February 29, 2008

Name-Based Reporting Doesn't Discourage HIV Testing

New York State’s policy of name-based HIV reporting and partner notification, which was instituted in 2000, has not caused a decline in HIV testing or the willingness of “high-risk” individuals to be tested for the virus, reports Reuters Health/Yahoo News (news.yahoo.com, 2/28).

“A primary concern with named HIV reporting is that it might deter HIV testing behavior,” said Dr. James M. Tesoriero of the AIDS Institute at the New York State Department of Health. “In addition, concern was expressed that the formal integration of HIV partner notification and intimate-partner violence screening into New York’s law might affect HIV testing behavior.”

Tesoriero and his colleagues conducted interviews with 761 individuals thought to be at high risk for contracting HIV. They found that many people were unaware of the name-based reporting, and few said it concerned them enough to be a reason to avoid or delay testing.

Scroll down to comment on this story.

Previous Comments:

lushess, , 2010-09-29 11:08:02
AS THE CENTERS FOR DISEASE CONTROL AND PREVENTION prepares to release revised annual statistics about new HIV infections in the United States (in 2005 the number of new infections was 20% to 50% higher than previously reported--possibly as high as 60,000), HIV increasingly settles into the American consciousness as a manageable disease. In the last several years, men who have sex with men have consistently accounted for about half the new infections--baffling a gene

concerned, , 2008-03-06 11:30:44
This is a bunch of hooie! If I knew my name was going to be reported I would not get tested. The majority of Americans would not. I have conducted testing at test sites and I ask the question of our clients, some would walk out at the thought they might get reported, even after I assured them that we did not report in our state, the thought that information might leak out scared them to no end. I still have people tell me they still won't get tested because they don't trust the system.

Adam Thompson, Charlottesville, VA, 2008-03-04 10:50:00
I think this might ring true in the bi-coastal metropolitan foci of the epidemic, but when talking about rural/southern/heartland populations, the stigma of "my name with HIV" is strong. Before validating names-based testing as a non-deterrant in testing, I would highly advise data be collected and analysed from regions with a different way of life and thusly a different mindset about HIV.

john, , 2008-03-04 10:29:30
Forcing people to report is just wrong. Its like getting raped by the government and being helpless. Maybe they should focus there effort on educating people about HIV beyond just to ask if someone has it! Wouldn't it be nice if people actually knew the truth instead of the fear based advertising they call awareness these days.

David Munar, Chicago, 2008-03-04 09:24:52
This is old news, POZ. Fear of an HIV diagnoses has consistently been the number one reason to delay testing. Name reporting has always scored low. It's just the only tangible thing policy can address. Notably the study only interviewed people who tested. The article doesn't note that unique identifier systems are as accurate or more accurate than names. But the feds put this debate to rest by forcing name reporting everywhere. I wish POZ would give greater context to these issues.

Mike, Jackson, MS, 2008-03-03 10:07:39
I disagree with the accuracy of name based reporting. In Mississippi, confidential name based reporting is easily falsified, and the MS policy reporting past partners just as false, keeping that info to themselves. New Orleans has had anonymous testing, not sure if it they have changed, and many from MS went to N.O. for 'anonymous' tests. In fact, many faked documents to receive care there as well. I believe the MS data is false, and NY may be experiencing the same with name-based reporting.

Earl, Pinole, 2008-03-02 04:40:49
Names reporting of those living with HIV is a strategy that may have some medical benefit but for those who want to continue to work or go back to work...I am guessing confidentiality will be compromised.