US Insurers Are Still Charging for HIV Prevention Pills That Should Be Free (msn.com) 144
The Washington Post reports on tens of thousands of Americans "forced to pay for medication" to prevent the HIV infections, "despite federal requirements guaranteeing free access to treatment...according to multiple studies and interviews with medical professionals, activists and patients."
Insurance companies are skirting rules compelling them to pay for pre-exposure prophylaxis treatment, known as PrEP, researchers and HIV advocacy organizations say — leaving patients to shell out hundreds of dollars each year for medication co-pays, doctor visits and screenings required to stay on drugs that reduce the risk of contracting HIV through sex by 99 percent.
Under the Affordable Care Act, commercial insurers must cover certain preventive health services. This is supposed to include at least one form of oral PrEP and related health services, such as regular testing for HIV and other sexually transmitted diseases, for people at increased risk of contracting HIV, according to 2021 guidance from the Biden administration. Responding to complaints that patients were still being charged, the Biden administration in October released new guidance instructing private insurers to cover all forms of PrEP without prior authorization, including new long-acting injections.
Nearly a third of a national sample of 325 health coverage plans on government insurance marketplaces did not include PrEP on their lists of covered preventive services, according to the AIDS Institute, a New York-based nonprofit. Between 20 and 30 percent of PrEP users with commercial insurance still had to pay for it despite the coverage mandate, with an average cost of $227 for 2022, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Government regulators have been slow to crack down on insurer violations, activists say, creating a barrier to getting more at-risk Americans on the medication. The CDC estimates that only a third of the more than 1 million people who could benefit from PrEP have received a prescription, according to its most recent data.
The issue appears to be lax enforcement against insurers who break rules, a policy advocate told the newspaper. America's Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, which enforces regulations for preventive care, "said it takes enforcement seriously and recently found two insurance plans in violation of coverage requirements following consumer complaints."
And the Post spoke to an official at America's Labor Department, who said they were investigating a complaint against a large insurance company, but "said the agency does not have enough staff to conduct proactive investigations and lacks the authority to sue and penalize insurers that break the rules."
Under the Affordable Care Act, commercial insurers must cover certain preventive health services. This is supposed to include at least one form of oral PrEP and related health services, such as regular testing for HIV and other sexually transmitted diseases, for people at increased risk of contracting HIV, according to 2021 guidance from the Biden administration. Responding to complaints that patients were still being charged, the Biden administration in October released new guidance instructing private insurers to cover all forms of PrEP without prior authorization, including new long-acting injections.
Nearly a third of a national sample of 325 health coverage plans on government insurance marketplaces did not include PrEP on their lists of covered preventive services, according to the AIDS Institute, a New York-based nonprofit. Between 20 and 30 percent of PrEP users with commercial insurance still had to pay for it despite the coverage mandate, with an average cost of $227 for 2022, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Government regulators have been slow to crack down on insurer violations, activists say, creating a barrier to getting more at-risk Americans on the medication. The CDC estimates that only a third of the more than 1 million people who could benefit from PrEP have received a prescription, according to its most recent data.
The issue appears to be lax enforcement against insurers who break rules, a policy advocate told the newspaper. America's Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, which enforces regulations for preventive care, "said it takes enforcement seriously and recently found two insurance plans in violation of coverage requirements following consumer complaints."
And the Post spoke to an official at America's Labor Department, who said they were investigating a complaint against a large insurance company, but "said the agency does not have enough staff to conduct proactive investigations and lacks the authority to sue and penalize insurers that break the rules."
for profit healthcare needs to go! (Score:5, Insightful)
for profit healthcare needs to go!
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Every type of healthcare is "for profit" healthcare, ESPECIALLY when it's run and administered by politicians.
Re: (Score:2)
Hey, it's a living!
Joking aside, the problem is that profit becomes the primary motivation and the highest priority. Many medical problems have real solutions, but the problem of needing a bigger profit can NEVER be solved.
