Literature DB >> 19221378

Consistency of state statutes with the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention HIV testing recommendations for health care settings.

Anish P Mahajan1, Lara Stemple, Martin F Shapiro, Jan B King, William E Cunningham.   

Abstract

In September 2006, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) released the "Revised Recommendations for HIV Testing of Adults, Adolescents, and Pregnant Women in Health-care Settings" to improve screening and diagnosis. The CDC now recommends that all patients in all health care settings be offered opt-out HIV screening without separate written consent and prevention counseling. State law on HIV testing is widely assumed to be a barrier to implementing the recommendations. To help policymakers and providers better understand their own legal context and to correct possible misunderstandings about statutory compatibility, a state-by-state review (including Washington, DC) of all statutes pertaining to HIV testing was performed and the consistency of these laws with the new recommendations was systematically assessed. Criteria were developed for classifying state statutory frameworks as consistent, neutral, or inconsistent with the new recommendations, and the implications for implementation of the CDC recommendations in these various legal contexts were examined. The statutory frameworks of 34 states and Washington, DC, were found to be either consistent with or neutral to the new CDC recommendations, which would enable full implementation. Statutory frameworks of 16 states were inconsistent with the new CDC recommendations, which would preclude implementation of 1 or more of the novel provisions without legislative change. In the 2 years since release of the recommendations, 9 states have passed new legislation to move from being inconsistent to consistent with the guidelines. State statutory laws are evolving toward greater compliance with the CDC recommendations. Policymakers, provider groups, consumer advocates, and other stakeholders should ensure that HIV screening practices comply with existing state law and work to amend inconsistent laws if they are interested in implementing the CDC recommendations.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2009        PMID: 19221378      PMCID: PMC2874823          DOI: 10.7326/0003-4819-150-4-200902170-00007

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Ann Intern Med        ISSN: 0003-4819            Impact factor:   25.391


  26 in total

1.  Factors underlying anxiety in HIV testing: risk perceptions, stigma, and the patient-provider power dynamic.

Authors:  Catherine Worthington; Ted Myers
Journal:  Qual Health Res       Date:  2003-05

2.  Estimating sexual transmission of HIV from persons aware and unaware that they are infected with the virus in the USA.

Authors:  Gary Marks; Nicole Crepaz; Robert S Janssen
Journal:  AIDS       Date:  2006-06-26       Impact factor: 4.177

3.  Revised recommendations for HIV testing of adults, adolescents, and pregnant women in health-care settings.

Authors:  Bernard M Branson; H Hunter Handsfield; Margaret A Lampe; Robert S Janssen; Allan W Taylor; Sheryl B Lyss; Jill E Clark
Journal:  MMWR Recomm Rep       Date:  2006-09-22

4.  It is time to implement routine, not risk-based, HIV testing.

Authors:  Curt G Beckwith; Timothy P Flanigan; Carlos del Rio; Emma Simmons; Edward J Wing; Charles C J Carpenter; John G Bartlett
Journal:  Clin Infect Dis       Date:  2005-02-28       Impact factor: 9.079

5.  Cost-effectiveness of screening for HIV in the era of highly active antiretroviral therapy.

Authors:  Gillian D Sanders; Ahmed M Bayoumi; Vandana Sundaram; S Pinar Bilir; Christopher P Neukermans; Chara E Rydzak; Lena R Douglass; Laura C Lazzeroni; Mark Holodniy; Douglas K Owens
Journal:  N Engl J Med       Date:  2005-02-10       Impact factor: 91.245

6.  Expanded screening for HIV in the United States--an analysis of cost-effectiveness.

Authors:  A David Paltiel; Milton C Weinstein; April D Kimmel; George R Seage; Elena Losina; Hong Zhang; Kenneth A Freedberg; Rochelle P Walensky
Journal:  N Engl J Med       Date:  2005-02-10       Impact factor: 91.245

7.  Number of persons tested for HIV--United States, 2002.

Authors: 
Journal:  MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep       Date:  2004-12-03       Impact factor: 17.586

