HealthHIV Releases State of Aging with HIV Survey Results

By: Marcus J. Hopkins, Health Policy Lead Consultant, ADAP Advocacy

HealthHIV has released its fifth annual survey on the State of Aging with HIV™, finding both positive and negative results from patients and providers alike. This report details survey findings and implications across five areas: HIV and Geriatric Care, Comorbidities, Behavioral Health, Access and Payment, and Workforce.

HealthHIV summarized the survey as follows:

"The survey revealed an HIV care system that delivers clinical wins. Over 98% of consumers reported being virally suppressed, and nearly 100% are taking antiretrovirals, the highest rates across five waves of the survey. The same data, however, show that the broader clinical reality of aging with HIV, multimorbidity, frailty risk, mental health burden, and the structural conditions of daily life, is not being managed with the same consistency."

Photo Source: HealthHIV

Key findings include:

Viral Suppression is High Among Older People Living with HIV/AIDS

Among People Living with HIV/AIDs (PLWHA) surveyed, 98% reported that their HIV was virally suppressed. This is significantly better than the national average of 62% (CDC, 2026).

While viral suppression was reported to be high, respondents indicated that age-related testing, screening, and other geriatric care were significantly lacking. Just 17% of respondents reported being screened for HIV-related medical frailty, with screenings for frailty declining from 25% of patients under the age of 65 being screened in 2022 to just 11% in 2026. HealthHIV found that patients with lower incomes were significantly less likely to be screened at all.

PLWHA Are Heavily Burdened by Comorbid Non-HIV Chronic Conditions

More than 80% of respondents indicated that they have at least one non-HIV-related chronic condition for which they are currently taking prescription medications, of whom 22% reported having to change their antiretroviral (ARV) medication due to a contraindication with another drug.

HealthHIV’s analysis of responses found that more than 25% of respondents have very high medical needs, but are underserved.

Photo Source: HealthHIV

Behavioral and Mental Health Issues Are Prevalent Among Older PLWHA

More than 75% of respondents indicated having moderate or high levels of stress, but fewer than 2% of respondents identified mental health as being an immediate need. Many respondents indicated that they had a “good” quality of life, but also carried high levels of stress. HealthHIV suggests that this finding indicates that respondents place more importance on the outward appearance of wellness while simultaneously ignoring or disregarding mental health as a part of a “good” quality of life.

Research has found that high levels of psychological stress can have negative impacts on PLWHA and their physical health and health outcomes. For example, traumatic and stressful life experiences have been associated with reduced adherence to treatment regimens, virologic failure, higher rates of mortality and opportunistic infections, increases in the use of recreational drugs in such ways that may result in behaviors detrimental to the health of both the patient and others, and arterial inflammation (Reif et al., 2013; Chow et al., 2023).

Access to and Paying for Medications and Treatment is Likely to Get Tougher for PLWHA in the Future

While existing programs and insurance coverage of ARV treatments are currently working, HealthHIV reports that those systems, like PLWHA who are aging, are becoming increasingly frail.

HealthHIV highlights reports that state AIDS Drug Assistance Program (ADAP) budgets are becoming increasingly strained, and that the reintroduction of waiting lists (Hopkins, 2026) in Iowa and Utah presages tough times ahead for PLWHA who are aging.

Photo Source: HealthHIV

According to the survey, fewer than half of respondents had retirement plans (largely because many didn't expect to live into their 50s), almost one-third reported food insecurity, and one in five avoided care due to cost.

Respondents to HealthHIV’s survey reported that transportation remains the strongest single barrier to accessing care and treatment, with lower-income patients being six times more likely to miss an HIV appointment because they cannot get to the appointment. Additionally, HealthHIV reports that more than half of Medicare enrollees still rely on the Ryan White HIV/AIDS Program (RWHAP) and ADAP to access HIV medications.

Providers Are Largely Unequipped to Effectively Treat Aging PLWHA

Providers who responded to HealthHIV’s survey reported that, while they understand that aging PLWHA face unique needs that require specialized care, they currently lack the staff, funding, or expertise to provide these services.

HealthHIV found that just 1.2% of provider respondents specialized in gerontology, compared with 21% with specializations in HIV medicine. Moreover, they found that workforce turnover is eroding the institutional knowledge and awareness of both the history of the HIV epidemic and the cultural and lived experiences of aging PLWHA.

Photo Source: HealthHIV

Regarding aging-care readiness among patients, providers reported troubling trends. Among them, only half were aware of the protections afforded to them under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), a fact that is particularly important for end-of-life planning. Fewer than one-fourth of providers offer advance care planning, which is compounded by the fact that only 16% of caregivers report having adequate support.

In Closing

HealthHIV has made available the final report for its fifth State of Aging with HIV™ survey on its website at healthhiv.org/stateof/agingwithhiv/. On May 6th, HealthHIV hosted an educational webinar, and free access to this on-demand webinar is available online, along with the presentation slides. 

At this point in history, more than half of PLWHA are over the age of 50, making this research essential to maintaining a robust and effective HIV care continuum. 

Disclaimer: All funders of the ADAP Advocacy Association are publicly listed on our website. 

Disclaimer: Guest blogs do not necessarily reflect the views of the ADAP Advocacy Association; rather, they provide a neutral platform for the author to promote open, honest discussion of public health-related issues and updates.

References:

[1] Centers for Disease Control & Prevention. (2026, March 16). Behavioral and Clinical Characteristics of Persons with Diagnosed HIV Infection—Medical Monitoring Project, United States, 2023 Cycle (June 2023—May 2024). Atlanta, GA: United States Department of Health and Human Services: Centers for Disease Control and Prevention: HIV Data: Medical Monitoring Project. https://www.cdc.gov/hiv-data/mmp/behavioral-clinical-characteristics-pwh-2023.html

[2] Chow, F. C., Mundada, N. S., Abohashem, S., La Joie, R., Iaccarino, L., Arechiga, V. M., Swaminathan, S., Rabinovici, G. D., Epel, E. S., Tawakol, A., & Hsue, P. Y. (2023, October). Psychological stress is associated with arterial inflammation in people living with treated HIV infection. Brain, Behavior, and Immunity, 113, 21-28. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bbi.2023.06.019

[3] HealthHIV. (2026). Findings and implications from HealthHIV State of Aging with HIV Fifth Annual Survey. Washington, DC: HealthHIV: State of. https://healthhiv.org/stateof/agingwithhiv/

