“Everybody can get” the covid-19 vaccine.

Robert F. Kennedy Jr. on Sept. 4 in a Senate Finance Committee hearing

When health secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. testified before the Senate Finance Committee on Sept. 4, several senators criticized him for restricting the covid-19 shots after promising in November he wouldn’t “take away anybody’s vaccines.”

“Did you hold up a big sign saying that you were lying when you said that?” Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) asked Kennedy.

On Aug. 27, the its covid , limiting the groups of people approved to get the updated shot to anyone 65 or older and any person at least 6 months old who has at least one underlying health condition that increases their risk of a severe covid infection.

Kennedy pushed back. “Anybody can get the booster,” he said, later adding that “it’s not recommended for healthy people.”

Warren said, “If you don’t recommend, then the consequence of that in many states is that you can’t walk into a pharmacy and get one. It means insurance companies don’t have to cover the $200 or so cost.”

Warren and Kennedy continued to speak over each other, debating the vaccines’ availability.

“It depends on the states,” Kennedy said. “But they can still get it. Everybody can get it. Everybody can get it, senator.”

Asked for evidence, the Health and Human Services Department pointed to an on the social platform X from Kennedy that said, “These vaccines are available for all patients who choose them after consulting with their doctors.”

Kennedy’s blanket statement to senators is misleading and premature.

Under current guidance, healthy people under 65 might need a doctor’s prescription to get the shot. If they successfully get a prescription, they may need to pay out-of-pocket.

Further, whether the vaccine is available at pharmacies and covered by insurance is largely dependent on a vaccine panel that has so far issued no recommendations.

What was the status quo for years — that most Americans, regardless of age, could easily make an appointment at their local pharmacy for the vaccine at little to no out-of-pocket cost — is no longer guaranteed in the 2025-26 season.

Limited Approval, No Guidance

The FDA’s approval is not the only step in the process of making vaccines available to the public.

The Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices, a panel of independent experts that guides vaccine policy, has not voted on or issued current guidance. Typically, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention recommends vaccines based on the .

And that guidance affects insurance coverage and vaccine access. Federal law requires that most health insurance plans vaccines recommended by the CDC. also require these recommendations before they allow vaccines to be offered over-the-counter at pharmacies.

On June 9, Kennedy fired all 17 members of the CDC’s immunization advisory committee and with new members, many of whom have expressed anti-vaccine views. CDC Director Susan Monarez Aug. 27 over what Monarez described as a .

According to the CDC’s website, the advisory panel is Sept. 18 to 19.

Access Varies by State

People in the FDA-approved groups should be able to schedule vaccinations as soon as authorized health care providers receive supplies, likely in the next few weeks.

Even if you are in these approved groups, where you can get a covid shot varies by state. By law, pharmacies in certain states won’t be able to offer the vaccine or will administer it only with a doctor’s prescription until the CDC’s vaccine advisory panel .

That means despite the FDA having issued its approval for some groups, in 18 states and Washington, D.C., “pharmacists cannot administer it because it isn’t on the CDC immunization schedule yet,” Brigid Groves, the American Pharmacists Association’s vice president of professional affairs, .

As of Sept. 4, the scheduling apps for Walgreens and CVS notified patients in some locations that they could not schedule a covid vaccine appointment because of state restrictions, inventory, or the need for a prescription.

‘Off-Label’ Prescriptions

People not in the FDA’s approved group are not banned from getting a covid vaccine, per se. But accessing the vaccine will likely require navigating barriers.

Doctors can legally prescribe a covid vaccine for people who fall outside the FDA categories.

That’s true for adults and children — and the practice of prescribing medications and vaccines for “off-label” use is fairly common in pediatrics, William Schaffner, a Vanderbilt University Medical Center professor of infectious diseases, PolitiFact.

That requires making and paying for a doctor’s appointment, and finding a doctor willing to prescribe it off-label.

Depending on ACIP’s guidance, pharmacists might be able to vaccinate people not in an FDA-approved group through a process called “.”

That means, for example, “if you were 52 years old and otherwise healthy, but you nonetheless wanted to get the vaccine, you could discuss that with your doctor — shared clinical decision-making — and you could receive the vaccine,” Schaffner said.

Pharmacists are considered clinicians who can conduct shared decision-making, Groves said.

