Name-based surveillance and public health interventions for persons with HIV infection

Name-based surveillance of HIV infection is the law in 31 U.S. states but r emains controversial, This policy can be advocated solely to support survei llance of the epidemic, but a frequent argument is that it also provides a public health benefit by allowing follow-up of HIV-infected persons. These persons can then receive timely medical care and can be assisted with notif ying sex and needle-sharing partners. Few comparative data are available to evaluate the outcomes of these interventions, In five states with name-bas ed surveillance of HIV infection, the Multistate Evaluation of Surveillance for HIV Study Group surveyed a cross-sectional probability sample of perso ns with AIDS who tested positive for HIV before the date of their AIDS diag nosis, Health department follow-up of a reported HIV infection was not asso ciated with more timely receipt of medical care after a positive HIV test r esult. Only 8.6% of persons who delayed medical care after their first posi tive HIV test result gave concern about being reported by name as a reason; no person gave it as the main reason. Persons who were tested anonymously and those who were tested confidentially did not differ in the mean number of sex and needle-sharing partners notified: Those tested anonymously repor ted personally notifying 3.85 sex and needle-sharing partners, and those te sted confidentially reported notifying-personally and through the health de partment-3.80 partners. Many researchers and policymakers believe that name -based surveillance of HIV infection will have positive or negative effects on partner notification and access to health care, These results suggest t hat the potential for such effects has been exaggerated.