Re: (Score:2)
That is why there are "mutual" insurance companies, that are owned by the customers.
Re: (Score:2)
for profit healthcare needs to go!
The rallying cry of sportsball/go-fast-thing fans everywhere.
Imagine if we spent the equivalent of a year's worth of entertainment on STEM - keeping all the discoveries and advancements in the public domain.....
HAHAHAHA. Will never happen. We *far* perfer whining and moaning to a little discomfort.
Re: for profit healthcare needs to go! (Score:4, Insightful)
Hack your way through the forest to get to someone who will sell you filled milk and tainted meat. It's up to you to make sure it won't make you sick or kill your children. After all, the free market should stop these from being iyn the market.
Of course it did not work like that. Change the name, move to a new city with your profits and start over again.
Now you could have non government certification, but without the government to prevent fraudulent copying of the certification...
Re: (Score:2)
Hack your way through the forest to get to someone who will sell you filled milk and tainted meat. It's up to you to make sure it won't make you sick or kill your children.
They might even get a kick out of poisoning his kids. That would be understandable, and without courts, fair game.
Re: for profit healthcare needs to go! (Score:4, Insightful)
No, the Free Market does actually work. It only takes a critical mass of stiffs piling up before the Free Market puts an end to the companies producing the stiffs. Of course, these days there is always a vocal minority that will insist the Stiff Problem is a Fake News and will give you numerous reasons why it does not occur, or if it does, then it is not really a problem because we can move the stiffs out of sight and not have to walk by them. Hence we need to protect those companies being accused of causing the stiffs.
The next stage is a political movement devoted to denying the Stiff Problem and that if we were to simply ignore it, it would resolve on its own, which it would have to since it is not really there. The political movement would then find other key examples of problems that are not really problems because they do not exist. Soon, there is an entire class of people, we call them Denialists or Conspiracy Theorists, who think this way..
The last stage is where the new political group starts attacking Science and government bodies whose job it is to stop the stiffs from occurring. Societal collapse happens because it turns out the Stiff Problem was an actual problem....which pleases the Denialists or Conspiracy Theorists...the ones that haven't yet been turned into stiffs, because they point to societal collapse as evidence that insisting the Stiff Problem was real caused the collapse.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Yup! All companies making healthcare equipment, supplies, drugs, etc. should all close their doors. Doctors, nurses and medical technicians should all work for free too.
Who's saying this? The problem is insurance companies and always has been. I spent nearly 7 years working in medical billing software development so I have the first hand experience to back this up. Insurance companies go out of their way to make it as difficult as possible for claims to be filed with them and will find any excuse they can to deny payment for a claim. Every carrier is different and has their own specific requirements for claims to even be submitted and here in the USA those requirements are
Re: for profit healthcare needs to go! (Score:3, Insightful)
I think the point is that TANSTAAFL is universal. Sure, people like rsilvergun argue all the time based on the idea that every unseen cost is equal to no cost because that is his lived experience within Plato's cave. But despite his denials, there's a whole other world he's never seen, and he'll die of old age within two decades, never having seen it.
Re: (Score:2)
And another asshole who violates Hume's law. This time it was you.
Yay!! (Score:2)
US Insurers Are Still Charging for HIV Prevention Pills That Should Be Free.
Welcome to capitalism.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: Yay!! (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
You seem to think there are only two choices.
Re: Yay!! (Score:5, Insightful)
He's American, so the only choices in his head are whatever he's currently got and communism.
Re:Yay!! (Score:4, Informative)
In this example, the healthcare corporations are being shielded from prosecution because they've fraudulently charged their customers for services the law says must be provided free of charge. This is usually referred to as "light touch regulation," which roughly translates into "letting them get away with it" in our language.
When you let corporations essentially pay for your electoral system, as the saying goes, "He who pays the piper calls the tune." Welcome to Corporatocracy.
