Tag: budget cuts

Could Possible Budget Cuts Cost Cancer Patients’ Lives?

Finance Minister Enoch Godongwana holding a copy of the 2025 Budget Speech. (Photo: Parliament of RSA via X)

The Department of Health’s 2025/26 Budget Vote is expected to focus on addressing the shortfall caused by the withdrawal of international funding from programmes combating communicable diseases such as HIV and TB. But as non-communicable diseases like blood cancer surpass infectious diseases, redirecting resources could further cripple screening, diagnosis, and treatment – putting more lives at risk.

Too Few Resources, Too Many Lives Lost

Palesa Mokomele, Head of Community Engagement and Communications at DKMS Africa, highlights the difficulties faced by blood cancer patients within the country’s healthcare system. “Nearly 80% of South Africans rely on a system already operating at full capacity, with many left with little more than hope due to limited access to care. Even before these new funding shifts, resources for blood cancer detection and treatment were critically scarce, contributing to the loss of more than 4000 lives each year.”

Illustrating how a lack of medical infrastructure creates additional barriers to life-saving care, she says, “The survival rate for a stem cell transplant is up to 50% with a matched unrelated donor and 61% with a matched related donor. Yet many healthcare facilities simply don’t have the resources to perform these procedures. As a result, most patients receive only medical management, which may not be enough to ensure survival. Given our population size, transplant activity remains critically low – only 139 of the required 600 transplants are performed on adults annually, and just 18 of the 250 needed for children.”

Finances Dictate Healthcare Choices

Beyond the overstretched and under-resourced public health sector, the financial burden on patients remains a major obstacle. “One in five South African households delays seeking healthcare simply because they cannot afford it,” notes Mokomele. “While the state covers the cost of a stem cell transplant from a matching donor, other essential expenses such as tissue typing, donor searches, and stem cell procurement are not covered. These out-of-pocket costs place treatment out of reach for many, leading to heartbreaking decisions and poorer outcomes.”

She adds that socio-economic challenges often make accessing care even harder for patients. “Being the sole breadwinner means some individuals struggle to take time off work for necessary treatment. In other cases, mothers face the impossible choice between continuing their own treatment or staying home to care for their children when no other support is available.”

Post-transplant Survival Challenges

Even for patients who manage to undergo a transplant, their survival remains at risk due to conditions in some public healthcare facilities. “Overcrowding and poor sanitation create dangerous environments for these highly immunocompromised patients,” warns Mokomele. “To safeguard their fragile health, they need access to clean water, proper sanitation, isolation, and balanced nutrition.”

She stresses that long recovery periods make it difficult for patients from distant areas to complete their care without proper housing at treating hospitals. “Without these accommodations, many are forced to abandon treatment, putting their survival at risk.”

“No patient should be denied life-saving treatment due to funding constraints. We urge government and the private sector to collaborate in strengthening blood cancer care, and we encourage the public to play their part by supporting fundraising initiatives that help bridge critical gaps in treatment access,” concludes Mokomele.

Go to https://www.dkms-africa.org/get-involved/donate-money to contribute to this cause.

SA Health Research Facing Catastrophic Financing Cuts

Professor Ntobeko Ntusi is the president and CEO of the South African Medical Research Council. (Photo: SAMRC)

By Catherine Tomlinson

Cuts to United States funding of health research could have “catastrophic” consequences, says Professor Ntobeko Ntusi, who is at the helm of the country’s primary health research funder. He says the South African Medical Research Council is “heavily exposed” to the cuts, with around 28% of its budget coming from US federal agencies.

After an unprecedented two weeks of aid cuts by the United States government that left HIV programmes and research efforts across the world reeling, the Trump administration took the drastic step of freezing aid to South Africa in an executive order on 7 February.

The order – which is a directive to the executive branch of the US government and holds the weight of law – was issued to respond to what the White House called “egregious actions” by South Africa. It specifically points to the Expropriation Act and the country’s accusation of genocide against Israel at the International Court of Justice as the primary reasons for the funding freeze.

