HIV testing - A standard part of your yearly physical
 

CDC wants you tested for HIV
BY KAREN SHIDELER
The Wichita Eagle

Soon, a test for HIV could become as ordinary a part of your visit to the doctor as testing for cholesterol levels and red blood cell counts.

The federal Centers for Disease Control and Prevention recommended Thursday that HIV screening become part of routine medical care for everyone ages 13 to 64.
Read The Rest Here

~~~~~~~~~~

What do you think about the CDC making an HIV test a routine part of your yearly exam? Do you think this kind of information will be used as stated (to detect and treatment infected people earlier) or for financial gain? (Increase in drug prices due to increase demand, higher insurance rates, etc.).

Let's chat... :)

I absolutely think that this should be part of the annual exam.

I don't know everything that goes into a physical currently...but wouldn't it make more sense to make about a hundred other tests standard before even considering HIV?

For instance Hep?

I applaud the CDC for wanting to promote awareness but I don't think making it a part of your physical is such a great idea, my #1 reasoning being that it takes away anonymity of who's -ve or +ve (hmm maybe that's the CDC's goal). Your dr will HAVE to report it to Health Department, and you can forget about being discreet.

I say include it in the physical, but let the patient decide if they want it done or not

I agree with this.

Dear government,

You have no part in deciding what goes on during any medical exams I will ever have, but thanks for offering!

XOXO,
valkyrie

I don't see the negative side of loosing anonymity...but then again, I'll freely admit that I believe that if someone who is knowingly HIV+ has sex with someone and doesn't tell them that they are HIV+ and the other person contracts it, they should be charged with manslaughter.

There was a Law & Order episode about this. A guy who had AIDS and was fully aware of this had sex with as many girls as possible and afterwards told them that he wanted them to get infected as well.

I don't know if I've seen that one. What was the verdict??

The CDC can recommend it, I'm just not sure if I want a whole lot of money being spent in forcing physicians and hospitals to implement this. If individual hospitals and clinics are in favor of this plan, they can accept it and use their own (or the money from their trustees) money for it.

Just in case someone has not seen or heard about this, the following link is directly to CDC's site:
http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/topics/testin...care/index.htm
While whole page is worth reading, this is the link to FAQ/Q&A:
http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/topics/testin...ral-public.htm
The report I heard, IIRC, indicated that this only a recommendation. BUT any of their recommendations carry a great deal of wieght on what the medical industry does .

As for me, I get tested every time I go to the blood bank.......part of FDA regs.

From CDC site (see link in my posting ):
How will my privacy be protected?
HIV test results fall under the same strict privacy rules as all of your medical information, including those for other sexually transmitted diseases (STD). Information about your HIV test cannot be released without your permission. If your test shows you are infected with HIV, this information will be reported to the state health department, like other STD results. After all personal information about you (name, address, etc) is removed, this information, in turn, is forwarded to the CDC. CDC uses this information to keep track of HIV/AIDS in the United States and to direct funding and resources where they are needed the most. CDC does not share this information with anyone else, including insurance companies.

It looked like he was going to be found guilty, but I don't remember if there was a verdict. At the end of the episode he was hospitalized and told that he had a year left to live though.

I think that's how it's set up. It is (or will be) standard procedure, but the patient can "opt out" (for lack of a better word).

While I applaud the efforts of the CDC to identify and treat HIV+ people earlier, I'm afraid that I don't see how this will help as much as they'd like. I don't know what the stats are, but my guess would be that many people who are HIV+ are, for the most part, people who probably aren't real conscientious about going to the doctor every year. I'm not trying to generalize or stereotype, I just think it's likely that the results aren't going to be what the CDC is hoping for.

From CDC site ( see my prior posting ):

1. Why is CDC recommending the end of a separate, written permission (consent) for an HIV test?
   CDC believes HIV testing can be covered under a general permission form (consent form) that is signed for all medical care. CDC’s recommendation to end separate, written permission for HIV testing does not mean that CDC encourages testing people without their permission. CDC believes that all HIV testing should be voluntary and only done with the patient’s knowledge and agreement.
   
2. Is CDC recommending mandatory testing? No. CDC is recommending voluntary HIV screening. The right to refuse an HIV test is called “opt-out.” This means that the patient will be informed that the test will be performed and may choose not to have it.
   
3. Will people be tested for HIV without their knowledge or consent? No one should be tested without their knowledge. Everyone will have the opportunity to refuse HIV testing (opt-out). No one should ever be tested for HIV without their knowledge and permission. The definition of opt-out testing included in the Recommendations clearly states that the HIV test will be given after the patient has been told that the test will be performed and that the patient may decline testing.

1. Can I choose not to be tested?
2. Yes. Your health care provider may want to know why you do not want to be tested, but you have the right to refuse any medical screening test, including an HIV test.

I think this is a great idea, but it might be hard logistically.

We can whine all we want about personal liberties, but let's get real here: HIV/AIDS is a public health issue. Is being required to take the Mantoux skin test for TB before you go to college/start some jobs violating personal liberties? It's simply another way to eliminate a health threat. I, personally, don't see anything wrong with testing for either. But then again, I get tested every six months.