Re: Yay!! (Score:2)
The issue i have with publicly traded health companies is that their primary focus changes from helping others to helping their shareholders. I lump insurance companies in this. Seeing how much is spent on advertising, stadium naming rights, sponsorships... all proof we're being overcharged.
The affordable Care act is going to get repealed (Score:3, Insightful)
With the affordable Care act go on stuff like this isn't going to be long the world. Just like a whole bunch of people who voted for people who are going to repeal the bill that pays for their medicine...
The leopards are going to eat very very well or at least the next 4 years.
Re: (Score:2)
The leopards are going to eat very very well
You mean the extremely corrupt, amoral, cheating wealthy are going to eat very, very well.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, the leopards.
It's from the Leopards Eating People's Faces party. The one that people vote for while inexplicably believing that the leopards won't eat their face.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It's not 2016. The Republicans' playbook on the ACA is now defund rather than repeal. Of course, to anyone who already lives in one of the states* which rejected the ACA subsidies in the first place, it makes little difference. It sucks for the people who will be paying more for their health insurance, but seeing as how 59% of Americans are already insured through their employer (according to Google), it's probably more a case of "I got mine" than people who voted for a leopard to eat their face. [nytimes.com]
Asking C
Like I said it depends on how much power (Score:2, Troll)
Assuming nobody stops them with their power fully consolidated they don't have to listen to us or care about us anymore. Any more than Vladi
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Morons willingly handed over control to people whose overt interest is building power and wealth for themselves and whose motto is "you're fired". People voted to allow their neighbor to get denied healthcare so that some rich dude who has more money than they would ever need can grab even more it.
Re: (Score:2)
I never heard of people willingly inviting a billionaire cartel to rule them. This is like chickens voting to hire a wolf as their security guard.
Re:The affordable Care act is going to get repeale (Score:4, Interesting)
It is unlikely that the GOP will have enough of a majority to repeal the ACA -but it's funding is up for renewal in 2025.
The likely result of this is an abandoned and unenforced set of requirements (like the one in the article) and no funding for subsidizing insurance for Americans who do not have insurance thru their employers. The wealthy don't need insurance to receive care, the middle class have health insurance paid by their employers, and the poor will have to do without medical care.
They've already more or less killed subsidies (Score:2)
he's going to kill education too (Score:2, Interesting)
just get the drugs in canada (Score:2)
just get the drugs in canada
PrEP is a Faustian bargain to begin with. (Score:2, Flamebait)
it's pretty weird from both medical and social pov that prep is even approved let alone covered like this.
it's somewhat like taking antibiotics every day to prevent syphilis. This includes the resultant creation of multi drug resistant strains of HIV.
The whole thing is is a Faustian bargain even separately from who bears the direct financial costs.
Re:PrEP is a Faustian bargain to begin with. (Score:4, Interesting)
The alternative is that people won't change their behavior, they'll get AIDS and die. Not that you'd care, but some (hopefully most) of us give a shit about human life even after it's out of a womb.
Do you have any plan for how to get people to stop having sex? Not everyone is cutout for monogamy, joining a monastery, or becoming a slashdot troll.
It's hard enough to get people to take PrEP. Second there's no evidence PrEP would cause super-bugs worse than a person getting AIDS and then having to go on the same drugs as whats in PrEP. The more copies of a virus in a person, the higher the probability a resistance evading virus will appear. In other words, taking anti-HIV medication after you've got a full blown infection is more likely to cause a super bug than taking the drugs as a prevention. Also, there are only a few anti-HIV drugs in the repertoire so if PrEP resistance emerges there are still treatment options.
Re: (Score:2)
Not everyone is cutout for monogamy, joining a monastery, or becoming a slashdot troll.
there's also, you know ... condoms.
Also, a LOT of human society is about individuals learning to moderate our animal tendencies, often with both carrots and sticks from our culture / society. Anger, lying , cheating , stealing, beating people up , overeating, etc etc. Het guys (and girls) don't exactly get to engage in consequence free unfettered sexual expression either...
