Medical Forum / Diseases and Disorders / AIDS / October 2006
233,000?
|
|
Thread rating:  |
GMCarter - 04 Apr 2006 15:00 GMT Here's the whole document that Kelly Jon Landis abstracted a portion of. I believe that the larger proportion of individuals with HIV are those who are unaware of their HIV+ status.
Whether there is a huge number of people rejecting ARV based on denialist beliefs or for other reasons is not a question I can answer. From my experience, the answer is no, there is not. Most of the people that bought that idea, with a few exceptions, have since died of AIDS.
People that don't take ARV nowadays do so because they're on an ADAP waiting list because of the criminal price of drugs, because they are in circumstances where it is difficult or impossible to access care or they just don't give a sh.t about life that much to bother iwth drugs. They may be worried about side effects.
But, in working with hundreds and hundreds of people from all walks of life, it is not my experience that there are a lot of people buying the denialist cant. With a few exceptions like that moron, Celia Farber.
George M. Carter
**** http://aidsaction.org/legislation/national_policy_agenda_2002_2003_complete.htm The Pedro Zamora Public Policy Fellowship
1. Support and Improvement of the Ryan White CARE Act
The Ryan White Comprehensive AIDS Resources Emergency (CARE) Act is the largest source of federal funding solely focused on domestic HIV care, treatment, and medical support services. Adopted by Congress in 1990, it is reauthorized every five years and funded through annual appropriations; the current authorization is scheduled to expire on September 30, 2005 and must be reauthorized by Congress. The CARE Act was created as a safety net that has now become the foundation of service delivery for HIV care.
Since the first authorization and the rapid development of its programs, there have been concerns regarding gaps in service delivery, inconsistent funding, and unmet needs. Both legislators and community advocates have expressed interest in amending the CARE Act to address these concerns. However, significant changes could dismantle the health care system created for people with HIV, putting them at risk for possible life-threatening health conditions. AIDS Action will work with its members, Congress, the Administration, and coalition partners to support the reauthorization, expansion, and full funding of the Ryan White CARE Act.
2. Access to Care
Access to early medical care and treatment remains elusive for many people in the United States including those who are of low income and uninsured. Current treatments are expensive, effective only for some, and associated with debilitating side effects. According to the Department of Health and Human Services, one half to two thirds of people living with HIV are not currently in care. Barriers in accessing quality care result in disparities in health outcomes, which are most often, experienced by people with low income, women, minority populations, and Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender (LGBT) populations.
The quality of HIV clinical management has a direct effect on the outcome of the epidemic. Standards must, therefore, be implemented in HIV care to ensure that people living with HIV get the highest quality of care and thus enjoy the best health outcomes possible. As HIV disease progresses, treating it becomes more complex. Over time, HIV can be compounded by life-threatening infections and severe conditions caused by antiretroviral use that must be accurately diagnosed and quickly treated. Thus, it is essential for all people living with HIV to have access to qualified and experienced HIV health care providers, who can successfully address the complex needs of their HIV positive patients. AIDS Action will work with its members, Congress, the Administration, and coalition partners to support access to quality care for all people living with HIV.
3. Access to HIV related medications and treatment options
Current treatment for HIV infection is based on the utilization of antiretroviral therapies and other medications to treat opportunistic infections. Access to these medications must be assured for all people to improve overall health outcomes and quality of life. While certain private insurance programs cover HIV related medications, severe limitations exist in accessing life-prolonging medications. To establish an emergency safety net providing access to medications, the federal government created the AIDS Drug Assistance Program (ADAP) under the Ryan White CARE Act and, under Medicaid, allows states to provide optional prescription drug benefits. Currently, ADAP is facing a budget crisis; Medicaid requires an AIDS defining diagnosis before access; and Medicares outpatient medication benefit will not be fully implemented until 2006. AIDS Action will work with its members, Congress, the Administration, coalition partners, and the private sector to support access to life saving medication for all people living with HIV.
4. Improved Surveillance Systems through Reporting and Notification
People are living longer without developing a clinical AIDS diagnosis; therefore, an epidemiological surveillance, based on AIDS cases alone no longer provides an accurate reflection of the epidemic.