But again, without CDC recommendations, “we don’t know if that provision is still there,” Schaffner said.

Waiting on the CDC

Insurance coverage for the vaccine is still up in the air, too, and will largely depend on what the CDC recommends.

Insurance coverage is more probable for people in an FDA-approved category. But, if the CDC recommendations include giving vaccines to healthy people through the shared clinical decision-making process, insurance companies will generally honor that, Schaffner said.

Covid vaccines cost about $142, according to the . It’s unclear whether that would be the out-of-pocket cost for patients receiving a covid vaccine not covered by insurance.

Our Ruling

Kennedy said “everybody can get” a covid vaccine.

The FDA limited the groups of people eligible for the covid vaccines, which has already diminished the shots’ drugstore availability in some states. People who are not in those groups aren’t banned from getting a shot, but are likely to face additional barriers. For example, people may need a doctor to prescribe the vaccine “off-label,” making the process more challenging and potentially more costly.

Kennedy’s blanket statement also is premature.

A CDC vaccine panel has not issued recommendations for the vaccines. The group’s guidance might affect insurance coverage and over-the-counter access.

The statement contains an element of truth — the vaccine has not been banned and some people are approved to get it. But it ignores critical facts about the barriers others could face in accessing and paying for it. We rate it Mostly False.

PolitiFact staff writer Madison Czopek contributed to this report.

Our Sources

This <a target="_blank" href="/public-health/rfk-jr-covid-vaccine-access-fact-check/">article</a&gt; first appeared on <a target="_blank" href="">KFF Health News</a> and is republished here under a <a target="_blank" href=" Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License</a>.<img src="/wp-content/uploads/sites/8/2023/04/kffhealthnews-icon.png?w=150&quot; style="width:1em;height:1em;margin-left:10px;">

Republicans in Congress are “trying to wipe out federal funding to end the HIV epidemic.”

President Joe Biden on Oct. 14, 2023, in remarks at the 2023 Human Rights Campaign National Dinner.

Are Republicans threatening to stop spending federal money to end one of the world’s most pressing public health epidemics? That’s what President Joe Biden said during a dinner hosted by an LGBTQ+ advocacy group.

“In the United States Congress, extreme MAGA Republicans are trying to undo virtually every bit of progress we’ve made,” at the Human Rights Campaign event. “They’re trying to wipe out federal funding to end the HIV epidemic.”

Programs to treat HIV and fight its spread have enjoyed bipartisan funding support in recent years, experts said, so Biden’s portrayal signals a significant departure.

When we asked the White House what Biden was referring to, of budget recommendations from House Republicans that call for large cuts to the initiative, a Trump administration-era program designed to reduce new HIV infections in the U.S., as well as other programs.

The Senate a separate . The recommendations will be subject to negotiation as the House and Senate face a Nov. 17 deadline to pass another spending bill.

We found that although Republicans are recommending significant cuts to HIV prevention efforts across a number of public health agencies, the proposal keeps core funding intact. Meanwhile, political differences are eroding bipartisan support for global HIV-prevention funding.

Despite great strides in prevention and treatment since HIV was first reported in the U.S. in the 1980s, HIV remains at epidemic levels in the U.S. today, with approximately living with HIV and around 30,000 to 35,000 new infections each year. Experts said cases are rising in the South and in rural areas, and new infection statistics show it is disproportionately affecting Black and Hispanic populations.

What Are the Proposed Cuts?

The AIDS Budget and Appropriations Coalition, a group of more than 100 public health advocacy organizations in HIV-related federal spending, said a majority of the proposed cuts to domestic HIV funding stem from House Republicans’ effort to eliminate the Ending the HIV Epidemic initiative.

The program with the goal of reducing new HIV infections in the U.S. by 75% by 2025 and 90% by 2030. The program so far worked regionally, that have the highest rates of HIV cases for funding.

In 2023, was allocated for the program across various agencies, according to KFF’s funding tracker.

• $220 million to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

• $165 million to the Ryan White HIV/AIDS program. (It was named for a 13-year-old diagnosed with HIV in 1984 and is overseen by the Health Resources and Services Administration.)

• $5 million to the Indian Health Service.

• $26 million to the National Institutes of Health for research.

