HIV and ID Observations

In the debate over efforts to expand HIV testing by making it less “exceptional” and more like other important tests done in medical care — something I heartily endorse (no kidding) — comes one particular protest that makes absolutely no sense to me.

It goes something like this:

We cannot expand HIV testing before guaranteeing that all newly-diagnosed people can get access to care.

ARRGGGH!

In what other disease do we make this stipulation?  Would we stop recommending cancer or diabetes or hypertension screening in poor communities because there is no guarantee that they will be “covered” if we find something?

Look, the desire to get everyone access to care is laudable.  And we should plan for an increase in cases when testing expands, as has so impressively happened in Washington DC.  But we’re hardly going to fix the whole health care system at the same time we change antiquated HIV testing laws.

It’s especially ironic that this keeps coming up in HIV.  Is there another disease with so many safety nets in place for coverage as HIV/AIDS?

Some would argue — I would — that we have in HIV care a pretty impressive model for national health care.

So let’s get that law changed already, ok?