Financial sustainability of HIV services for key populations in four countries in Asia: a mixed-methods study.

Abstract

Background Key populations and their sexual partners account for 98% of new HIV infections in the Asia-Pacific region. Despite increased domestic funding for HIV programs, concerns persist about the sustainability of services for key populations as external donor programs wind down, potentially reversing progress and contributing to new infections. This study aims to understand structural, political and institutional barriers to domestic funding for key population-led HIV programming in these countries through diverse stakeholder perspectives, including limitations of procurement processes, budget allocation systems and political will. Methods A mixed methods approach was utilized, with 60 participants completing an online survey and 145 participating in key informant interviews across four countries in 2022. Stakeholders were categorized according to their organization (government, key population-led, non-government (NGO), and multilateral), with 30 stakeholders per country identified. The same respondents were targeted for quantitative and qualitative data collection. Results Key informant interviews included 60 staff from government organizations, 42 from key population-led organizations, 31 from NGOs, and 12 from multilateral organizations. For the survey (n =60), responses were from key population-led (35%), government (32%), NGOs (23%) and multilateral organizations (10%). Regarding the timeline for increased domestic financing for key population-led HIV services, 45% of participants thought it would take 5-10years to expand them without reliance on external donors, 25% thought more than 10years and 5% thought between 0 and 3years. Almost all government and key population-led organization respondents in each country agreed on government funding or purchasing of community-based services across various HIV-related areas, including linkage to treatment and antiretrovirals (92%), HIV self-testing (95%), PrEP (80%), and stigma-reduction programs (92%). Although most supported the government funding community-based services/NGOs for delivering essential key population HIV services, 28.3% believed that existing laws and policies are in place for such funding, highlighting implementation gaps while knowledge and buy-in remain high. Conclusions This study underscores the importance of identifying realistic timelines with key national stakeholders when designing and deciding timelines for transitioning from international external donor support to domestic budgeting for key population-led HIV programming. It also highlights that although buy-in and understanding of key interventions is well known, there is a lack of sustained funding for these interventions that are essential to ending AIDS as a public health threat by 2030.