• $157.3 million to community health centers, which have treated around 200,000 HIV patients annually.

its goals as it approaches the 2025 benchmark. “It’s well designed, well planned, it has targets that makes sense,” said Jeffrey Sturchio, a lead researcher on a report.

Sturchio said the problem is not a fault of design, but funding, adding, “Congress has never fully funded the initiative.”

Sturchio pointed to a range of local and state “bureaucratic hurdles.” Jurisdictions that sufficient resources have seen “tremendous progress,” he said, and seem to be moving in the right direction.

But covid-19 reduced HIV testing and may have diverted public health efforts, . ºÚÁϳԹÏÍø News reported in April that stakeholders saw progress but worried that it won’t be enough to make the 2030 deadline.

Democrats appear to share this concern. The spending bill proposed by the Democratic-controlled Senate Appropriations Committee maintained or slightly increased funding levels to all HIV-related programs. more data about the program, describing its “lack of quantifiable data showing outcomes.”

The House has not yet passed the bill out of committee. We know of some proposed , which the Republican-led House Appropriations Subcommittee released in July.

It outlines a $1.6 billion cut to the CDC, including a $220 million reduction in “HIV/AIDS, viral hepatitis, sexually transmitted diseases, and tuberculosis prevention” and a $238.5 million cut from the . The Ryan White program and support services to low-income HIV patients and of those diagnosed in the U.S.

The bill also proposes cutting funding to the by more than half — from $60 million to $28 million. According to HIV.gov, the fund targeting disparities that affect communities of color.

Additional details about how these cuts could affect programs are detailed in a committee report that has not been made public. PolitiFact and some advocacy organizations obtained copies of the report, but the House Appropriations Committee did not respond to questions about it. The report we saw recommended cutting all funding for the Ending the HIV Epidemic initiative.

And , , and ºÚÁϳԹÏÍø News have each reported that the Ryan White program and CDC cuts result from a plan to eliminate the Ending the HIV Epidemic initiative.

“If they cut funding, it’s going to have a dramatic and draconian impact on the ability of all of the people who are working in these jurisdictions to improve public health,” said Sturchio, the researcher.

Although the cuts would be dramatic, experts said, they would not eliminate all domestic HIV funding.

“There is certainly a demonstration and a commitment to some of the core HIV programs, but there are millions of dollars of proposed cuts in other areas,” said Lindsey Dawson, associate director for HIV policy at KFF. “These cuts would have a meaningful impact on the ability of programs to provide lifesaving interventions for both HIV care and treatment, as well as prevention.”

The cuts would mean a 16% cut to the CDC’s division of STD prevention, a 9% cut to the Ryan White HIV/AIDS program, and a 53% cut to the Minority HIV/AIDS Fund from fiscal year 2023 to 2024.

These funding cuts are only proposals. They require a vote from the full appropriations committee and would have to pass the House and be negotiated with a Democratic-controlled Senate.

“We’ve heard for a long time that HIV is a bipartisan issue. But what some people forget, is that that bipartisanship was hard fought for over the first decade of the HIV epidemic,” said Dawson.

Other Challenges to HIV/AIDS Spending

The U.S. commitment to global HIV prevention, meanwhile, is also under scrutiny. Rep. Chris Smith (R-N.J.) the President’s Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief, , without first making some changes. Started in , the in more than 50 countries for HIV testing, prevention, treatment, and medications. It also strengthens health care systems to fight AIDS.

Funding for the program has grown over the past 20 years, totaling more than $110 billion. 25 million lives saved by medical intervention.

Smith, who chairs the House Foreign Affairs subcommittee on Global Health, has expressed concerns that money is being given to nongovernmental organizations that support abortion rights and access.

the direct use of overseas funding to provide abortions or to lobby for access to abortions. This has been the case . However, that can do so with their own non-U.S. funding.

An official from the State Department, which runs the program, confirmed to PolitiFact that PEPFAR is legally restricted from funding abortion or lobbying for abortion access; the official cited the training of staff and partners and the monitoring of procedures to ensure compliance.

Other have favored a ‘ which has required foreign nongovernmental organizations to certify that they would not perform or promote abortion with funds from any source to be eligible for U.S. government funding. Trump applied the policy to PEPFAR, but Biden rescinded it.

