Federal agency suggests HIV testing for everybody 15 to 65 years old
The U.S. Preventive Services Task Force suggested Monday that all people age 15 to 65 should be tested to see if they have HIV (human immunodeficiency virus).
Federal agency suggests HIV testing for everybody 15 to 65 years old
David Sell
The U.S. Preventive Services Task Force suggested Monday that all people age 15 to 65 should be tested to see if they have HIV (human immunodeficiency virus).
The recommendations are posted to encourage public comment.
Federal law requires the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ), a leading independent panel of private-sector experts in prevention and primary care, to have the task force assess "the scientific evidence for the effectiveness of a broad range of clinical preventive services, including screening, counseling, and preventive medications."
The task force report strongly recommends that clinicians screen all people aged 15 to 65 for HIV infection. Younger adolescents and older adults who are at an increased risk for HIV infection should also be screened. The task force also strongly recommends that clinicians screen all pregnant women for HIV, including women in labor whose HIV status is unknown.
The report says nearly 1.2 million people in the United States are infected with HIV, but 20 to 25 percent do not know it.
“The draft recommendation reflects new evidence that demonstrates the benefits of both screening for and earlier treatment of HIV,” task force member Dr. Douglas K. Owens said in a statement.
Comment removed.
Did anyone screen this panel for stupidity? Oh wait, no need. It stinks if you have it but this disease is quite preventable. Spend health care money on diseases that are more parts bad luck than carelessness.— 2ndNlong- 1) Barbouze: If you bothered to actually read this article, you would have discovered that there is NO suggestion to implement MANDATORY testing. Rather, this panel "strongly recommends" that all individuals get tested, but there is nothing in the report stating that people MUST get tested and that we will force you to get tested. Like every test you get at the doctor, you will always have the right to opt out if you so choose. So not sure where your paranoia comes from, unless it is a pre-existing condition.
2) 2ndNlong: What is stupid about a recommendation that people get tested? More testing means quicker detection which means quicker treatment which means better health outcomes. Again, no one is saying that you must get tested, but simply that it is a good idea. As for spending more money on those diseases that are "more parts bad luck than carelessness", which diseases would you suggest? Diabetes (wait...can be preventable)? Cancer (wait...can be preventable)? One's risk for disease is often a combination of many factors- heredity, behaviors, chance, etc, etc. And even if one is predisposed by heredity, that does not mean people cannot take action. Your idea of separating people into categories of the deserving sick and the undeserving sick is ultimately not one that makes much sense or is even possible.— MrHumphries - MrHumphries...what is the cost for 300 million AIDS tests? Do the math at $10/test and $50/test. AIDS is the ultimate preventable disease, in bad economic times let the careless take care of themselves. That money would be better spent on setting up clinics for those that think the ER is for paper cuts.
Santa, you stink of hipster...stop trying so hard. To answer your question how about TB, MS, several orphan degenerative diseases that don't have the Hollywood Cool stamp of approval.— 2ndNlong - 2ndNlong: You ask questions without context, but this has already been explained. The panel believes it will be more cost-effective to spend the money on screenings than on the expensive anti-retrovirals (not to mention the uncountable price of improved health and happiness from early detection). They've done the math. You have not. It isn't easy math. You can't just put in a few figures into google and get the answer. There's a reason a whole panel took this on. Health care policy is actually a bit of a science, with statisticians and all.
Also, you have failed to explain how HIV is more preventable than other diseases. Perhaps you have TB because you did not get vaccinated against it (because in this country, it is not seen as cost-effective, currently). Perhaps you have MS because your mother didn't take care of herself during her pregnancy, or because you were exposed to one too many X-rays in utero, or..
Similarly, perhaps you have HIV because your mother was raped by someone who had it. Is that preventable? Yes, perhaps, but not in any way that you personally have control over.
Or perhaps you got HIV from your supposedly faithful husband or wife. Etc. etc... you get it?
I tend to side with the committee appointed to study this issue, but I will admit that they could be wrong. I, however, do not have the expertise to challenge their judgement.— joelrosenblun
For Inquirer.com. Portions of this blog may also be found in the Inquirer's Sunday Health Section.
Reach David at dsell@phillynews.com.
- Adolor
- Almac
- AmerisourceBergen
- AstraZeneca
- Auxilium
- Bayer
- Celgene
- Cephalon
- Endo
- GlaxoSmithKline
- Johnson & Johnson
- Kensey Nash
- Lannett
- Merck
- Pfizer
- Roche
- Sanofi-aventis
- Shire
- Stryker
- Synthes
- Teva
- ViroPharma
- West
- Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
- Centers for Medicare and Medicaid
- Clinical Trials
- Food and Drug Administration
- Office of Inspector General, Health and Human Services
- OIG Most-wanted list of fugitives
- Securities and Exchange Commission/Edgar filings
- U.S. Attorney's Office/Eastern Pennsylvania, health-care fraud
- U.S. Department of Health and Human Services
- BIO
- Jersey Association of Medical Equipment Services
- Pennsylvania Association of Medical Suppliers
- Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America
- Science Center
- American Health Lawyers Association
- Drug and Device Law
- Orange Book blog
- Taxpayers Against Fraud
- Bio Century
- Bio Space
- Cafe Pharma
- Financial Times
- In The Pipeline
- Monday Morning
- New York Times/Prescriptions
- Pharma Live
- Pharma Marketing
- Pharmalot
- The Placebo Effect
- Wall Street Journal/Health blog