[4] Hopkins, M. J. (2026, May 14). The ADAP “Perfect Storm” Returns; Over 1,000 Patients Being Denied Care. Nags Head, NC: ADAP Advocacy: Blog. https://adapadvocacyassociation.blogspot.com/2026/05/the-adap-perfect-storm-returns-over.html

[5] Reif, S., Mugavero, M., Raper, J., Theilman, N., Leserman, J., Whetten, K., & Pence, B. W. (2011, February). Highly Stressed: Stressful and Traumatic Experiences among individuals with HIV/AIDS in the Deep South. AIDS Care, 23(2), 152-162. https://doi.org/10.1080/09540121.2010.498872

Connecticut’s Misguided Medicaid Proposal Places People Living with HIV/AIDS at Risk

By: Marcus J. Hopkins, Health Policy Lead Consultant, ADAP Advocacy

The Office of Connecticut Governor Ned Lamont released its Fiscal Year 2027 Recommended Budget Adjustments document (Office of Policy and Management, 2026), in which they recommend removing antiretroviral medications used to treat HIV from the Medicaid exclusion list and adding them to the state’s Preferred Drug List (PDL). Earlier this year, Colorado’s Department of Health Care Policy and Financing (HCPF) considered modifying its protected drug classes and allowing prior authorization for select drugs, a move that threatens to undermine that progress.

Photo Source: SHAHRZAD RASEKH / CT MIRROR

This week, ADAP Advocacy joined HealthHIV in issuing a joint statement on the proposal. Both organizations submitted public comment to the Connecticut General Assembly, maintaining that the health of Connecticuters living with HIV/AIDS is being put at risk if the protected drug class is weakened by adding antivirals to the state’s PDL. To read the public comment, click here.

What is a Medicaid Drug Class Exemption?

At issue in Connecticut is the exemption of medications used to treat HIV/AIDS from being included on the state’s PDL.

An “exemption,” in this case—also known as an exclusion or an exception—means that the medications are considered necessary for patients’ continued good health or survival, and therefore should not be included on the PDL, a tool that is specifically designed to restrict which medications will be covered for patients by limiting coverage to medications for the purpose of cutting costs or limiting expenditures. Exemptions are usually applied to entire classes of drugs and typically include medications used to treat HIV, cancer, and epilepsy. This practice is commonly referred to as the Protected Drug Class (PDC).

Exemptions can be whole—as is the case with medications used to treat HIV—or class-specific, such as medications used to treat mental health issues and epilepsy, in which cases prescriptions are not subject to step-therapy requirements that would require patients to try other medications prior to being prescribed the one they actually need.

Photo Source: MedicareFAQ

Why Adding Medications to Treat HIV to the PDL is a Bad Idea

When a class of medications is exempted from inclusion on a PDL, medications in that class cannot be subject to prior authorization (PA) requirements, patients are able to access the medications that work best to treat their specific strain of HIV, and patients are not forced to endure delays or administrative red tape that might prevent them from accessing and taking the medications they need to stay alive.

In its budget adjustment document, Connecticut has made a craven attempt to justify including HIV medications on the PDL by suggesting—incorrectly—that medical advances in HIV therapies merit this change:

Now, over two decades later, there have been significant advances in the treatment of HIV and, in recognition of this, the Governor is proposing to lift the current restrictions and include antiretroviral medications on the preferred drug list. This will not only allow the state to receive supplemental rebates on these drugs, but it will also allow for better management of these medications as their inclusion on the preferred drug list will help to ensure practitioners are aligning with clinical criteria and best practices (OPM, 2026).

Not only is this assumption wildly incorrect, but it also amounts to medical malpractice by the State of Connecticut. And all so the state can reap drug rebates to offset expenditures.

Advancements in the quality, tolerability, and efficacy of HIV treatment regimens do not mean that every patient’s HIV can be treated with the same medication.

HIV—a retrovirus that uses reverse transcriptase enzymes to turn its ribonucleic acid (RNA) into deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA), making itself compatible with a person’s own DNA—evolves extremely rapidly, exhibiting the highest recorded biological mutation rate of any organism currently known to science. This is largely due to the reverse transcriptase process, which is prone to errors during viral replication (Andrews & Rowland-Jones, 2017).

In lay terms, this means that medications used to inhibit the reverse transcriptase process—nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitors (NRTIs, such Truvada) and non-nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitors (NNRTIs, such as rilpivirine, used as part of the Cabenuva long-acting injectable regimen)—are vital for not only maintaining viral suppression, but for ensuring that the HIV virus, itself, is not given a chance to mutate.

What this means for patients is that, once they begin treatment for HIV, lapses in treatment can lead to the HIV virus mutating to create multidrug-resistant strains of the virus. Essentially, if patients suddenly stop taking a medication without replacing it with another NRTI or NNRTI, they risk developing a strain of HIV that is more difficult and more expensive to treat.

Photo Source: Medwave

What Can People Do to Prevent These Changes?

Under current Connecticut law, medications to treat HIV are exempt from inclusion on the PDL precisely because of the nature and rapid mutation of the HIV virus. Changing this drug class exemption literally places the lives of not only people currently living with HIV/AIDS at risk, but also those who might contract a multidrug-resistant strain of HIV from someone whose medications were delayed or no longer covered by Connecticut’s Medicaid program.

Alex Garbera, a long-term survivor of the HIV/AIDS epidemic and patient advocate residing in Connecticut, stated:

“Under current law, classes of antiretroviral drugs are exempt from prior authorization requirements and cannot be included on preferred drug lists. But what the Governor is proposing undermines that protection. PDLs, under the cloak of saving money, may be selecting drugs that are not based on patient needs but on the number of rebates received by the state from drug manufacturers. Sadly, prior authorization is far too common but still imposes an administrative burden on providers, can cause delays in obtaining needed medication, and could result in denial, subject to an appeal process. In my humble opinion, I would say keep the current law exactly as it is for HIV medications, given the complicated medical issues involved.”

For full Bill information, visit:

https://www.cga.ct.gov/asp/cgabillstatus/cgabillstatus.asp?selBillType=Bill&bill_num=HB05040&which_year=2026#

To locate your CT State Legislators, go to:

https://www.cga.ct.gov/asp/menu/cgafindleg.asp

To contact the CT Governor's office, visit:

https://portal.ct.gov/governor/contact-the-governor?language=en_US

The HIV Medicine Association (HIVMA) published an important fact sheet, outlining the potential harm done to HIV-positive patients by allowing prior authorization with HIV medicines, which would be allowed by states adding antivirals to PDLs. ADAP Advocacy will continue to monitor this situation, as well as monitor actions that may be taken in other states that place patients at risk.