The PEPFAR would not eliminate the program, and Congress can continue to fund the program without reauthorization, but it could cause some provisions to lapse over the next few years.

The lack of a reauthorization would have significant symbolic impact, said Kellie Moss, KFF’s associate director of global health and HIV policy. “It could make the program more vulnerable during funding discussions without a clear signal of bipartisan support.”

Although reauthorization is being held up, funding has progressed. On Sept. 28, a State Department and Foreign Operations Appropriations bill, which would fund PEPFAR for another year but implement a Mexico City-like policy provision on all global health funding. This bill would also extend the lapsing provisions for another year.

Our Ruling

Biden said that Republicans in Congress are “trying to wipe out federal funding to end the HIV epidemic.”

A subcommittee of House Republicans has proposed cutting some HIV prevention programs anywhere from 53% to 9% in fiscal 2024, depending on the program.

A committee’s draft report cited by advocacy and policy groups shows these cuts stem from the elimination of the Trump-era Ending the HIV Epidemic initiative, although the committee did not respond to questions about that.

Taken together, these cuts would not eliminate — or “wipe out” — all federal domestic HIV spending, but they do represent a significant cut.

Meanwhile, the House has not moved ahead to reauthorize PEPFAR, which supplies U.S. dollars for global HIV prevention, over Republican concerns about where organizations that receive the money stand on abortion access. But the House has passed one year of PEPFAR funding with some conditions about how it is distributed, which it can do without reauthorizing the program.

Biden’s statement is partially accurate in that significant funding cuts have been proposed by House Republicans, but he exaggerates by saying these efforts would “wipe out” federal funding.

We rate this claim Half True.

Our Sources

ºÚÁϳԹÏÍø News Southern correspondent Sam Whitehead contributed to this report.

This <a target="_blank" href="/health-industry/fact-check-biden-republicans-congress-hiv-aids-funding/">article</a&gt; first appeared on <a target="_blank" href="">KFF Health News</a> and is republished here under a <a target="_blank" href=" Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License</a>.<img src="/wp-content/uploads/sites/8/2023/04/kffhealthnews-icon.png?w=150&quot; style="width:1em;height:1em;margin-left:10px;">

“Everybody can get” the covid-19 vaccine.

Robert F. Kennedy Jr. on Sept. 4 in a Senate Finance Committee hearing

When health secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. testified before the Senate Finance Committee on Sept. 4, several senators criticized him for restricting the covid-19 shots after promising in November he wouldn’t “take away anybody’s vaccines.”

“Did you hold up a big sign saying that you were lying when you said that?” Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) asked Kennedy.

On Aug. 27, the its covid , limiting the groups of people approved to get the updated shot to anyone 65 or older and any person at least 6 months old who has at least one underlying health condition that increases their risk of a severe covid infection.

Kennedy pushed back. “Anybody can get the booster,” he said, later adding that “it’s not recommended for healthy people.”

Warren said, “If you don’t recommend, then the consequence of that in many states is that you can’t walk into a pharmacy and get one. It means insurance companies don’t have to cover the $200 or so cost.”

Warren and Kennedy continued to speak over each other, debating the vaccines’ availability.

“It depends on the states,” Kennedy said. “But they can still get it. Everybody can get it. Everybody can get it, senator.”

Asked for evidence, the Health and Human Services Department pointed to an on the social platform X from Kennedy that said, “These vaccines are available for all patients who choose them after consulting with their doctors.”

Kennedy’s blanket statement to senators is misleading and premature.

Under current guidance, healthy people under 65 might need a doctor’s prescription to get the shot. If they successfully get a prescription, they may need to pay out-of-pocket.

Further, whether the vaccine is available at pharmacies and covered by insurance is largely dependent on a vaccine panel that has so far issued no recommendations.

What was the status quo for years — that most Americans, regardless of age, could easily make an appointment at their local pharmacy for the vaccine at little to no out-of-pocket cost — is no longer guaranteed in the 2025-26 season.

Limited Approval, No Guidance

The FDA’s approval is not the only step in the process of making vaccines available to the public.

The Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices, a panel of independent experts that guides vaccine policy, has not voted on or issued current guidance. Typically, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention recommends vaccines based on the .

