E-mail updates
Follow on Twitter
Subscribe to RSSBy Lauran Neergaard, The Associated Press
There's a new push to make testing for the AIDS virus as common as cholesterol checks.
Americans ages 15 to 64 should get an HIV test at least once — not just people considered at high risk for the virus, an independent panel that sets screening guidelines proposed Monday.
The draft guidelines from the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force are the latest recommendations that aim to make HIV screening simply a routine part of a check-up, something a doctor can order with as little fuss as a cholesterol test or a mammogram. Since 2006, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention also has pushed for widespread, routine HIV screening.
Yet not nearly enough people have heeded that call: Of the more than 1.1 million Americans living with HIV, nearly 1 in 5 — almost 240,000 people — don't know it. Not only is their own health at risk without treatment, they could unwittingly be spreading the virus to others.
The updated guidelines will bring this long-simmering issue before doctors and their patients again — emphasizing that public health experts agree on how important it is to test even people who don't think they're at risk, because they could be.
"It allows you to say, 'This is a recommended test that we believe everybody should have. We're not singling you out in any way,'" said task force member Dr. Douglas Owens of Stanford University and the Veterans Affairs Palo Alto Health Care System.
And if finalized, the task force guidelines could extend the number of people eligible for an HIV screening without a copay in their doctor's office, as part of free preventive care under the Obama administration's health care law. Under the task force's previous guidelines, only people at increased risk for HIV — which includes gay and bisexual men and injecting drug users — were eligible for that no-copay screening.
There are a number of ways to get tested. If you're having blood drawn for other exams, the doctor can merely add HIV to the list, no extra pokes or swabs needed. Today's rapid tests can cost less than $20 and require just rubbing a swab over the gums, with results ready in as little as 20 minutes. Last summer, the government approved a do-it-yourself at-home version that's selling for about $40.
Free testing is available through various community programs around the country, including a CDC pilot program in drugstores in 24 cities and rural sites.
Monday's proposal also recommends:
—Testing people older and younger than 15-64 if they are at increased risk of HIV infection,
—People at very high risk for HIV infection should be tested at least annually.
—It's not clear how often to retest people at somewhat increased risk, but perhaps every three to five years.
—Women should be tested during each pregnancy, something the task force has long recommended.
The draft guidelines are open for public comment through Dec. 17.
Most of the 50,000 new HIV infections in the U.S. every year are among gay and bisexual men, followed by heterosexual black women.
"We are not doing as well in America with HIV testing as we would like," Dr. Jonathan Mermin, CDC's HIV prevention chief, said Monday.
The CDC recommends at least one routine test for everyone ages 13 to 64, starting two years younger than the task force recommended. That small difference aside, CDC data suggests fewer than half of adults under 65 have been tested.
"It can sometimes be awkward to ask your doctor for an HIV test," Mermin said — the reason that making it routine during any health care encounter could help.
But even though nearly three-fourths of gay and bisexual men with undiagnosed HIV had visited some sort of health provider in the previous year, 48 percent weren't tested for HIV, a recent CDC survey found. Emergency rooms are considered a good spot to catch the undiagnosed, after their illnesses and injuries have been treated, but Mermin said only about 2 percent of ER patients known to be at increased risk were tested while there.
Mermin calls that "a tragedy. It's a missed opportunity."
Leave a Comment:
This is a great idea. This will also help to relieve some tension regarding the stigma surrounded by the virus and those infected with it. People need to understand the risks and options available to them should they test positive. Even if tested positive, you can be eligible for free meds if you can't afford them yourself. It's not as scary as it was back in the 80's and 90's.
I received my results 1 year and two months ago when I was 27. I know that this isn't the end of my life or my health. My meds keep me healthy and I have zero side effects. The virus in me has been diminished to such a low level that it is currently undetectable in me. My chances of spreading the virus are less than 7 percent. I'm going to live a happy and healthy life like anyone else. My friends that know, my family and coworkers have all taken the time to educate themselves on the virus for their own piece of mind. I recommend everyone who has never been tested for it to do so and for everyone to get some new knowledge on it. The virus can be controlled, stopped from reproducing and maintained with some very simple and easy to get medications. There are meds that can even be taken to prevent getting it from someone who is HIV positive. I plan to live a VERY long and healthy life and HIV wont stop me from doing that.