The Ryan White CARE Act Reauthorization of 2000 directed the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services to examine whether HIV reporting and surveillance could be used to restructure its funding formulas by 2007. HIV surveillance data must be standardized across the nation, while individual states may implement HIV surveillance systems that report names or other unique identifiers,. The U.S. will never have a true picture of the epidemic without accurate and uniform HIV surveillance from every state in the country. Further, reliable data on HIV infection would permit rapid response and long-term planning by local, state, and federal bodies to impact HIV prevention and care efforts. AIDS Action will work with its members, Congress, the Administration, and coalition partners to support the development of an HIV surveillance system that accurately reflects the U.S. epidemic.
5. HIV and the Faith Community
The American faith community is a trusted and established institution that has been providing information, support, and services to its constituencies since the beginning of the HIV epidemic. The diversity of religions, beliefs, and practices that make up the faith community offers a wide and far reaching network to distribute prevention messages and offer care and support services to communities that may be in need of these resources. When offering HIV prevention, care, and support services, faith-based organizations that utilize scientifically evaluated programs and non-discriminatory models will be well equipped to meet the needs of their communities. As the federal government continues to implement its faith-based initiative, new monies must be provided in order to support the initiatives additional programs and services. AIDS Action will work with its members, coalition partners, and the Administration to encourage the participation of communities of faith in HIV prevention, care and support services.
6. Improved Testing and Counseling
Everyone should be aware of their HIV serostatus in order to make decisions about health care and their behaviors that could decrease the number of new infections. Yet, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, between 250,000 and 350,000 people in the United States are HIV positive and do not know it.
There are multiple and complex reasons why people do not learn their HIV status. Many people are unaware of their risk and see no need for testing. Testing programs may have locations, hours, or costs that make them inconvenient or inaccessible. Further, not all health care providers are equipped or prepared to offer counseling and testing services. Fear and concerns about privacy, stigma, and discrimination are still significant obstacles to testing. Additionally, the waiting period between the time of testing and receiving the results discourages many people from returning.
Advances in testing, including the approval of a rapid HIV test by the Food and Drug Administration, provide an opportunity to receive fast, accurate results and expand both testing availability and use in non-clinical settings. HIV testing and counseling should be bundled with testing for other sexually transmitted diseases. AIDS Action will work with its members, coalition partners, and the Administration to support improved voluntary testing and counseling programs that encourage all individuals to know their HIV status.
7. Effective Prevention Messages
There is no cure for HIV infection, yet it is 100 percent preventable. Adhering to effective prevention strategies is the only way to avoid HIV infection. Factual, culturally relevant, and comprehensive health information is essential to the development of effective HIV prevention strategies. HIV prevention messages are most useful when integrated into broader health promotion efforts such as those found in educational institutions, correctional facilities, or as a part of substance abuse and mental health treatment. The U.S. government does not mandate a systematic, population-wide education program to teach children and adults about HIV transmission and how to avoid risks for infection. This lack of information has had serious consequences, even for our youngest citizens. At least 50 percent of new infections in the U.S. occur among young people under the age of 25. AIDS Action will work with its members, Congress, the Administration, and coalition partners to advocate for factual, comprehensive, culturally relevant, and scientifically evaluated prevention models to be developed and implemented across the United States.
8. Research Needs of People Living with HIV
As we understand more about the human immunodeficiency virus (HIV), the evolution of infection, and how clinical management affects patients, new issues arise around treatment interventions and quality of life. It is therefore important for scientists and researchers to examine the new questions and challenges that surface for people living with HIV. Research initiatives must explore the following subjects: side effects and chronic conditions caused by long term use of antiretrovirals, drug resistance and viral mutations, adherence and treatment interruption, primary infection and transmission risk, and body mass and physiological changes. AIDS Action will work with its members, Congress, the Administration, coalition partners, and the private sector, to support the expansion of research efforts dedicated to examining these and other long-term health issues and the related needs of people living with HIV.