It's hard enough to get people to take PrEP. ...
ok ok. "Faustian bargain" is perhaps too strong... let's say "double edged sword".
moral hazard, risk compensation, etc.
e.g.
Re: (Score:2)
Why? Better idea, how about all the evil and selfish ones not be allowed to replicate? Instead of selecting on IQ, select on being a decent fucking human being.
Re: (Score:2)
It's decent to use the state's monopoly on violence to force people to pay for your irresponsible lifestyle? You are aware that monopoly on violence in the end means death threats? That sometimes are executed. Is relying on that type of violence decent in your eyes???
Re: (Score:2)
It's decent to use the state's monopoly on violence to force people to pay for your irresponsible lifestyle?
If you consider the consequences for refusing to pay like a small percent extra tax extreme, then we can extend that argument to other things. Things YOU may benefit from that some other people may not. For example, are you married? Married couples pay less tax than two unmarried individuals. Then, there's the fact that a person who earns more than you has to pay more taxes than you. Why should a person with more income than you this year be forced with the threat of violence to pay more tax than you? You'r
Re: (Score:2)
I don't live in USA but I generally agree with you. Taxation is theft. However, e.g., you breast cancer example is bad. Breast cancer is mostly genetic, having unsafe sex is an option, an option almost ALL adults don't do. It is not like it is hard to avoid. It is more comparable to people DUI than someone walking in the forest having an accident and breaking a leg (both walking and being in the nature is a win from health perspective so the odd broken leg is a low price to pay for the overall effect of peo
Re: PrEP is a Faustian bargain to begin with. (Score:5, Insightful)
It's no different than malaria prevention, to eradicate the disease. The medical and social reasons for doing this are obvious, unless you're dumb or hate people. Don't keep us guessing...
Re: (Score:2)
It's not that simple. PrEP for malaria would mean just having everyone in risky areas take antibiotics all the time. This is not something that's done because it would quickly result in resistant malaria. (this, in fact already happened back in the early 1900s w/ quinine, apparently (https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3866000/ ) )
Drug resistance is a big threat ( https://www.cdc.gov/antimicrob... [cdc.gov] )
One reason PrEP is even entertained in HIV is because we don't have a cure for it anyway if someone get
Re: (Score:2)
Dude. You're mixing a few concepts here. Firstly malaria is not a microbe and has nothing to do with antibiotics. It's a group of parasites and the correct treatment is an anti-parasitic. This is important since parasites are vastly slower at adapting on an evolutionary scale than microbes which is precisely why people are far more concerned about the use of antibiotics than anti-parasitics (the latter of which you can buy at virtually every pet store - remember chloroquine?).
Secondly prophylaxis does not c
Re: (Score:2)
Sorry, you're right i got my pathogens mixed up for malaria.
On the HIV side the resistance concern is related to various forms of non-adherence such that infection happens while the patient has less than effective levels of the drug in their system and that's where the selection pressure comes in.
e.g. this is about a "long acting" injectable that has a surprisingly long half-life, but some similar concerns with intermittent use of the pills as well ( though apparently that's less of a concern since it does
Re: (Score:2)
Yes it is, because there are another mean to avoid HIV that works excellent, condoms. And adults pay for that themselves. There are no condoms you can use to not get malaria. There are no excuses to get HIV today, as opposed to malaria (well, yeah, if you get raped or get HIV from a blood transfusion but that basically never happens). If you get HIV it is completely your own fault and responsibility. The culture in the gay community is completely stupid. If you think Trump is a moron, the gay community is o
Don't worry ... (Score:3, Insightful)
US Insurers Are Still Charging for HIV Prevention Pills That Should Be Free
I'm sure they won't be "should be free" sometime after Jan 20th 2025 ...
(Double checking Project 2025 and Republican ACA agendas ... yup.)