Disclaimer: All funders of the ADAP Advocacy Association are publicly listed on our website. 

Disclaimer: Guest blogs do not necessarily reflect the views of the ADAP Advocacy Association; rather, they provide a neutral platform for the author to promote open, honest discussion of public health-related issues and updates.

References:

[1] Andrews, S. M. & Rowland-Jones, S. (2017). Recent advances in understanding HIV evolution. F1000Research, 6, 597. https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.10876.1

[2] Office of Policy and Management. (2026, February 04). FY 2027 recommended budget adjustments. Hartford, CT: State of Connecticut: Office of Policy and Management: Budget Document Home. https://portal.ct.gov/-/media/opm/budget/2027-midterm/governors-budget-2027-web-version-3-5-26.pdf?rev=8fedbe3df5384f6fa74c78846ec50017&hash=626EFF74CC89DC9E3949C627466B69D9

Why Modifying Protected Drug Classes Creates a Slippery Slope for Patients Living with HIV

By: Scott Bertani, Director of Advocacy at HealthHIV

As a Person living with HIV who was diagnosed in Denver in the mid-1990s, during a period when treatment options were limited and access was fragile (to say the least), I relied on the Denver Blue Card for my care and access to medications and, during particularly precarious periods, on donation houses and informal community networks to stay alive when formal systems fell short. I lost many friends during those years, and I remember clearly what it meant to live before truly effective HIV antiretroviral therapy existed. The Colorado Department of Health Care Policy and Financing’s (HCPF)  consideration of modifying protected drug classes and allowing the use of prior authorization for select drugs threatens to undermine that progress.

Photo Source: Manatt | January 27, 2026

In 1996, when protease inhibitors first came online, they did more than change treatment guidelines—they saved people who would not have been alive the following month. The shift was so profound that one of our local bars, Proteus, was euphemistically renamed by many of us as "Protease," reflecting how seismic that moment felt within the community. 

Back then, cherished friends and bar owners—many connected through BJ’s and the Carousel Ball—helped establish the Tavern Guild as a way to formalize what BJ’s, Mike’s on Broadway, Charlie’s, Blush & Blu, and similar LGBTQ-safe spaces had long done informally—strengthen access to community-based resources, collective buying power, mutual aid, and care. Their work reinforced what many of us already knew from lived experience: progress in HIV has never been driven by medicine alone, but by the constant interaction between clinical innovation, policy decisions, and community infrastructure. That history—contemporary with the Denver Principles—shapes how I read Policy Action 6: not as an abstract cost-containment proposal, but as a set of decisions that land on real people whose health, stability, and longevity depend on continuity of care. It’s why—I feel—that the Colorado Department of Health Care Policy and Financing’s (HCPF) consideration of modifying protected drug classes and allowing prior authorization for select HIV drugs risks reintroducing access barriers we have long since left behind.

(With that, I relinquish the soapbox and turn to Colorado’s HCPF proposed Policy Action 6—grounded in lived-experience and the principle that has guided HIV policy and advocacy for decades: "Nothing about us, without us").

Across HIV prevention and care, we see the same pattern repeat: funding debates occur in one lane, policy design in another, implementation somewhere else, and the consequences show up downstream with patients, providers, and communities. The uncomfortable question is who ultimately absorbs the cost—both quantitatively and qualitatively—when that chain breaks. 

Cost growth is a legitimate concern. It has long been debated across ecosystems affecting HIV treatment—by Prescription Drug Affordability Boards; Medicaid and provider and therapeutics committees; Medicare benefit designers; AIDS Drug Assistance Programs (ADAPs); the Affordable Care Act Marketplace; employer-sponsored coverage; and others. In response, states and payers have operationalized those concerns through cost-containment mechanisms such as formulary redesign, eligibility adjustments, and increased scrutiny of high-cost antiretroviral therapies, particularly widely used single-tablet regimens that account for a significant share of HIV drug spending, as reflected in recent IPAY 2028 actions under the Inflation Reduction Act.

Policy Action 6 emerges from this same cost-growth context. However, reintroducing prior authorization and step therapy for communicable disease medications—especially HIV drugs—introduces predictable treatment delays and administrative barriers that undermine adherence and viral suppression. Any savings analysis, including evidence-based spending and utilization patterns, should therefore account for downstream clinical and system costs, not just pharmacy spending and rebate leverage.

Photo Source: PharmacyTimes.com | Image Credit: © piter2121

In practice, utilization management often shifts costs out of the pharmacy benefit and into care coordination, emergency coverage, and re-engagement efforts. Those costs do not disappear; they reappear elsewhere in the system and are shouldered by Ryan White providers, safety-net clinics, and public health programs. In those settings, administrative delays, regimen uncertainty, and coverage churn undermine stability before it is ever achieved. That disruption is managed by Title XIX targeted case management, Ryan White medical case management and non-medical supportive services, and Part C clinic staff and administrators. This list is not exhaustive and is rarely reimbursed at a level that reflects improved health outcomes.

While Policy Action 6 is framed as a measured return to utilization management that would apply prospectively after July 2027 and preserve continuity for patients deemed "stable," the greatest disruption from prior authorization and step therapy occurs upstream—during initiation or rapid starts, regimen switches and re-initiation, and early treatment.

As a result, these programs must devote—often divert—additional staff time to care coordination, enrollment troubleshooting, and compliance management. That operational burden adds strain through burnout, retention challenges, and reduced workforce readiness, particularly when churn occurs at both the reimbursement level and the policy level, including through federal and HRSA requirements.

Cost containment is vital to the implementation of a healthy Colorado, including for people enrolled in public assistance programs, as the Department of Health affirms. However, rebate strategies that rely on utilization management function by introducing administrative hurdles—not by changing clinical care—and those hurdles directly affect whether people remain on treatment and stay virally suppressed.

In many ways, this is a Palisade peaches–to–Rocky Ford cantaloupe comparison: both are nutritious, but the differences are wide, not narrow—much like lifelong HIV medication management in the real world. Short-term utilization metrics do not account for resistance history, hepatitis B co-infection, or clinically meaningful differences across integrase strand transfer inhibitor (INSTI) classes, including the higher resistance barriers and durability of second-generation INSTIs compared with earlier agents. Nor do they reflect the realities of aging with HIV, including low CD4 nadirs and the long-term durability of immune recovery. When treatment decisions intersect with comorbidities and acute stressors—such as COVID-19, influenza, or measles—disruptions over decades of care can compound treatment fatigue, adherence challenges, and cumulative harm in ways utilization controls are not designed to absorb.

