Pennsylvania Incorporates HIV Testing into Routine Medical Care

[emeraldize]

(this will go into effect in 60 days)

Bill to Incorporate HIV Testing into Routine Medical Care Awaiting Gov. Corbett's Signature

A bill that would incorporate HIV testing into routine medical care passed the House on June 29, 2011, by a vote of 177-24. Senate Bill 260, which was unanimously passed by the Senate in April and received a concurrence vote on a House-added amendment in the Senate on June 30, 2011, is currently awaiting the governor's signature.

SB 260, introduced by Sen. Ted Erickson (R-Delaware), would update state law so it is consistent with the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) recommendations that everyone should be tested for HIV as part of routine care. Although the CDC updated its guidelines in 2006, Pennsylvania law still requires a separate signed consent for HIV testing in conjunction with pre- and post-test counseling.

The CDC recommends that everyone between 13 and 64 years old be tested. Consent for testing should be given with consent for routine medical care, allowing patients the chance to opt out.

[Ann]

Way to go PA!

[PozJeepGuy]

Needs to be done

[mecch]

Step in the right direction!

[leatherman]

Consent for testing should be given with consent for routine medical care, allowing patients the chance to opt out.

that's the way it should be.
any other procedure makes HIV "special" which only results in stigma

[MarcoPoz]

Not wanting to pee on anyone's post toasties here---but-- when they first went this route in Michigan, health care systems took the term 'opt out' as meaning 'no consent needed'.  People were--and still sometimes are--tested for HIV without their knowledge or consent.  Perhaps not a bad thing, except when those who test negative are not told they were tested or what their result was--and those who test positive..., well just imagine that first conversation.

I agree with Leatherman--as I do in most instances.  We need to be able to provide tests in a manner which eliminates stigma.  At the same time, what good is a test if people don't know they're getting it?

[Inchlingblue]

I agree this should be done but I hope there are enough funds to cover those who will need to be placed in treatment and can't afford it/don't have insurance.

[Ann]

I agree this should be done but I hope there are enough funds to cover those who will need to be placed in treatment and can't afford it/don't have insurance.

I REALLY do not get this argument at all. If people need treatment, they need treatment whether they know it or not. Far better to find out before that person collapses and ends up in hospital with a serious case of PCP or worse. Finding out too late leads to higher costs and all too often, premature death.

The more people who test positive, the more pressure there will be for additional funding and/or changes in the health care system and maybe, just maybe, politicians will finally wake up and smell the Atripla.

Not wanting to pee on anyone's post toasties here---but-- when they first went this route in Michigan, health care systems took the term 'opt out' as meaning 'no consent needed'.

Hopefully lessons will be learned from mistakes made in Michigan and it will be spelled out in no uncertain terms that "opt out" does not mean "no consent needed". There should be penalties in place for health care workers who ignore the meaning of opt-out.

[leatherman]

personally, I just don't understand any reasoning, whether you can get access or not, that says it would be better to not know you have a terminal disease and that you are infectious and could be spreading that terminal disease. At least being informed you could try to get or fight for treatment and you could knowingly not continue spreading HIV.

except when those who test negative are not told they were tested
....what good is a test if people don't know they're getting it?

when my blood is tested, I don't know half of what they are testing for. LOL But, trust me, when something is fluey they tell me. LOL

How is having a test, any test really, especially in a battery of tests, and getting a negative result a bad thing? When someone presents in a hospital with symptoms of unknown origin and testing is done, the doctors often don't give a complete list of everything they tested you for that you don't have - they could be there all day telling you what you didn't have. LOL They just say your blood work didn't turn up anything, they need to run more tests, and maybe some scans. That's why it's called "practicing" medicine. LOL

The more people who test positive, the more pressure there will be for additional funding and/or changes in the health care system and maybe, just maybe, politicians will finally wake up and smell the Atripla.

exactly! as it is now we can only point to those people actually on the waiting lists as to the number of how many need treatment and how much funding is necessary. Our guesstimate of how many people are unwitttingly going about their daily lives, spreading HIV and slowly trudging towards a health crisis (or worse - their death!) as their viral load increases is just that - a guess. More information about exactly how bad the epidemic is still spreading could provide for larger funds, more medications, and more treatment.

I agree it's a shame right now that some people will be tested, be positive and not have access to treatment. However, unlike the deafening silence of the unknown amounts of infected people today not being treated, if thousands of Americans found out they were positive, dying of HIV without access to meds, got riled up about their need, marched on the captial and demanded treatment, that could have a pretty big impact on getting access to meds.

as my ASO prevention staff is fond of saying, "Knowing your status, positive or negative, you can protect your status"

[Inchlingblue]

To Ann and Leatherman: I said I was all for it@! There was no "argument' against it.

I'm only stating that I hope they have funding to get people the care they need. The sad fact is that I suspect they don't have that funding in place. That's not to say the testing should not happen but it's something to consider as part of the whole equation.

[Miss Philicia]

If it makes everyone feel better the commonwealth of Pennsylvania just learned it has a $785 million surplus.