Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 11-20-2012, 09:42 PM
 
33,387 posts, read 34,863,645 times
Reputation: 20030

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by jerseygal4u View Post
Whoever made Hipaa,blame them.

Let's make a hypothetical story...
Some guy at my clinic tested positive for Hiv.
Now,I have a friend that tells me her date is on his way. The date is the same guy who tested positive at the clinic.
Be cuase of Hippa,I can't tell my friend the guy is Hiv positive. If I do,I may lose my nursing license,and I will get fined heavily.
that is one of the drawbacks of hipaa, but i think that patient privacy is more important in the overall scheme of things. if exceptions are made for medical professionals telling people that someone is HIV positive, then what is to stop that same medical professional from telling people that a person has heart disease, or diabetes, or other medical problems?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 11-20-2012, 09:45 PM
 
724 posts, read 593,785 times
Reputation: 550
Quote:
Originally Posted by HappyTexan View Post
Do you get an annual HIV screening ?
It is part of my yearly physical, yes. One blood sample can screen for many things. What's your point?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-20-2012, 09:49 PM
 
29,407 posts, read 22,021,070 times
Reputation: 5455
Who is going to get this windfall in government dollars for providing said test? That is what this is all about. And to remove the stigma? What the hell is that supposed to mean? Sorry heroin addicts if your upset but we'll make everybody else in the country take an aids test so you don't feel bad? Unbelievable.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-20-2012, 09:55 PM
 
Location: Great State of Texas
86,052 posts, read 84,531,102 times
Reputation: 27720
Quote:
Originally Posted by KUchief25 View Post
Who is going to get this windfall in government dollars for providing said test? That is what this is all about. And to remove the stigma? What the hell is that supposed to mean? Sorry heroin addicts if your upset but we'll make everybody else in the country take an aids test so you don't feel bad? Unbelievable.
CDC spent $1.2 million on a pilot program already. It names the company who got the government contract.
They did this pilot last June.

Found the news on a UK site.


Free AIDS tests go on offer at drugstores in the hope that testing will become 'routine' | Mail Online
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-20-2012, 09:56 PM
 
Location: In the heights
37,174 posts, read 39,451,107 times
Reputation: 21273
Quote:
Originally Posted by KUchief25 View Post
Who is going to get this windfall in government dollars for providing said test? That is what this is all about. And to remove the stigma? What the hell is that supposed to mean? Sorry heroin addicts if your upset but we'll make everybody else in the country take an aids test so you don't feel bad? Unbelievable.
Right, that's why I'm asking how much the test cost. I think more testing will net some cases of people who don't know they are infected (since supposedly a lot of people aren't willing to tell their partners), but I don't think it's going to be a gargantuan number. However, the effects of having HIV are pretty extreme. If the real, unsubsidized cost of the test is fairly low, then I can see a reasonable cost/benefit (I know, it's terrible to put that in there in life and death matters, but it's also still a life and death matter when you redirect too much funding that can be more effective elsewhere) analysis for this since early knowledge prevents some spread and early treatment is more effective.

Who's got numbers on the costs of the test?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-20-2012, 11:19 PM
 
47,525 posts, read 69,728,990 times
Reputation: 22474
Quote:
Originally Posted by jerseygal4u View Post
Whoever made Hipaa,blame them.

Let's make a hypothetical story...
Some guy at my clinic tested positive for Hiv.
Now,I have a friend that tells me her date is on his way. The date is the same guy who tested positive at the clinic.
Be cuase of Hippa,I can't tell my friend the guy is Hiv positive. If I do,I may lose my nursing license,and I will get fined heavily.
Yes, and anyone who is in the high risk group and is responsible is already getting him/herself tested and informing partners ahead of time -- including spouses, so adding all these tests won't accomplish much of anything.

It's not as though there is anyone who hasn't heard of HIV or doesn't know how it is spread.

Yes, if you know a guy at the clinic is positive for HIV, suppose this friend is just an acquaintance -- would you warn her. Does it change if the friend having a date with this man is a very close friend? Or if it's your sister that has a date with him? Or your mother?

Is it ethical to allow someone you care deeply about to risk contracting a non-curable disease? But then is it ethical to allow anyone to risk being given HIV?

HIPAA as far as heart disease or diabetes would be a bit different because those patients don't infect others.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-20-2012, 11:56 PM
 
29,407 posts, read 22,021,070 times
Reputation: 5455
Quote:
Originally Posted by HappyTexan View Post
CDC spent $1.2 million on a pilot program already. It names the company who got the government contract.
They did this pilot last June.

Found the news on a UK site.


Free AIDS tests go on offer at drugstores in the hope that testing will become 'routine' | Mail Online
Why isn't this panel of "experts" waiting on the results of this or did we just flush 1.2 million down the drain for no reason? They base their finding apparently on this from the OP.....

"A landmark clinical trial last year involving 1,763 couples, most of them heterosexual, showed that when HIV-positive partners were treated early with antiretroviral medications, transmission of the virus to uninfected partners was reduced by 96%."

Would be nice to see the landmark test results like how many couples tested positive to begin with and how many were given the medications. Just another oh well it's a good idea so lets do it. Hey it's free after all in the minds of the simps.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-20-2012, 11:58 PM
 
29,407 posts, read 22,021,070 times
Reputation: 5455
Quote:
Originally Posted by OyCrumbler View Post
Right, that's why I'm asking how much the test cost. I think more testing will net some cases of people who don't know they are infected (since supposedly a lot of people aren't willing to tell their partners), but I don't think it's going to be a gargantuan number. However, the effects of having HIV are pretty extreme. If the real, unsubsidized cost of the test is fairly low, then I can see a reasonable cost/benefit (I know, it's terrible to put that in there in life and death matters, but it's also still a life and death matter when you redirect too much funding that can be more effective elsewhere) analysis for this since early knowledge prevents some spread and early treatment is more effective.

Who's got numbers on the costs of the test?
From the link above looks like the test was 17.50. Looks like a pregnancy type test but you swab your mouth instead of whiz on it. Hey if folks are worried about having aids go pay for your own dam test it's not like it's gonna break your retirement fund to get one.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-21-2012, 12:21 AM
 
8,091 posts, read 5,915,077 times
Reputation: 1578
Watch House of Numbers
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-21-2012, 12:32 AM
 
Location: California
37,145 posts, read 42,240,055 times
Reputation: 35026
Quote:
Originally Posted by KUchief25 View Post
From the link above looks like the test was 17.50. Looks like a pregnancy type test but you swab your mouth instead of whiz on it. Hey if folks are worried about having aids go pay for your own dam test it's not like it's gonna break your retirement fund to get one.
I don't think it's a matter "if you want it then pay for it", it's a public health issue. If someone has it and doesn't know they will unwittingly spread it around to others. And this isn't something you can take an antibiotic to clear up.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
Similar Threads

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 10:22 PM.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top