Frederick County Health Department to offer free HIV testing
The Frederick County Health Department will offer free HIV testing as part of National HIV Testing Day this month.
The free testing event will take place between 10 a.m. and 6:30 p.m. on June 27 at the Walgreens on Opossumtown Pike.
The Frederick County Health Department staff will be available during the event to answer questions, provide education and connect people to additional prevention and care services such as pre-exposure prophylaxis (PReP).
PReP is a medication that can reduce the risk of transmission in the event of an HIV exposure.
National HIV Testing Day was first observed on June 27, 1995, according to HIV.gov. The purpose of the day is 'to encourage people to get tested for HIV, know their status, and get linked to care and treatment.'
Between 2019 and 2023, 66 people in Frederick County were diagnosed with HIV, according to data from the Maryland Department of Health's Infectious Disease Prevention and Health Services Bureau.
For the majority of people diagnosed in that time frame, the HIV infection had not progressed to AIDS.
Outside of the June 27 event, the Frederick County Health Department offers free walk-in testing on Tuesdays and Fridays from 9 a.m. to 3 p.m. and by appointment by calling 301-600-3117. All tests are confidential.
More information about HIV services in Frederick County can be found at Health.FrederickCountyMD.gov/HIV.
— Ceoli Jacoby
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Medscape
an hour ago
- Medscape
Nivolumab Plus Chemotherapy Improves Survival in Lung Cancer
Adding nivolumab to neoadjuvant chemotherapy significantly improved 5-year overall survival among patients with resectable non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), according to findings from a phase 3 trial presented at the recent American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) 2025 annual meeting. The survival benefit was more pronounced in patients who achieved a pathologic complete response or a presurgery clearance of circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA). METHODOLOGY: The phase 3 CheckMate 816 trial has shown that compared with neoadjuvant chemotherapy alone, nivolumab plus chemotherapy improvespathologic complete response rates and event-free survival in patients with stage IB-IIIA resectable NSCLC. Based on these findings, this regimen was approved for this patient population in the US, EU, and other places. compared with neoadjuvant chemotherapy alone, nivolumab plus chemotherapy improvespathologic complete response rates and event-free survival in patients with stage IB-IIIA resectable NSCLC. Based on these findings, this regimen was approved for this patient population in the US, EU, and other places. Researchers are now reporting the final, prespecified analysis of overall survival. In the trial, 358 patients with stage IB-IIIA resectable NSCLC were randomly assigned to receive either nivolumab plus platinum-based chemotherapy or platinum-based chemotherapy alone every 3 weeks for three cycles. Surgery was performed within 6 weeks of completing neoadjuvant treatment. Postoperative adjuvant chemotherapy, radiotherapy, or both were permitted. Primary endpoints were event-free survival and pathologic complete response. Overall survival was the key secondary endpoint. The median follow-up duration was 68.4 months. TAKEAWAY: The 5-year overall survival rate was 65.4% with nivolumab plus chemotherapy vs 55.0% with chemotherapy alone. Nivolumab plus chemotherapy reduced the risk for death by 28% (hazard ratio [HR], 0.72; P = .048). = .048). Among patients who received the combination therapy, the 5-year overall survival rate was 95.3% for those who achieved a pathological complete response vs 55.7% for those who did not. Overall, 24% of patients in the nivolumab group achieved a pathological complete response vs only 2.2% in the chemotherapy group. ctDNA clearance before surgery was a strong prognostic indicator, regardless of treatment. At 5 years, overall survival was 75.0% among patients with ctDNA clearance vs 52.6% in those without (HR for death, 0.38 in the nivolumab group and 0.39 in the chemotherapy-only group). The combination therapy was associated with consistent survival benefits across disease stage and PDL-1 expression levels. The 5-year lung cancer-specific survival rate was 74.9% with nivolumab plus chemotherapy vs 65.1% with chemotherapy alone (HR, 0.65). No new safety concerns emerged, and there were no new deaths related to a trial treatment. IN PRACTICE: 'In this trial, we found that the use of neoadjuvant nivolumab plus chemotherapy resulted in significantly longer overall survival than chemotherapy alone, along with long-term benefit regarding event-free survival,' the authors wrote. 'These findings support the hypothesis that neoadjuvant chemoimmunotherapy can have a profound impact on the course of a patient's life when paired with the curative potential of surgical resection.' SOURCE: This study, led by Patrick M. Forde, MB, BCh, PhD, Trinity St. James's Cancer Institute, Trinity College Dublin, Dublin, Ireland, was published online in The New England Journal of Medicine and presented at ASCO. LIMITATIONS: Although the overall survival with nivolumab plus chemotherapy achieved statistical significance, the margin was narrow. Additionally, several subgroups in the exploratory analyses were too small for adequate statistical comparison, requiring cautious interpretation of these results. Black patients were underrepresented, which may have affected the generalizability of the findings. DISCLOSURES: This study was funded by Bristol Myers Squibb. Five authors declared being employees of Bristol Myers Squibb, with some holding stock or stock options with the company. Several authors declared working as consultants or having other ties with various sources including Bristol Myers Squibb.