[back to introduction]
AIDS Action
1906 Sunderland Place NW
Washington, DC 20036
Phone: (202) 530-8030 Fax: (202) 530-8031 Privacy Statement
KellyJonLandis - 04 Apr 2006 19:51 GMT George wrote:
> Here's the whole document that Kelly Jon Landis > abstracted a portion of. I believe that the > larger proportion of individuals with HIV are > those who are unaware of their HIV+ status. Well, then you choose to see what you believe. Here's what the document states: "According to the Institute of Medicine Report of 2004 (Public Financing and Delivery of HIV/AIDS Care), there are a staggering 233,000 Americans who know they are HIV positive, are eligible for antiretroviral treatment but who still do not receive[or request] it."
This is an exact number, not a rough estimate as we are used to in AIDS stats. It's not 250,000 or 200,000 but 233,000. Interesting. Noticed that you included some other document from the AAHIVM website from 2002/2003 whereas I am referencing a document from a few months ago, December 2005.
These are people who "KNOW THEY ARE HIV POSITIVE" and "ARE ELIGIBLE FOR ANTIRETROVIRAL TREATMENT" [PRESUMABLY THROUGH T-CELL OR PCR "VIRAL LOAD" MEASUREMENTS. IN OTHER WORDS, THESE ARE PERSONS WHO ARE IN "HIV SPECIALIST CARE"]... "BUT WHO *STILL* [FOR WHATEVER REASON, INCLUDING THOSE WHO CONCEIVABLY HAVE ACCESS TO SUCH 'TREATMENT'] NOT RECEIVE [OR REQUEST] IT." [IE: SOCALLED "LIFE-SAVING" AIDS DRUGS]. It's a quote of a large-scale government study conducted by the IOM [Institute of Medicine] as per the request of congress and the HHS[Health and Human Services Department]. Here's the direct URL from the AAHIVM[American Academy of HIV Medicine] website, as posted in their Executive Director's World AIDS Day, December 1, 2005 press release: http://www.aahivm.org/world_aids_day.pdf
George wrote:
> Whether there is a huge number of people > rejecting ARV based on denialist beliefs or for > other reasons is not a question I can answer.
Finally, a little honesty.
> From my experience, the answer is no, there is > not. Perhaps your experience as an AIDS Industry Apologist would not bring you into contact with such persons as much as my experience as an AIDS Dissident would. And I have observed a growing number of the 'HIV' disaffected to include those sympathetic to AIDS dissent. Most of these choose not to be AIDS Dissident activists, because they see how kind and loving persons like you respond to such disaffection and dissent. They drop out of the AIDS ZONE for the most part and try to live their lives quietly, many addressing health issues as they arise holistically or from a multi-factorial or 'many-causes, many-courses' approach based on their very individual, very unique health history, downplaying the role of 'HIV' or 'AIDS' labels. You say this "HIV population" must be in denial because you can't imagine that many might be more informed than you thought and are not simply apathetic to listending to their own bodies.
George wrote:
> People that don't take ARV nowadays do so > because they're on an ADAP waiting list. Oh, spoke too soon. Now you are insisting you do know why they are not taking AIDS drugs. The ADAP waiting list isn't nearly that large George. Any other reasons you can think of?
George wrote:
> ...or they just don't give a sh.t about life > that much to bother with drugs. I see, is that the ONLY other reason you can think of?
George wrote:
> They may be worried about side effects. YOU THINK?! Here's another reason: they may not believe everything you and the AIDS Industry Apologists are telling them, and not just about the safety of the AIDS drugs, but about their efficacy too. In fact, they may question a lot more things than you give them discredit for.
George wrote:
> But, in working with hundreds and hundreds of > people from all walks of life, it is not my > experience that there are a lot of people buying > the denialist cant. Right, I'm sure it's not your experience. But you may not be having the kinds of experiences with the kinds of consumers that I would, being a bit isolated with your AIDS Industry Apologist pals, attending conferences on a travel expense account.
Whereas, I have heard from the growing masses of the 'HIV' disaffected and spoken with them and for them for over five years, from all walks of life, in small towns and big cities all over this world: scientists, doctors, journalists, consumers and advocates. Stakeholders who are ignored or patronized by groups like FIAR who may understand the NCCAM grant application process, and how to glad-hand those with money and power in the AIDS and Conventional, Medical Industries, but who don't give a flying flip about their concerns when they conflict with your own agenda. As a non-scientist, I mainly communicate with these disenfranchised consumers caught in the middle, exchanging e-mails, phone calls and sometimes we meet in person. They do not feel the organizations claiming resources in their behalf are truly representing their interests. As well, many thousands of persons working in the Alternative Health field are sympathetic to AIDS Dissidents. I would challenge you any time to debate in front of a randomly selected group of such alternative health practitioners and see whose position they gravitate toward. They are the 'natural' allies of AIDS dissidence and you cannot deny it. And they don't think it is "denialist cant" as you call it, because, in many ways, we are saying the same things.
