HIV Testing

[cycocelica]

So a little old but oh well.

As we have seen in the news, the CDC wants to make HIV testing to be done at the yearly check ups at the doctor. Do you think that when you go to get a regular check up at the doctor that they should also test for HIV? Discuss.

[mkrishnan]

I think it would be a good thing. Even though AIDS is increasingly under control in the US, it's completely possible to stamp it out entirely. We need to keep fighting this thing.

Now if my student insurance actually *covered* yearly checkups.... Ugh. That's another issue entirely.

[amacgenius]

Why not, it's a benefit for everybody and if your insurance covers it, it's not a matter of cost :).

(First post in Political forums).

[Queso]

I don't see how it would hurt. Anyone unaware they're HIV+ gets diagnosed and therefore the possibility of combination therapy. Those who are negative get peace of mind.

It's important to catch HIV early. The earlier they get on the drugs, the longer they live.

[Lau]

I'm not sure. I think getting tested is a good thing, but I'm not sure a yearly medical is the best place for it, due to prejudice.

Long story, but I was given the chance to have an anonymous HIV test whilst having a blood test for something else. This was at a drop in type centre where it wasn't linked to my medical record. Because of this, I chose to take it, even though any chance was fairly minimal, but I suppose technically possible. I would have been less inclined if it would have been noted on my record, I think.

I think most people are basically good, and if they had a positive result would take the necessary protective steps as well as seeking help for their own health. However, offering anonymous testing, off their record, would hopefully make people who were technically at risk from say, unprotected sex once with someone or from a broken condom, be more likely to get tested in spite of the perceived risk being fairly minimal.

[thedude110]

I see this as a first step toward government mandated yearly check-ups.

Talk about things that would send me to Canada.

God.

And I have empirical evidence that I won't die as long as I don't go to the doctor. ;)

[mkrishnan]

I guess that brings up a good point...I guess I can see the point that it should be done in a way that it can not only be declined, but perhaps can be declined in a way that is not held against you by your insurer... Or perhaps just optional altogether. I am fairly confident I don't have HIV ;) but there are a good handful of things I wouldn't mind knowing when I go in for a yearly checkup... if the cost is not an issue. I'm more interested to get all kinds of vitals that I can use... cholesterol, etc, etc. But I think it would be good to know this, and it would be good to have it integrated into a normal visit in such a way that it isn't like, "Oh, look at me, I'm a slut, so I have to go get tested, and that's why I'm here today." Not that it should ever be like that. But it does feel that way to people sometimes....

[Nickygoat]

I would have been less inclined if it would have been noted on my record, I think.
Fair point but if everyone has to do it it's not prejudicial - depending on who can access the records. Need to be kept away from the insurance companies methinks ;)

[Lau]

Fair point but if everyone has to do it it's not prejudicial - depending on who can access the records. Need to be kept away from the insurance companies methinks ;)

Absolutely, good point.

I think what would worry me is that in the current climate of insurers using such information against people it could put people off going to their yearly checkup to get screened for all sorts of other stuff. However, it's not a reason not to do the tests, its a reason not to let insurers anywhere near it, as you say.

[eva01]

one problem with this.


most Insurance companies do not pay for "physical" as a diagnosis. So there is a lot of extra work for a hospital to find out why they are having the blood work done so that the person doesn't have to pay. 9/10 times it is high cholesterol.

However the only thing that will cover an HIV test is either HIV postive or Exposure.

Now that would be HUGE fraud if all the doctors put down exposure for all their patients so they don't have to have the couple hundred dollar bill for a blood test for HIV.

as an aside also pregnancy covers HIV for insurance.

[Ugg]

Probably one of the greatest strides made in HIV care is the almost total elimination of mother to child HIV transmission. Testing is obviously a necessary step to do this.

Unfortunately, many of those in high risk groups are unlikely to be getting yearly check ups, mainly IV drug users, so it would end up serving those least likely to have the virus. As with all diseases, it's best that it's caught early so I think overall it's a good idea.

[iGary]

Unless they test for every other conceivable disease, then no.

[Ugg]

Unless they test for every other conceivable disease, then no.


Why do you say no?

[.Andy]

I think it would be a good thing. Even though AIDS is increasingly under control in the US, it's completely possible to stamp it out entirely. We need to keep fighting this thing.
Well the infection rate is not really increasingly under control (maintenance with mutli-drugs i suppose you could classify it as 'control'). The advertising/education campaings ot the 90's halted the rate of infection with moderate success but complacency is reversing that. You're still looking at an infection rate has been rising steadily again for the last five years or so.

Testing=good (as long as privacy is maintained).

Education=better.

[zimv20]

I think what would worry me is that in the current climate of insurers using such information against people it could put people off going to their yearly checkup to get screened for all sorts of other stuff.
i'd want a guarantee that my insurance company would neither a) drop me, nor b) jack my rates before submitting to an HIV test with my regular doctor.

i prefer to have my HIV tests done at an anonymous clinic.

[cycocelica]

What if it was confidental? You were just a number instead. Your doctor would know but if you can't trust your doc, then you might want to find a new one.

I really dont see why they shouldn't. It would only help the population, and could really help control the disease. Yes there are other diseases that could be tested for but at least this is a step in the right direction. This disease can be controlled, as long the patient doesnt go around transfering fluids to each other, so there should be no reason not to.

[zimv20]

What if it was confidental?
is that part of the proposal?

[eva01]

in MA HIV testing is totally confidential. If a minor has to have it done, parents do not have to be informed. And we (lab assistants) can't even print out results for them, they have to get it from management.

[Queso]

Well the infection rate is not really increasingly under control (maintenance with mutli-drugs i suppose you could classify it as 'control'). The advertising/education campaings ot the 90's halted the rate of infection with moderate success but complacency is reversing that. You're still looking at an infection rate has been rising steadily again for the last five years or so.

Testing=good (as long as privacy is maintained).


Education=better.

I agree about the education, but I'm not sure that complacency is the cause of the rise. Back in the 80s if you caught HIV in a Western country, you developed AIDS and died (in most cases). So the amount of people actually living with HIV at any one time was lower. These days thanks to combination therapy anyone in those countries with HIV lives for years, even decades, and may never develop AIDS at all. So there's a larger pool of HIV+ people out there. Add into that the increased migration from areas with high infection rates such as southern Africa, and the possibility of exposure to the virus increases massively.

[iGary]

Why do you say no?

Because there are far more diseases (by percentage) that deserve that money.

[Blue Velvet]

Do you think that when you go to get a regular check up at the doctor that they should also test for HIV? Discuss.


No. Unless you're involved in high-risk activity, what's the point?

To be honest, I would rather be regularly checked for other things than HIV. What are the main causes of death in 'developed' societies? Circulatory diseases (heart disease, stroke etc) followed by cancer.

As someone who has to go regularly for all sorts of blood tests, the idea of universally tacking on an HIV test for everyone seems to be a misplaced use of resources.

But if you're sharing needles or being highly promiscuous without taking adequate precautions, then by all means. But that decision should be between doctor and patient.

[mkrishnan]

Testing=good (as long as privacy is maintained).

Education=better.

This I agree with completely. AIDS is a perfect example of why you need primary prevention. :(