Julie Davids
Quacks Like a Barrier: Opening doors to testing could construct new obstacles
About 25% of people with HIV in this country don't know they've got it.
And there's been a flurry in recent months about doing something about it, including new proposals about HIV testing and tracking, like the aggressive strategies aggressively proposed by NYC's Health Commissioner Freiden and draft guidelines for testing in health care settings from the Centers for Disease Control.
So that's good, right? Well, maybe not.
Frieden's ideas, which would add additional surveillance measures in the city that already collects the most data on HIV+ residents, and which would eliminate pre-test counseling and written informed consent, has been widely opposed, though sometimes supported, by AIDS community members.
Both Frieden and CDC are claiming that counseling and informed consent present barriers to physicians and other health care workers. But top docs like Donna Futterman in the Bronx have shown it is possible to streamline counseling while meeting all current requirements, and have rapid-fire strategies for training and compelling docs who try to shying away from talking about HIV and those messy sex-and-drug topics. And across the country, transmission of HIV from moms to infants during pregnancy and childbirth plummeted during a decade of purported obstacles, thanks to counseling and voluntary testing that helped get women to treatment.
Many AIDS orgs point out that the time around testing is one of the best opportunities to get key information to people at risk, and NYC's own CHAIN study shows that people test positive without good counselors connecting them to services and support don't get into care at all for years and years - meaning they are more likely to get sick from things that could be prevented, and that they're not getting HIV meds that can preserve their immune system. And in NYC - and most parts of the country - they are more likely to be people of color, who may have gotten less-than-stellar treatment in the medical system.
So what if counseling-lite testing means more learn their status but less have help finding their way to appropriate care upon hearing the bad news? It remains to be seen, though Frieden's promising improvement...
What's more, CDC is pushing a barrier all their own - the troubling, time-consuming, and poorly designed requirement called Program Evaluation and Monitoring System (PEMS) that could make it a whole lot harder for state health departments and community program to get the work of HIV prevention and testing done.
PEMS mandates the collection of lots and lots and lots of details about your sex life, your drug practices, and other personal stuff before you get to have an HIV test from these programs. In most other contexts, this would be called research, and you'd have informed consent and community oversight - and cash-strapped community groups would get adequate compensation for the burden of training and quality assurance needed.
Or it might even be called hypocritical, because the very same program models that CDC has pushed communities to adopt say that you should build a rapport with people, instead of busting right into tricky topics mandated for every conversation by the PEMS form -- like how many acts of unprotected anal intercourse they've had, or how long have they been shooting up Botox. PEMS say, oh no baby, forget that rapport stuff, tell it to me all right here and right now on the first date, and then we'll put it all in a database in this local office with no real requirement for data safety.
I'd say that's probably not the best way to reach the 25%, many of whom may have have avoided HIV testing because they're struggling with their own feelings about the tricky issues that PEMS is ready to grill them about and put in their permanent file, and who come from communities that have pretty compelling historical reason to suspect government programs.
So let's review.
CDC and Frieden, like the rest of us, want to help people who are HIV+ learn their status and get into care. But they want to get rid of written informed consent and some counseling requirements, even though these things have not actually been shown to be in the way, and have been shown to be a good way to help find people who are HIV+ and get them into care.
CDC, like the rest of us, wants to expand access to testing across the country, and says that they have to remove barriers to testing to do this. But they're building a whole new barrier with this cumbersome surveillance scheme that tries to do research on the cheap, and that contradicts the very programs they made communities adopt in order to expand access to testing.
Some would have you believe that opponents or critics of these policies are civil libertarian wack jobs who put privacy fetishism over public health. Label as you will, but I'd say that some good, coherent answers to a bunch of questions are needed to make this all add up to a whole plan.
P.S. As a side note, CHAMP's community organizer / rebel-rock-icon Sonny Suchdev of Outernational whose opening words at Monday's immigrant rights rally in NYC were posted by conservative meanster Michelle Malkin, was also caught wearing a t-shirt, further proof of the vast conspiracy to destroy America as we know it . Good work Sonny!