8.  Assessing missed opportunities for HIV testing in medical settings.

Authors:  Rebecca V Liddicoat; Nicholas J Horton; Renata Urban; Elizabeth Maier; Demian Christiansen; Jeffrey H Samet
Journal:  J Gen Intern Med       Date:  2004-04       Impact factor: 5.128

9.  Opt-out testing for human immunodeficiency virus in the United States: progress and challenges.

Authors:  John G Bartlett; Bernard M Branson; Kevin Fenton; Benjamin C Hauschild; Veronica Miller; Kenneth H Mayer
Journal:  JAMA       Date:  2008-08-27       Impact factor: 56.272

10.  Long-term CD4+ T-cell response to highly active antiretroviral therapy according to baseline CD4+ T-cell count.

Authors:  Felipe García; Elisa de Lazzari; Montserrat Plana; Pedro Castro; Gabriel Mestre; Meritxell Nomdedeu; Emilio Fumero; Esteban Martínez; Josep Mallolas; José L Blanco; José M Miró; Tomás Pumarola; Teresa Gallart; José M Gatell
Journal:  J Acquir Immune Defic Syndr       Date:  2004-06-01       Impact factor: 3.731

View more
  32 in total

1.  Factors affecting clinician educator encouragement of routine HIV testing among trainees.

Authors:  Gail V Berkenblit; James M Sosman; Michael Bass; Hirut T Gebrekristos; Joseph Cofrancesco; Lynn E Sullivan; Robert L Cook; Marcia Edison; Philip G Bashook; P Todd Korthuis
Journal:  J Gen Intern Med       Date:  2012-07       Impact factor: 5.128

2.  Projected survival gains from revising state laws requiring written opt-in consent for HIV testing.

Authors:  Michael D April; John J Chiosi; A David Paltiel; Paul E Sax; Rochelle P Walensky
Journal:  J Gen Intern Med       Date:  2011-02-01       Impact factor: 5.128

3.  Expanded HIV testing planned, but some remain less than positive.

Authors:  Alisa Opar
Journal:  Nat Med       Date:  2009-08       Impact factor: 53.440

4.  Routine HIV testing hits the primary care clinic.

Authors:  Robert L Cook; Gail Berkenblit
Journal:  J Gen Intern Med       Date:  2009-12       Impact factor: 5.128

5.  Barriers to routine HIV testing among Massachusetts community health center personnel.

Authors:  Matthew J Mimiaga; Carey V Johnson; Sari L Reisner; Rodney Vanderwarker; Kenneth H Mayer
Journal:  Public Health Rep       Date:  2011 Sep-Oct       Impact factor: 2.792

6.  Consistency of State Statutes and Regulations With Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's 2006 Perinatal HIV Testing Recommendations.

Authors:  Sheila Salvant Valentine; Amelia Poulin
Journal:  Public Health Rep       Date:  2018-08-10       Impact factor: 2.792

7.  HIV screening practices in U.S. hospitals, 2009-2010.

Authors:  Andrew C Voetsch; James D Heffelfinger; Juliet Yonek; Pragna Patel; Steven F Ethridge; Gretchen W Torres; Margaret A Lampe; Bernard M Branson
Journal:  Public Health Rep       Date:  2012 Sep-Oct       Impact factor: 2.792

8.  Policy and Public Health : Reducing the Burden of Infectious Diseases.

Authors:  Deron C Burton; Scott Burris; Jonathan H Mermin; David W Purcell; Sara C Zeigler; Lara Bull-Otterson; Hazel D Dean
Journal:  Public Health Rep       Date:  2020 Jul/Aug       Impact factor: 2.792

9.  Effect of CDC 2006 Revised HIV Testing Recommendations for Adults, Adolescents, Pregnant Women, and Newborns on State Laws, 2018.

Authors:  Sheila Salvant Valentine; Joseph Caldwell; Amrita Tailor
Journal:  Public Health Rep       Date:  2020 Jul/Aug       Impact factor: 2.792

10.  Decreasing Missed Opportunities for HIV Testing in Primary Care through Enhanced Utilization of the Electronic Medical Record.

Authors:  Ann K Avery; Michelle Del Toro; Douglaus Einstadter
Journal:  J AIDS Clin Res       Date:  2012-08-26
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.