Medscape
2 hours ago
- Medscape
AMA Calls for ACIP Answers, Stable Federal Funding
Leaders and delegates at this week's American Medical Association (AMA) annual meeting called for more stable funding for medical care and research, and a US Senate investigation into unprecedented changes to a federal vaccine advisory panel. AMA delegates passed an emergency resolution asking for that investigation after US Department of Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr earlier this week removed all 17 members of the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP), replacing them with eight new members, some regarded as vaccine skeptics. The resolution also directs AMA to send a letter asking Kennedy to immediately reverse the changes. Jason M. Goldman, MD, president of the American College of Physicians said at the meeting that Kennedy's action puts at risk insurance coverage for vaccines. ACIP's recommendations influence insurance coverage and vaccine uptake. 'As physicians, we must be the voice for our patients,' said Goldman. 'We must be the voice for science, evidence, and knowledge, and we must make sure that our institutions are protected.' Other delegates pressed the AMA to fight back against deep cuts to federal funding for healthcare and medical research. In his inaugural speech on Tuesday as AMA president, Bobby Mukkamala, MD, an otolaryngologist, said the 'importance of access to physician care is very much on my mind.' 'We cannot lose sight of what medicine and science have achieved in our lifetimes, and we cannot abandon this progress and endanger the health of millions whose illnesses could have been treated had we stayed on course,' Mukkamala said. Congressional Republicans have proposed cutting Medicaid spending and reducing subsidies for plans sold by exchanges created by the Affordable Care Act. Separately, the Trump administration has proposed a roughly 40% cut, or almost $18 billion, in the annual funding of the National Institutes of Health for fiscal 2026, the budget year starting in October. Mukkamala also called for efforts to reduce the administrative burden of prior authorization and to address Medicare physician payments, which have not kept up with inflation in recent years. More Transparency for Artificial Intelligence (AI) in Medicine The AMA also adopted policies regarding AI-driven tools and guidance for physicians regarding corporate investment in their practices. One policy calls for independent third parties to determine whether an AI tool for clinicians is 'explainable' — that it can explain to users its decisions and the evidence behind them. The new AMA policy calls for more transparency regarding these tools, including disclosure of their algorithms. Physicians at the conference raised concerns about AI-based tools making errors that could potentially harm patients and leave clinicians liable for the tools' flaws. AMA members' concerns included the potential for AI hallucinations about billing codes to leave a busy physician at risk for allegations of fraud. Among those who pushed for the AMA to adopt new policies on AI-driven tools was Jennifer Bryan, MD, chair of the Mississippi delegation to the AMA and president of the Mississippi State Medical Association. Decisions made at this AMA meeting will help physicians know when 'AI informs clinical decisions and exactly how confident the AI is in its recommendations,' Bryan told Medscape Medical News in an email. 'This is a big step forward in not just setting standards today but shaping responsible AI practices in medicine for years to come.' Corporate Intrusion The AMA delegates also voted to strengthen guidance for physicians regarding corporate or private equity investment in their practices. Corporate investment can offer an alternative to selling a practice to a hospital or health system, AMA said. These kinds of arrangements can include private or public for-profit companies, investment firms, and insurance companies. Physicians may benefit from these arrangements by being freed of some business and administrative responsibilities to spend more time with patients. But such arrangements may also pose risks, including the loss of independent authority over clinical decisions and operations, the AMA said. AMA's updated guidance recommends that decisions that should remain in the ultimate control of the physicians partnered with other entities include: Determining which diagnostic tests are appropriate for patients. Determining the need for referral or consultation with another clinician. Determining how many patients a physician should see or how many hours a physician should work. Determining the content of patient medical records. Making decisions regarding coding and billing procedures for patient care services.