Be smart, get tested, relax. Even if you come out positive, you're life can go on to be just as normal as someone without the virus. People who are uneducated about the virus and the syndrome it causes are more dangerous than the virus itself.
This would have been more useful in the 80's, I don't intend to get tested-after 20 years with my wife I'm pretty sure something would have shown up by now which makes this a bit of a waste for people in my situation. I understand the idea of removing the stigma but it does seem like a waste of money and time at least for people like me.
Exactly. Same here.
You're pretty sure something would have shown up by now? How sure? 25% of people with it don't know it. Not willing to give up 20 minutes of your time for a free test isn't a waste, it's lazy.
I agree about the potential waste of resources, but on the other hand, one could argue that many of our common practices are a waste. We could probably get by with only vaccinating 2 out of 3 people for many things and save $billions, but do you want to be the third? I spent almost 20 years with my wife, but we're not together anymore. I had major surgery that fortunately didn't require a transfusion, but if so, I'd like to have been extra sure that the donor was clean. To be brutally honest, I'm hoping not to be celibate the rest of my life, so I hope a lot of 40+ women are getting tested.
28yoAmerican
As a 43 year old American who has spent the last 15 years doing medical research as a molecular biologist, including working with HIV infected blood from African mothers (during which I was regularly tested), I'm pretty darn sure! My point which I tried to put delicately is that we are not all 20 somethings lacking basic judgement and that for me this would be a waste of resources that could be better used for younger and/or more sexually active people, just because the test is free for you does not mean it is free.
I'm not too sure about this. What's false positive rate for these HIV tests? What are the implications if a false positive test result is given to your employer or insurance company?
GDS-
Why would the test results be shared with your employer? Positive tests are then confirmed by a more invasive test that doesn't take 20 minutes.
I don't see anything wrong with this. And, for all of those holier than thou people out there. Spouses can, and many do, cheat and you may never know it. It's worth a 20 minute test to be sure you are at least safe from this.
These tests are not free, somebody has to pay for them. They may seem free because all you pay is your copay, this sounds like a money grab from who ever makes money off these tests. 1 millions aids cases are only 0.33% of the population of the United States. Sure sounds like a waste of time and money but hey there are free right! BS.
If it wasn't for people like you, we wouldn't have the 25% statistic. If over 1 Million people have it and 25% don't know it, that's 250,000 people that are purposely not looking. If you know the test is there, it's pertinent, it's useful and it's at no cost to you than the only excuses you can use are either ignorance or fear or both. I'm not saying you're going to get HIV, but why take the chance with your health or even with someone else's. Suck up your pride and get checked.
And get it straight! Nobody said anything about 1 million AIDS cases, the article says HIV. They are not the same thing. Educated yourself before you type something that's only going to embarrass you.
The only person that is embarssing themselves is you. So excuse me we are still talking about 1.25 million people living with HIV, 0.41% of the population, those with AIDS is even less. In 2011 about 7000 people died from HIV/AIDS out of about 2.5 million people that died so now were talking about 0.28% of people that died in 2011 died from HIV/AIDS. These type of small percentages do not justifiy across the board HIV testing. Trust me these are not free, this is America nothing is free, somebody pays for it. It's either paid by taxes that we pay or as insurance rate increases don't kid yourself. They only people who need across the board screening are the high risk groups. So 28yoAmerican it's not because of people like me that AIDS goes undetected because the article clearly states that 48% of gay and bi sexual men don't get tested. These are the high risk groups and these men and black women are the people who should have the tests. Thats where the problem is and that's where most of these cases are that are undetected. Testing large groups of people are at extremly low risk makes no sense. Glad you got tested and found out, so now you should take your soap box and sell that to the high risk groups.
