According to the CDC, Pennsylvania has the eighth highest cumulative AIDS rates in the nation, with 31,977 cases through 2005.[i] Unfortunately, over half of those cases (17,932) are concentrated in Philadelphia alone.[ii] In his article “The Need for an Urban HIV/AIDS Policy in the United States,” Chinua Akukwe argues that “The mission of an urban HIV/AIDS policy should be the reduction of HIV transmission, the aggressive treatment of known cases, and the prevention of subsequent infection of other individuals by persons living with HIV/AIDS.”[iii] Although the city health department has made great strides in attempting to provide treatment and health services to AIDS patients, the startlingly high AIDS rates suggest that there is still more to be done. Simply by making a few changes in the current HIV/AIDS policy and relocating funds, Philadelphia can truly make a dent in this devastating epidemic.

http://scienceblogs.com/aids/upload/2006/08/aids.jpg

Currently, the Philadelphia government runs an AIDS program out of the AIDS Activities Coordinating Office (AACO). According to their website, the AACO has a budget of $34 million dollars a year, and is funded largely by the federal government.[iv] However, only $5.5 million is provided by the CDC for prevention.[v] In fact, a representative from AACO admitted that most of the money is used in HIV testing, HIV care, case management, and health clinics: all very important services, but not once did he mention prevention.[vi] One of the major programs that are funded by the AACO and the CDC is Action AIDS. According to the 2006 Action AIDS Report, 13% of all funds go into prevention, or $565,342, whereas the majority of the money is used for case management.[vii]Additionally, the AACO’s website states that it “covers a nine-county service area in southeastern PA and southern NJ,”[viii] an enormous area for a limited amount of funds. When asked if there is a greater allocation of money in more needy areas, the representative from the AACO replied that care was “not heavily concentrated in one area.” According to Akukwe, the general allocation of funds is a problem. He states that “health promotion and risk reduction initiatives should reflect realities and priorities.”[ix] Indeed, it is logical to assume that more money should go to the areas and the people that most in need.