Colorado's statutory framework already reflects this concern. Section 10-16-152 paused prior authorization and step therapy for HIV medications and required a study—explicitly including qualitative patient and provider experience—before any policy reversal. That structure recognizes that access, treatment stability, and adherence are central to cost-effective HIV care, and that utilization management assumptions should be tested rather than presumed.

Washington's experience provides a relevant real-world test of the same assumptions underlying Policy Action 6, including the expectation that utilization management can be reintroduced without destabilizing treatment or shifting costs downstream. Through a legislatively directed budget proviso, Washington required the Health Care Authority (HCA) to remove prior authorization for all FDA-approved HIV antiviral drugs under Apple Health beginning January 1, 2023, and to report annually on utilization, expenditures, and regimen switching. That proviso—adopted in SB 5092, section 118.6.a—also prompted the convening of the HIV Medication Access Workgroup (HMAW).

Through the HMAW process, stakeholders consistently documented that prior authorization, step therapy, and regimen disruption introduced administrative friction that delayed access, destabilized effective treatment, and increased churn within Medicaid HIV care. Participants emphasized that utilization management strategies intended to favor lower-cost or multi-tablet regimens did not operate in isolation, but shifted costs downstream to Ryan White providers, safety-net clinics, and public health systems tasked with mitigating treatment interruptions and re-engaging patients. In this context, "continued access" often existed on paper while continuity of care eroded in practice.

Photo Source: ADAP Advocacy | iStock Rights Purchased

As required by the proviso, HCA published its 2024 legislative report on HIV antiviral drugs, analyzing utilization, expenditures, and available health outcomes data following the removal of prior authorization. Viral load data were available for approximately 42 percent of Apple Health clients receiving HIV treatment in 2022—more than 3,000 individuals—representing a substantial real-world Medicaid population. While HCA appropriately cautioned that this subset cannot be assumed to represent all clients, it did not characterize the data as unreliable or dismiss observed differences across regimen types.

Within this cohort, patients initiating treatment on single-tablet regimens demonstrated higher rates of viral suppression than those starting on multi-tablet regimens or switching regimens. Although insufficient to establish causality, these findings establish directionality and challenge the assumption that regimen form and administrative disruption are clinically neutral—particularly in Medicaid settings shaped by utilization management, coverage churn, and administrative delay.

Preventing a single HIV infection avoids hundreds of thousands of dollars in lifetime medical costs, with some estimates exceeding one million dollars depending on treatment scenarios. Given these well-established costs, policy decisions that risk even modest reductions in adherence or viral suppression should not be evaluated solely on short-term pharmacy spending or rebate leverage.

Notably, Washington ultimately codified the policy direction reflected in the proviso and stakeholder findings. In 2025, the Legislature enacted SB 5577, requiring Medicaid coverage of all FDA-approved HIV antiviral drugs without prior authorization or step therapy for both fee-for-service and managed care enrollees, effective July 1, 2025. This statutory action reflects a legislative determination that, for HIV treatment, utilization management introduces unacceptable risk to treatment stability and system sustainability.

The lack of complete outcomes data argues for caution, not for reinstating prior authorization and step therapy based on projected savings alone. Policy Action 6 assumes these controls can be reintroduced for HIV drugs without disrupting care or shifting costs outside the pharmacy benefit—an assumption that has not been supported by real-world experience. That assumption is not only incorrect, but—I feel—potentially harmful for Persons living with HIV in Colorado.

Disclaimer: Guest blogs do not necessarily reflect the views of the ADAP Advocacy Association, but rather they provide a neutral platform whereby the author serves to promote open, honest discussion about public health-related issues and updates.

References:

[1] Martin, K. (2025, August 06). The 340B Drug Pricing Program: How It Works and Why It’s Controversial. Commonwealth Fund. https://doi.org/10.26099/210h-wv98

[2] Rojas, Dutch. (2025, January 29). The Charity That Pays Like Wall Street. The Rojas Report. https://dutchrojas.substack.com/p/the-charity-that-pays-like-wall-street?utm_campaign=email-post&r=3z1yhv&utm_source=substack&utm_medium=email

Perspectives on SYNC’ing

By: Ranier Simons, ADAP Blog Guest Contributor

Synchronicity 2024, referred to as SYNC 2024, was held last week in Arlington, Virigina May 29th to May 31st. It is a national conference for HIV, HCV, STIs, Harm Reduction, LGBTQ Health, and Health Equity. This is the tenth year this unique conference has been held, bringing together a diverse audience of participants. SYNC is one of few spaces where clinicians, state and local health department directors, students, researchers, social workers, community activists, patient advocates, policymakers, and even D.C. government officials are all under the same roof with access to each other. The value of creating such a space is the reason companies like Gilead Sciences, ViiV Healthcare, and Merck are sponsors. I was asked to share my personal perspectives in this week’s blog, as my attendance represented my first time SYNC’ing.

Photo Source: HealthHIV

According to the SYNC 2024 event website the SYNC 2024 theme, “Bringing SYNChronicity to Life: SYNCing the Elements of Life with Health,” reflects aligning the fundamental elements of life — earth, water, air, and fire — with the sphere of HIV, HCV, STIs, Harm Reduction, and LGBTQ health, according to the event website. Its objective was elevating health and harmony, and now I better understand why ADAP Advocacy's CEO, Brandon M. Macsata, advised me that this event was the best national conference for advocates living with HIV/AIDS.

My two primary activities at SYNC were to present data associated with the 9th National Annual Monitoring Report on HIV/HCV Co-Infection and help facilitate a panel discussion regarding Prescription Drug Advisory Boards (PDABs). Both were indelible experiences. I presented data for the National Annual Monitoring Report on behalf of Community Access National Network (CANN) in collaboration with HealthHIV. The presentation informed the audience about current issues surrounding HIV, HCV, and Harm Reduction. The collaboration resulted in an empowering and complimentary dissemination of a great deal of valuable data that was well received by the audience. The PDAB discussion was eye-opening in how a prepared slide presentation by a panel evolves into organic discussions among the panelists and audience, which adds even more value.

The wealth of opportunities for learning, networking, and inspiration at SYNC was almost overwhelming, but in a good way. The first day was filled with very focused institutes of different subjects, some of which even offered opportunities to achieve or renew certifications in things such as PrEP Navigation. The institutes covered critical problems such as HIV Criminalization, Healthy Aging, and Black Women in HIV Prevention. The Annual Monitoring Report, where I presented data, was one of those institutes. 

