South Carolina Wants to Ax HIV/AIDS Funding

With the national economy continuing to sputter and the massive stimulus bill from last year mostly spent, most states in the U.S. are facing budget shortfalls. Those shortfalls are leading to budget battles -- programs are getting the ax, and funding for vital programs is being slashed.

But what priority do those cuts actually reflect? I present South Carolina.

Evidently, the budget crisis in the Palmetto state means South Carolina residents and politicians don't think HIV prevention programs are in the state's interest, nor do they think giving access to life saving antiretroviral medications is important either.

That's right, the state's proposed 2010-2011 fiscal year budget eliminates both programs, reports the State newspaper.

Now here's what's really weird about this. The AIDS Drug Assistance Program has 2,055 people enrolled. That program helps pay for life-saving medications. Those medications, it is being found, also have another benefit -- they reduce the viral load of HIV-positive people to undetectable levels. That reduction has been determined by at least one court in the world (the Swiss High Court) to mean an HIV-positive person who has been on ARV treatment for six months or more, has maintained an undetectable viral load and is not infected with another sexually transmitted virus is not legally infectious.

South Carolina ranks 8th in HIV infections, reports (pdf) the South Carolina HIV/AIDS Council. And Columbia, the state's capitol, ranks 9th in the U.S.

So let's think about this. Cut the programs now, and save the state an estimated $5.9 million. This in turn results in over 2,000 people not having access to medications. Their viral loads climb, they get sick. They end up in the hospital -- often at state expense.

The Annals of Internal Medicine found the cost of hospitalizations related to HIV-infections from 1985 to 1990 averaged "$5.7 to $7.4 billion." Of course, that was nationwide. On a state level it would likely be a fraction of such a cost. But that was a time before the ARVs were so successful, and when you take the drugs out of the mix, you go back in time. I also am not an economist who can translate those costs into 2010 monetary figures. But you get the picture.

So, South Carolina, in order to save almost $6 million in costs, is willing to risk millions more in hospital costs, lost productivity in the workforce, increased poverty and the risk of smaller epidemic outbreaks like TB.

Oh for the days when it was just about the Gov's affair and the infamous "Appalachian Trail" excuse.

Photo credit: Joe Shlabotnik