And that guidance affects insurance coverage and vaccine access. Federal law requires that most health insurance plans vaccines recommended by the CDC. also require these recommendations before they allow vaccines to be offered over-the-counter at pharmacies.

On June 9, Kennedy fired all 17 members of the CDC’s immunization advisory committee and with new members, many of whom have expressed anti-vaccine views. CDC Director Susan Monarez Aug. 27 over what Monarez described as a .

According to the CDC’s website, the advisory panel is Sept. 18 to 19.

Access Varies by State

People in the FDA-approved groups should be able to schedule vaccinations as soon as authorized health care providers receive supplies, likely in the next few weeks.

Even if you are in these approved groups, where you can get a covid shot varies by state. By law, pharmacies in certain states won’t be able to offer the vaccine or will administer it only with a doctor’s prescription until the CDC’s vaccine advisory panel .

That means despite the FDA having issued its approval for some groups, in 18 states and Washington, D.C., “pharmacists cannot administer it because it isn’t on the CDC immunization schedule yet,” Brigid Groves, the American Pharmacists Association’s vice president of professional affairs, .

As of Sept. 4, the scheduling apps for Walgreens and CVS notified patients in some locations that they could not schedule a covid vaccine appointment because of state restrictions, inventory, or the need for a prescription.

‘Off-Label’ Prescriptions

People not in the FDA’s approved group are not banned from getting a covid vaccine, per se. But accessing the vaccine will likely require navigating barriers.

Doctors can legally prescribe a covid vaccine for people who fall outside the FDA categories.

That’s true for adults and children — and the practice of prescribing medications and vaccines for “off-label” use is fairly common in pediatrics, William Schaffner, a Vanderbilt University Medical Center professor of infectious diseases, PolitiFact.

That requires making and paying for a doctor’s appointment, and finding a doctor willing to prescribe it off-label.

Depending on ACIP’s guidance, pharmacists might be able to vaccinate people not in an FDA-approved group through a process called “.”

That means, for example, “if you were 52 years old and otherwise healthy, but you nonetheless wanted to get the vaccine, you could discuss that with your doctor — shared clinical decision-making — and you could receive the vaccine,” Schaffner said.

Pharmacists are considered clinicians who can conduct shared decision-making, Groves said.

But again, without CDC recommendations, “we don’t know if that provision is still there,” Schaffner said.

Waiting on the CDC

Insurance coverage for the vaccine is still up in the air, too, and will largely depend on what the CDC recommends.

Insurance coverage is more probable for people in an FDA-approved category. But, if the CDC recommendations include giving vaccines to healthy people through the shared clinical decision-making process, insurance companies will generally honor that, Schaffner said.

Covid vaccines cost about $142, according to the . It’s unclear whether that would be the out-of-pocket cost for patients receiving a covid vaccine not covered by insurance.

Our Ruling

Kennedy said “everybody can get” a covid vaccine.

The FDA limited the groups of people eligible for the covid vaccines, which has already diminished the shots’ drugstore availability in some states. People who are not in those groups aren’t banned from getting a shot, but are likely to face additional barriers. For example, people may need a doctor to prescribe the vaccine “off-label,” making the process more challenging and potentially more costly.

Kennedy’s blanket statement also is premature.

A CDC vaccine panel has not issued recommendations for the vaccines. The group’s guidance might affect insurance coverage and over-the-counter access.

The statement contains an element of truth — the vaccine has not been banned and some people are approved to get it. But it ignores critical facts about the barriers others could face in accessing and paying for it. We rate it Mostly False.

PolitiFact staff writer Madison Czopek contributed to this report.

Our Sources

This <a target="_blank" href="/public-health/rfk-jr-covid-vaccine-access-fact-check/">article</a&gt; first appeared on <a target="_blank" href="">KFF Health News</a> and is republished here under a <a target="_blank" href=" Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License</a>.<img src="/wp-content/uploads/sites/8/2023/04/kffhealthnews-icon.png?w=150&quot; style="width:1em;height:1em;margin-left:10px;">

Republicans in Congress are “trying to wipe out federal funding to end the HIV epidemic.”

President Joe Biden on Oct. 14, 2023, in remarks at the 2023 Human Rights Campaign National Dinner.

Are Republicans threatening to stop spending federal money to end one of the world’s most pressing public health epidemics? That’s what President Joe Biden said during a dinner hosted by an LGBTQ+ advocacy group.