You seem to blatantly be avoiding the issue. This isn't about politics, whose pocket the "free" test comes from or how many people have the virus. The point is that you "can" get tested for something that can hurt you, that no matter how much complaining you do on here the test will still be offered for no cost and that this virus doesn't discriminate. Everybody knows somebody that had to find out something the hard way. If it's an hour out of your day that it costs you to get tested, some gas mileage and a grumpy disposition, than so be it. It isn't worth it to be the guy that found out the hard way.
It's checked when you donate blood. That tells me that not very many people give blood.
A lot of people can't give blood, like me for several reasons-a medication I need, my weight of only 85 pounds, low iron (a familial thing). But I do get your point. One of my closest friends had cancer, my mom died of cancer, I will likely need open-heart surgery within the next five years. Although I fully intend to look into the possibility of gathering my own blood for transfusion during surgery (reduces risk of developing antibodies and other reasons), I may very well need blood from donors...
It's important...
Well, maybe they should relax the requirements so that more people CAN donate blood. Example: I have been faithfully married for well over 20 years. We were married in a fairly theocratic state, so were forced to be tested at the time; since then neither of us has had an affair or blood transfusion. Back in my husband's youth, oh gawd the horror, he Had Sexual Contact With Another Male After 1978. Now, according to the Red Cross, not only is he permanently tainted, but so am I - because I have had few enough lovers that I could actually know them well enough to chat about such things - whereas a woman who has had 100 male partners who never got close enough to discuss their pasts is still allowed to donate, so long as she didn't actually charge any of them money for her services, even though it is a statistical near-certainty that at least one of them committed the same "sin". Some would say that I should lie to the Red Cross so that I can do my civic duty and donate, but I'm not comfortable doing that - and frankly, I'm not going to put up with much negativity from an organization that collects blood for free and sells it for good money. I can't imagine many monogamous gay men would want to either.
And then there's the fact that if you spent more than a few months in the United Kingdom, you'll be written off as a biohazard 'cause you might have mad cow disease ... even if you are a vegan. Or the fact that you can't donate within a year of visiting to a country where there is any malaria, anywhere, even if you never were sick a day since. When a natural resource is running scarce, you need to either learn to conserve it, or get smarter about finding ways to extract more of it, or both. More Americans might donate if we didn't expect to be thrown out with a curled lip from the screener.
No its not necessary for everyone. It is a political game to make everyone feel they are a potential victim in order to get more funding for research and social programs.
OK some company is working to fill their pockets with unnecessary testing money.
Unless someone has a really good reason for needing the test. No. Another over hyped, scaring the public, bullsh*t test that the taxpayer will end up paying for.
I don't know how yet, but we will. We ALWAYS DO when these things are pushed up our butts.
I actually find this a bit ridiculous. What if you are a virgin and don't do illegal drugs and have never had any invasive surgeries? Therefore, you meet none of the risk factors. Clearly these people do not understand that not everyone meets the risk factors for HIV. Some people actually do wait until they meet the right person rather than sleep with everyone in sight.
Be a virgin. But you know that your first beau is negative? How? Because he told you?
You must live in a fantasy world. Because in the real one, people lie to please, not just to be malicious.
HIV is a "big" boogeyman.
HCV - hepatitis C 1a is MUCH WORSE.
It will take out your liver and you may never show any signs of having it.
If you look normal, then go give blood.
DON'T LIE - just mark down you do not know - they will run the tests
The funny thing about all the posters in here saying that "If it wasn't for people like you, we wouldn't have the 25% statistic" is that they have no idea how accurate that number is. And neither does the task force because they aren't statisticians. In fact, it is totally irresponsible for this task force to put out a number like that. So, don't go getting all high and mighty about statistics when no one has a clue if that 25% is even remotely accurate.
On a side note, I'd rather see insurance companies pay for screenings for other things like cancer or other diseases that can strike anyone. HIV is pretty much 100% avoidable today, but things like cancer aren't...