The remaining days were filled with extensive plenary sessions where all the participants met to learn from experts and even members of government agencies on topics such as the state of government agencies' activities surrounding healthcare delivery, health equity, syndemics, and advocacy. Outside of the large plenary sessions were many different track sessions. Upon choosing your track of interest, you could attend multiple learning sessions on various topics associated with the track. 

Photo Source: HealthHIV

For example, there was an STI track. I attended session One of that track, which included presentations on black women’s sexuality and PrEP, the severe crisis of STIs like syphilis, the importance of rapid point of care (POC) testing and educating providers about effective HIV and STI testing. The speakers in that session included the Vice President of Clinical Operations at Adagio Health and the HIV Clinical Director for Baltimore Medical System, Inc. It was amazing to experience exposure to the perspectives from such varied backgrounds, all in the same room. Most importantly, I feel that they usually would all not be exposed to each other. Not only was it an unmatchable opportunity for learning for the audience, but it was an opportunity for collaboration and learning between their institutions.

Another track session I attended was a part of the LGBTQ Health Track. I decided to participate in that track session as an opportunity to be exposed to subject matter outside of usual knowledge consumption. I frequently read and research topics involving HIV treatments, prevention, and social determinants of health issues. However, I don’t often explore LGBTQ-specific health issues that are unique from the general population. The panels in this session discussed the utilization of social media to reach young men of color for HIV prevention, advocacy for transgender healthcare, and the unique lived experience of Black men who have sex with men (MSMs). 

This session was very enlightening. Until then, I was not aware of the actual number of legislative bills and other efforts nationally being put forth that are directly anti-trans. I had also never heard of GLMA. GLAM was formerly known as the Gay and Lesbian Medical Association but is now identified as GLMA: Health Professionals Advancing LGBTQ+ Equality. GLMA presented the anti-trans legislation discussion. It was equally fascinating to learn of community health groups' investments in using social media apps such as Grindr to engage in HIV prevention and education. Notably, at the end of that session, local community groups were educating panelists on ways they could be more effective in their outreach and vice-versa.

Regrettably, I did not end up spending much time perusing the poster presentations that were present. Yet, I still learned a great deal, and the lens through which I view many issues has been widened. One of the most vital themes that encompassed the entire conference is the necessity of health equity and the importance of inclusive representation in health policy as well as in medical treatment and intervention. SYNC is undoubtedly a conference full of meaning and value.

Photo Source: HealthHIV

Disclaimer: Guest blogs do not necessarily reflect the views of the ADAP Advocacy Association, but rather they provide a neutral platform whereby the author serves to promote open, honest discussion about public health-related issues and updates.  

Aging and Living with HIV

By: Ranier Simons, ADAP Blog Guest Contributor

Since the beginning of the HIV/AIDS epidemic forty-two years ago, medical advancements in HIV prevention and treatment have come a long way. As a result, there is a growing population of older people living with HIV (OPWH). In 2020, about half of all people in the United States living with HIV were age 50 or older. It is estimated that by 2030, that percentage will be over seventy percent.[1] Aging for the general population is challenging. However, emerging evidence indicates specific challenges unique to aging people living with HIV. OPWH are dealing with health care system issues, specific medical challenges, social determinants of health hurdles, and even social stigma.

Photo Source: IDSE.net

Isolation and loneliness are pervasive challenges OPWH reportedly face.[2,3] Many have survived the early years of the HIV/AIDS pandemic. As such, they have seen many of their friends and relatives die from the disease. Living in isolation, among many things, means not having anyone to call on in case of emergency, having no one to care for them when they become ill, and not having any outlet for social interaction. Jim Clay, program lead with Cascade AIDS Project in Portland, Oregon, created several social groups for OPWH under the umbrella of a program called Aging Well.[4] The groups enable OPWH with shared living experiences, such as those who are LGBTQ, to find a sense of community and support. Social integration and support lower the actual and perceived stigma that many OPWH experience.[3] Quality of life challenges regarding psychological well-being directly affect medical outcomes.

Regarding medical outcomes, OPWH are challenged with unique problems. HealthHIV highlighted some of these in their third annual State of Living with HIV National Survey.[1] To be considered for the survey, subjects had to be aged 50 or older or have been living with HIV for at least 15 years. Of those who qualified to be included, 93% were aged 50 or older, with one-third of those older than age 65. Most of the respondents living with HIV for 15 or more years were over the age of 50.

According to HealthHIV, polypharmacy was a medical issue reported by nearly all the included respondents. OPWH have higher rates of multiple comorbidities than the general population.[6] Polypharmacy means taking five or more medications to treat numerous non-HIV comorbidities and HIV. Multiple medications increase the chances of drug interactions with antiretrovirals or other drugs. The different simultaneous medications also cause wear on organs such as the liver and kidneys. Additionally, twenty-five percent of the respondents reported having current antiretroviral side effects, with the majority having had side effects on previous regimens.[1] Moreover, the survey also highlighted that OPWH are more likely to be diagnosed at later stages than younger people with HIV. Half of the respondents were. This is troubling because data shows OPWH have poorer CD4 cell recovery after initiating antiretroviral therapy.[5]

Photo Source: HealthHIV

Evolving research is revealing specific medical challenges for women aging with HIV. Data shows that HIV can cause women to go into early menopause up to 5 years earlier than HIV-negative women.[7] This is due to HIV infection causing chronic infection, immunodeficiency, lower estrogen levels, and metabolic changes due to long-term medication use.[7] Early menopause increases the risk of osteoporosis. This is compounded by the fact that HIV is a known risk factor for osteoporosis.[7] Women with HIV are also three times as likely to have absent periods going into menopause.[7] Instead of gradually easing into menstrual changes, their periods stop abruptly. Women universally deal with the psychological and social stigma of aging. Older women living with HIV have their lived experiences negatively compounded by these medical challenges.

