This Article  • Full text  • PDF  • Send to a friend  • Save in My Folder  • Save to citation manager  • Permissions  Citing Articles  • Citing articles on ISI (3)  • Contact me when this article is cited  Related Content  • Similar articles in JAMA

	Since this article does not have an abstract, we have provided the first 150 words of the full text and any section headings.

To the Editor: Dr Nakashima and colleagues¹ conclude that mandatory name-based reporting did not appear to affect human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) testing use in publicly funded testing programs. There are several problems with this conclusion.

First, the study did not include a comparison group adequate to allow a national-level conclusion. While the authors did compare rates before and after testing, they did not include any analysis of states in which name-based reporting was not instituted. Thus, it is impossible for the authors to prove that testing rates might not have increased more dramatically in the states studied had name-based reporting not been instituted.

In addition, with their focus on a broad population-level result, the authors obscure the experience of key subpopulations. For example, in states demonstrating statistically significant increases in testing (New Jersey, Nevada, and Tennessee), changes in testing frequency across high-risk groups did not correspond to the overall increase. . . . [Full Text of this Article]