62% unemployment?!?

[wtfimpoz]

 

I saw this figure printed in a magazine in my doc's office the other day, and haven't been able to shake it from my head since then.  It addressed the American employment situation with respect to those infected by the virus.  Despite the apparent socioeconomic background of this forum's members, it also posited an astonishingly low annual pay, something like 10k a year, on avarage.  That tells me the figure almost has to be a gross average of ALL poz incomes, and not an average of those who are employed, as it is actually lower than the minimum wage.

Sixty two percent?!?  Has anyone explored WHY we have such a stratospheric rate of unemployment?  The article didn't explain where they got their information from.  Do we think this number includes those who've had to seek disability as "unemployed"?

[Ann]

What magazine was it in? Is it available online?

[Miss Philicia]

There's no way to comment without seeing the original article.

[wtfimpoz]

Sadly, I can't cite the source.  I thought the number might be one which is batted around with regularity, so someone could provide some background on it.

[Ann]

You don't know what magazine you were reading?

[leatherman]

Has anyone explored WHY we have such a stratospheric rate of unemployment?

without even seeing the article, I can make an educated guess -
because having AIDS makes it very hard to work

no really. when you consider about a third of those diagnosed find out when at the point of AIDS and entering a hospital, that's already a huge chunk who might be unable to stay employed. Then add in the LTSes who had been on death's door, and those who still suffer with longterm effects. By then you could be accounting of half the HIV infected population, which is getting close to that 62%

Of course, this figure may change for the better over time, as the newer meds allow more people to remain working - but that's a relatively new event in the cycle of the epidemic in America. For the first 20 out of the 30 yrs, HIV/AIDS has been very disruptive to people even staying alive much less continuing to work.

Do we think this number includes those who've had to seek disability as "unemployed"?

yes. receiving disability, unless otherwise noted in the percentages, is considered unemployed

posited an astonishingly low annual pay, something like 10k a year, on avarage.

lordy I wish my disability was $10k a yr. It one of the reasons I always counsel those newly diagnosed to work as long as possible. Living on less than $10k a yr for over a decade makes for a very impoverished life.

[wtfimpoz]

geez, when you phrase it like that, you make it sound like there's something wrong with me .  They all have similar names like "Poz outlook", "Pozitively aware", "pozitively informed", etc.  I didn't get the exact name of it.  In retrospect, without taking note of the name, its a lot like trying to tell the difference between Time and Newsweek.  There was a pile that I was leafing through, and they're all kind of indistinguishable.  

[phildinftlaudy]

A search turned up this reference:
SOURCE: Kaiser Family Foundation based on US Census Bureau, 2006; Kaiser State Health Facts Online;
Cunningham WE et al. “Health Services Utilization for People with HIV Infection Comparison of a Population
Targeted for Outreach with the U.S. Population in Care.” Medical Care, Vol. 44, No. 11, November 2006. NOTE:
US income data from 2005, US unemployment data from 2006. 1998 estimates were also 8% and 5%,
respectively, rounded to nearest decimal; HCSUS data from 1998.

www.aidschicago.org/pdf/2009/adv_HCR_​PACHA_Presentation.pdf


There were also other links with references to it - has to deal with stats used for a presentation on HIV and Health Care Reform.

[leatherman]

www.aidschicago.org/pdf/2009/adv_HCR_​PACHA_Presentation.pdf

can you check on that link please, or quote the reference?
currently that link returns 404
thanks

[phildinftlaudy]

Let's see if this works....

http://www.aidschicago.org/pdf/2009/adv_HCR_PACHA_Presentation.pdf

It should - opened as a PDF when I did preview and clicked on it...

[leatherman]

It should - opened as a PDF when I did preview and clicked on it...

ah yes, thank you.

in trying to figure out the problem, i did some research. if you click on your first link, you'll see that there is an odd control character just before the word "PACHA" (that will be represented as a square box), and that created it as an invalid URL. Thanks for fixing that, and now I'll go read through that doc.

[Assurbanipal]

What's that line?  "It must be true.  I read it in a book somewhere."   

Note the income figure in the slides appears to be for people on ADAP, which is not representative of the entire population.  The most recent figures are here (only for people on ADAP)
http://statehealthfacts.org/comparetable.jsp?ind=541&cat=11
The equivalent number to that in the slide is <=100% FPL.  The FPL for the year shown is $10,400 for a household of one.  (n.b. The slides also appear to assume all households under 100% of FPL are single person   )

The unemployment number appears to be erroneous -- no doubt a combination of not understanding how unemployment is defined with other errors and/or nonrepresentative datasets. 

[leatherman]

Note the income figure in the slides appears to be for people on ADAP, which is not representative of the entire population.

1) the link to statehealthfacts states that <=$10k is 42% while the pdf slide shows 45%. That seems like basically the same data, with only a small 3% discrepancy

2) may I ask how you determined that about the ADAP correlation? I have not been able to read the full resources as it seems to only be available on pay-per-view sites (that I could find); however it says this in summaries:

