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.