Wednesday, March 8, 2017

What Does the GOP’s Health Care Bill Mean for People With HIV?


Takeaways from the Republican plan to replace Obamacare

March 7, 2017


___________________________________________________________________________________ 


 
On Monday, House Republicans finally released their plan to replace the Affordable Care Act (ACA, or Obamacare). The GOP’s new plan is titled the American Health Care Act and is now being parsed by pundits, media, health care specialists and, well, everyone.

Many big questions—such as what’s the cost, who pays for the plan and who loses coverage—remain unanswered. Below are some of the big takeaways that are surfacing, particularly as they relate to the HIV community.

People with preexisting conditions will remain protected, according to the new plan. As Vox explains, people can’t be charged more or denied insurance for preexisiting conditions as long as they’ve retained continuous coverage without a lapse of more than 63 days. However, for many folks, that’s a big condition to meet. If you want to purchase health care insurance after a lapse, you’ll be hit with a hefty surcharge.
“People with chronic conditions and disabilities [like HIV] are more likely to have gaps in coverage as a direct result of their conditions,” Amy Killelea, the health reform director at the National Alliance of State & Territorial AIDS Directors (NASTAD), told Vox.

Low-income people with chronic diseases will have less financial help. “It will be harder for people living with HIV to afford plans that will actually cover their care and treatment needs,” NASTAD’s Killelea said in the same Vox article. This is because the new health plan does away with the ACA’s income-based subsidies to help low-income people and instead introduces a system of tax credits based on age.

The Medicaid expansion plan continues until 2020. This is a big change from the previous GOP plan that leaked earlier this year and that immediately cut Medicaid, the state and federal health insurance plan for low-income people. Obamacare allowed states to expand Medicaid (though many states elected not to), which has allowed significantly more people with HIV and chronic illnesses to access care and treatment. In fact, an analysis by Kaiser Family Foundation found that in states that expanded Medicaid, the number of people with HIV who were uninsured dropped from 13 percent to 7 percent between 2012 and 2014.
Under the new plan, these folks could be in limbo in a few years. Also, if the new GOP plan puts per capita caps on Medicaid spending (meaning states would allot only a fixed sum of money to each enrollee), the states might offer fewer benefits and elect not to cover more expensive treatments.

The GOP plan benefits Americans who are young, healthy and high-income, at the expense of those who are sicker or low-income. As a different Vox article explains, the new plan allows insurers to charge older enrollees more and provides tax credits to help people with more income.

Specifically, according to The Washington Post, the bill repeals a tax on individuals making at least $200,000 and married couples making $250,000. Plus, insurance company executives making over $500,000 get a tax break. Companies can usually deduct salaries as a business expense, which Obamacare capped at $500,000. In 2014, that cap resulted in $72 million in tax revenue; with the cap eliminated, the more insurance companies pay their executives the less they will pay in taxes.

How the GOP bill will make up for this missing revenue remains a mystery, as the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Offices has yet to score the bill.

Meanwhile, The New York Times offers a clear roundup of the bill and how it compares to the Affordable Care Act. In short, the House GOP bill will:


Repeal: Individual mandate, employer mandate and subsidies for out-of-pocket expenses

Change: Premium subsidies, Medicaid expansion, health savings account and restrictions on charging more for older Americans

Keep: Dependent coverage until 26, preexisting conditions policy, essential health benefits and prohibitions on annual and lifetime limits


Read more articles from POZ, here.

Tuesday, March 7, 2017

State Fires Contractor in Charge of Enrollment in AIDS Drug Program

Detail of the California State flag

People with HIV in California weren’t getting their meds and timely care, according to a report.

March 6, 2017


____________________________________________________________________________________ 



California ended its contract with a company hired to enroll HIV-positive people in a program to provide access to medication, Kaiser Health News reports.

A.J. Boggs & Company failed to keep an online enrollment portal working and hired a subcontractor without giving proper notice to the state, according to the California public health department.

Advocates across the state had been complaining for months about the company’s performance regarding enrollment, which affected people’s access to lifesaving HIV meds. A previous report by California Healthline and Kaiser Health News found that people weren’t able to get needed meds and medical care.

The health department said that instead of hiring a new contractor, it would take over the tasks of determining eligibility to its AIDS Drug Assistance Program (ADAP) and overseeing enrollment.

A separate company, Magellan Rx Management, of Arizona, has been in charge of pharmacy benefits services and will continue in this role.

About 30,000 low-income people in California living with HIV use ADAP to access meds and care, reports Kaiser Health News.

