Socioeconomic impact of HIV at household level in Myanmar

The prevalence of HIV in the general population in Myanmar is estimated to be 0.53 percent, and is now considered to have stabilised. It is estimated that there are approximately 216,000 people living with HIV in Myanmar (National AIDS Program (NAP) report, 2012).

The most significant burden of HIV in Myanmar continues to lie with the most at-risk populations; people who inject drugs (PWID), men who have sex with men (MSM) and female sex workers (FSW).

Objective

The availability of antiretroviral therapy (ART) in Myanmar has undergone significant improvements. With the availability of ART and improved health, people with HIV can live longer.

Treatment may allow people to re-enter the economy, and thus will contribute to lessening the economic impact at the individual, household and community levels, as demonstrated in other settings. However, this is not always the case. 

Also of significant importance, both socially and economically, is the effect that HIV can have on people who are close to the positive person.

Understanding these impacts is of utmost importance to mitigate their effects. Mitigating the negative socioeconomic effects of HIV requires early intervention that will prevent households from entering a continual spiral of sickness, discrimination and increased health related costs.

This project aimed to:

• assess the household level socioeconomic impact of HIV in Myanmar to inform national policies related to social protection, stigma and discrimination and continuum of care for HIV positive people and their households
• examine and highlight the potential differential socioeconomic impacts of HIV on women, girls, children, and key populations (MSM, transgender persons, sex workers, and PWID)
• assess the extent of disabilities among people living with HIV
• develop strategies on HIV impact mitigation policies and programs, to inform the national HIV and AIDS, poverty reduction and social protection strategies
• examine the development implications of the findings, particularly in light of achieving the MDGs and the post-2015 agenda.

Timeline

2014–15.