Implementing Updated Recommendations on Hepatitis C Virus Screening: Translating Federal Guidance Into State Practice.

CONTEXT: Chronic viral hepatitis is a leading infectious cause of death. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) released updated recommendations for hepatitis C virus testing, including recommending that all individuals born between 1945 and 1965 be tested once. States' consistency with these national testing guidelines is unknown. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the extent to which state health departments have current hepatitis C virus testing recommendations listed on their Web sites, consistent with national guidelines. DESIGN: The CDC guidelines were reviewed to identify the risk groups recommended for or against testing. State health department Web sites (50 US states, the District of Columbia, and Puerto Rico) were then systematically reviewed to classify whether, for each risk group, testing is recommended, not recommended, or with unclear recommendations. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE: States' consistency with national recommendations for each risk group mentioned by the CDC. RESULTS: Among the risk groups that the CDC currently recommends for testing, 50% of states updated their Web sites to include individuals born between 1945 and 1965. All states recommend testing current or former injection drug users, but only 58% recommended testing HIV-positive individuals. Among the risk groups for which the CDC has issued uncertain recommendations, states most frequently recommended testing individuals with tattoos or body piercing done with unsterile materials (46%) or with a history of multiple sex partners (31%). CONCLUSIONS: There is substantial variation in state Web sites' consistency with the CDC guidelines. The public health importance of risk factors is not associated with their inclusion in Web content. Improving the uptake of these recommendations and the manner in which they are conveyed to the public are critical to implementing the national viral hepatitis action plan, thereby increasing diagnoses and averting new infections.

Modeling the Declining Positivity Rates for Human Immunodeficiency Virus Testing in New York State.

OBJECTIVE: New York health care providers have experienced declining percentages of positive human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) tests among patients. Furthermore, observed positivity rates are lower than expected on the basis of the national estimate that one-fifth of HIV-infected residents are unaware of their infection. We used mathematical modeling to evaluate whether this decline could be a result of declining numbers of HIV-infected persons who are unaware of their infection, a measure that is impossible to measure directly. DESIGN AND SETTING: A stock-and-flow mathematical model of HIV incidence, testing, and diagnosis was developed. The model includes stocks for uninfected, infected and unaware (in 4 disease stages), and diagnosed individuals. Inputs came from published literature and time series (2006-2009) for estimated new infections, newly diagnosed HIV cases, living diagnosed cases, mortality, and diagnosis rates in New York. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Primary model outcomes were the percentage of HIV-infected persons unaware of their infection and the percentage of HIV tests with a positive result (HIV positivity rate). RESULTS: In the base case, the estimated percentage of unaware HIV-infected persons declined from 14.2% in 2006 (range, 11.9%-16.5%) to 11.8% in 2010 (range, 9.9%-13.1%). The HIV positivity rate, assuming testing occurred independent of risk, was 0.12% in 2006 (range, 0.11%-0.15%) and 0.11% in 2010 (range, 0.10%-0.13%). The observed HIV positivity rate was more than 4 times the expected positivity rate based on the model. CONCLUSIONS: HIV test positivity is a readily available indicator, but it cannot distinguish causes of underlying changes. Findings suggest that the percentage of unaware HIV-infected New Yorkers is lower than the national estimate and that the observed HIV test positivity rate is greater than expected if infected and uninfected individuals tested at the same rate, indicating that testing efforts are appropriately targeting undiagnosed cases.

The evolution of HIV testing requirements in New York State, 1989-2013.

In 2010, New York State (NYS) made major changes to its HIV testing law to come more closely into compliance with 2006 recommendations of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Because of the size and severity of the epidemic in NYS, the strong public health response, and powerful advocacy community, the state had early on enacted strict rules around all aspects of HIV testing. Between 2006 and 2010, 12 distinct legislative proposals were advanced to modernize NYS's approach, leading ultimately to the bill that became law and went into effect on September 10, 2010. The approved changes included oral consent for rapid HIV tests, streamlined provision of pretest information, and most notably a mandated offer of HIV testing to all persons between 13 and 64 years of age. In 2014, NYS finally removed the requirement for written informed consent (except in criminal justice settings). In a separate legislative action and in tacit acknowledgment to the success of the 2010 HIV testing law, a mandate for hepatitis C testing for persons born between 1945 and 1965 was adopted. For a variety of reasons, HIV-related statutes have sometimes been difficult to change, but once the initial inertia is overcome, additional changes may come more quickly.

Mandating the offer of HIV testing in New York: simulating the epidemic impact and resource needs.

BACKGROUND: A 2010 New York law requires that patients aged 13-64 years be offered HIV testing in routine medical care settings. Past studies report the clinical outcomes, cost-effectiveness, and budget impact of expanded HIV testing nationally and within clinics but have not examined how state policies affect resource needs and epidemic outcomes. METHODS: A system dynamics model of HIV testing and care was developed, where disease progression and transmission differ by awareness of HIV status, engagement in care, and disease stage. Data sources include HIV surveillance, Medicaid claims, and literature. The model projected how alternate implementation scenarios would change new infections, diagnoses, linkage to care, and living HIV cases over 10 years. RESULTS: Without the law, the model projects declining new infections, newly diagnosed cases, individuals newly linked to care, and fraction of undiagnosed cases (reductions of 62.8%, 59.7%, 54.1%, and 57.8%) and a slight increase in living diagnosed cases and individuals in care (2.2% and 6.1%). The law will further reduce new infections, diagnosed AIDS cases, and the fraction undiagnosed and initially increase and then decrease newly diagnosed cases. Outcomes were consistent across scenarios with different testing offer frequencies and implementation times but differed according to the level of implementation. CONCLUSIONS: A mandatory offer of HIV testing may increase diagnoses and avert infections but will not eliminate the epidemic. Despite declines in new infections, previously diagnosed cases will continue to need access to antiretroviral therapy, highlighting the importance of continued funding for HIV care.