$200 (Score:2)
Dude, I spend over $200/yr just on multivitamins.
These are just beggars who want to live a lascivious lifestyle without cost or consequences.
What's next, taxpayer-funded meth and GBA for support of their sexual expression? What kind of tyanny would suppress that by making them pay?
I can't believe there are real people who think $200/yr to prevent AIDS is a bad deal. Here's another preventative method: monogamy. You even get tax discount.
If we're talking about severely impoverished people, OK, that's a diff
Re: (Score:2)
Here's another preventative method: monogamy. You even get tax discount.
Hell, if we didn't have an economy which was dependent on people constantly popping out more kids, I'd be all for creating a tax credit for abstinence.
Re: (Score:2)
Huh. On my first read i thought it was $200/mo.. but you're right in that it's $200/yr, but the source it links says that's for ancillary stuff: office visits and some blood testing. That link doesn't even mention the cost of (or co-pays for) the drugs themselves.
So the whole argument of the article is about $200/yr on something that (especially if we now add doctors costs and blood testing) something like $25k/yr.
(elsewhere the web says all-in it's about $100/mo on avg for commercially insured people
Re: (Score:2)
Sure, bud. [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:2)
So our government is corrupt? (Score:2)
There seem to be a lot of corporations that just ignore the law lately.
Not to worry. It's just an optics problem. (Score:2)
As regulatory bodies are dismantled over the next few years, these practices will become the norm, unworthy of being called out specifically. Then it's not a problem anymore.
"Insurers are still charging..." (Score:2)
US Insurers Are Still Charging for HIV Prevention Pills That Should Be Free
No, they aren't. Patients aren't paying insurers for medications that aren't covered by their policy, that's not how insurance works!
A person pay their insurers, and the insurer pays for covered medicines, treatments, and services, and the patient pays the pharmacy or provider for any medications, treatments or procedures that aren't covered.
You probably meant to say something like "Some Insured Americans are paying for treatments that should be free", but that's not what you wrote...
Re: (Score:2)
If the govt wants it to be free, the govt should pay for it.
The government should have taken over the function of for-profit insurance middlemen decades ago, and freed up all those people to do something actually productive in society.. But the insurance companies have successfully fought tooth and nail to prevent that.
So they can suck it up.
Re: (Score:2)
The ACA is a confused mess. Don't expect it to make any sense.
Re: (Score:2)
Government spending on healthcare in the US is actually higher per head of population than in the UK.
Re: (Score:1)
And if people were actually able to do that, you would have a point. You do not and you are just being an asshole here.
Re: Free free free (Score:2, Insightful)
People really aren't able to refrain from giving it to random strangers? Wow. I didn't know that. If people really can't control themselves, I guess we shouldn't hold it against them. #legalizerape /sarc, in case you need the joke explained to you.
Re: (Score:2)
People really aren't able to refrain from giving it to random strangers?
There seems to be this prevailing belief among some nerds that if sex was consequence-free, they'd be more likely to actually get some. It's depicted quite frequently in sci-fi, where there's some uninhibited alien human society that's all about free love and they can't wait to get their snu-snu on. There's even a trope for it. [tvtropes.org]
As a gay guy, I noticed this a lot because I'd be watching ST:TNG and it'd be like ugh, not another episode where the writers are pandering to horny straight teenage boys, again.
Re: (Score:2)
Sounds like a Gamma belief structure.
The truth is that horny straight teenage boys don't get laid because they have nothing to offer women. Those who do, get laid. My experience with gay friends is that there is a dynamic at work there also, but it is not the same one that works with women.
Re: (Score:2)
My experience with gay friends is that there is a dynamic at work there also, but it is not the same one that works with women.
Gay men can be surprisingly catty with each other. It's one of those things straight folks usually don't expect, because often they believe the stereotypes about gay promiscuity. It's far more likely that if you just put two random gay men together that they'll just start arguing about politics, disagreements over pop artists, or how the other is annoyingly too feminine or masculine.