Receiving medication in a timely manner is critical to the health of people with HIV. To learn more about this topic, read the POZ Basics topics Starting HIV Treatment, HIV Medications and HIV Drug Assistance Programs.

Read more articles from POZ, here.

Patient Advocacy Groups Rake in Donations From Pharma


March 1, 2017


____________________________________________________________________________________ 


High-profile advocacy groups for patients with cancer, Alzheimer's, HIV and other diseases almost always accept funding from pharmaceutical firms, and many fail to report any contributions, new research shows.

At least 83 percent of the nation's 104 largest patient advocacy groups take contributions from the drug, medical device and biotech industries, raising questions about whether they consistently put patients first, according to a paper published Wednesday in the New England Journal of Medicine.

"If you're a policymaker and you want to hear from patients, there's a danger if there's an undisclosed or underdisclosed conflict of interest," said Matthew McCoy, the paper's primary author. "The 'patient' voice is speaking with a pharma accent."

Of the 18 nonprofits not reporting pharmaceutical money, all but five failed to disclose their donors at all. Just one of the 104 nonprofits stated explicitly that it does not accept industry money.

Executives or former executives in the pharmaceutical industry serve on a third of the organizations' boards, the researchers found.

These possible conflicts of interest are troubling, experts say, because while patients and drugmakers both want better treatments, they often have opposing goals.

Patients want cheaper medicine; the pharmaceutical industry wants to maximize revenue. Patients want information about the efficacy of certain drugs; the industry often seeks faster approvals for drugs, at which point the incentive to collect information about a drug has diminished, according to Vinay Prasad, assistant professor of medicine at the Oregon Health and Science University.

"Who is setting the narrative of what patients want?" he said.

Prasad is cited by the researchers but did not help conduct the study.

Research into the relationship between patient advocacy groups and the pharmaceutical industry is nascent, but the study finds that drug dollars prop up a higher proportion of patient groups than some previous papers.

A survey of patient advocacy executives published in the medical journal JAMA in January, for example, found that 67 percent of groups reported industry donors.

The latest study focused on larger groups that receive at least $7.5 million in revenue each year, which likely churned up more industry funding than a broader approach might have, said McCoy, a postdoctoral fellow in advance biomedical ethics at the University of Pennsylvania.

Also, pharmaceutical companies might funnel money to patient advocacy groups through other nonprofits, which would be harder to trace. "A patient organization may have gotten $1 million from the Making People's Lives Better Fund. ... That second degree of interrogation is not something we captured," said McCoy.

About one-fifth of the patient advocacy groups studied accepted $1 million or more from drugmakers, but exactly how much those groups accepted is fuzzy. Half of the organizations disclosed their donations in ranges rather than precise amounts, and most of those reported their highest donations with an unbounded upper range, the study says.

Neither the NEJM paper nor the JAMA study in January examined how often a patient organization lobbied Congress, wrote letters to lawmakers or took stances on legislation.

But transparency in pharmaceutical ties is important even for advocacy groups with little presence on Capitol Hill, said Susannah Rose, one of the authors of the JAMA study.

Aside from steering legislation, the groups are important stakeholders in the delivery of care, research funding and patient assistance.

"Advocacy groups often give a voice to people who do not have a voice," said Rose, scientific director of research in the Office of Patient Experience at the Cleveland Clinic and an expert in bioethics.

But whereas academic research centers, physicians and other medical professionals often feel pressure to reveal their associations with industry and face institutional checks against potential conflicts of interest, patient advocacy groups are too often overlooked, she said.

The paper comes at a time of both growing influence and heightened scrutiny of patient advocacy groups.

Pharmaceutical industry giant Pfizer said Friday it had received a subpoena related to its support of patient advocacy programs that offer financial assistance for Medicare patients' copays.

Johnson & Johnson disclosed Monday it had also received a subpoena from the U.S. Attorney's Office for the District of Massachusetts seeking information about its support of organizations that pay for patient assistance. Those follow similar subpoenas sent to four drugmakers in 2015 and 2016 -- Gilead Sciences, Jazz Pharmaceuticals, Valeant Pharmaceuticals and Biogen.

U.S. officials have not commented about the probe. But they could be trying to assess whether drugmakers are covering patients' copays for expensive drugs and leaving taxpayers with the bill for the remainder of the cost, said Joel Hay, professor of pharmaceutical economics and policy at the University of Southern California. Hay has served as a paid expert witness in lawsuits against drugmakers. Pharmaceutical companies cannot subsidize the purchase of their products by Medicare.

