Kane to give positive HIV lists to state

[kweerwolf]

If you test positive for HIV after the end of the year, get ready for your name to be reported to the state.

The Illinois Department of Public Health recently announced that in January 2006 it will begin requiring county health departments to report the names of people who test positive for the virus that causes AIDS.

Currently, county health departments use alphanumeric codes to anonymously report positive test results to the state.

<snip>

At least one local health group believes the decision could scare people away from being tested. David Roesler, executive director of the Open Door Clinic, said those worried about confidentiality may refuse to test unless it is done anonymously.

http://www.suburbanchicagonews.com/beaconnews/top/2_1_au24_hiv_s1.htm

[rodeodance]

1. this has got to be shot down. what are they thinking!!

[William769]

2. It's been like that in Florida for years.

[davidinalameda]

3. this is stupidest thing that they can do

don't they understand that people will quit being tested???

[ncrainbowgrrl]

4. oh no.

This appears to be a trend. Gone are the anonymous testing days of the 1990s, yielding the "confidential" testing of the new millenium. I fear for those that don't know about the change in the policy beginning in the new year. Will they walk out of the clinic when informed that their test result will no longer remain anonymous? It's already hard enough emotionally to go for the test- adding another hurdle for the individual to jump, I'm afraid, will just cause the state to gather LESS information in a timely manner and have to deal with MORE expensive claims/bills/costs in the long run.

:cry:

[closeupready]

5. This is going to lead to an increase in STD's, including HIV

because people will refuse to get tested. In order for measures to reduce STD's to be effective, people generally must be cooperative, and this is not a measure with which people will be willing to cooperate.

[closeupready]

6. And how is it right to punish the HIV+ for state policy...

that does not conform to federal wishes? They treat the HIV+ as though they were highways or roads:

>>"The federal government will likely withhold millions in desperately needed AIDS funding from Illinois unless we move to name-based reporting," Munar said. "At a time that HIV/AIDS is expanding — and devastating communities of color — we cannot afford to put our fragile systems of care in jeopardy."<<

:mad:

[kevinbgoode]

7. I refused a test in South Carolina 12 years ago

for this same reason. . .my doctor was only speculating because I had a cyst develop while overseas, and even though I had told him that I had NOT engaged in any unsafe sexual relations, he wanted to insist anyway.

Obviously, I was negative. . .but he was silent when I told him that I would NOT take a test in a state which could deny me access to insurance benefits for health coverage - or that would make my name public.

[dickthegrouch]

8. Don't forget that Immigration Officers can refuse entry

to anyone who is HIV+ and is not a citizen.
(I believe they can even refuse a green-card alien if they are trying to return to their home in the US, but I'm willing to be corrected on that).

In other words "Don't know, don't tell" if an immigration officer asks.

[closeupready]

9. Shouldn't be surprising, on 2nd thought, b.c. in IL, you can be tested w/o

your consent, that is, if you end up in the emergency room or even during a routine doctor's visit, IL law is that you may be tested for HIV without your consent, without you even knowing that they are going to test you for HIV. That's been the law for over a dozen years. It's disgusting.

[arwalden]

10. What Are They THINKING???

[swimmernsecretsea]

11. The reason for this is obvious.

It's just that we're all appalled that anyplace would have the gall to do it. They're trying to embarrass and shame people with HIV into hiding and not being tested. Then, it'll look like the rates are going down. Those who do test and test positive, they'll suggest monitoring.

Of course, that's just my conspiracy theory. I think things like voting down same-sex marriage initiatives, HIV lists, are an attempt to try to control something they don't like and are uncomfortable with. This will only do harm to innocent people.

[pinto]

12. Many are unaware that AIDS cases are reported this way, in every state.

When an individual develops an AIDS defining illness or condition a CMMR (Confidential Morbidity and Mortality Report - ugh, terrible name but that's what it's called) is sent from the local Health Department to the State Health Dept. It includes the persons name, gender, birthdate, AIDS defining condition, mode of acquisition (risk factor)and name of diagnosing physician.

In other words, AIDS has always been a "reportable" illness.

HIV infection, though, has been a more fluid situation. Legal concerns, political concerns, client concerns and health care concerns have all played a part in determining how HIV infection incidence and prevalence has been documented and understood.

In many states, HIV infection was not held to be a reportable illness. Along with HIV specific laws, that allowed health care practitioners to draw a blood sample under verbal, anonymous consent, perform lab testing on that sample based on the consent and provide a client with those results. It's been a unique "walk" for all concerned, and, as noted, it's changing.

(flash back) One reason the compromise on HIV reporting was established (and, believe me it was a compromise, long fought and debated across the board) was that at one time HIV infection was a brief precursor to critical infection (AIDS) hospitalization and death. Reporting infection, per se, was not a pressing concern for an effective and responsible public health response. The issue then was prevention and critical care. There was little middle ground. To be blunt, an HIV infection meant there would be an AIDS report in a number of months. That has all changed. Now, HIV infection represents more a long term, manageable illness for many than was conceivable in the eighty's and early ninety's. Public health looks for a better tool to address long term infection. Epidemiologically, they see that in more accurate reporting - and they mean names based reporting.(end flash back)

My state, California, recently began reporting HIV cases to the State Dept. of Health Services under the alphanumeric code system. Previously, we didn't "generate" a CMMR from a positive test.

We will be transitioning to "standard" reporting of HIV infection in the near future. (I say standard, because the CMMR is used to report a long list of communicable diseases i.e. pertussis, measles, hepatitis b, chlamydia, meningitis, and AIDS, among others.)

Michael Montgomery, the State Chief of the Office of AIDS, long an opponent of names based reporting for HIV infection, has come to support it and says the change will come "sooner rather than later".

Whatever the concerns here, I hope this makes some sense. It's been a battle for me, as well. I don't have a problem, given the clear legal limits on data access at the State Dept of Health Services, with names based reporting for HIV infection.

(ed for spell)