The most effective way of recognizing individuals that do not know their HIV status is through a focused and targeted approach of testing HIV at high-risk groups. Previous studies have reported that only 1% of the people tested in the routine testing program are HIV-positive, consequently making the routine testing is expensive by the U. S. government (Castel et al. 2). On the other hand, the similar cost identified more than 20% new cases of HIV case using the targeted HIV testing program. The targeted groups were mainly people in prisons, injection drug users, rehabilitation centers, and healthcare facilities in the surroundings of the HIV prone population (Elías et al. 1). Castel et al (7) assert that the targeted population has a high likelihood of getting HIV than the common population in the U.S. attending the routine health care. According to Castel et al (8), the targeted population is at risk of engaging in highly risky sexual behaviors and drug practice irrespective of their locality. The targeted HIV strategy is likely to offer efficient counseling and education on HIV prevention to a larger population than the routing strategy and at a lesser cost (Elías et al. 1).The CDC should consider offering more counseling and education on HIV prevention to the population at risk than to population on routine health care system (Rizza et al. 916). The new strategy would broaden the HIV prevention awareness, especially in the neglected population that is perceived to be at high risk of contracting HIV (Millett 144). CDC should consider addressing concerns on HIV testing, confidentiality of patients, anonymity, and access to the healthcare. The strategy would reduce stigmatization and discrimination associated with HIV status (Millett et al. 146). An opportunity exists of expanding the coordination of the non-government organization, government agencies, and the private sector toward increasing awareness of HIV epidemic in the United States. Additionally, CDC should consider increasing access to care, support care retention, and raise the health status of individuals with HIV (Rizza et al. 918).
- Castel, Amanda D., Sungwoog Choi, Avi Dor, Jennifer Skillicorn, James Peterson, Nestor
Rocha, and Michael Kharfen.”Comparing Cost-Effectiveness of HIV Testing Strategies: Targeted and Routine Testing in Washington, DC.” PloS one 10.10 (2015): e0139605. Print. - Elías, María Jesús Pérez, Cristina Gomez-Ayerbe, Alfonso Muriel, Maria Eugenia Calonge,
Alberto Diaz, Pilar Pérez Elías, Maria Martinez-Colubi et al. “Comparison of Routine Versus Targeted HIV Testing Strategies: Coverage and Estimated Missed Infections in Emergency Room and Primary Care Centre.” Journal of the International AIDS Society 17.4 Suppl 3 (2014). Print. - Millett, Gregorio A., Jeffrey S. Crowley, Howard Koh, Ronald O. Valdiserri, Thomas Frieden,
Carl W. Dieffenbach, Kevin A. Fenton et al. “A Way Forward: The National HIV/AIDS Strategy and Reducing HIV Incidence in the United States.” JAIDS Journal of Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndromes 55 (2010): S144-S147. Print. - Rizza, Stacey A., Robin J. MacGowan, David W. Purcell, Bernard M. Branson, and Zelalem
Temesgen. “HIV Screening in the Health Care Setting: Status, Barriers, and Potential Solutions.” Mayo Clinic Proceedings 87. 9 (2012): 915-924. Print.