Paying a relatively small subsidy for patients' copays can also "take the pressure" off Congress to pass reforms that meaningfully slash drug prices in a way that undercuts the bottom line, said Prasad.

The Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America, the drug industry's trade association, responded to questions about the NEJM study in a statement: "While we cannot speak for particular organizations, we have heard from many patients who are concerned about the growing out-of-pocket cost burden when trying to access needed health care services and treatments."

KHN's coverage of prescription drug development, costs and pricing is supported in part by the Laura and John Arnold Foundation.

Read more articles from theBody, here.

 

Saturday, March 4, 2017

NASTAD Releases Statement of HIV Risk When Undetectable


The national AIDS nonprofit will “widely share” the science-based 
evidence of HIV transmission risks.
March 2, 2017


____________________________________________________________________________________ 


The National Alliance of State & Territorial AIDS Directors (NASTAD) released its own statement regarding the risk of sexual transmission of HIV from people who are virally suppressed.

The statement affirms that “durably virally suppressed people living with HIV on antiretroviral therapy do not sexually transmit the virus.” It describes virally suppressed as “having a consistent viral load of less than <200 copies/ml.”

In its statement, NASTAD says it and its members “will widely share this new scientific understanding of the risk of sexual transmission of HIV from virally suppressed people living with HIV to both promote optimal health outcomes and reduce stigma. We will continue to support efforts to examine and support evidence-based public health policies, approaches and resources to promote and reduce barriers to HIV prevention and care. NASTAD members will also continue to emphasize the importance of providing comprehensive prevention and care services for people living with HIV to improve their quality of life and reduce risk of transmission to others. In conjunction with new and existing partners, our members also pledge to:

  • Promote public education and an evidence-based understanding of HIV transmission risk
  • Use this information to provide unequivocal public health leadership on decriminalizing HIV status
  • Promote comprehensive care services for individuals living with HIV and work to achieve viral suppression among all people living with HIV
  • Promote comprehensive prevention services for individuals at high-risk for HIV acquisition.
“The science is clear that people living with HIV with a sustained undetectable viral load do not transmit the virus to others. What’s also clear is that we have the tools to end the HIV epidemic and HIV-related stigma and make new infections a thing of the past. Today, we tackle a major part of this work by raising awareness about the latest science of HIV transmission risk,” said NASTAD executive director Murray Penner in a press release about the statement.

“Until now, there hasn’t been anyone ensuring this life-changing information is communicated clearly and meaningfully to people living with HIV,” added Bruce Richman, executive director of Prevention Access Campaign and the Undetectable = Untransmittable Initiative. “NASTAD was the first nonprofit to endorse the Prevention Access Campaign’s Consensus Statement last year, representing a bold step toward sharing a message that will improve the social, sexual and reproductive lives of millions of people living with HIV in the U.S. and around the world.”

NASTAD endorsed PAC’s statement last fall. That statement declares that people with HIV who are taking meds and have maintained an undetectable viral load for at least six months have a “negligible to non-existent” risk of transmitting the virus sexually. It defines negligible as being “so small or unimportant as to be not worth considering; insignificant.” 




For related POZ articles, click #Undetectable or read “Does Undetectable Mean Uninfectious? The Challenge of Explaining HIV Study Results.”
  
Read more articles from POZ, here. 

Friday, March 3, 2017

How NOT To Treat an HIV-Positive Person After Having Sex


February 27 2017
 
 
__________________________________________________________________________________ 
 
 
One of the most important qualities about sex is the treatment we receive afterward. It’s what truly defines a person’s character (at least for me). Even if the sex wasn’t great, manners and decency will make anyone believe it was. But in today’s hookup culture, getting dismissed unceremoniously becomes part of the regime. 

When you're  living with HIV, you pay special attention to the way you're  treated after sex, especially when your status has been newly disclosed. Hookup apps like Grindr force those gay men living with HIV like us to observe how they're being treated before sex — you think we’re not going to notice what happens after?  
 
Social stigma is everywhere, which makes many people  either hesitant to disclose right away, or choose to only enter sexual relationships with people who educate themselves on PrEP, condoms, and what "undetectable" actually means. With so much access to HIV education, no one wants to play teacher anymore. 

While there are many things to remember, there are a few fails that stick out in particular when talking to someone who's HIV-positive. If you can indulge me, allow me  to point out the major no-no’s:  

Stop Asking: “Are You Sure You’re Undetectable…?” 