Predominantly, society associates aging with security and being established in life. Unfortunately, social determinants of health are challenging for many aging adults, especially OPWH. Housing, income, food insecurity, and transportation are just a few challenges reported by respondents of the HealthHIV survey. Affordable housing is a problem for OPWH on fixed incomes and those without much or any savings for retirement. One respondent explained that aging adults with HIV have to live where they can afford to.[1] That is the most basic tenet of survival, which influences everything else. Where one lives affects what kind of transportation they need, what sustenance they can afford, and even access to HIV care. If OPWH, out of necessity, have to live far away from their medical care, their medical outcomes are negatively affected. Not being able to access health services results in untimely doctor visits or complete omission, lack of medication adherence, and inadequate treatment of comorbidities. Sixty-eight percent of the respondents were concerned about the lack of permanent housing, and thirty percent worried about the condition of where they lived.[1]

Prevention of new HIV infections among the young and treatment of those under 50 is essential. However, OPWH are being left behind, and they feel it. It is vital to develop geriatric practices and policies to support OPWH. The aging HIV-positive population needs options for care that are more cooperative and convenient instead of fragmented. Their whole being needs to be addressed on a physical, mental, medical, and social service level. Most importantly, their humanity needs to be acknowledged and supported. OPWH are still sexual beings, and there are still cases of people over 50 newly acquiring HIV. Screening for HIV and other STDs/STIs in older adults must be integrated into all aging population care paradigms. The long-term effect of living with HIV is new territory. OPWH should not be left unsupported to deal with it alone.

[1] HealthHIV. (2023, May). State of Aging with HIV Third Annual National Survey. Retrieved from https://healthhiv.org/stateof/agingwithhiv/

[2] McCarty, A. (2023, July 18). 'Fought like hell to get here': Portland group helps long-term survivors of HIV 'age well' through connection and community. Retrieved from https://www.kgw.com/article/news/local/pride/portland-group-long-term-survivors-hiv/283-a110d2ca-af2c-4463-94dc-474c2db2dab3

[3] Petrullo, J. (2023, July 12). Older people with HIV face stigmas, struggles that require action. Retrieved from https://www.ajmc.com/view/older-people-with-hiv-face-stigmas-struggles-that-require-action

[4] Cascade AIDS Project. (2023). Aging Well: About Us. Retrieved from https://www.agingwellnw.org/about

[5] Means, A. R., Risher, K. A., Ujeneza, E. L., Maposa, I., Nondi, J., & Bellan, S. E. (2016). Impact of Age and Sex on CD4+ Cell Count Trajectories Following Treatment Initiation: An Analysis of the Tanzanian HIV Treatment Database. PLOS ONE, 11(10), e0164148. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0164148

[6] Lerner, A. M., Eisinger, R. W., & Fauci, A. S. (2020). Comorbidities in Persons With HIV: The Lingering Challenge. JAMA, 323(1), 19–20. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.2019.19775

[7] Mulcahy, L. (2023, July 27). Menopause may start earlier for aging women with HIV. Retrieved from https://www.webmd.com/hiv-aids/news/20230627/menopause-may-start-earlier-aging-women-hiv

Disclaimer: Guest blogs do not necessarily reflect the views of the ADAP Advocacy Association, but rather they provide a neutral platform whereby the author serves to promote open, honest discussion about public health-related issues and updates.   

The State of Aging with HIV - Flash Forward to Today

By: Scott Bertani, Director of Advocacy, HealthHIV

Despite high rates of viral suppression and engagement in care, 94% of respondents agreed that more advocacy efforts are needed to address the needs of people aging with HIV. This reflects the increasingly complex reality of providing comprehensive care to older persons with HIV (OPWH). While medical providers are often adept at addressing HIV, there remains a significant need for enhanced training and medical education that prepares providers to develop interventions that address, not only the many comorbid conditions associated with aging with HIV, but also the pervasive and intersecting systemic barriers that face OPWH, including housing instability, gaps in social support and insurance coverage, and stigma.

And for some 60% of our respondents, they have been HIV positive for longer than they were not. Hammered by mounting obstacles—reduced quality of life polypharmacy, multimorbidity, mental illness and increasing barriers to care—an emerging portrait of frustration and ire among OPWH is building.

For these folks, the challenge of lifelong disease management, (dreamed and dashed) hopes for a near horizon cure; comorbidities and cognitive declines; anxiety and depression; substance use; loss of agency and finances–all have taken a compounding heath outcome toll. And for many, the toll feels due.

And when faced with growing long-term care needs, and the complexity of ageism and minority stressors–race, ethnicity, sexual orientation, and gender identity issues... of being forced back into the closet, the resiliency-well is nearly (if not already) dry.

To be fair, we did survey lots of positivity among our PWH in their journeys with HIV and Aging (28%)—reminded by words like "manageable", "grateful", "hopeful" and "rewarding". But in 2023, that sentiment seems to be running low. Some 72% described their QoL, in less than joyful words.

In sum, the state of aging with HIV can be distilled down to one word: CHALLENGING. In fact, upwards of 50% of our respondents used that same word to describe their complex, but beautiful lives.

But what of Advocacy? Advocacy, too, seems to be of an urgent, almost universal cry (a 94% wailing, in fact)–across both access and treatment challenges. But even there, with an overwhelming response of wanting more to be done, we saw no linear "right here, right now" pathway, only more predilections to consider. Across the care continuum, across care coordination, across finding better biomarkers to alert us; across SDoH, across... (fill in the blank).

Keep that in mind. Throughout this landscape report, we hope to capture not only the relevant data (those key findings from what we surveyed) in a visually interesting way, but in a relatable, actionable narrative that paints the urgent story of the face(s) of today's HIV and Aging.

The survey implications, themselves (below) represent crucial sites for future research, advocacy, and policy interventions to improve clinical care and quality of life for people aging with HIV:

• Building a competent workforce of HIV gerontologists is crucial to address the multifaceted issues confronting PLWH as they grow older.
• Efficient coordination of care between healthcare providers is essential to ensure that OPWH receive the comprehensive support they need.
• Addressing social determinants of health is fundamental to improve health outcomes as health extends beyond the clinic setting.
• Access to safe and stable housing is needed as fixed incomes and housing emergencies escalate for OPWH.

Policymakers at all levels need to address a wide range of health, social and economic factors that impact all PWH, but particularly among older PWH and their ability to maintain their health and their agency, independence and ability to remain in and a part of their communities.

By addressing the unique psychosocial and multi-complexities needs of this group can help providers better meet their patients' care needs (mind, mobility, multi-complexities) while also improving their quality of life (what matters most).

In order to do that, it's critical in ensuring that health and social service providers not only deliver culturally competent care, but deliver it with confidence—in that they are as representative, inclusive and linguistically appropriate as possible.

In essence, it means optimizing (and enhancing) care coordination while also sustaining that workforce; supporting community organizing and advocacy agencies; and encouraging bottom-up community mobilization and stakeholder involvement—re-envisaging the adage of "Nothing about us without us."  

Disclaimer: Guest blogs do not necessarily reflect the views of the ADAP Advocacy Association, but rather they provide a neutral platform whereby the author serves to promote open, honest discussion about public health-related issues and updates.  