While there are some limited wavers and exceptions to the cuts, Spotlight understands that these have so far been poorly communicated and many HIV services remain in limbo.

The funding cuts, following an earlier executive order issued on 20 January,  are interrupting critical health research underway across South Africa and will ultimately undermine global efforts to stop HIV and TB.

The US is a major source of financing for health research in South Africa. Many of the country’s research institutes, groups, and universities receive funding from the US through the National Institutes of Health (NIH), the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), USAID, and the President’s Emergency Plan for Aids Relief (PEPFAR).

Over the past few weeks, these funding sources have come under siege by the Trump administration resulting in a gaping, and most likely insurmountable financing gap, for many health research endeavors in the country.

US spending accounts for just over half (55%) of all spending on global health research around the world. In 2022, the super power spent $5.4 billion on global health research, according to Impact Global Health –  an NPO that tracks health research spending.

While the US gives money to global health research through several different government departments and programmes, the largest source of funding for global health research is the NIH. The NIH contributed 65% of global financing for HIV research between 2007 and 2022, according to Impact Global Health and 34% of tuberculosis research financing in 2023, according to New York-based policy think tank, the Treatment Action Group.

South Africa has the biggest HIV epidemic in the world in absolute terms and is among the top 10 countries in terms of TB cases per capita.

Catastrophic consequences

“South Africa is the biggest recipient of NIH funding outside of the US”, Professor Ntobeko Ntusi, president and CEO of the South African Medical Research Council (SAMRC), told Spotlight. “[T]he consequences will be catastrophic if [funding] is stopped… for science that is important for the whole world,” he said.

South Africa plays a critical role in advancing HIV science, said Ntusi, adding that “many of the major trials that have advanced our understanding of both the effective strategies for HIV management, as well as understanding the mechanisms of disease emanated from South Africa”.

People in the US, for example, are now able to access long-acting HIV prevention shots, largely because of research that was conducted in South Africa and Uganda. Research conducted in South Africa has also been critical to validating new tuberculosis treatments that are currently the standard of care across the world.

Heavily exposed

Stop work orders were sent to research groups receiving USAID funding at the end of January. These stop work orders coupled with the halting of funding have already interrupted critical HIV research efforts, including efforts to develop new vaccines against HIV.

Ntusi said that the SAMRC is currently “heavily exposed” to the halting of grants from USAID and the CDC, with research programmes supported by USAID and the CDC already being stopped.

The SAMRC’s research on infectious diseases, gender-based violence, health systems strengthening, as well as disease burden monitoring are also affected by the funding cuts.

“In addition to support for HIV research, we have significant CDC grant funding in our burden of disease research unit, the research unit that publishes weekly statistics on morbidity and mortality in South Africa,” said Ntusi. “Our health systems research unit has a number of CDC grants which have been stopped [and] in our gender and health research unit we had a portfolio of CDC funding which also has been stopped.”

Along with programmes being impacted by the halting of USAID and CDC funding, Ntusi said there will also be major staffing ramifications at the SAMRC as well as at universities.

He said that if funding from the NIH is stopped “there would be huge fallout, we just wouldn’t be able to cover the hundreds of staff that are employed through the NIH granting process”.

The SAMRC’s combined annual income from US grants (NIH, CDC and USAID) is 28% of its total earnings (including both the disbursement from the SA government as well as all external contracts) for the 2025/2026 financial year, according to Ntusi. “So, this is substantial – effectively a third of our income is from US federal agencies,” he said.

Pivot away from infectious disease?

In addition to the executive order freezing funding to South Africa, it is unknown whether the NIH will remain a dominant funder of global health. Robert F. Kennedy Jr., the US health secretary nominee, has called for cutting to the NIH’s infectious disease research spending to focus more on chronic diseases.

Looking beyond health, Ntusi said the executive order halting aid to South Africa will be felt across a range of different development initiatives such as water and sanitation, and climate change.

Republished from Spotlight under a Creative Commons licence.

Read the original article.