METHODS: We Compared sociodemographic, clinical, and health care utilization Characteristics in 2 samples of adults with HIV infection: 1286 persons from 16 sites across the United States interviewed in 2001-2002 for the Targeted HIV Outreach and Intervention Initiative (Outreach), the study of underserved persons targeted for Supportive outreach services, and 2267 persons from the HIV Costs and Services Utilization Study (HCSUS), a probability sample of persons receiving care who Were interviewed in 1998. We conducted logistic regression analyses to identify differences between the 2 samples in sociodemographic and clinical associations with ambulatory medical visits. We Logistic Regression Analysis Conducted to identify Difference Between the 2 samples in sociodemographic and clinical Associations with ambulatory medical visits. RESULTS: Compared with the HCSUS sample, the Outreach sample had notably greater proportions of black respondents (59% vs. 32%, P = 0.0001), Hispanics (20% vs. 16%), Spanish-speakers (9% vs. 2%, P = 0.02), those with low socioeconomic status (annual income < Dollars 10,000 75% vs. 45%, P = 0.0001), the unemployed, and persons with homelessness, no insurance, and heroin or cocaine use (58% vs. 47%, P = 0.05). RESULTS: Compared with the HCSUS sample, the Outreach sample HAD Notably Greater proportions of black respondents (59% vs. 32%, P = 0.0001), Hispanics (20% vs. 16%), Spanish-speakers (9% vs 2. %, P = 0.02), low socioeconomic status Those With (annual income <75% vs 10.000 Dollars. 45%, P = 0.0001), the unemployed, and persons with homelessness, the insurance, and heroin or cocaine use (58% vs . 47%, P = 0.05). They also were more likely to have fewer than 2 ambulatory visits (26% vs. 16%, P = 0.0001), more likely to have emergency room visits or hospitalizations in the prior 6 months, and less likely to be on antiretroviral treatment (82% vs. 58%, P = 0.0001). They Were Also Likely To Have Fewer more than 2 ambulatory visits (26% vs. 16%, P = 0.0001), more Likely To Have emergency room visits or hospitalizations in the prior six months, and less Likely to be on antiretroviral treatment (82 % vs. 58%, P = 0.0001).

No where in the summaries did I see references to ADAP. this same data and charts are also being used by the Treatment Access Expansion Project (TAEP) in their April 2010 powerpoint presentation about the major provisions of interest in PPACA (Patient Protection Affordable Care Act) "summarizing the private, public, and HIV-specific provisions of health care reform that matter to our community"
 

[Assurbanipal]

2) may I ask how you determined that about the ADAP correlation? I have not been able to read the full resources as it seems to only be available on pay-per-view sites (that I could find); however it says this in summaries:No where in the summaries did I see references to ADAP. this same data and charts are also being used by the Treatment Access Expansion Project (TAEP) in their April 2010 powerpoint presentation about the major provisions of interest in PPACA (Patient Protection Affordable Care Act) "summarizing the private, public, and HIV-specific provisions of health care reform that matter to our community"
 

Both slides cite two sources. 
Kaiser state health facts from 2006-- which contains income data for people on ADAP and does not include data on unemployment among those with HIV and
 Cunningham  -- a paper which compares hard to reach/undeserved populations in 2002 with the data in the HCSUS.  The HCSUS data is now 12 years old and things have changed a bit in HIV since 1998. 

If TAEP is using this data in current presentations without disclosing that it is grossly out of date they should be ashamed of themselves. 

[tednlou2]

I think about many jobs that don't offer much sick or vacation days.  There are many jobs where you may get 3 sick days a year and maybe a week's vacation once you've been there a while.  If you have to take off due to illness, depression issues, doctor appointments, etc, then many employers would just fire you.  If you don't tell them the reason you're taking off work (which you shouldn't have to do), then they may just think you're calling-in just, because you felt like doing something else that day.  A cancer patient would find it easier to tell their employer what is going on than someone with HIV/AIDS. 

These are the kinds of jobs I had when I just started out working, and many older folks have today.  I remember the first job where I got 30 days PTO (paid time off) to use for sick/vacation/personal.  I was shocked!  I couldn't believe I was getting so many days off compared to what I had been use to.  I hear people in Europe often get a few months off a year and many take a whole month off at a time.  I'm not sure if that is exaggerated or not.  There was an anchor I worked with who put in his contract that he get 3 months off a year.  Most people don't have that option.

People with really good benefits often forget what it is like for others.  I recently had a conversation with friends with really awesome jobs.  We were talking about parents who don't go to parent teacher conferences or volunteer at their kid's school.  They felt the parents just didn't care.  I reminded them that many of them probably couldn't take off work for those kinds of things.  It is especially hard, if someone is a single parent and can't take off work or they would be fired.  If these figures are anywhere close to accurate, then maybe having to take off without good benefits is a reason.  Once you've been fired and have a lapse in employment, it gets harder to get another job.  I just saw a figure that people who were laid off during the early 1980's recession make much less now than their counterparts who kept their jobs.       

[hotpuppy]

I would throw a few crumbs into the mix:

1 - Statistics can be made to lie with little effort..... How large or how limited was the study?  Did they do the research in an area that is predisposed to one type of demographic?

2 - The facts of the situation will push people to survive, not thrive.  Specifically ADAP eligibility is more important then income for HIVers. 

3 - Yes, there are alot of folks on disability.... and they have almost always earned it. 

4 - HIV doesn't discriminate, but it does have a higher occurrence among individuals who are poor, IV drug users, or sex workers.  Not saying that we are all in those groups.... which really doesn't matter if you are or not.  My point is that historically these groups have suffered more from HIV and are likely to have lower incomes.... I don't know very many sex workers with 7 figure incomes.  Madame of DC maybe.  lol.

So it's really not a huge surprise that if you average the sampled incomes that they aren't that high.  What will be particularly interesting is the impact of "health insurance reform" on freeing people from limiting their income to receive HIV treatment (ADAP).

[madbrain]

2 - The facts of the situation will push people to survive, not thrive.  Specifically ADAP eligibility is more important then income for HIVers. 

No, it's not. Access to meds is important for HIVers. But we still need to put food on the table and a roof over our head like everybody else, and that requires income.

ADAP is one way to access meds. But how much of the HIV population does ADAP actually serve ? Depending on the state, the ADAP income limits are quite stringent, between 100% and 400% of FPL.

If you are able to work for an employer that offers health insurance, that is usually a much more attractive option than ADAP, IMO.