Ethics of Not Screening in Jurisdiction with low HRA Capacity

  • Monday, November 25, 2024 12:35 PM
    Reply # 13434829 on 13426610
    Anonymous member (Administrator)
    Excellent points for discussion. Screening for early cancer with digital anorectal exam is absolutely indicated as this can help get people to areas where they can have more diagnostics. The rationale is that doing a screen without a way to act on it does not help the patient in most cases. However, if you think patients are willing to act on it or do something with the information, that would be a reason to pursue screening. However, realizing that a screen that shows ASCUS or LSIL may actually have anal HSIL, this can be falsely reassuring in the absence of HRA.

    Hillary Dunlevy, MD
    Advanced HRA Course Director

  • Sunday, November 03, 2024 7:10 AM
    Message # 13426610

    I've never personally understood the rationale not to screen/test/diagnose in low resource settings and personally have never agreed with this stance. I serve marginalized (HIV community - most with Ryan White coverage, undocumented) and there are avenues to get follow up for these patients. Most states now allow RW programs to sign patients up for affordable care plans, hospitals offer financial assistance programs. Patient might even choose to move to a jurisdiction that offers coverage if they know they have a diagnosis - any of these options often takes more than six months but I would argue are better alternatives that letting disease go undiagnosed and untreated. Curious on any thoughts.

    John Stanton, DNP, MPH, AGPCNP-BC, AAHIVS

The International Anal Neoplasia Society

P.O. Box 1543
Leesburg, Virginia 20177

info@iansociety.org

Powered by Wild Apricot Membership Software