Our Patient Advocacy during the Covid-19 Pandemic's Uncertainty

By: Brandon M. Macsata, CEO, ADAP Advocacy Association

Over the last two years patient advocacy replaced face-to-face meetings with Zoom. It substituted highly-effective legislative fly-ins on Capitol Hill (and state legislatures) with unimpressive Twitter storms. And it left many organizations scrambling to find their place in this new world of uncertainty. The ADAP Advocacy Association isn't immune from the realities surrounding the Covid-19 pandemic, especially since we represent an immunocompromised constituency.

Photo Source: Hearts in Service Blog

In March 2020, we suspended face-to-face advocacy literally as we were preparing to host the year's first HIV/AIDS Fireside Chat in Atlanta, Georgia. Our organization opted not to host Zoom meetings because the Fireside Chats have a sense of intimacy about them, but also because we quickly learned that many stakeholders were experiencing what was labeled "Zoom fatigue" at the time. That decision carried into last year, too. Aside from a series of the virtual patient support meetings held both in 2020 and 2021, we've sat (in)patiently waiting for this pandemic to subside.

Fortunately, some of our national partners stepped-up their advocacy game and hosted extremely impressive virtual conferences. Among them, HealthHIV and its SYNChronicity 2020 (SYNC 2020), and the Biotechnology Innovation Organization (BIO) and its 2020 Patient and Health Advocacy Digital Summit. The ADAP Advocacy Association opted to fund scholarships for advocates and patients living with HIV/AIDS to attend these events. 

But we're optimistic about returning to 'normal' this year!

The ADAP Advocacy Association has targeted June 2022 for the resumption of the HIV/AIDS Fireside Chats, and other patient advocacy events. That will, of course, largely depend on the ever-changing circumstances on the ground, evidenced by what is unfolding before our eyes with the Omicron variant. It is our goal to host a Fireside Chat in Atlanta over the summer, and then Chicago in the fall.

In the meantime, we will continue to focus on the intersection between HIV/AIDS and Covid-19. In 2020, we awarded Covid-19 community grants to community-based, nonprofit organizations addressing the pandemic's impact on marginalized communities living with HIV/AIDS. In 2021, we launched #YourVaccineIsWaiting public awareness campaign targeting marginalized groups living with HIV/AIDS. This year, we will invest more of our resources into monitoring how Covid-19 is impacting our community, as well as encouraging immunocompromised populations to get vaccinated...and boosted! Their lives depend on it, literally.

Finally, we're excited to welcome our new ADAP Blog Guest Contributor, Ranier Simons, MHI. Ranier prides himself on data science capabilities to drive better healthcare. He recently earned his Master of Healthcare Innovation Health Informatics from Arizona State University - Edson College of Nursing and Health Innovation.

Patient advocacy, as we knew it, came to a screeching halt in March 2020. Then in 2021, patient advocacy experienced a roller coaster ride of ups and downs. It is too early to know what 2022 will bring, but the ADAP Advocacy Association remains optimistic about the future of the patient advocacy environment, and we stand ready to respond accordingly. We look forward to you joining us in this endeavor, too!

Disclaimer: Guest blogs do not necessarily reflect the views of the ADAP Advocacy Association, but rather they provide a neutral platform whereby the author serves to promote open, honest discussion about public health-related issues and updates.

PLWHA Perspectives on Covid-19

By: Brandon M. Macsata, CEO, ADAP Advocacy Association

The ADAP Advocacy Association has dedicated significant resources over the last year to understanding the intersection between the global Covid-19 pandemic and its impact on people living with HIV/AIDS (PLWHAs). In fact, recently one in ten people living with HIV/AIDS in the United States indicated that they had tested positive for Covid-19, according to our online survey. 

The national survey, IMPLICATIONS OF CORONAVIRUS FOR PEOPLE LIVING WITH HIV/AIDS, was a project conducted in collaboration with the Community Access National Network (CANN), Community Education Group (CEG), HealthHIV, and the Legacy Health Endowment. The survey generated 390 response, of which 45 were disqualified for the respondent not being HIV-positive, and additional 14 were disqualified for not being residents of the United States. Thus for the purposes of the survey, n=331.

In a nutshell, 11.52% of the respondents tested positive for Covid-19. Whereas an open-access survey is not the same as a scientifically conducted poll, but the survey results do provide a glimpse into how Covid-19 is impacting our community. The results are as follows...

Have you tested positive for the Covid-19 virus? n=330

• 11.52% Yes (38)
• 88.48% No (292)

* one respondent didn't complete this question/survey 

Have you fully-recovered from Covid-19 or are you still lingering with Covid-19 health issues (Editor's Note: if you answered "No" to question 3 or question 4, then please skip this question)?

• 13.00% Yes (36)
• 07.94% No, still lingering (22)
• 79.06% N/A (219)

 * 40 respondents didn't complete this question/survey 

Have you been hospitalized for Covid-19?

• 01.60% Yes (5)
• 98.40% No (308)

* four respondents didn't complete this question/survey

Respondents who completed the survey came from thirty-seven states (37), plus Puerto Rico and the District of Columbia. The breakdown includes survey responses from AL - 04, AK - 00, AZ - 05, AR - 00, CA - 69, CO - 04, CT - 06, DE - 00, FL - 16, GA - 04, HI - 02, ID - 01, IL - 18, IN - 00, IA - 00, KS - 02, KY - 01, LA - 01, ME - 01, MD - 11, MA - 04, MI - 03, MN - 01, MS - 00, MO - 01, MT - 00, NE - 01, NV - 01, NH - 00, NJ - 04, NM - 01, NY - 24, NC - 06, ND - 00, OH - 10, OK - 01, OR - 04, PA - 07, RI - 01, SC - 04, SD - 00, TN - 03, TX - 23, UT - 00, VT - 00, VA - 14, WA - 14, WV - 01, WI - 01, WY - 00, P.R. - 03, D.C. - 19.

A snapshot of the survey results is available online at https://www.surveymonkey.com/stories/SM-9JVQK5TC/.

Disclaimer: Guest blogs do not necessarily reflect the views of the ADAP Advocacy Association, but rather they provide a neutral platform whereby the author serves to promote open, honest discussion about public health-related issues and updates.

