Introduction
Globally, migration remains a controversial topic, and health issues of migrants are often used as a pretext for discrimination [
1]. This is particularly true regarding HIV/AIDS, a disease which is itself highly stigmatized.
In 2000, the United Nations declared HIV/AIDS (Human immunodeficiency virus/acquired immune deficiency syndrome) ‘a global threat’ [
2]. The Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria (TGF), financed by high income countries, was created to improve access to prevention and treatment for HIV, Tuberculosis (TB) and Malaria in high-endemic, low-income countries [
3]. However, TGF and other international organizations do not address people living with HIV (PLWHIV) who migrate to high income countries.
Recent decades have witnessed vast waves of migration from high HIV endemic/low income countries to low HIV endemic /high income countries, primarily in Europe [
4]. In 2015, 37% of all newly diagnosed HIV cases in European Union or European Economic Area (EU/EEA) countries were individuals born outside the notifying country [
5].
The international response to providing healthcare to non-citizens, particularly the undocumented, varies greatly from country to country. While countries such as Belgium, France, and the United Kingdom extend HIV care to undocumented migrants, many more do not provide any services and even restrict healthcare access [
6]. Of 48 responding countries in the WHO European Region, only 21 provide gratuitous ART to undocumented migrants [
4]. Inability, or unwillingness, to provide care to migrant populations is often linked to national discourse and economic priorities [
7]. Even in countries that offer free treatment to undocumented migrants, access to services remains problematic. Possible contributing factors include the complexities of undocumented migrants’ lives, and/or the actions of the government. For example, Grit and Spreij report that the UK purposely makes accessing health services difficult for the undocumented community as a means of discouraging permanent stay. These bureaucratic barriers are enacted despite evidence that providing ART to migrants is more cost-effective than providing treatment later [
8]. Creative solutions are needed to engage stakeholders, including the government, in countries where access to care is limited for non-citizen populations.
Israel’s relationship with immigration is complex; since the establishment of the State of Israel, the government has encouraged Jewish immigration, especially in light of anti-Semitism elsewhere [
9]. When non-Jewish migrants began to seek asylum in Israel, the country lacked precedent for accepting them into Israeli society including providing medical care. The lack of permanent residency prevents undocumented migrants from becoming eligible for national health insurance provided to citizens and permanent residents. In addition, the overall policy concerning undocumented migrants in Israel have been influenced by preventing permanent settlement in the past decade, which prevents extending social services to this vulnerable population, and the adoption of most inclusion solutions proposed by the MoH.
Israel is a country of low HIV/AIDS endemicity, as categorized by the WHO, with a HIV incidence remarkably lower than in most Western European countries [
10,
11]. Yet, differences exist between sub-populations in Israel, and rates are sensitive to migration from countries with high HIV endemicity [
12,
13].
At the end of 2013, there were an estimated 160,000 non-Israeli residents living in Israel without health insurance, equivalent to 2% of the population [
14,
15]. Among them, 61,641 were people who entered Israel from Sub-Saharan Africa (SSA) between 2007 to 2012. A majority of these migrants were asylum-seekers from Eritrea and Sudan. These migrants formed 24.6% of all new HIV diagnoses in Israel in 2013. In addition, approximately 54,000 labor migrants from the former Soviet Union were reported in Israel [
14]. As “undocumented” and in many cases asylum-seeking, most of these migrants do not have work permits or access to affordable healthcare [
16]. In Israel, National Health Insurance cover all Israeli citizens in a way that enable access to a large basket of care. Employers of documented migrant workers need to contract an insurance that also gives access to most of these services. More generally, undocumented migrants benefit from some health services, all covered by the Ministry of Health - emergencies, pre and post maternal delivery care, and treatment of some life-threatening and infectious diseases, including TB [
17].
Several international organizations have emphasized the importance of Public-Private Partnership (PPP) in low-income countries in overcoming challenges to provide affordable healthcare access, particularly in fields of HIV, TB, and Malaria [
18,
19]. While governments often partner with other agencies and private companies in low-income countries, government partnership with the private sector is rarer in high-income countries [
20]. In recent years, joint-commissions involving governmental and non-governmental actors in the health sector have risen in popularity in high-income countries, which indicates the recognition of the need to work across sectors [
21]. However, these joint ventures are often between government and non-governmental actors, or between non-governmental actors and the private sector, rather than private-public partnerships [
18].
In 1997, Israel became one of the first countries to extend Tuberculosis (TB) care to all persons, regardless of citizenship status. This program allowed a full and free of charge diagnosis, prevention and treatment of TB, both ambulatory and hospitalized based, for non-Israeli citizens. While novel at the time, the concept of extending care to non-citizens was based on fundamental human rights and infectious disease prevention and treatment principles [
22]. Using the model and rationale of the existing Tuberculosis program for non-Israeli citizens in Israel, the Department of Tuberculosis and AIDS (DTA) at the MoH set out to provide HIV testing and treatment services for the undocumented community [
23‐
26]. This paper offers a case study of how government office initiated a partnership in a PPP in Israel which ultimately increased access to ART for HIV-positive undocumented migrants. Built on the principles of the DTA to offer efficient and non-discriminatory care, the PPP successfully provided ART to a population otherwise underserved. To our knowledge, this program is a unique case as PPP in a high-income country that subsequently evolved into a government-funded program.