“In the United States Congress, extreme MAGA Republicans are trying to undo virtually every bit of progress we’ve made,” at the Human Rights Campaign event. “They’re trying to wipe out federal funding to end the HIV epidemic.”

Programs to treat HIV and fight its spread have enjoyed bipartisan funding support in recent years, experts said, so Biden’s portrayal signals a significant departure.

When we asked the White House what Biden was referring to, of budget recommendations from House Republicans that call for large cuts to the initiative, a Trump administration-era program designed to reduce new HIV infections in the U.S., as well as other programs.

The Senate a separate . The recommendations will be subject to negotiation as the House and Senate face a Nov. 17 deadline to pass another spending bill.

We found that although Republicans are recommending significant cuts to HIV prevention efforts across a number of public health agencies, the proposal keeps core funding intact. Meanwhile, political differences are eroding bipartisan support for global HIV-prevention funding.

Despite great strides in prevention and treatment since HIV was first reported in the U.S. in the 1980s, HIV remains at epidemic levels in the U.S. today, with approximately living with HIV and around 30,000 to 35,000 new infections each year. Experts said cases are rising in the South and in rural areas, and new infection statistics show it is disproportionately affecting Black and Hispanic populations.

What Are the Proposed Cuts?

The AIDS Budget and Appropriations Coalition, a group of more than 100 public health advocacy organizations in HIV-related federal spending, said a majority of the proposed cuts to domestic HIV funding stem from House Republicans’ effort to eliminate the Ending the HIV Epidemic initiative.

The program with the goal of reducing new HIV infections in the U.S. by 75% by 2025 and 90% by 2030. The program so far worked regionally, that have the highest rates of HIV cases for funding.

In 2023, was allocated for the program across various agencies, according to KFF’s funding tracker.

• $220 million to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

• $165 million to the Ryan White HIV/AIDS program. (It was named for a 13-year-old diagnosed with HIV in 1984 and is overseen by the Health Resources and Services Administration.)

• $5 million to the Indian Health Service.

• $26 million to the National Institutes of Health for research.

• $157.3 million to community health centers, which have treated around 200,000 HIV patients annually.

its goals as it approaches the 2025 benchmark. “It’s well designed, well planned, it has targets that makes sense,” said Jeffrey Sturchio, a lead researcher on a report.

Sturchio said the problem is not a fault of design, but funding, adding, “Congress has never fully funded the initiative.”

Sturchio pointed to a range of local and state “bureaucratic hurdles.” Jurisdictions that sufficient resources have seen “tremendous progress,” he said, and seem to be moving in the right direction.

But covid-19 reduced HIV testing and may have diverted public health efforts, . ºÚÁϳԹÏÍø News reported in April that stakeholders saw progress but worried that it won’t be enough to make the 2030 deadline.

Democrats appear to share this concern. The spending bill proposed by the Democratic-controlled Senate Appropriations Committee maintained or slightly increased funding levels to all HIV-related programs. more data about the program, describing its “lack of quantifiable data showing outcomes.”

The House has not yet passed the bill out of committee. We know of some proposed , which the Republican-led House Appropriations Subcommittee released in July.

It outlines a $1.6 billion cut to the CDC, including a $220 million reduction in “HIV/AIDS, viral hepatitis, sexually transmitted diseases, and tuberculosis prevention” and a $238.5 million cut from the . The Ryan White program and support services to low-income HIV patients and of those diagnosed in the U.S.

The bill also proposes cutting funding to the by more than half — from $60 million to $28 million. According to HIV.gov, the fund targeting disparities that affect communities of color.

Additional details about how these cuts could affect programs are detailed in a committee report that has not been made public. PolitiFact and some advocacy organizations obtained copies of the report, but the House Appropriations Committee did not respond to questions about it. The report we saw recommended cutting all funding for the Ending the HIV Epidemic initiative.

And , , and ºÚÁϳԹÏÍø News have each reported that the Ryan White program and CDC cuts result from a plan to eliminate the Ending the HIV Epidemic initiative.

“If they cut funding, it’s going to have a dramatic and draconian impact on the ability of all of the people who are working in these jurisdictions to improve public health,” said Sturchio, the researcher.

