“After House Republicans initially put at risk the nation’s progress in ending HIV, we are relieved that House and Senate congressional negotiators have agreed to maintain funding for domestic HIV prevention, care, and treatment programs,” said Carl Schmid, executive director of the HIV+Hepatitis Policy Institute.
Unfortunately, since the court ruling nearly six months ago, we continue to hear from patients complaining that insurers are not counting the copay assistance that they receive, and are being saddled with thousands of dollars in unanticipated out-of-pocket costs for their prescription drugs. Some insurers have told their enrollees that they will not enforce the court ruling without regulator action or a court order.
“While we appreciate the proposed continued funding of domestic HIV and hepatitis programs and acknowledge the legislatively imposed budget constraints and competing priorities, the reality is that, without serious increases, our nation cannot meet its goals to end the HIV and hepatitis epidemics on time,” commented Carl Schmid, Executive Director of the HIV+Hepatitis Policy Institute. “Now, we must take our case for any funding increases to Congress, which has found it difficult to agree on spending bills, and House Republicans have even proposed to cut domestic HIV spending this year by $767 million.”
Recent votes by the U.S. House of Representatives that unsuccessfully sought to cut domestic HIV programs offer a clear signal that even a wide majority of the House reject domestic HIV funding cuts. Yesterday, the House overwhelmingly rejected an amendment to the Labor, HHS appropriation bill that would have eliminated the HHS Minority HIV/AIDS Fund by a vote of 109 to 324. On that vote, more Republicans (110) voted against the amendment than for it. An amendment to cut AIDS research at the NIH was made in order by leadership but ultimately was never offered.
“While disappointed that Congress will not be providing the necessary funding to really end HIV or hepatitis in the United States, given the severe budget constraints, what the Senate has proposed will allow existing programs to at least continue,” Carl Schmid said. “However, it is up to the entire Congress, both the House and the Senate, to be responsible and agree upon our federal spending levels. The choices are very clear.”