Get more Mail & Guardian
Subscribe or Login

Don’t hold your breath

So, the Cabinet has directed the minister of health to develop a ”detailed operational plan” for an anti-retroviral (ARV) treatment programme. Does this mean that we are about to see a major ”roll-out”?

Perhaps, but very unlikely, so don’t hold your breath. The Cabinet statement is a major breakthrough (ARVs are now explicitly recognised as beneficial), but it is cautiously worded about actual implementation.

The statement does not endorse the findings of the joint health and treasury task team’s costing report (as optimistically interpreted by the Treatment Action Campaign); the Cabinet merely ”noted” some of its contents.

The only undertaking Cabinet makes is to ”ensure that the remaining challenges are addressed with urgency; and that the final product guarantees a programme that is effective and sustainable”.

This is a positive statement, but it is vague and contains a host of worrying caveats. What, for example, are the ”remaining challenges”? If the government really wanted to start the roll-out it could do so almost immediately in many sites across the country. Waiting another six weeks for an operational plan — and then another (as yet undisclosed) period to implement it — is unnecessary in these cases.

Admittedly, the sites that could roll out treatment as soon as the drugs are available are concentrated in urban areas. But, as the experience of Brazil and Botswana indicates, a national treatment programme inevitably has to start where capacity exists. Ensuring more equitable access to Aids treatment is a longer-term goal, and one that can only be achieved through the steady expansion and improvement of the health service.

If greater equity is one of the Cabinet’s ”remaining challenges”, then it is wrong to think that equity can and should be addressed up front. It makes no sense to delay the implementation of a treatment roll-out on the grounds that we cannot treat anyone until we can treat everyone.

Health systems consultants, predictably, disagree. They say there are a host of problems that need to be addressed before anything can be done. These range from developing drug delivery and storage systems to building infrastructure and ensuring adherence by patients to their drug regimens. But identifying these problems does not justify delaying the roll-out of treatment in sites where capacity to address them exists. Brazil and Botswana built up most of their infrastructure and support services as they rolled out treatment.

South Africa already has significant experience in ARV treatment. Aids patients in the Western Cape pilot projects have not been overwhelmed by the ”complexity” of their treatment regimen and understand the importance of adhering to it. As is the case in Brazil, Botswana and Haiti, South African pilot projects show that good adherence is possible in resource-poor settings.

The waiting room at the Médécins sans Frontières clinic in Khayelitsha has become an informal ”support area” with patients discussing adherence issues and problems relating to side-effects. Many of these patients have become powerful community advocates of Aids treatment. This, in turn, has helped reduce stigma and encouraged people to undergo voluntary counselling and testing.

At a recent workshop at Wits University, deputy director general of health in the Western Cape Faried Abdullah argued that medical professionals were so keen to provide ARVs to their Aids patients that a treatment roll-out would provide a much-needed boost to morale. Such positive effects of a treatment programme tend to be ignored by health systems consultants in South Africa.

It is, of course, possible that the Cabinet was not referring to health systems issues as one of the ”remaining challenges”. Because the government has (inexplicably) yet to hold a press conference on the treatment programme, we can but speculate. Perhaps the Cabinet was referring to the need to ensure an adequate supply of low-cost ARVs? As medication comprises the lion’s share of the cost of the treatment programme, this is a major challenge indeed.

If the government is serious about rolling out ARV treatment, it should start negotiating immediately with the pharmaceutical companies over discounts. This could be done directly, as was the case in Brazil, or through the United Nations Accelerated Access Initiative. Neither approach requires any further detailed operational plan before being acted upon.

To strengthen its bargaining hand, the government should provide more support for the domestic production of generic ARVs. The Brazilian experience demonstrates that the threat of domestic generic production has a major impact on forcing drug price reductions. It is very disturbing that neither price negotiations nor the promotion of domestic production of generic medication was mentioned in the Cabinet statement. One could be forgiven for concluding that the government is not yet committed to acting decisively on the Aids treatment issue.