Healthfully and Hopefully,
Kelly Jon Landis
V I R U S M Y T H http://forums.delphiforums.com/innocuous
aids dissenting scientific and alternative health discussion forum with 2,250+ members and 5,000+ messages in a searchable archive
GMCarter - 05 Apr 2006 02:12 GMT >George wrote: >> Here's the whole document that Kelly Jon Landis [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] >Americans who know they are HIV positive, are eligible for antiretroviral >treatment but who still do not receive[or request] it." And I see the URL is: http://www.aahivm.org/world_aids_day.pdf
It references this document: http://www.iom.edu/CMS/3793/4814/20147.aspx which unfortunately costs $50.
>This is an exact number, not a rough estimate as we are used to in AIDS >stats. It's not 250,000 or 200,000 but 233,000. Interesting. Noticed that >you included some other document from the AAHIVM website from 2002/2003 >whereas I am referencing a document from a few months ago, December 2005. This is news to me. It may indeed mean there is a considerable number of people who reject ARV. I'd want to see evidence for that.
It would NOT support the notion that these people reflect a pool in whom to undertake a study of ARV vs. placebo for the reasons I noted previously. How would you enroll such a study?
>These are people who "KNOW THEY ARE HIV POSITIVE" and "ARE ELIGIBLE FOR >ANTIRETROVIRAL TREATMENT" snip... Capitalizing it and screaming it out won't change the fact you have an absence of ideas.
>George wrote: >> Whether there is a huge number of people >> rejecting ARV based on denialist beliefs or for > other reasons is not a >question I can answer. > >Finally, a little honesty. f.ck you.
>> From my experience, the answer is no, there is > not. > >Perhaps your experience as an AIDS Industry Apologist would not bring you >into contact with such persons as much as my experience as an AIDS >Dissident would. Perhaps. I'm sure people who would like to believe HIV is harmless would feel more comfortable speaking to another denialist.
>You say this "HIV population" must be in denial because >you can't imagine that many might be more informed than you thought and >are not simply apathetic to listending to their own bodies. Nope. I've met one or two who subscribe to these notions. I know one in Hawaii who is taking a very vigorous approach to managing his health (and his lover's) with dietary supplements. Will it prevent AIDS from developing? I rather doubt it.
But I *know* such approaches can slow disease progression. The only data I can point to that support my contention are the multivitamin use data that show a 30% reduction in the rate of progression.
>George wrote: >> People that don't take ARV nowadays do so [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >taking AIDS drugs. The ADAP waiting list isn't nearly that large George. >Any other reasons you can think of? Sure. I listed several. Including:
>George wrote: >> ...or they just don't give a sh.t about life >> that much to bother with drugs. > >I see, is that the ONLY other reason you can think of? Nope.
I don't argue that there are some folks who do not want to take ARV because they don't believe HIV causes AIDS. I'll just be surprised if it represents a signficant proportion of this putative 233,000 figure.
>George wrote: >> They may be worried about side effects. > >YOU THINK?! You bet.
>Here's another reason: they may not believe everything you and >the AIDS Industry Apologists are telling them, and not just about the >safety of the AIDS drugs, but about their efficacy too. In fact, they may >question a lot more things than you give them discredit for. LOL. Ain't you a bitch? But then I am too, you nasty little denialist.
There is no doubt in my mind that some people question AIDS drugs. Everyone should. Questions are good. Most denialists already, though, are not asking questions but just de facto claiming that there is no health benefit to ARV and only risks and toxicities.
That is just wrong and there are ample data that underscore that this is a false notion. NOBODY suggests that there aren't side effects or dangers associated with ARV...and indeed, REAL clinical care requires a holistic approach in terms of what combinations will work best for each individual. Depends on age, gender, etc.
But dear, I asked you a number of questions about the kind of clinical study or studies you think should be done. You avoided all those questions. What a surprise. You just want to bitch and scream.
