Measuring sustainability of opioid agonist therapy programs in the context of transition from global fund support

People who use drugs and the right to health

Support for a human rights framework for drug policy has been growing for some years. This year, the UNODC published a chapter in the World Drug Report focussed on the right to health. In this paper, we draw attention to the conceptualisation of the right to health for people who use drugs. While one essential element is access to appropriate, high quality, and affordable healthcare, this needs to occur hand-in-hand with two other central components of the right to health - the right to conditions that promote health (the social, economic, legal, commercial, and cultural determinants of health) and the right to meaningful participation in healthcare decisions and in health policy. We consider these three components of a right to health against the current international drug control regime. More specifically we point to how the three drug conventions (1966 as amended 1972, 1971 and 1988) make explicit mention of the right to health. In this way, we argue that duties to respect, protect and provide the right to health for people who use drugs accrue through being a signatory to the drug conventions. Given that there does not appear to be international appetite to abandon the current treaties, and notwithstanding the strong impression that they reinforce a criminalisation approach to people who use drugs, the work herein may afford another avenue for effective advocacy about the right to health.

Sustainability of opioid agonist therapy programmes in Belarus, the Republic of Moldova, Tajikistan and Ukraine in the context of transition from Global Fund support during 2020-2023

BACKGROUND

Most national programmes of opioid agonist therapy (OAT) in Eastern Europe and Central Asia are at a critical juncture for building their sustainability due to decreasing support from the Global Fund and other international HIV funders. Therefore, it is timely to identify the status, trends, opportunities and risk factors of OAT preparedness in the face of donor transition.

METHODS

The study assessed the OAT sustainability progress in 4 countries: Belarus, the Republic of Moldova, Tajikistan and Ukraine. The study used a comparative country case study design with qualitative methods and two data points in 2020 and 2022-2023. In total, 363 sources were reviewed and used, 83 interviews with key informants and 13 focus groups were conducted with clients, using a joint methodology and a defined Framework with three dimensions: 'Policy & Governance'; 'Finance & Resources'; and, 'Services'.

RESULTS

All four countries have made improvements to increase OAT sustainability, though it varied. In 2022, Ukraine had a substantial degree of sustainability, followed by Belarus and Moldova with a moderate degree, while Tajikistan's sustainability was at moderate-to-high risk. No country achieved a high degree of OAT sustainability in any of the three dimensions measured. However, a high degree of sustainability was reported for at least one indicator in Belarus, Moldova and Ukraine: 'Medicines'; 'Financial resources'; 'Evidence and information systems'; 'Service Accessibility'; or, 'Service integration & quality'. On average, the greatest improvement between 2020 and 2022 was seen for 'Availability & coverage'; 'Financial resources'; 'Service quality & integration'; and, 'Service accessibility'. The highest risks across the countries, notably in Belarus and Tajikistan, were recorded for the indicator, 'Availability and coverage'. Of concern is that the least progress, or even a decline, was found in 'Human resources'.

CONCLUSIONS

OAT sustainability in the 4 analysed countries remains at risk, despite progress in all countries. Managing HIV donor transition can have positive effects in addressing financial sustainability, especially inspired by Ukraine's continued progress despite economic contraction and Russia's invasion. More attention is needed to non-financial aspects of OAT sustainability in donor transition planning. The directions that could have multifaceted positive influence for OAT long-term resilience and scale up for impact on drug problems include decentralisation outside of health settings and broader drug treatment financial and management transformation, together with drug policy reforms. Thus far, viable solutions for sustainability of OAT in conflict areas appear unlikely. Building OAT resilience should remain high on the agenda of national stakeholders, technical partners and donors.