Important note: Information in this article was accurate in 2005. The state of the art may have changed since the publication date.
 |
Los Angeles Times - May 3, 2005
For all of these reasons, the state Senate Judiciary Committee is scheduled to take up a bill today that would require doctors and medical laboratories to report cases of HIV infection to county health officials by patient name, as they already do with AIDS. (HIV cases now are identified using a code number.) Some legislators are balking, citing concerns about patient privacy. Yes, naming names carries risks. Fear of being blacklisted by insurance companies or stigmatized by employers could deter some people from getting tested. But such fears can be addressed, and the bill, sponsored by Sen. Nell Soto (D-Pomona), builds in safeguards.
The higher risk lies in not accurately tracking this disease. And here lies the problem with California's code-based reporting method. Public health officials say it is inaccurate, inefficient and expensive. It is so cumbersome that some healthcare providers are months behind in reporting. Hard-pressed county health departments don't have the money to do the labor-intensive follow-ups needed to ensure that all cases are being reported or that the same person is not being counted two or three times. And without this verification, they stand to lose needed federal dollars.
The federal Centers for Disease Control and Prevention recommends name-based reporting, the method used by New York, Texas and 36 other states, as more accurate and cost-effective. In a flurry of phone calls and e-mails intended to sway legislators, the handful of HIV/AIDS advocacy groups opposing Soto's bill cite a Palm Beach County, Fla., statistician who in February inadvertently attached a list of names of people with HIV/AIDS to an e-mail to 800 health department employees. But equally stunning was that department's quick response. Within an hour, it had purged all the e-mails. Only 10 had been opened, and none had been saved, re-sent or printed. Yes, it was a terrible mistake. But not when compared with the risks of not keeping a handle on the spread of HIV.
050503
LT050410
Copyright © 2005 - Los Angeles Times. All rights reserved. Reproduced with permission. Reproduction of this article (other than one copy for personal reference) must be cleared through the Los Angeles Times, Permissions, Times Mirror Square, Los Angeles, CA 90053. http://www.latimes.com.
AEGiS is made possible through unrestricted grants from Boehringer Ingelheim, Bridgestone/Firestone Charitable Trust, Bristol-Myers Squibb Company, Elton John AIDS Foundation, the National Library of Medicine, and donations from users like you. Always watch for outdated information. This article first appeared in 2005. This material is designed to support, not replace, the relationship that exists between you and your doctor.
AEGiS presents published material, reprinted with permission and neither endorses nor opposes any material. All information contained on this website, including information relating to health conditions, products, and treatments, is for informational purposes only. It is often presented in summary or aggregate form. It is not meant to be a substitute for the advice provided by your own physician or other medical professionals. Always discuss treatment options with a doctor who specializes in treating HIV.
Copyright ©1980, 2005. AEGiS. All materials appearing on AEGiS are protected by copyright as a collective work or compilation under U.S. copyright and other laws and are the property of AEGiS, or the party credited as the provider of the content. .