I understand it though. HIV infection f.cking sucks.
>George wrote: >> But, in working with hundreds and hundreds of [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] >isolated with your AIDS Industry Apologist pals, attending conferences on >a travel expense account. "Travel expense account." Huh. Shows how f.cking little you know about me. But I see you spreading a lot of smoke so far but little fire.
As to the rest of your denialist cant and squeal--well that's sad and depressing, to the extent it is true. I don't trust you or your opinions any more than you do mine, so I'd need a bit more evidence.
But no matter how much you might find your denialists pals and buddies and/or hear what YOU want to hear, it won't change the simple, dismal fact that HIV exists and causes AIDS.
Like it did to David Pasquarelli. And a lot of the folks in Sydney's HEAL. They died of AIDS.
Meantime, if you would like to share your regimen that helps keep you healthy that MIGHT be of some genuine use to people, whether they believe in HIV or not.
George M. Carter
Brian Mailman - 05 Apr 2006 04:55 GMT no no no no no NO NO NO.... anyone who's seen Rent knows it's 525,600.
GMCarter - 05 Apr 2006 10:20 GMT >no no no no no NO NO NO.... anyone who's seen Rent knows it's 525,600. Precisely! Enshrined in song stone for eternity.
I actually saw RENT very soon after it opened and about two weeks after its creator died. I was kinda shocked how it made me cry. I lived in the East Village in the 80s and there were lots of people on that stage that were a bit like him, a bit like her...
Brian Mailman - 05 Apr 2006 18:06 GMT >>no no no no no NO NO NO.... anyone who's seen Rent knows it's 525,600. > > Precisely! Enshrined in song stone for eternity. Well, y'know, I really can't take BS all that seriously.... as well, you know demons just can't stand real laughter.
> I actually saw RENT very soon after it opened and about two weeks > after its creator died. That was still pre-PI, right? Like '93?
> I was kinda shocked how it made me cry. I didn't cry, but I was certainly affected--very surprised. Sort of like the last 2 minutes of "Long Time Companion." I hadn't paid much attention to it because of the Boheme knock-off aspect, plus a friend who has major tendencies to substitute sentiment for logical thought wanted it sung at his wedding. But I decided to see the movie because the trailers looked tuneful and besides part of it was shot here.
> I lived in the East Village in the 80s and there were lots of people on > that stage that were a bit like him, a bit like her... Uh-HUH.
B/
leenarose@gmail.com - 05 Apr 2006 07:54 GMT Abstinence rules said to slow AIDS fight
A government report suggests the Bush administration's abstinence-heavy approach to fighting the AIDS crisis overseas is confusing and could hurt programs serving people most vulnerable to AIDS. The most serious problem comes from a mandate in the $15 billion President's Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief (PEPFAR). The plan requires that a third of the funds earmarked for prevention emphasize faithfulness to one partner and abstinence until marriage. The GAO found that the Office of the Global AIDS Coordinator was applying the financial standard more broadly.
for complete story:- http://www.epsdrugstore.com/4-5eps-drug5.htm
KellyJonLandis - 05 Apr 2006 11:45 GMT Lena Spambot wrote:
> "Abstinence rules said to slow AIDS fight" > for complete story:- > http://www.epsdrugstore.com/4-5eps-drug5.htm Hey Lena, what are you selling over on yer website? Isn't that one of those drugs by mail spam sites. And you only post something AIDS-related to get people to click on your site, huh?
Do you have any opinions about what we are talking about here or just spamming for EPSDRUGSTORE.COM?
Death - 16 Oct 2006 21:26 GMT <leenarose@gmail.com> wrote in message
> Abstinence rules said to slow AIDS fight > > for complete story:- > http://www.epsdrugstore.com/4-5eps-drug5.htm American misconceptions about Africa account for many of the fears that AIDS will spread through the heterosexual population in the U.S. the way it has there.
Africa has more than 60 countries with different cultures and varying degrees of urbanization and development.
The different sexual practices--a higher average frequency of sexual contacts with a greater number of people--among heterosexuals, as well as homosexuality in Africa, help explain the different ways the disease has spread.
