Thirty years later, an HIV policy that makes sense.

[The Backlash Cometh]

I'm sure this will piss people off, but knowledge is power I always say. Nineteen years ago, I told my GYN that I was ready to start a family and wanted to get tested for anything that might create a problem during the pregnancy. I specifically asked for an HIV test and the doctor looked at me with disapproving eyes and asked why I would want such a test? Was I doing something I wasn't suppose to be doing? Well, I was a bit shocked by his answer and just left without ever getting that HIV test, nor did I get tested to see if I was vaccinated for German measles either, which I wasn't. I spent that whole pregnancy worried about something which most people never even give a second thought to. (Everything went okay, btw.)

Anyway, here's the article, love it or hate it:

CDC Recommends HIV Tests for All Americans Age 13-64

All adolescents and adults should be tested routinely for HIV infection in hospitals, clinics, and doctors' offices no matter the reason for their visit, federal officials said today, signaling a radical shift in the public health approach to the 25 year-old epidemic.

Under the new recommendations, patients would no longer have to sign a special consent form, and get extensive pre-test counseling. However, they would have to be told they were being tested for the infection, asked if they have any questions, and given the opportunity to "opt out."

The new policy is a huge change from an era when stigma, a fatalism and the lack of effective treatment led to a unique and -- in the opinion of some practitioners, onerous -- set of procedures for HIV testing.

"This represents a milestone for CDC and for our national health protection," Julie Louise Gerberding, CDC's director, said in a telephone press conference


http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/09/21/AR2006092100868.html

[pooja]

1. NO WAY!!!!!!!

This has far reaching implications of health insurance denial. There are insurance companies denying coverage for cancer. I can't imagine how this would effect millions of Americans.

[The Backlash Cometh]

2. Insurance should never be denied based on HIV status.

THAT should be a universal standard. In return, we should be able to conduct these tests so that we can reduce the numbers of newly infected people. If we DO succeed in reducing the numbers, the insurance companies will save money AND lives. Win-win, all the way.

[China_cat]

4. It shouldn't be, but it is.

Insurance companies are now wanting genetic screening to see if you're at risk for certain cancers, Huntington's, other diseases...so they can deny you coverage before you ever get sick.

[The Backlash Cometh]

7. You would think that the anti-stem cell research crowd would be up

in arms over this. Assuming, of course, that it's a moral issue.

[Liberal Veteran]

10. Well, I'm on my 4th insurance company since being diagnosed...

...with HIV and I have never had any problems getting insurance. 2 different insurance plans from before and after one company I worked for changed hands, 1 domestic partner plan from my hubby that I needed when my job was outsourced to India, and 1 plan since going to work at my current job.

Of course that's a group policy at work. Certainly, if I were trying to get individual coverage, I'd expect to run into problems, but for the average person, they are going to be getting health coverage through their employer and I haven't been denied coverage for health care.

[The Backlash Cometh]

14. Good news to hear, cat lover.

[China_cat]

3. That sounds an awful lot like the universal

testing for drugs that was done by our hospitals here. And then used to harass people who tested positive...reported to their insurance agencies, etc.

The idea gives me the creeps. I don't have any risk factors for ANY STD. Why should I end up having to pay inflated prices for tests that would have absolutely nothing to do with whatever medical condition I'm consulting a doctor about? Sounds like just another way for the pharmaceutical companies that make the tests to rake in a bunch more money.

[NOLADEM]

5. They can have universal testing when we get universal healthcare

[The Backlash Cometh]

8. BINGO.

I think that would fall into place with my social pragmatist philosophy.

[SnoopDog]

6. I really think what they are doing is....

getting everybody's DNA print. Did you notice that the articles had the mouth swab as the means to perform the test. I am not a doctor but I do not see how they can test for HIV with a mouth swab...

[The Backlash Cometh]

9. Which brings up an even more interesting question.

If the test can be conducted with a swab, why not make home tests available?

Of course, then you have the problem of not having someone on the ready for counseling.

[peacebird]

11. it was a blood test when I took it.....

Having been a normal, sexually active single for many years I wanted to get tested to be certain there was nothing there... I sort of felt it was part of being responsible towards future lovers... BUT the teset I took was a"double blind" anon test thru Whitman Walker. I was assigned a random number and came back two weeks later for the result.

I think that is a valid means of doing it - anything which associates the results with someones name, SSN or any other means of ID-ing them will likely be used by insurance companies to drop people from their coverage or deny coverage.

[SnoopDog]

12. Yes I have had the blood test too, but..

The pictures in the articles (msnbc, etc) showed a lady/man with a swab in her mouth. That is why I am saying it is just to gather DNA.

Here is a MSNBC link... http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/14938109/

I do not trust anything our Nazi government does...

[SemiCharmedQuark]

13. You don't have to trust the government, but the reason saliva can be used

is that significant amounts of antibodies for HIV are present in it. Even urine can be used. The test is only 20 minutes long, and gives instant (relative to the two weeks it can take) results. It only costs about 20 dollars.

The best way to go about it that would satisfy those understandably suspicious of government acquisition of DNA would probably be anonymously. Say, you go in, are swabbed and assigned a number. Twenty minutes later,they call your number and give you the results.