Aging with HIV Report Released

By: Brian Hujdich, Executive Director, HealthHIV

Structural Barriers to Care and Social Isolation Identified in HealthHIV's Inaugural State of Aging with HIV™ National Survey

Structural barriers to care and social isolation were identified as the most significant Issues for people aging with HIV, according to HealthHIV's Inaugural State of Aging with HIV National Survey™. The survey also identified significant gaps in care coordination and a lack of comprehensive resources for people aging with HIV, complicating the provision and quality of services for this growing population. It is estimated that 70% of people with HIV (PWH) in the United States will be 50 years or older by 2030.

HealthHIV has issued a comprehensive report on the survey, which includes detailed findings and implications on care coordination. The report can be viewed at: www.healthhiv.org/pozitivelyaging. The report identifies the need for increased resources, as well as areas for improvement and best practices. The national survey covers six key areas: care coordination; HIV management; provider interaction; healthcare expenses; pharmacy usage; and aspects of living with HIV for PWH over the age of 50.

Key survey findings by topic include:

Care Coordination
Structural and financial barriers are negatively impacting care coordination. One quarter of respondents experience lack of convenient appointment times, long wait times, insurance coverage, and cost of care. 14% had difficulty paying for medication and 12% had difficulty paying for provider visits.

HIV Management
Over half of respondents live with at least one comorbid condition; experience depression and have high cholesterol. Although engaged in routine care, respondents indicated that when their HIV and primary care provider are the same person, they are less likely to receive treatment for comorbid conditions such as asthma, kidney disease and diabetes. 50% reported experiencing stigma, 25% reported ageism, and 24% reported homophobia when accessing healthcare.

Interactions With Providers
Three quarter of respondents have seen a HIV care provider in the last six months and over half also have seen a primary care provider in the last six months.

Healthcare Expenses
One quarter reported cost and the lack of in-network provider insurance coverage as barriers to seeking care.

Pharmacy Usage
The majority of respondents are likely to contact a pharmacist with medication issues.

Aspects of Living with HIV for PWH over the age of 50
One quarter have experienced survivor's syndrome and nearly half felt lonely or isolated within the past two weeks (at time of survey).

Struggles with lack of social support and isolation persist. One-third of respondents indicated lack of an emotional support system. Survey findings also indicate that providers may need additional training to conduct fully comprehensive assessments of the additional services PWH over the age of 50 need.

"The broader care coordination implications show that we need to leverage program activities to creatively and comprehensively respond to the health inequities that impact people aging with HIV," said HealthHIV's Executive Director Brian Hujdich. "These findings suggest that this community requires additional resources to address social support, depression and isolation. People aging with HIV still manage the burden of survivors' syndrome, stigma, and feelings of isolation, which is especially concerning in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic and the need for physical distancing."
 "The impact of both ageism and HIV stigma compounds the problem of care coordination for this community," said Pozitively Aging Program Manager Lisa Frederick.

About the Survey:

The national survey was conducted with 1,086 respondents from July 16, 2019 to August 12, 2019. The survey was distributed using survey monkey and no incentive was provided. The respondents were people living with HIV over the age of 50 representing 39 U.S states and Puerto Rico. The majority of respondents were lower income, 60% White, 21% Black, 12% Latino, 6% Multi-Racial with smaller percentages from Asian American, American Indian and Pacific Islander. The gender makeup was 66% gay, 22% heterosexual, 5% bisexual, 2% queer, 1% two-spirit and other 2%.

Key findings from the survey will inform the development of enhanced programs and services focused on improving care coordination for people aging with HIV.

About the Pozitively Aging Program:

HealthHIV's Pozitively Aging program is part of Gilead's Age Positively Initiative and seeks to improve access to quality services and care coordination for PWH over 50. As this community continues to grow, health outcomes can be improved and sustained for PWH over 50 by enhancing care coordination/access, health literacy, and the co-management of conditions associated with aging with HIV through data collection and medical education. Pozitively Aging offers consumer education materials to strengthen self-management of care and address health literacy challenges. The program engages consumers, HIV specialists, primary care providers, and gerontology specialists to inform these education efforts and capacity building activities.

The HealthHIV's Inaugural State of Aging with HIVTMnational survey report can be accessed at healthhiv.org. To download the full report, click here: www.healthhiv.org/pozitivelyaging.

For more information about the Pozitively Aging program, please email lisa@healthhiv.org, call 202-507-4733, or visit healthhiv.org.

Disclaimer: Guest blogs do not necessarily reflect the views of the ADAP Advocacy Association, but rather they provide a neutral platform whereby the author serves to promote open, honest discussion about public health-related issues and updates.

2019 HealthHCV State of HCV Health National Survey!

By: Brian Hujdich, Executive Director, HealthHIV

HealthHCV is fielding the 2019 HealthHCV State of HCV Care National Survey(TM). This annual survey reaches providers nationwide, including hepatologists, gastroenterologists, infectious disease specialists, HIV care providers, primary care providers, and others screening for and/or treating hepatitis-C. The 2019 survey, developed with input from viral hepatitis advocacy groups, payers, and HCV care providers, builds on the findings from HealthHCV’s inaugural Report on the State of HCV Care, based on a survey of almost 200 prescribing providers involved in HCV care. The inaugural survey formed some of the first data points regarding the provision of HCV care and treatment in the U.S.

While advances in HCV cure therapy have led to improved survival rates for patients with cirrhosis, reduced health care costs, and a reduced need for liver cancer surveillance, a more comprehensive approach to HCV care is needed to curb the epidemic, especially as the opioid crisis continues to fuel increases in new infections.

The State of HCV Care is integral to understanding and improving current HCV care and prevention efforts, as well as shaping advocacy and policy needs. There are currently few efforts to collect information on hepatitis C (HCV) care and treatment in the U.S., and these survey results serve as some of the first national data points regarding provision of HCV care. The data collected from this survey provides an opportunity for those on the front lines of HCV care to cite challenges and barriers to providing necessary services. This year’s survey will evaluate the latest impacts on HCV screening practices, treatment access and reimbursement, barriers to care, provider training needs, and integration and coordination of HCV services with behavioral health and substance use treatment.  

Your feedback is critical to shape national HCV advocacy, education, and training in 2019 and beyond that contribute to ending the HCV epidemic! In order to take the survey please press HERE.

About HealthHCV: HealthHCV’s unique role in evaluating national provider needs helped shape a robust suite of current education offerings on HCV, including the 20x20 Initiative: Increasing HCV Screening and Linkage to Care by 2020 and Addressing the Evolving Opioid and HCV Epidemics Through Community Engagement and Education.




Disclaimer: Guest blogs do not necessarily reflect the views of the ADAP Advocacy Association, but rather they provide a neutral platform whereby the author serves to promote open, honest discussion about public health-related issues and updates.