Among the many other factors leading to an equal distribution of the disease among African men and women are prostitution, multiple wives, nonsterile injections, a poorly screened blood supply, high rates of other sexually transmitted diseases, and ritualistic scarring.
Dildeaux - 17 Oct 2006 03:50 GMT Death, Do you practice abstinence?
Death - 17 Oct 2006 17:45 GMT "Dildeaux" <dildeaux@toys.com> wrote in message
> Death, Do you practice abstinence? Isn't it your turn at the gloryhole ?
Homosexual Arrested For Injecting Boys With Blood
Summary: Police arrested Mark Randall of Orlando, Florida, in February for drugging teenage boys and injecting them with blood.
Homosexual Mark Randall is in jail for luring teenage boys over the Internet to come to his garage for sex orgies. He would drug them, tie them up in sadomasochistic harnesses and then inject them with blood.
Police found video cameras and hundreds of videotapes in his garage. They also discovered syringes filled with blood.
Investigators are testing the blood to determine if it is HIV infected. Randall is being charged for drug trafficking, molestation, and possibly possession of child pornography if the videotapes show juveniles in sexual situations.
Dildeaux - 17 Oct 2006 20:35 GMT > "Dildeaux" <dildeaux@toys.com> wrote in message > >> Death, Do you practice abstinence? >> > Isn't it your turn at the gloryhole ? Not until you are satisfied, sweetie...
> Homosexual Arrested For Injecting Boys With Blood > [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > child pornography if the > videotapes show juveniles in sexual situations. How long does it take to test for HIV?
A couple of minutes?
Isn't that about the same amount of time Death needs to satisfy itself?
Death - 17 Oct 2006 22:57 GMT "Dildeaux" <dildeaux@toys.com> wrote in message
> " Death" <Death@yourdoor.net> wrote in message > >> > > Isn't it your turn at the gloryhole ? > > Not until you are satisfied, sweetie... Kewl, I'm satisfied, now move your faggot a.s and get to the tea house. It is called that because that is where faggots go to lose T cells.
Dildeaux - 18 Oct 2006 02:01 GMT > "Dildeaux" <dildeaux@toys.com> wrote in message > [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > and get to the tea house. It is called that because > that is where faggots go to lose T cells. Only you could know where faggots go and what they might do...
Death - 18 Oct 2006 15:51 GMT "Dildeaux" <dildeaux@toys.com> wrote in message
> Only you could know where faggots go and what > they might do... http://www.talkabouthealthnetwork.com/group/misc.health.aids/messages/101004.html
Dildeaux - 18 Oct 2006 20:16 GMT > "Dildeaux" <dildeaux@toys.com> wrote in message >> >> Only you could know where faggots go and what >> they might do... >> > http://www.talkabouthealthnetwork.com/group/misc.health.aids/messages/101004.html I'll bet you got the latest Bob Damron's Men's Guide too...
Death - 18 Oct 2006 21:58 GMT "Dildeaux" <dildeaux@toys.com> wrote in message
> I'll bet you got the latest Bob Damron's Men's Guide too... That you lose again is no surprise my little aids monkey. I'll look it up later, Bob Damron's Mens Guide also...
Where are all those buttfucking animals you claim exist. The gerbil up your a.s doesn't count.
Dildeaux - 21 Oct 2006 06:21 GMT > "Dildeaux" <dildeaux@toys.com> wrote in message >> [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > Where are all those buttfucking animals you claim exist. > The gerbil up your a.s doesn't count. But the gerbil up yours does.
Try rats, start with the homophobic one in the mirror.
Death - 21 Oct 2006 16:18 GMT "Dildeaux" <dildeaux@toys.com> wrote in message
> " Death" <Death@yourdoor.net> wrote in message > > > > Where are all those buttfucking animals you claim exist. > > The gerbil up your a.s doesn't count. > > Try rats, start with the homophobic one in the mirror. So, you can't produce just one buttfucking mammal other than the faggot. You are another example of a shit4brains running its shiteater who pisses its panties and whines faggotphobic as if that is an intelligent argument when confronted with reality, LOL.
RJ - 05 Apr 2006 17:08 GMT I didn't see this thread initially, I guess I should repost this reponse here too. I can also add that the full IOM report is here:
http://www.iom.edu/CMS/3793/4814/20147.aspx
Although they want 37 bucks for it.
