Background Many uninsured people living with HIV/AIDS (PLWHA) will obtain managed health insurance coverage when the Affordable Care Act (ACA) is implemented in January 2014. Since 2011, California has transitioned PLWHA to Medicaid managed care (MMC) and to the Low Income Health Program (LIHP). Objectives To draw lessons for the ACA implementation from the transitions into MMC and the LIHP. Methods Surveys about clients and services provided before and after the transition to MMC and the LIHP were sent to 43 HIV service providers. Usable responses were obtained from 18 (42%). Results Although total client loads were similar in the pre- (January 2011) and post- transition periods (June 2012), many clients transitioned from fee-for-service (FFS) Medicaid to MMC. Over this period, responding agencies served 43.5% fewer PLWHA in FFS Medicaid while the share of PLWHA covered by MMC rose from 16.9% to 55.5%. Managed care covered a smaller number of services than either FFS Medicaid or Ryan White sites. Ryan White providers reported that 53% of the clients they served in January 2011 had transitioned to the LIHPs. Nonetheless, they continued to provide services to many of these clients and Ryan White cases loads did not decline. Conclusions PLWHA enrolled in Medicaid managed care continue to depend on Ryan White sites to supply the full range of services that will allow them to take full advantage of increased access to care under ACA.

Historically, California supplemented federal funding of HIV prevention and testing so that Californians with HIV could become aware of their infection and access lifesaving treatment. However, budget deficits in 2009 led the state to eliminate its supplemental funding for HIV prevention. We analyzed the impact of California’s HIV resource allocation change between 2009 and 2011 (state fiscal years). We found that HIV tests declined from 66,629 to 53,760 (19 percent) in local health jurisdictions with high HIV burden. In low-burden jurisdictions, HIV tests declined from 20,302 to 2,116 (90 percent). New HIV/AIDS diagnoses fell from 2,434 in 2009 to 2,235 in 2011 (calendar years) in high-burden jurisdictions and from 346 to 327 in low-burden ones. California’s budget crunch prompted state and local programs to redirect remaining HIV funds from risk reduction education to testing activities. Thus, the impact of the budget cuts on HIV tests and new HIV diagnoses was smaller than might have been expected given the size of the cuts. As California’s fiscal outlook improves, we recommend that the state restore supplemental funding for HIV prevention and testing.

BackgroundThe Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) estimates that 156,300 (95% CI 144,100–165,900) Americans living with HIV in 2012 were unaware of their infection. To increase knowledge of HIV status, CDC guidelines seek to make HIV screening a routine part of medical care. This paper examines how routinely California primary care providers test for HIV and how providers’ knowledge of California’s streamlined testing requirements, use of sexual histories, and having an electronic medical record prompt for HIV testing, relate to test offers.MethodsWe surveyed all ten California health plans offered under health reform’s Insurance Exchange (response rate = 50%) and 322 primary care providers to those plans (response rate = 19%) to assess use of HIV screening and risk assessments.ResultsOnly 31.7% of 60 responding providers reported offering HIV tests to all or most new enrollees and only 8.8% offered an HIV test of blood samples all or most of the time despite the California law requiring that providers offer HIV testing of blood samples in primary care settings. Twenty-eight of the 60 providers (46.6%) were unaware that California had reduced barriers to HIV screening by eliminating the requirement for written informed consent and pre-test counseling. HIV screening of new enrollees all or most of the time was reported by 53.1% of the well-informed providers, but only 7.1% of the less informed providers, a difference of 46 percentage points (95% CI: 21.0%—66.5%). Providers who routinely obtained sexual histories were 29 percentage points (95% CI: 0.2%—54.9%) more likely to screen for HIV all or most of the time than those who did not ask sexual histories.ConclusionChanging HIV screening requirements is important, but not sufficient to make HIV testing a routine part of medical care. Provider education to increase knowledge about the changed HIV testing requirements could positively impact testing rates.

The purpose of the policy panel session was to gather experts in health technology development, HIV service delivery, and law and policy to discuss the benefits and challenges of providing technology-based HIV prevention and care, with a particular focus on health information security and privacy protection. The key discussion questions were: What are the primary concerns of clients regarding privacy and to what extent do clients have control over their private health information? What are the necessary precautions that clients can take to ensure that their health information is kept private? How can technology companies who interact with researchers and healthcare providers improve their privacy protections for clients?Each panelist provided their unique perspective and experience on the topic. While no final standards (beyond HIPAA) or best practices were explored, the panelists and members of the audience expressed strong concerns about the sharing of protected health information and the overriding importance of helping clients to fully understand their risks when they are providing information through digital means. All agreed that privacy of client records must be paramount whether it involves the development of a mobile-based application that allows people to share their STD results with other dating partners or health-related information that clients take away from an agency (e.g., written referrals, lab results). With the rapid growth of technology and digital data, protection of client information remains an increasing challenge for researchers, healthcare providers, policymakers, and other technology companies. More attention on consumer education, health and technology literacy, and increased transparency of protection policies is needed.