CBS News
3 hours ago
- CBS News
New York state quadruples funding for Medical Indemnity Fund. Here's why there are still concerns.
N.Y. program for children injured at birth by medical malpractice gets more funding N.Y. program for children injured at birth by medical malpractice gets more funding N.Y. program for children injured at birth by medical malpractice gets more funding It's a win for children injured at birth by medical malpractice in New York. Earlier this year, the state set aside just $52 million for a critical program — far short of what it needs to stay afloat. But after CBS News New York investigator Mahsa Saeidi pressed state leaders, the funding quadrupled. Still, families who rely on the program remain on edge. Medical Indemnity Fund faces projected $3 billion shortfall David Diaz's daughter Jhudelisse suffered a neurological injury in the delivery room, but New York state didn't allow the family to collect full damages from the hospitals found to be negligent. Instead, the state promised to provide lifelong health care through a unique program called the Medical Indemnity fund (MIF). Right now, roughly 1,000 kids are enrolled in MIF, and lawmakers say approximately 100 new kids come into the fund each year. In July 2024, Diaz told Saeidi that MIF was increasingly denying his daughter's claims. "Every year it gets tougher and tougher to get the same services we're getting now," he said at the time. Then, without warning, MIF briefly shut its doors to new enrollees. The program is financially unstable, facing a projected $3 billion shortfall. Families say the state mismanaged MIF and is now cutting corners. Despite its abrupt closure in May 2024, neither Health Commissioner James McDonald, who oversees MIF, nor the governor proposed any reforms or additional funding in 2025. In February, the commissioner told lawmakers MIF would likely run out of cash again, triggering another shutdown, but two months later, when Saeidi had a chance to speak with him, McDonald had a different outlook. "The fund needs to be reformed, but I'm pleased with what I'm seeing so far in the process. In other words, the legislature's interested in making it sustainable. Same with the governor. I am as well," he said. "So I think we're going to end someplace well at the end of this year, but we'll see where we go. But I don't anticipate it shutting down this year." Additional funding should keep program open until July 2026 Soon after, the state quadrupled MIF's funding from $52 million to $211 million, preventing a shutdown. "The reality is, without the help of people like you, we would never have had this happen. And of course it's a win," Diaz told Saeidi. But he's still concerned. "We have an opportunity to cover our kid's health costs for another year or two. And we'll see from there," he said. The state says this money should allow the fund to keep its doors open until July 2026. State Assemblyman Matt Slater calls the additional funding a "very strong half step." He says he's repeatedly reached out to McDonald to collaborate and find a more long-term solution, but he's never heard back. "The process itself is still broken. And so, we still are throwing money at a bad process," Slater said. Slater said in order to fix MIF, the process has to be streamlined. "Making sure that there's an ombudsman or a panel for the families," he said. Father believes MIF is trying to cut reimbursement Diaz said an ombudsman would be useful. "It's a way to challenge when we get denied for reimbursements," he said. He added, "I have plenty of medical expenses that should be reimbursed, but it's not being covered." Before a medical visit, therapy or treatment, Diaz must obtain prior approval from MIF. Documents show MIF just added new language stating, "This approval does not guarantee rates of reimbursement." Diaz believes the wording was changed in order to cut reimbursement. "I mean, what other reason would there be?" he said. But a health department spokesperson said this language was just added "for awareness, not as a change in policy." The spokesperson also said by law, reimbursement rates are, and have always been, subject to adjustments.
