In regards to MASS, I believe I mentioned they had a drop up until 2008 but they have had an increase following that. Yes, it is decreaced from 2000, but it is worrisome that in 2009 it started an increase in cases again. Doesn’t that wipe out some of the loss prior?

And I agree that neither Romney Care, nor the Affordable Care Act is government run. If it were, Tim, we wouldn’t have a need to purchase Insurance through a Private NON-governmental for profit Insurance Company.

With the availability of over the counter HIV tests and with the approval of a revised truvada based single drug, the next few years could be unrecognizable to anyone who came out after 1981

(That does not mean that I support health care which is administered by the government. That’s a different question)

( Which is a good thing that neither Romneycare nor Obamacare do that. ;-) But yes, it is a different question. )

So is San Francisco:

http://www.sfdph.org/dph/files/reports/RptsHIVAIDS/AnnualReport2010_2.pdf

In 2000, there were 556 new AIDS cases. In 2008, to keep a consistent comparison with Massachusetts, there were 414 new cases, a 26% drop. Not as dramatic as Massachusetts, but in 2009, there were only 314 new cases, making for an astounding 25% drop in just one year. The CDC would kill to see those kinds of numbers nationwide.

What I find interesting is page 72 of the San Francisco report, where the Department of Health came up with an estimated average community viral load and compared it with the number of new cases. There is definitely a rough correlation.

I agree. It’s pretty obvious when you look at the numbers. I would also include a concerted effort to identify those who are unaware of their infection.

(That does not mean that I support health care which is administered by the government. That’s a different question.)

But it is essential that every person with HIV be able to have access to the HAART protocol. It’s a public health issue. It is the one method that appears to have the potential of eliminating HIV as an epidemic and perhaps even eventually eradicating the virus – much like polio have been virtually eradicated.

If Republican leadership had the ability to set aside their hostility to certain demographics, they could actually find a way to use this to their advantage.

If they had the balls to tell Tony Perkins to take a hike.

They don’t, of course.

According to the report, “The number of annual HIV diagnoses reported decreased from 1,193 in 2000 to 619 in 2008.” That’s new cases, to John Beckmann’s point. That’s a 48% drop in new cases since 2000, and the falling rate has been most consistent since about 2004-2005.

But because there has continued to be new cases added to the system, and because the number of deaths has continued to fall during the same period and remains lower than the number of new cases each year (which is more good news, actually), the total number of people in Massachusetts with HIV has continued to increase, per Robert’s point.

But back to John Beckmann’s point here:

More in treatment means more no longer infectious means fewer, far fewer new infections.

I do think that this is correct, and there’s a pretty good mound of research that backs that up. People with undetectable viral loads are much, much less infectious than those who are not on HAART and have higher viral loads.

To really impact the rate of HIV transmission, the best new approach, I think, is to ensure universal access to HAART. I’m not saying that we should get away from condoms, water-based lube, and other safe-sex practices. But we’ve been stuck with that as our only weapon against HIV/AIDS for more than 25 years, and I think it’s time we finally recognize that there are limits to that as our only approach. It’s time to add more tools to our toolbox.

Universal access to HAART should be a no-brainer. Romneycare is one way to dramatically increase the availability of HAART to those who need it. It’s sad though that there has been no mention of this, or anything like it, or even anything remotely close to it, in the GOP platform. They’re tickled pink to talk about PEPFAR in Africa, but nothing for Americans at home.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/08/04/health/04hiv.html

I am unsure of Mr. Beckman’s ethnicity, but the only group where the virus is lessened is the White catagory. So it is possible that in his category it has been largely reduced. It is increasing across the board for young black men, and latinos and women of colr.

from the latest report from the State of MA on HIV in the state (2009 is the latest I could find):

http://www.mass.gov/eohhs/docs/dph/aids/2011-profiles/epidemic-glance.pdf

where it says: “From 2000 to 2009 the number of people living with HIV/AIDS has increased 35%.”

They do note a decrease among men, and an increase among women, and they show a slight decrease in 2008 but an increase in 2009 and an overall increase of 35 percent, if I read the report correctly.

Did you mean to say a decrease of cases by 35 percent?