Social stigma has created a phobia around HIV and STIs. Even though many people know what undetectable means, they ask it the same way they ask the atrocious “Are you sure you’re clean?” question.

Trust people when they say they are undetectable. We ought to know, right? 

Don’t Be Paranoid. 

If you’re going to be weird and awkward the whole time, I’d rather us not have sex at all. I can’t tell you how many guys tell me stories of people who upon hearing their status instantly crawl into a shell. HIV turns into an invisible elephant in the room too awkward to mention. 

Just because you hear the word “HIV” doesn’t mean you need to: a) feel sorry for us, which kinda turns into pity sex; b) start asking a million questions as if you were their doctor; c) get quiet all of a sudden as if your silence is going to reverse the not-so-fluid sex you just had; or d) feel the need to quickly escape while holding your breath as if you're going to breathe in HIV on the way out.  

Don’t Project Your Lack of Knowledge on Them. 

Just because you haven’t taken the time to educate yourself on HIV and STIs doesn’t mean you have to use me as your brochure. Don’t get me wrong, HIV-positive people are well-versed in how to talk to people about the virus and how to protect others from contracting it, but never should you depend on them to be your Wikipedia. 

For your own education, start by reading: 

Can I Get HIV Through Oral Sex? 
Can I Get STIs Through Rimming? 
6 Ways Gay & Bi Men Can Get HIV
Can I Get HIV if I'm a Top? 
Yes You Can Get an STI From Not Having Sex

Trust me, poz people come equipped with knowledge and supplies. Don’t try to make them feel guilty for enjoying casual sex. We know our status. We’ve suppressed the virus and we know how to protect you. Can you say the same for yourself?

Don’t Give a Lecture. 

The emotional strength we  have built for themselves cannot be broken by your attempted lecture. Because people living with HIV need to have an open communication with their doctors, chances are we’re probably the healthiest person you’ve ever slept with — and I’m including that group of people you had sex with who claim they “know” their status, even though they haven't been tested in a couple years. 

HIV-positive people take control of our health because we have to. They know the status of their bodies and come well-equipped with knowledge about how to make safer choices with sex partners. 

Trust me, we're the last ones who need a lecture.

Read more articles from PLUS, here.
 

Facebook Steps Up Suicide Prevention Efforts


March 02 2017


_________________________________________________________________________________ 



Facebook is rolling out new suicide prevention tools, in the wake of some people having live-streamed suicides on its Facebook Live feature.

The site will integrate suicide prevention help into Facebook Live, allowing users to access assistance immediately, officials announced today. It will also offer live chat support from crisis support organizations through its Messenger application, and it is testing artificial intelligence designed to streamline the reporting of posts indicating suicidal thoughts. 

Suicide prevention tools have been available on Facebook for some time — for instance, links to support groups, prompts to reach out to a friend, and means for users to report friends’ posts that exhibit intentions of self-harm. Today’s update is aimed at making them quicker and easier to use.

“Our suicide prevention tools for Facebook posts will now be integrated into Facebook Live,” says a letter from site staffers. “People watching a live video have the option to reach out to the person directly and to report the video to us. We will also provide resources to the person reporting the live video to assist them in helping their friend.” The person sharing the video will see resources on their screen and can choose to reach out to a friend, contact a help line, or see tips.

People will be able to connect with support organizations through Messenger, with the option to message users directly from an organization’s page.  Participating groups include Crisis Text Line, the National Eating Disorder Association, and the National Suicide Prevention Lifeline. Facebook and the participating groups are launching a video campaign to raise awareness of prevention services.

In the most innovative move, Facebook is testing pattern recognition, an artificial intelligence program, as a means to make it easier to report posts indicating intents of self-harm. This “will make the option to report a post about ‘suicide or self injury’ more prominent,” the letter says. The site is also testing pattern recognition “to identify posts as very likely to include thoughts of suicide,” even if these posts have not been reported, with Facebook then sending resources to the user if deemed necessary. The test is starting in the U.S.

It’s relatively rare for suicides to be streamed on Facebook Live, a real-time video service launched last year, but there have been some instances, USA Today reports. I January a 14-year-old girl in Florida and a 33-year-old man in Los Angeles streamed their suicides on the service.

"Some people may say we should cut off the stream the moment there's a hint of somebody talking about suicide, but what we learned from the experts and what they emphasized to us is that cutting off the stream too early removes the chance of someone being able to reach out and provide help," Jennifer Guadagno, Facebook's lead researcher for suicide prevention, told USA Today. "In this way, Live becomes a lifeline. It opens up the opportunity for people to reach out for support and for people to give support at this time that's critically important."

