Ginblossom

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20091030/.../us_obama_aids

WASHINGTON – President Barack Obama said Friday the U.S. will overturn a 20-year-old U.S. travel ban against people with HIV early next year.

The order will be finalized on Monday, Obama said, completing a process begun during the Bush administration.
The U.S. has been one of about a dozen countries that bar entry to travelers based on their HIV status. Obama said it will be lifted just after the new year, after a waiting period of about 60 days.

"If we want to be a global leader in combatting HIV/AIDS, we need to act like it," Obama said at the White House before signing a bill to extend the Ryan White HIV/AIDS program. Begun in 1990, the program provides medical care, medication and support services to about half a million people, most of them low-income.

The bill is named for an Indiana teenager who contracted AIDS through a blood transfusion at age 13. White went on to fight AIDS-related discrimination against him and others like him and help educate the country about the disease. He died in April 1990 at the age of 18.

Sorry cannot post the entire article as per BE rules. The link and a paragraph or two is all that is allowed.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20091030/.../us_obama_aids

scrubbedexpat099

I think we have a Guinness Book of Records contender.

Just missed out being one legged

dbj1000

Need a refresher on remedial reading Boiler?

ian-mstm

I wonder if "travel ban" will include immigration. While it's aluded to, it's unclear from this article... and there's a huge difference between "travelling" and "immigrating".

Ian

md95065

As far as I know all this does is rescind the absolute ban on non-immigrant visas for people with HIV.

I am pretty sure that someone who wanted to immigrate would still have major problems although possibly not insurmountable ones.

meauxna

There has been an immigrant waiver available for this; a few people have posted about successfully getting one.

md95065

Yes - I know of one or two cases where this has happened (which is why I said that the problems faced by an HIV+ immigrant were "major ... but possibly not insurmountable").

What isn't clear to me is whether obtaining such a waiver (which, I believe, will still be required for an immigrant visa) will become any easier as a result of this change, but so far I tend to think that it will not.

XYZ123

I don't understand why anyone who is HIV+ would want to immigrate to the USA. In UK / Canada / Australia, they get treatment for free at taxpayer expense. In USA, no insurance company is going to provide health insurance. So they have to spend $2,100 per month out-of-pocket for treatment with an expected lifetime expenditure of $640,000 (and increasing with life expectancy). Medicaid only kicks in when the person has less than $500 in assets and is in the final stages of the condition. So why leave UK/Canada/Australia where the taxpayer picks up the tab for the treatment and come to the USA where the treatment and health insurance will bankrupt you.

henryh

Perhaps they don't want their lives to be defined by the disease? Plenty of HIV+ people in the USA lead fulfilling, productive lives. Health insurance is an obstacle, but not an insurmountable one (e.g. group policies with HIPAA portability)

md95065

Actually that isn't completely accurate. Health insurance is a big problem (for everyone!) but many people with HIV in the US do have coverage - usually under a group health plan provided by either their employer or their spouse/partner's employer. Even without evidence of prior continuous coverage the maximum exclusion period for pre-existing conditions is only 18 months.

In fact it is now also possible for people with HIV to get individual health insurance plans but these do tend to be prohibitively expensive and to come with serious restrictions.

XYZ123

Well, at the time when the person is first diagnosed as HIV +ve the insurer is required to cover the treatment as long as the person pays the premiums. But as soon as the person receives treatment for the first time it enters their medical history. If they ever change jobs and apply for health insurance from the new job, the new insurer has the right to review the person's medical history and to deny coverage for treatment of HIV. It makes no sense for an insurer to provide a $300 per month policy to a HIV +ve person if the treatment cost to keep that person alive is $2,100 per month. Insurance companies will seek any possible loophole or excuse to avoid covering a HIV +ve person. In UK / Canada / Australia they do not need to worry about this. They get all the treatment for free at tax-payer expense.

Bob

HIPAA is federal though, and as long as there hasn't been a break in coverage, they can't deny coverage because of a pre-excisting.

The problem is if they get laid off, can't afford COBRA and it takes them a while to find a new job, then they could be denied coverage if the break was long enough.

md95065

Yes that is a big problem but it isn't quite as bad as you suggest.

If they enroll in a group plan covered by HIPAA, but with a break in coverage then, they are only denied coverage for the pre-existing condition and that is only for a period of 12 months (18 months if they are a "late enrollment") - after the 12 or 18 months is up they are covered for everything again.

md95065

Not if they are enrolling in a group plan provided by their new employer covered by HIPAA. If they have continuous creditable coverage then they will be covered for everything under the new plan from day 1.

You could make the same argument about any chronic illness. The idea of group insurance plans is to collect premiums from a large group of people that are sufficient to cover the claims made by the people who actually get sick. HIPAA requires insurers to cover pre-existing conditions when people switch employers and limits the exclusion period for people without previous coverage to 12 months.

I know that only too well - my partner is HIV+ and covered under my employer's health plan - they rejected almost every claim in the first 6 months that he was covered - I had a standard letter including a copy of the evidence of his prior coverage that I sent to them every time that they rejected a claim and, in the end persistence won and they paid up.

Bob

Which is still generally a problem if you've got a couple of grand in prescription costs a month or you get an associated illness that turns nasty and wouldn't be covered.