Public health, politics don’t have to be fighting each other
Ryan White was a teen who had hemophilia and contracted HIV. The response to his death was an example of how politics can help in a public health crisis. Credit: cdc.gov
Politicizing a public health matter can be a good thing.
In the end with HIV we ended up in a pretty good space. We had a government program, the Ryan White Care Act, that subsidizes healthcare for people who have no other way of paying for it. It addresses a critical need.
Another thing is HIV testing. For a long time, testing was thought to be a bad thing because people felt anyone who tested positive would be stigmatized. There was a lot of back and forth. New York State among several others required name-based reporting to health authorities for an HIV-positive diagnosis that then allows for identification of others who need to be tested. It was to try and do what we’re trying to do with COVID, which is stop virus spread.
But it’s going to be a battle with COVID because it smacks of anti-vaccination. So it may take us a while to find our way with this and get it right.
The other thing is the Food and Drug Administration hasn't made its final recommendation regarding annual boosters at the time of flu vaccine. And I think that might help, too, because in all fairness to even the naysayers, I think our messaging has been very confusing. We really haven't told the story the best way possible so that it's as understandable to as many people as possible.
But when politics gets involved with public health, it has to be aimed at stopping spread of virus. If it doesn’t do that, it’s bad politics. Legislation that goes against public health is counterproductive.
The thing is, this won’t be the last time we have this discussion about politics and public health. Good policy helps stop virus spread, and helps people to make the healthy choice.
We’re already seeing how poor decisions can make it harder to be healthy. In late March, a U.S. District Court judge in Texas ruled against a provision of the Affordable Care Act that required preventive services to be covered by private insurance without copays or deductibles.
Among those is PrEP. What that means is that depending on their insurance, some people may have to pay for the medication that is 99% effective at preventing HIV through sex. The Kaiser Family Foundation wrote about the decision and its implications. The cost for individuals could range from $30 for generic PrEP to $1,000 for a brand-name. The person also might have to share the costs of lab work.
The next pandemic is lurking somewhere and will show itself at some time. We are not doing the best job at handling the ones already in front of us.
I’m just sayin’ that we have some thinking to do about how we get our messages to people and how we use legislation to keep people safe.