoperability of health systems through judicious use of biometrics or identifiers when confidentiality can be maintained is important to generate more valuable data to inform monitoring programmes.ConclusionsOpportunities for expanded viral load monitoring could and should benefit all those affected by HIV, including key populations. The promise of the increasing routinization of viral load monitoring as a tool to advance HIV treatment equity is great and should be prioritized and appropriately implemented within key population programmatic and research agendas.