So yeah, the dynamic mostly is that they'd rather fuck than argue, and the stars don't usually align that way.
Re: Free free free (Score:2)
You know...if you put a random straight man and a woman together, chances are pretty slim they'd start fucking too. Unless of course they're one-dimensional marionettes in someone's fantasy, rather than real people.
Re: Free free free (Score:2)
Yes, there is a lot of sad shit between writers' ears that somehow makes it to the page and sometimes to the screen. Real life is both much more mundane, but in the end more satisfying.
Re: (Score:2)
Only anonymous gay sex
Sounds like something I could try with my partner to spice things up in the bedroom, but how do you keep the Guy Fawkes mask from falling off?
Re: Free free free (Score:2)
Soldering and brazing. TIG welding if you're serious.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
You know what else is free? Not fucking anything that moves. And you know what's even more free than that? Not fucking multiple random anythings that move in quick succession as a matter of habit.
Same self-important dipshits that had absolutely no problem telling all us regular people to refrain from breathing near each other because contagious disease that gives you the sniffles seem to have a whole lot of problems with warning against anonymous casual sex that can lead to something considerably worse than the sniffles and a fever.
It's almost as if preventing communicable disease isn't the objective, but screwing over the majority for the benefit of a small minority is the objective.
You know what else is free? Thinking before you say stupid shit.
Re: Free free free (Score:2)
Re: Free free free (Score:2)
Yes. And we should enforce the anti-monopoly laws we've had on the books for over a century do that no one business is too big to fail.
Re: (Score:2)
But I did think
Oh well that's just sad then.
Re: (Score:2)
Not one actual argument in your post. Not surprised.
Re: (Score:2)
The arguments have long since made and hashed over to death. I'm just here to point and laugh at the morons who insist on clamping their hands over their ears and humming so they remain impervious to those arguments.
Re: (Score:2)
Not one link to an already published text about this in your post. Not surprised.
Re: (Score:2)
You appear to believe your are in some sort of formal debating society.
I'm not going to waste my breath on a poster with a lung history of stupid posts and utter imperviousness to facts, logic, reason or just basic observation. So I'll take the piss instead.
If you take that to mean you have won in the debating society that exists only in your head then free to do so. It does not make you correct about anything.
Re: (Score:2)
Not one actual argument in your post. What a surprise. Not.
Re: (Score:2)
Not one actual argument in your post. What a surprise. Not.
Stupid shit Arguing with idiots is a waste of time.
Re: (Score:2)
This is more akin to driving under influence. And yes, if you do your insurance typically has exceptions for that. You don't force feed straight women "the pill" to prevent unwanted pregnancies, that is a private personal responsibility, which basically everyone handle without any fuzz.
Re:Free free free (Score:5, Informative)
You know what else is free? Not fucking anything that moves.
Why am I not surprised that RightwingNutjob would suggest abstinence is the appropriate public health policy.
Re: Free free free (Score:2, Interesting)
There's a long way from promiscuity to abstinence. Deconstruct the binary.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
How would someone in that situation get HIV?? Straight couples in that situation that care don't have unplanned pregnancies.
Dirty Blood (Score:2)
You might think that hospitals are great, but they aren't. They're just people who sometimes fuck up or maybe not give a shit one way or the other. Nurses can be judgemental pricks, same as all. You have an idea of perfection that doesn't exist. You now have an opportunity to accept that.
Re: (Score:2)
What are you talking about? Basically no one has gotten HIV from blood transfusions (or dirty needles or whatever) at hospitals in the West since the 80s. But sure, if that happens, the victim of course shall have access to all possible support and help with her/his situation, including PrEP. But that is not what this thread is about. Duh!
Re: (Score:2)
Do you even know what PrEP is and its purpose? It is for people too lazy to use condoms. Yes, that's it. How much does a year of condom consumption cost? Why should PrEP be cheaper than that? Or subsidized at all when there is an excellent substitute in condoms?