Although the cuts would be dramatic, experts said, they would not eliminate all domestic HIV funding.

“There is certainly a demonstration and a commitment to some of the core HIV programs, but there are millions of dollars of proposed cuts in other areas,” said Lindsey Dawson, associate director for HIV policy at KFF. “These cuts would have a meaningful impact on the ability of programs to provide lifesaving interventions for both HIV care and treatment, as well as prevention.”

The cuts would mean a 16% cut to the CDC’s division of STD prevention, a 9% cut to the Ryan White HIV/AIDS program, and a 53% cut to the Minority HIV/AIDS Fund from fiscal year 2023 to 2024.

These funding cuts are only proposals. They require a vote from the full appropriations committee and would have to pass the House and be negotiated with a Democratic-controlled Senate.

“We’ve heard for a long time that HIV is a bipartisan issue. But what some people forget, is that that bipartisanship was hard fought for over the first decade of the HIV epidemic,” said Dawson.

Other Challenges to HIV/AIDS Spending

The U.S. commitment to global HIV prevention, meanwhile, is also under scrutiny. Rep. Chris Smith (R-N.J.) the President’s Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief, , without first making some changes. Started in , the in more than 50 countries for HIV testing, prevention, treatment, and medications. It also strengthens health care systems to fight AIDS.

Funding for the program has grown over the past 20 years, totaling more than $110 billion. 25 million lives saved by medical intervention.

Smith, who chairs the House Foreign Affairs subcommittee on Global Health, has expressed concerns that money is being given to nongovernmental organizations that support abortion rights and access.

the direct use of overseas funding to provide abortions or to lobby for access to abortions. This has been the case . However, that can do so with their own non-U.S. funding.

An official from the State Department, which runs the program, confirmed to PolitiFact that PEPFAR is legally restricted from funding abortion or lobbying for abortion access; the official cited the training of staff and partners and the monitoring of procedures to ensure compliance.

Other have favored a ‘ which has required foreign nongovernmental organizations to certify that they would not perform or promote abortion with funds from any source to be eligible for U.S. government funding. Trump applied the policy to PEPFAR, but Biden rescinded it.

The PEPFAR would not eliminate the program, and Congress can continue to fund the program without reauthorization, but it could cause some provisions to lapse over the next few years.

The lack of a reauthorization would have significant symbolic impact, said Kellie Moss, KFF’s associate director of global health and HIV policy. “It could make the program more vulnerable during funding discussions without a clear signal of bipartisan support.”

Although reauthorization is being held up, funding has progressed. On Sept. 28, a State Department and Foreign Operations Appropriations bill, which would fund PEPFAR for another year but implement a Mexico City-like policy provision on all global health funding. This bill would also extend the lapsing provisions for another year.

Our Ruling

Biden said that Republicans in Congress are “trying to wipe out federal funding to end the HIV epidemic.”

A subcommittee of House Republicans has proposed cutting some HIV prevention programs anywhere from 53% to 9% in fiscal 2024, depending on the program.

A committee’s draft report cited by advocacy and policy groups shows these cuts stem from the elimination of the Trump-era Ending the HIV Epidemic initiative, although the committee did not respond to questions about that.

Taken together, these cuts would not eliminate — or “wipe out” — all federal domestic HIV spending, but they do represent a significant cut.

Meanwhile, the House has not moved ahead to reauthorize PEPFAR, which supplies U.S. dollars for global HIV prevention, over Republican concerns about where organizations that receive the money stand on abortion access. But the House has passed one year of PEPFAR funding with some conditions about how it is distributed, which it can do without reauthorizing the program.

Biden’s statement is partially accurate in that significant funding cuts have been proposed by House Republicans, but he exaggerates by saying these efforts would “wipe out” federal funding.

We rate this claim Half True.

Our Sources

ºÚÁϳԹÏÍø News Southern correspondent Sam Whitehead contributed to this report.

This <a target="_blank" href="/health-industry/fact-check-biden-republicans-congress-hiv-aids-funding/">article</a&gt; first appeared on <a target="_blank" href="">KFF Health News</a> and is republished here under a <a target="_blank" href=" Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License</a>.<img src="/wp-content/uploads/sites/8/2023/04/kffhealthnews-icon.png?w=150&quot; style="width:1em;height:1em;margin-left:10px;">