Methods
This case study describes the process of creating a temporary public-private partnership to provide HIV care for undocumented migrants based on institutional records of the DTA and the memories and reflections of partners.
In addition, demographic and serological data (i.e. CD4) of all HIV patients referred to the program were collected for monitoring. The data covered for the period of the creation of the PPP in January 2014 until 2018 - 3 years following its integration into the Israeli health system (in 2016). Continuous variables were analyzed according to the mean, median, standard deviation and range. Categorical variables were analyzed according to frequencies and percentages. Student’s t-test was used to compare continuous variables while the Chi-square test was used to compare categorical variables. A p-value of < 0.05 was considered statistically significant.
In order to systematically analyze the strengths and weaknesses of our program, the OECD-DAC criteria for evaluating development assistance were used [
27].
Ethical approval was obtained from the Ministry of Health.
Discussion
In Israel, the MoH and other stakeholders recognized the public health imperative to treat PLWHIV regardless of citizenship status. Raising the importance of the health issues in the undocumented migrant community and their socio-political ramifications was a process that took several years, numerous meetings, and multiple national conferences. The role of the government in the PPP and its transition to a government program addressed Israel’s human rights responsibilities [
32].
The multi-sector partnership unified the abilities and talents of each stakeholder. The partnership with pharmaceutical companies to provide ART for a predetermined period of time without charge to the government or the recipients was a unique success of this process. In this case, IATF’s unique access and experience with this marginalized population provided the initial patient base of the PPP and an acceptable path to procuring donated medication. Additionally, the partnership with IATF contributed to trust with migrants that they would not be deported for seeking treatment.
The use of the PPP model was an essential step towards the integration of this service in the Israeli health system. While the issue of extending HIV care required a solution that addressed the financial aspects of providing care, the PPP was a successful means of garnering political support and mitigating potential concerns about the ability of the Israeli system to provide care. As a result of this process, Israel is now one of few high-income countries which provides HIV care, including ART, to undocumented PLWHIV without charge.
Limitations
While the PPP reached a successful conclusion by its transfer to a government program, the capped number of drugs the pharmaceutical companies were willing to contribute to the program limited the amount of people who were immediately accepted for ART. While this limitation was removed after transfer to a government program, limiting patients receiving ART meant composing strict inclusion criteria for the first 2 years.
The OECD-DAC criteria were an important tool for analyzing the program. However, further study is needed to quantify several aspects of the program, both in its PPP and government program iterations. Specifically, real-life service accessibility among a politically and economically vulnerable population needs to be assessed, in addition to analysis of serological data to determine changes in transmission and adherence to treatment.
Moreover, the DTA estimates a higher number of undocumented migrants living with HIV in Israel than who were referred to the program. Analyzing potential barriers is an important next step. Researchers elsewhere have noted a lack of proof of the effectiveness of government-funded initiatives, mostly due to legal, social, administrative and economic barriers [
6‐
8,
29,
30]. Even if migrants technically have easy access to care, many may not seek it, due to stigma, fear, and other socioeconomic disadvantages [
8]. Further study is needed to know if the program in Israel enables undocumented migrants to comfortably access care, and if not, how it can be improved.
Acknowledgments
Our sincere thanks to the staff at the DTA for their support in this endeavor, and to Ms. Jordan Hannink for her extensive editing. We thank the stakeholders and their representatives in the PPP including the staff of several MoH divisions (Pharmaceutical Division – Eli Marom; Legal Office – Rami Avissar, Nilly Dickman; Budgeting Division – Yair Assaraf, Shimon Eliraz); the staff of all HIV and TB clinics; the staff of all District Health Offices; the Israeli HIV Medical Society (Michal Chowers, Margalit Lorber); IATF (Yuval Livnat, Noga Oron, Anita Nudelman) and Physicians for Human Rights (Zvi Bentwich); the Pharmaceutical companies – AbbVie Biopharmaceuticals (Tammy Altarc), Bristol-Myers Squibb (Iddo Leshem), Boehringer-Ingelheim (Orna Steinberger), Gilead Sciences (Ofra Feinmesser), GlaxoSmithKline (Doron Shalit), Janssen-Cilag (Clive Kaye), MSD (Sharon Alon, Michelle Ogolnik, Eran Pappo), Neopharm (Efi Schneidman), Teva (Avinoham Sapir, Lee Peled Lavi); the Pharmacies – Super-pharm (Nitsan Lavi, Yossi Valnerman, Richard Yossuf), SAREL (Avi Buskila, David Gabai).
Opinions expressed in this article are those of the authors and do not represent the opinions of the agencies with which they’re associated.
Publisher’s Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.