LGBT people, especially young people, are at higher risk for suicide than the general population. The rate of suicide attempts is four times greater for lesbian, gay, and bisexual youth and two times greater for questioning youth than that of straight youth. Forty percent of transgender adults told a recent national survey that they made a suicide attempt; 92 percent of them reported having attempted suicide before the age of 25. Advances toward equality, however, are linked to a lowering of the suicide rate, a recent study indicated.

LGBT youth (ages 24 and younger) who are considering suicide can reach the Trevor Project Lifeline at (866) 488-7386. If you are a trans or gender-nonconforming person considering suicide, Trans Lifeline can be reached at (877) 565-8860. The National Suicide Prevention Lifeline at (800) 273-8255 can also be reached 24 hours a day by people of all ages and identities.
Read more articles from PLUS, here.

Don’t Let HIV Stigma Keep You From Enjoying Sex


March 03 2017
 
 
___________________________________________________________________________________ 
 
 
How do you decide something is true? By that I mean, when is the moment you separate the intellect from your intuition to decipher absolute truths from flexible ones? Let's be frank: it is human instinct to want sex. But to enjoy sex requires something else, otherwise it becomes another ritual like going to the gym or, worse, getting waxed. The enjoyment part of sex often stems from feeling free and uninhibited — a mental state you can only access without the fear of judgment.

And if there’s one thing that keeps us all from entering a place of enjoyment, it’s shame. 
 
It never ceases to amaze me how much the world shames people who like having sex, as if we’re bad people or we’re putting ourselves at risk simply by having sex (science has offered plenty of ways to prevent sexually transmitted infections and pregnancy). As a gay man with an iPhone, I am well-versed with the type of verbiage on hookup apps.

A few weeks ago, I was having a conversation with my friend who struggles with personal shame around his HIV status. Having discovered he was positive in his mid-20s, he felt as if he needed to change perspectives on sex completely. Now that he is HIV-positive he felt he needed to either stop liking sex or stop having it altogether — as if not enjoying it would reverse time, and ultimately the virus itself. Crazy, right?

Even though he was on treatment and undetectable, his attitude towards sex was completely different than mine. And it wasn’t because of our statuses, but rather society’s association with them.

When I was in my early-twenties, I based a lot of my self esteem on sex. Like many of my other gay friends living in Los Angeles at the time, having sex was metaphoric to our status in the world. It meant we were worthy enough to be wanted, sought after, needed. Of course it’s always short-lived, which fueled the need to have more. But just because I’m older now doesn’t mean I have to let it go.

I’ve always thought of sex as recreational, and for many of my friends who find themselves enslaved by stigma, it’s easy to start playing a game of “What If?”
What if no one finds me sexy anymore because I’m HIV-positive?
What if people think I’m “dirty?”
What if people think I am a bad person?
What if people treat me differently?
What if I’m undateable?
This is always a dangerous game to play because before we know it, we turn it into a game of “I Am.”
I am not sexy anymore because I’m HIV-positive.
I am dirty.
I am a bad person.
I am treated differently.
I am undateable.
When we let stigma seep into our lives, it eventually changes what we know to be true. Sooner or later, we forget how to enjoy the most basic pleasures in life — from laughter, to relationships, to food, and yes, to sex.

The absolute truth is that undetectable means uninfectious. To hell with the stigma!

If we let HIV stigma keep us from enjoying sex, we’re allowing a lie to control the truth. And if we let just one lie win, we create opportunities for other lies to flourish. We’re only as authentic as we let ourselves be. Everyone deserves pleasure — you, me, your idiot neighbor who fills the garbage can up too high, everyone!

Being afraid of having sex, much less being afraid of enjoying sex, isn’t going to end stigma. But you know what will? Looking at it directly in the face. At the end of the day, stigma is a coward. When you stand up to it, it will run away.

There’s nothing wrong with enjoying sex, so long as you and your partner practice preventative tools. Trust me, condoms are sexy, but nothing is sexier than knowledge. With knowledge comes freedom, and with that comes permission to enjoy the things we once deprived ourselves of — yes, I'm talking about sex again. 

David Artavia is the associate editor of the Advocate magazine and Plus magazine. Follow him on Twitter: @DMArtavia and like him on Facebook.
 
Read more articles from PLUS, here.