Julie Davids: Author Bio | Other Posts
Posted at 10:26 PM, Apr 13, 2006 in
Permalink | Email to Friend | Comments (2)











Comments
This post raised many questions for me. I hesitated to comment because my questions show how little I know; but curiosity has overcome embarrassment.
1) How do we know that 25% of HIV + people do not know they are infected? Is this, for example, based on studies in which 100% of a population was screened for HIV?
2) If the 25% + but ignorant is a hard number, how demographically, etc. do the 25% differ from the 75% who know their HIV status?
3) While intuitively I have always thought HIV screening should be carried out like other STDs, (and thus sympathized with the Health Dept. proposals), I know of no out-come data supporting either my intuitions or the current programs for identifying HIV+ people. Is there any data?
4) I do not understand what the reference you've made to Donna Futterman is about. It appears to be an interview with her. Why is it here? Has she conducted studies in which a screening program detects and effectively treats the "missing" 25% ?
5) The reference you give to the chain study lists more than 60 reports. I cannot tell from what's written which study you're referring to. For example: How much less likely are uncounseled HIV+ people to get prompt treatment? Are the uncounseled people tested for HIV and found positive disproportionately people of color?
6) I take it that you view the Health Dept. surveillance proposal as a barrier. Is that because pilot surveillance programs have been shown to bar some from screening, counseling and or treatment?
Posted by: Daniel Millstone | April 15, 2006 12:02 PM
Great questions!
1) the 25% is not from a 100% study but based on CDC calculations and should be considered a best-guess estimate that they've pulled together from different surveillance studies at the state level and other data sources. However, in some populations -- such as in African-American gay and bisexual men in different cities -- the percentage is much higher -- in a recent assessment in multiple cities, in which African American men were surveyed and then offered testing, around half did not know that they were HIV+
2) that is the big question - is the 25% different or the same as the 75%. my quick answer is -- no one knows.
3) do you mean the outcomes of programs where HIV is embedded in more general STD screening? I do not think there is much data, due to current guidelines and regulations in most states -- and overall I think that one of the most important things that needs to happen in this time of changes is to find out.
4) Donna Futterman and colleagues established a training program for doctors and support staff in primary care clinics in the Bronx. They increased the rates of HIV testing by 50% by providing a streamlined approach that still met all the current counseling and testing requirements. it is called ACTS . sorry that space did not permit details, and that there is not as much information online as I would like, but she can also be contacted directly about the program.
5) the CHAIN study, also, does not make it easy to access all their reports online and also to browse summaries without downloading giant documents! I can send fact sheets as PDF, but also the very last link, called "Delayers, Drop-outs, the Unconnected, and "Unmet need"" includes this in the summary:
An important point of intervention would be at the testing site. Increased testing must be used
in conjunction with pre and post-test counseling that adequately prepares the client for a
preliminary positive result. Post-tests efforts to facilitate entry of HIV positive persons into
appropriate care should expand beyond providing written referrals to include actively attempting
to facilitate entry of HIV positive persons into appropriate care, such as provision of patient
escorts or direct telephone contact between the test site and medical treatment facility, especially
for persons at risk for delay or dropout.
There is a better fact sheet that looks at it with more details that I can provide for you directly.
6) I view the proposal as potentially introducing new barriers by risking the decoupling of more direct support for getting into care from testing. It is not because of data from pilot surveillance programs, and I am not aware of such data from NYC programs.
Fundamentally, I think that access to testing should be expanded -- I just want to urge those who are concerned about it to ensure that the ends justify the proposed means, and do truly address the actual barriers, which include physician reluctance, lack of training, and the need to establish processes that link people to care, which are matters that go beyond having or lacking written informed consent or having or lacking counseling
Posted by: Julie Davids | April 16, 2006 07:59 PM