HIV Reporting System Working Well

Two years after Washington state started requiring identification of HIV patients, fears of confidentiality breaches and a drop in the number of people getting tested appear unfounded. When state officials began pressing for a reporting process, critics raised the specter of ugly possibilities -- such as intolerant officials or other individuals obtaining and distributing the names of HIV patients -- that would result in a fear of testing. But those critics seem to have been wrong, as testing appears to be proceeding at the same pace as before.

"We really haven't had any of those things play out that people were concerned about," said Maria Courogen, epidemiologist for the Washington Department of Health. Thomas Bruner, executive director for the regional Cascade AIDS Project, agrees.

This is all good news for Oregon residents who began facing the same HIV reporting rules last week. Doctors and other health-care workers have long been required to report dozens of infectious diseases, and early on, many health-care professionals pushed for HIV to join the list. But critics argued that fears of confidentiality breaches and persecution of the infected would keep potential HIV patients, especially those living in small towns, from getting tested.

Washington finally agreed to adopt a "name-to-code" reporting system. Under this system, the medical community must notify the state when someone tests positive for HIV. The state has 90 days to convert the name into a unique code and forever erase the true identity of the HIV patient.

Oregon becomes the 45th state with mandatory HIV reporting. Only three -- Maine, Oregon and Washington -- convert the names to codes and drop them from the system. Eleven states use a unique code throughout the reporting process. Thirty-four states simply report HIV cases by patient name. The CDC estimates that between a quarter and a third of people with HIV do not know they are infected.

Back to other CDC news for October 10, 2001

Previous Updates