Re: Free free free (Score:2)
s/lazy/drunk and high/
Re: (Score:2)
Is that an excuse?
Re: (Score:2)
Do you think anything you said at all has anything to do with my post? Yeah I knew you missed the point.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes it has. The problem is that you neither can read nor think and reason. Completely emotionally controlled. Like a dog.
Re: (Score:2)
"Anonymous coward" - that says it all.
Re: Free free free (Score:2)
If a person engages in a high-risk activity, is it societies responsibility to try to mitigate the risks they choose to take? Is the concept of 'personal responsibility' extinct?
The pharmaceutical industry got generic birth control pills down to $5/month, but Georgetown Lesbian went before Congress and declared it too expensive, and that women had a right to free birth control/contraception because abstinence, the rhythm method, IUDs, and condoms were not good enough - they'd risk contracting an STD by havi
Re: (Score:2)
Upvote parent!
Re: (Score:2)
as far as HIV goes it's still primarily among MSM community (70% of new cases in US are still among admitted MSM ( https://www.cdc.gov/hiv/data-r... [cdc.gov]) and that's the primary market for PrEP.
A vanishingly small number of people (MSM, sex workers, needle drug users) for whom PrEP is approved / recommended would choose to pay $20k / year for that insurance. Most literally can't and even most of those who technically could wouldn't pay that much.
So... yes it's a socialized cost to try to both help people who w
Re: Infection; from pre to worse? (Score:2)
So... yes it's a socialized cost to try to both help people who won't otherwise help themselves and to keep HIV from spreading further among the broader population.
If only there was some way to avoid spreading HIV...
If TFS here on /. is accurate, PrEP treatments cost about $20/month (about $227/year was stated in TFS, as I recall) - is that really considered a huge expense, putting 99% protection from out of reach of this (electively) at-risk population?
Re: Infection; from pre to worse? (Score:2)
The source of the $227 cost estimate:
Between 20 and 30 percent of PrEP users with commercial insurance still had to pay for it despite the coverage mandate, with an average cost of $227 for 2022, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
Re: (Score:2)
Trust? LOL. If knowing whom to trust was a thing we'd never have elected idiots to office.
Re: (Score:2)
I actually know someone who was involved in a ...love square. 4 gay guys all having sex with one another. One was HIV positive. The rest were on PrEP.
When I asked if there was some shortage of gay guys to fuck that required inclusion of a known HIV-positive person into the mix, I got a shoulder shrug. I'd never take the risk, but they did. And PrEP is good enough that it'll probably work out for them - it has for years now.
Re: (Score:3)
The HIV+ person was probably also on suppressive drugs - typically resulting in an undetectable viral load which means transmission rates, even without PrEP in the mix, are essentially zero.
I can see why it wasn't more than a shoulder shrug even if I also would avoid that risk myself.
Re: (Score:3)
I concede the point and that does make sense. I'd be worried all the time, even though HIV is something you can more or less live with now. The problem is combining it with other chronic illnesses. I'm sure it doesn't ease cancer care, for instance.
Re: (Score:2)
When I asked if there was some shortage of gay guys to fuck that required inclusion of a known HIV-positive person into the mix
Would you ask a straight, monogamous man why he hasn't dumped his girlfriend/wife because she's HIV positive? Polyamorous relationships are still relationships.
Re: (Score:2)
This is a great question. I would, since i'm straight and (mostly) monogamous. Let's try a few scenarios:
1) Woman was cheating, got HIV somehow in the process - divorce/breakup. I'd never have sex with her again.
2) Woman came into relationship with HIV and didn't tell me until afterward - breakup, I'd never have sex with her again.
3) Woman got HIV inadvertently, such as via dental work or a transfusion or something like that. It's happened before, not so common now. This would present a quandary. I'd