To compensate for budget deficits, states across the country are making cuts in vital programs, including those providing diagnostic tests and treatment for patients with HIV/AIDS.

Most recently, on July 28, Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger of California signed a package of legislation to erase a $24 billion deficit, which includes a $52 million decrease in funding to HIV/AIDS programs. State spending will be cut by more than half in providing education and prevention, therapeutic monitoring, counseling and testing, early intervention, and home and community-based care.

While this cut may be a short-term solution to the deficit, it potentially creates bigger problems. In an interview with the San Francisco Chronicle, Mark Cloutier, the executive director of the San Francisco AIDS Foundation, considers the cut “grossly irresponsible” and believes this decision will lead to an increased number of HIV infections due to weaker testing services.

Cloutier said, “There are going to be more people who are HIV-positive who are unwittingly infecting others.”

Earlier this year, on February 20, Gov. M. Jodi Rell of Connecticut cut $2.7 million to state programs that provide HIV/AIDS services in the state’s budget proposal for fiscal years 2009-2011. Although not as significant in comparison to California’s $52 million cut, this is a 40 percent decrease in Connecticut’s funding for HIV/AIDS programs. According to the Connecticut AIDS Resource Coalition, this cut will return funding levels to that of 1998.

In April, the National Alliance of State and Territorial AIDS Directors (NASTAD) published a study that examined the impact of state revenue cuts on HIV/AIDS program funding. According to the information gathered from 37 states, funding for HIV/AIDS services have decreased by 54 percent for the fiscal year 2009, which will increase to 71 percent in 2010. A combined total of over one billion dollars will be cut from these states’ budgets over the next two years.

Forty-one percent of 2009 cuts affect state-operated services dealing with prevention, care and treatment, and the AIDS Drug Assistance Programs (ADAP). These cuts will adversely affect HIV patients relying on these programs to acquire affordable drugs and could result in an increased number of those infected, as Cloutier pointed out.

Fifty-nine percent of these cuts reduce administrative costs of programs and include hiring freezes and eliminating positions. As a result of a smaller employee workforce overseeing these programs, some states have adapted by increasing electronic technology communication, consolidating multiple programs, and reducing travel by vanpooling clients to treatment centers. If states are able to effectively reorganize, these cuts may not negatively affect those who depend on the programs.

The NASTAD study also indicated that many states plan to increase funding for HIV/AIDS programs during economic stimulus in coming months. Among multiple pledges, 18 states plan to increase access to HIV testing, 14 states intend to implement social marketing campaigns, and 7 states propose to increase access to care, treatment, and ADAP programs.

For more information, see the National ADAP Monitoring Project annual report.