Reposted from the TAC unmasked thread:
Kelly Jon Landis wrote:
"Richard and All,
One might reverse the question you asked of Alex. If 'ART's are so "life-saving" why are a quarter million Americans diagnosed as "HIV positive" or with "AIDS" who are eligible for such 'treatment' according to T-Cell Counts and PCR "Viral Load" clinical markers, choosing not to take them?"
You're misrepresenting the data to support your views.
Nowhere does the IOM state the number of people they estimate to not be
receiving HAART who may "need" it are not receiving it because they're "choosing not to take them.":The whole point of the IOM report is "to develop a framework for a system of public financing and delivery of HIV care capable of meeting the current and future challenges of the HIV/AIDS epidemic." It's a modeling exercise, Bruce Shackman, who I know, was one of the reviewers.
The IOM list upfront some of the factors reported to be associated with
non-receipt of ARVs:
By income odds ratio (OR) of getting ARV if < $25,000 0.60
By insurance status OR getting ARV if uninsured 0.74 OR getting ARV if Medicaid alone 0.83 OR getting ARV if Medicare-other 0.82 OR getting ARV if HMO insurance 0.90
- These associations offer zero support for your statements, unless you're arguing that having an income of less than $25,000 a year and being uninsured make you more likely to agree with Kelly Jon Landis's views on antiretrovirals.
Here is some more verbiage from the IOM:
"HAART Use Deficit
The estimates are based on an initial finding that there are 950,000 individuals living with HIV and that 670,000 individuals are aware of their HIV status, of whom 25 percent (167,500) are uninsured and 50 percent (335,000) are insured through a program financed with public dollars (Table A-2). Among those individuals who are aware that they are infected, we estimate that 69 percent (463,069) are in need of combination antiretroviral therapy and that slightly fewer than half in
need of HAART (230,000 individuals) receive antiretroviral medications,
leaving a deficit in HAART use of 233,069 for this cohort. We believe that an additional 82,000 individuals who are infected but unaware of their HIV status are also in need of HAART."
- So it's an estimate of CD4 T cell count distribution among the estimated 670,000 people that are aware of their HIV status which leads
them to estimate that 463,069 people are "in need" of HAART.
So how do they estimate HAART usage among these 463,069 people? The information is as follows:
"Estimates of the current prevalence of HAART use are drawn from a number of sources. Studies of HIV-infected populations (AIDS and HIV non-AIDS) in New York State and in three metropolitan areas used local data sources (HIV/AIDS surveillance, lab reporting, Medicaid and AIDS Drug Assistance Program [ADAP] billing claims) from 2001 in a framework
endorsed by the Health Resources and Services Administration HRSA) to estimate participation in HIV care (Kahn, 2002). Studies of Medicaid and ADAP populations were conducted for 1998 in four heavily HIV-affected states (Kahn et al., 2002). Additional older estimates provide nationally representative data of individuals in care (Bozzette
et al., 1998) and individuals in private and public HIV specialty clinics (Moorman et al., 1998; Palella et al., 1998). Based on these data, we estimated that 230,000 individuals are on HAART, including 40 percent of those with a nadir CD4 count between 50 and 199. To determine the association of HAART use with income level and insurance status used data from HCSUS (Andersen et al., 2000). Though this data is from 1996, somewhat more recent nationwide data (from 1997- 1998) and analyses of data from the state and local levels suggest the persistence of income and insurance effects found by Andersen et al. (Bhattacharya et al., 2003; Goldman et al., 2003; Kahn, 2002; Kahn et al., 2002; Goldman et al., 2001; Hsu et al., 2001). Low-income individuals (family income < $25,000) were less likely to be on HAART (odds ratio [OR] = 0.6). The odds of being on HAART also varied by insurance status, from 0.74 among those with no insurance, to 0.83 among Medicaid recipients, to 0.90 among those with health maintenance organization (HMO) insurance (reference group is those with private fee-for-service insurance) (Andersen et al., 2000).
