This Article  • References  • Full text PDF  • Send to a friend  • Save in My Folder  • Save to citation manager  • Permissions  Citing Articles  • Contact me when this article is cited  Related Content  • Similar articles in JAMA  Social Bookmarking   What's this?

Edward A. Belongia, MD; James M. Vergeront, MD; Jeffrey P. Davis, MD
Wisconsin Division of Health Madison

JAMA. 1989;261(15):2198.

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

In Reply. —

We agree with Dr Mercola that the cost of identifying a person with human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) infection is currently lower than our original estimate, although variations in the cost of testing limit the accuracy of this analysis. Dr Mercola, however, fails to recognize that a reduction of the cost estimate does not alter the main point of our letter: that premarital screening for HIV infection does not represent rational or effective public health policy. The goal of any screening program should be the prevention of additional illness. There is no evidence that this goal has been accomplished in Illinois. The prevalence of HIV infection is extremely low among marriage license applicants and the number of cases prevented is likely to be much lower than the number of cases identified. During 1988, twenty-six (0.017%) of 155 458 Illinois marriage license applicants were seropositive, but it is not . . . [Full Text PDF of this Article]

CiteULike    Connotea    Del.icio.us    Digg    Reddit    Technorati    Twitter     What's this?