The Fund supports networks of state health policy decision makers to help identify, inspire, and inform policy leaders.
The Milbank Memorial Fund supports two state leadership programs for legislative and executive branch state government officials committed to improving population health.
The Fund identifies and shares policy ideas and analysis to advance state health leadership, strong primary care, and sustainable health care costs.
Keep up with news and updates from the Milbank Memorial Fund. And read the latest blogs from our thought leaders, including Fund President Christopher F. Koller.
The Fund publishes The Milbank Quarterly, as well as reports, issues briefs, and case studies on topics important to health policy leaders.
The Milbank Memorial Fund is is a foundation that works to improve population health and health equity.
June 2017 (Volume 95)
Quarterly Article
Powel Kazanjian
Nov 5, 2024
Oct 30, 2024
Oct 23, 2024
Back to The Milbank Quarterly
Policy Points:
Context: Throughout its course, there has been talk of ending the AIDS epidemic. Initially aspirational in nature, this discourse has now taken the form of an explicit UNAIDS proposal to maximize the number of infected people who are tested and receive antiretroviral treatment (ART). If the milestones are met by 2020, the proposal states, an end to the AIDS pandemic could be achieved by 2030. This article uses a historical approach to explore whether this strategy to end the epidemic is feasible.
Methods: In this article, I identify historical analogues of today’s UNAIDS plan for STDs. I then examine features of today’s HIV campaign and compare them with elements of syphilis eradication campaigns that carried out widespread testing and treatment between the 1930s and 1960s.
Findings: Twentieth-century syphilis campaigns failed because they did not issue specific proposals that would enable them to achieve their eradication goal. They could not change the features of the disease that impeded their test-and-treat strategy: the moral framing (stigma deters people from testing), biologic factors (asymptomatic periods of contagiousness), and epidemiologic issues (difficulty tracking contacts occurring in private settings). Furthermore, they could not ensure sustainable funding, rectify social problems that create vulnerable environments, or issue educational messages to curb unsafe behaviors. Today’s UNAIDS campaign offers no new provisions to address those factors that led to the failure of earlier syphilis campaigns.
Conclusions: The distinctive array of socioeconomic, biologic, and epidemiologic factors that characterize STDs like syphilis also apply to AIDS and weaken the assumption that the AIDS epidemic can be ended by implementing today’s UNAIDS plan. The discourse of ending the AIDS epidemic may be a carryover from the successful elimination, before the appearance of AIDS, of smallpox—a disease that is not comparable to AIDS owing to different biologic qualities, social concerns, epidemiologic behaviors, and the possession of an effective vaccine. Future AIDS control campaigns should therefore concentrate on maximizing ART distribution and not targeting the end of the epidemic.
Keywords: syphilis, venereal, AIDS, eradication.
Read on Wiley Online Library
Volume 95, Issue 2 (pages 408–439) DOI: 10.1111/1468-0009.12265 Published in 2017