Hippa doesn't cover insurance companies - they know more about your health than you probably do.

But for the most part, I'm all for it, along with testing for Hep C. Most people don't realize that even blood from a Hep C infected person that has been dry for a week is active and can still infect someone else.

I said the same thing for the longest time but not anymore.

Well, apparently at least the legislators of SC agree with me. I found out after talking with my mom, who does AIDS counseling in SC, that you CAN be charged with manslaughter for infecting someone with AIDS if you don't give them prior warning. She has a client that was convicted. I'm not sure if other states have this same legislation, though.

According to the Department of Health and Human Services, HIPAA does cover insurance companies.

How is it "manslaughter" if the person is still alive? Wouldn't that be pre-slaughter, which is almost as awesome as pre-pregnant?

It certainly does and it's a giant pain in the ass.

HIPAA is a stellar example of shutting the barn door after the horse is long gone. I think the providers dreamed it up just so they could get out of doing stuff. Anyone who thinks it's actually protecting their privacy any more than it was protected before is living in Happy Fairy Land.

I feel compelled to remind people that Law & Order is not really an accurate source for information regarding law.

As for the original topic, I have a problem with being forced to submit myself to any test that I don't want. But I don't think that's the case here. If it's just included in the whole co-pay for my yearly physical I don't really have a problem with it. I believe you can elect which bloodwork you want done anyway and HIV testing would fall under that same umbrella. So although your doctor may "recommend" HIV testing as part of your yearly physical, you don't have to do it.

ETA: This is from the article. After looking at it I have no problem with the recommendation.

In looking up a few articles, others have also been charged with "assault with a deadly weapon".

I think the point she was making is that you can't charge someone for manslaughter (voluntary or involuntary) without a body (to be blunt). An assault charge doesn't require a body.

Right, but you have to actually CAUSE death -- there has to be a killing (at least in every "manslaughter" definition I've ever heard).

Colorado:

18-3-104. Manslaughter.

(1) A person commits the crime of manslaughter if:

(a) Such person recklessly causes the death of another person; or

(b) Such person intentionally causes or aids another person to commit suicide.

Manslaughter or not if someone gave me HIV there would probably be a body by the end of the day.

It could get sticky, but a prosecutor could probably argue that even though the person has not died yet, the person who gave them HIV is/will be the cause of their death. To which the defense attorney would probably say "What if the victim gets hit by a bus tomorrow...the defendant is no longer the 'cause of death'". Then it's up to the judge/jury to decide. I don't know exactly how it works. I'm just speculating, but like I said, apparently it has happened that someone was convicted of manslaughter for infecting someone with HIV. Also possible that maybe the victim died of AIDS-related complications before the prosecution of the offender, making it manslaughter.

Or probably not, because there could be a cure of AIDS well before the person died and then somebody would have spent 30 years in jail for absolutely no reason. Go criminal justice system!

I agree. If it was something that wouldnt possibly effect and endanger the lives of others thats one thing, but we can slow down the spread of AID's with methods like this so that people with AID's are aware they have it and not spreading it to everybody else.

Whoops, not true.

Actually Hep C can survive for up to two weeks out of the body in a nutrient-rich environment (which, by the way, is absurdly long - HIV lasts mere minutes outside the body) . . . but since the blood should probably be dried by then, your chances of actual infection are not nearly as large as if the blood were dry, so yeah, it's kind of alarmist.

I haven't read everything as I have a Natural Resources test in a couple of hours, but has anybody been siting sources?? I've always been tought that there is no such thing as Voluntary manslaughter. Also I know for a fact that people have recieved life for purposely infecting others with AID's though I can't remember what the charge was. I'm guessing you could be charged with a number of things.

OT: KSig, Redsocks are wack!!

Source, please? That's not what our Health Officials told us.


The dried blood is still infectious, up to seven days, as per our Health Offiicials. If you want to take the chance, fine. I chose not to do so.

GP covered this thirteen posts ago. She even directly quoted you.

I stand corrected (see how easy it is to admit a mistake?), as I misspoke. GP said what I was meaning to say.

http://criminal.findlaw.com/crimes/a...voluntary.html

It depends on the jurisdiction but in CA there is voluntary manslaughter.

I don't know that it's logical to argue that the cause of death of a person who hasn't died will be HIV. With all the new drugs out there it seems that HIV has turned into more of a chronic illness than a death sentence. (just my opinion, btw) However, if the person has died then that's a completely different situation.

The AIDS test is very scary to get no matter what you've been doing, waiting for the results is frightening. So I dont get the regular AIDS test anymore, I get the round about AIDS test.I call my friend, I say do you know anyone who has AIDS?

'no'

no? cool....cause you know me

- Mitch Hedberg

If the virus is alive, the blood is infectious. This is borderline silly - do you understand how infection works? It's considerably more difficult without a delivery vehicle (liquid -> fluid -> mixes easily with other fluids -> introduction to blood stream = infection) - there's obviously still a risk, and you shouldn't handle blood/fluids without precaution no matter what, but there's a different order of magnitude in what it would take to infect.

Like I said - it's somewhat alarmist, although I'm sure your Health Officials, while apparently highly fallible, were simply trying to give you 'worst-case' to keep you safe.

Definitely, especially since the first two letters of HIPAA stand for Health Insurance. I thought that would be a dead giveaway.