Another worrying caveat in the Cabinet statement is the requirement that a treatment programme be ”effective and sustainable”. No one could disagree with such sentiment, but what, exactly, is meant by these terms? Is the government going to demand that each treatment site includes a major research project into the effectiveness of treatment? And is effectiveness to be understood in clinical terms only or is the intention to measure social impact — and, if so, over what period? These are important issues, because the more demanding (and expensive) the research requirement, the more limited the treatment roll-out.

Similarly, what is meant by ”sustainable”? Judging by the ongoing discourse of ”unaffordability” that has dogged Aids policymaking for five years, this is almost certainly code for ”affordable”. If so, then we are back to the fundamental question of how much money the government is prepared to allocate to Aids treatment.

In the 2003/04 Budget, an additional R3,3-billion was made available to strengthen Aids prevention interventions and to provide a ”substantial boost to care and treatment programmes”. This is probably sufficient to start a roll-out. However, as it is up to the provinces how they spend this money, there is no guarantee that it will actually be allocated to Aids treatment.

We need more than a cautiously worded Cabinet statement to believe that a treatment roll-out is on the cards. We need explicit government commitment at national and provincial levels.

According to the costing study I was involved in, Aids treatment costs could rise to a peak of R10-billion a year. This is a substantial allocation of resources, and it is possible that the government does not want to introduce a programme that will mushroom to this extent. Cabinet may thus have an incentive to portray Aids treatment as a very complex intervention requiring limited and carefully controlled implementation — hence the call for a ”detailed operational plan”.

Rather than burying the issue of resource costs in a discourse of sustainability and complexity, the government should be facilitating a broader social discussion of the challenges posed by Aids and the sacrifices that will need to be made (for example, higher taxation) if we are to roll out a full-scale national Aids treatment programme. Aids is a major public health problem.

Providing treatment prolongs life, reduces the number of orphans and prevents many new HIV infections (because people on ARVs are less infectious and will have undergone counselling). We need greater deliberation about these costs and benefits, and how we as a society should be responding.

Nicoli Nattrass is a professor in the School of Economics and director of the Centre for Social Science Research at the University of Cape Town.

  • Read Peter Barron’s contrasting viewpoint.

  • Subscribe for R500/year

    Thanks for enjoying the Mail & Guardian, we’re proud of our 36 year history, throughout which we have delivered to readers the most important, unbiased stories in South Africa. Good journalism costs, though, and right from our very first edition we’ve relied on reader subscriptions to protect our independence.

    Digital subscribers get access to all of our award-winning journalism, including premium features, as well as exclusive events, newsletters, webinars and the cryptic crossword. Click here to find out how to join them and get a 57% discount in your first year.

    Nicoli Nattrass
    Nicoli Nattrass is a professor with the School of Economics and the co-director of the Institute for Communities and Wildlife in Africa at the University of Cape Town

    Related stories


    If you’re reading this, you clearly have great taste

    If you haven’t already, you can subscribe to the Mail & Guardian for less than the cost of a cup of coffee a week, and get more great reads.

    Already a subscriber? Sign in here


    Subscribers only

    Capitec Bank flies high above Viceroy’s arrow

    The bank took a knock after being labelled a loan shark by the short seller, but this has not stymied its growth

    Zondo may miss chief justice cut

    The deputy chief justice is said to top Ramaphosa’s list but his position as head of the state capture commission is seen as too politically fraught

    More top stories

    Council wants Hawks, SIU probe into BAT’s Zimbabwe scandal

    The cigarette maker has been accused of giving up to $500 000 in bribes and spying on competitors

    How Alpha Condé overthrew Alpha Condé

    Since the coup d’état, Guinea’s head of state has been in the custody of the military officers. But it was the president who was the primary architect of his own downfall

    ‘The Making of Mount Edgecombe’: A view of history from...

    Indian indentured labourers’ lives are celebrated in a new book, Sugar Mill Barracks: The Making of Mount Edgecombe

    Case of men arrested with 19 rhino horns is postponed

    Alleged rhino kingpin and a Mpumalanga businessman appeared in court on charges of the illegal possession and selling of rhino horns

    press releases

    Loading latest Press Releases…