We defined HAART need based on HIV disease stage. All those with AIDS "need" HAART. Although there are many legitimate reasons not to provide HAART when someone has AIDS, and many patients may decline HAART, clinical guidelines suggest offering and using HAART. Among those with HIV disease with a CD4 count of 200 to 350 (often symptomatic), we assume that half need HAART, consistent with the guidelines' suggestion for flexibility in this range. For those even earlier in disease, we define need as the small percentage estimated to
be currently using HAART, which at that stage is not recommended (DHHS,
2003)."
Before I go into the cites, I note that the report authors do state here - wihout a cite though - that "many patients may decline HAART." This is actually the strongest support for your argument that the report has to offer. In terms of the numbers which you have come to believe indicate that there 233,000 such people, all of the same mind as you, these are derived from the cites. The most important being the Kahn study from 2002:
Public Health Rep. 2002 May-Jun;117(3):252-62; discussion 231-2.
Access to and use of HIV antiretroviral therapy: variation by race/ethnicity in two public insurance programs in the U.S.
Kahn JG, Zhang X, Cross LT, Palacio H, Birkhead GS, Morin SF.
Institute for Health Policy Studies, University of California-San Francisco, 3333 California Street, Suite 265, San Francisco, CA 94118, USA. jgk...@itsa.ucsf.edu
OBJECTIVES: To examine access to and use of HIV highly active antiretroviral therapy (HAART) by race/ethnicity in Medicaid and the AIDS Drug Assistance Program (ADAP) in 1998 in four states. METHODS: The authors analyzed reimbursement claims and AIDS surveillance data in
California, Florida, New York, and Texas. Study subjects were identified using diagnostic or medication codes specific to HIV. The race/ethnicity of program enrollees was compared to representation in the HIV epidemic to examine access. Claims for antiretroviral (ARV) use
were compared to U.S. Public Health Service treatment guidelines to assess HAART use. RESULTS: The authors identified 151,000 HIV-infected individuals in these two programs in the four states. Evidence of AIDS or symptomatic HIV was present in 78%-88% of enrollees in Medicaid, versus 31%-48% in ADAP. African Americans participated in Medicaid 10%-53% above and in ADAP 17%-31% below representation in the epidemic.
Non-Latino whites exhibited the opposite pattern, being in Medicaid 5%-38% below and in ADAP 9%-65% above epidemic representation. Latinos participated more in ADAP (7%-31%), except in New York. HAART use over 90 days (July-September) ranged from 38% to 76% by program and state. Differences by race/ethnicity were inconsistent and small: African Americans had lower HAART use by 6%-14% in California and Florida Medicaid, and Latinos had higher HAART use by 2%-11% in ADAP and in Texas Medicaid. CONCLUSIONS: African Americans were more likely to access HIV drugs through Medicaid than through ADAP, which may reflect differences in program eligibility criteria as well as care seeking later in HIV disease. Differences in the use of HAART by race/ethnicity
within state programs were small.
- The key phrase here is "HAART use over 90 days (July-September) ranged from 38% to 76% by program and state." The year they are talking
about it is 1998. It is based on these numbers that the IOM estimated how many people are or are not on therapy. They also used data from the
HCSUS study (Bozzette et al) which is a sample of ~2,500 people whose antiretroviral usage was assessed in December 1996.
The full text of the Kahn paper is available online at: http://www.publichealthreports.org/userfiles/117_3/117252.pdf
The discussion includes a long list of caveats to the data, and notes that no specific information CD4 counts or viral load were available.
The full text of the HCSUS papers are also online e.g. http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/picrender.fcgi?artid=1089126&blobtyp...
Because they used a survey approach they asked questions like this:
My Health Is Doctor's Top Concern Agrees completely 1,381 Agrees mostly 864 Agrees somewhat 354 Agrees a little/not at all 177
- Unless you're arguing that most of these people's doctors also agreed
with your views on ARVs, then I don't see any support for your claims here either. This study was a probability sample, so they extrapolate that there might be 13,688 nationally that would fall into the category
of agreeing with their doctor a little or not at all. I wouldn't argue that this is an insignificant number and it does very likely say something about medical practice in the US, but it in no way suggests that these individuals are denialists.
So, the IOM estimates may indeed be correct in suggesting that there are significant numbers of people who meet indicators for HAART that are not receiving it; however there is zero evidence that a significant
number of these people are not receiving HAART because they agree with Kelly Jon Landis - just the opposite.
|
|
|