Australia lifts plasma donation ban for gay, bisexual men in world first
Rules that effectively banned all sexually active gay and bisexual men from donating blood and plasma are being lifted in Australia. The rules, originally introduced to decrease the risk of blood donations from groups with a higher chance of HIV exposure, will begin being revoked from next month, following similar moves in the UK and US.However, under the changes, Australia will become the first country in the world to remove all sexual activity-based restrictions on plasma donation, the national blood donation service Lifeblood says.The new rules have been approved by the country's health products regulator, and are estimated to expand the donation pool by 625,000 people.
Lifeblood's Chief Medical Officer, Jo Pink, in a statement said the changes are a significant milestone."Blood safety is and always will be our top priority, but we know the current donation rules have been very difficult for many people in the LGBTQIA+ community... we know that they've contributed to the stigma faced by [them]," she said.Previously, any men or transgender women who had sex with men in the previous three months were banned from donating blood or plasma, as were sex workers and women who have sex with bisexual men.Now, most people in a sexual relationship of 6 months or more with a single partner will be eligible to donate blood, regardless of their gender or sexuality.Under the new rules, Lifeblood will no longer ask men if they had sex with men in the previous three months.Instead, all donors will be asked if they have had anal sex with new or multiple partners.If the answer is yes, they will need to wait three months to donate blood, but are still eligible to donate plasma.People taking HIV prevention drug PrEP will also be able to donate plasma, though they are still blocked from donating blood.The only group who are still unable to donate plasma are those with HIV, and those with a partner with HIV.The plasma donation rules will come into effect on 14 July, with the updated approach to blood donations to be implemented sometime in 2026.Research conducted by Lifeblood, with the University of New South Wales' Kirby Institute, showed that rule changes would not have any impact to the safety of blood and plasma supply.Plasma in particular goes through a process called pathogen inactivation, which filters out viruses and bacteria, significantly reduces the risk of an infection being passed on to a patient.Global demand for plasma is already at an all time high and is still rising, including in Australia, so Lifeblood hopes the changes will provide a much-need boost to supplies."We welcome this change which potentially unlocks thousands of donations of life-saving plasma, which is in high demand in Australian hospitals," Health Equity Matters chief executive Dash Heath-Paynter said in a statement.Additional reporting by Lana Lam
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Telegraph
an hour ago
- Telegraph
I'm a GP and this is how I'd save the burnt-out NHS
A 'national emergency' is facing the NHS. So says Health Secretary Wes Streeting, who in the coming weeks will publish the Government's 10 Year Health Plan – an 'ambitious yet essential' doctrine to bring the waiting list down from six million, harness private providers, and ensure that patients no longer 'suffer unnecessarily when capacity exists to treat them'. Streeting has also suggested that the new reforms could see GPs take over hospital trusts. 'The NHS should not be bound by traditional expectations of how services should be arranged,' he told the NHS ConfedExpo Conference in Manchester last week, describing the current divide between institutions as 'old-fashioned' and 'increasingly meaningless', in the face of the new plans. The idea is unlikely to thrill the many patients who have found themselves falling through NHS cracks as a result of departments seemingly unable to talk to one another. How this might work practically remains to be seen. Might healthcare professionals welcome a break in the divide between hospitals and GPs, or would it lead to more/inefficiencies? Here, three family doctors share their views. 'We need a new approach to chronic health issues' Martin Brunet, GP GPs think in a different way from hospital doctors, and that's our skill. We're pretty much the only people in general in medicine that look at every aspect of a patient's life; we're interested in all their physical problems, but also their social set-up and what's going on emotionally for them, and we put it all together. In the hospital, you see a cardiologist for the heart and a neurologist for the brain, but what if what's going on crosses all of those areas? Where the health system could be radically different is by challenging the current model, which is biomedical. That means when a patient has symptoms, a doctor makes a diagnosis, usually with the aid of complex tests, and then they find a definable disease with a definable treatment. This works brilliantly for conditions like cancer or pneumonia. But if you've got something like chronic pain or irritable bowel syndrome (9.1 million people are projected to have a chronic condition by 2040) it really doesn't work as well. What then happens is you have all these patients having loads of tests for their pain, none of which really get to the root of the problem, and they end up on lots of medication which doesn't help them, and is a very inefficient use of money. If you could set up holistic clinics – mostly run by GPs, but perhaps with some specialist input from people who really understand how the mind and the body work together – we could more effectively get to the root cause of why someone's brain is not allowing them to recover from chronic conditions, and make a massive difference to people's lives. GPs are very innovative, if you give them the chance. But Streeting's idea to send us into hospitals will not work if we are expected to go in and act like hospital doctors. We don't need GPs to try to pretend to be specialists. We're generalists, and that's our strength. 'We have to change the NHS culture, and how we all work together' Prof Kamila Hawthorne
The Independent
an hour ago
- The Independent
More employers are sending workers shopping for their own health coverage
A small, growing number of employers are putting health insurance decisions entirely in the hands of their workers. Instead of offering traditional insurance, they're giving workers money to buy their own coverage in what's known as Individual Coverage Health Reimbursement Arrangements, or ICHRAs. Advocates say this approach provides small companies that couldn't afford insurance a chance to offer something. It also caps a growing expense for employers and fits conservative political goals of giving people more purchasing power over their coverage. But ICHRAs place the risk for finding coverage on the employee, and they force them to do something many dislike: Shop for insurance. 'It's maybe not perfect, but it's solving a problem for a lot of people,' said Cynthia Cox, of the nonprofit KFF, which studies health care issues. Here's a closer look at how this approach to health insurance is evolving. What's an ICHRA? Normally, U.S. employers offering health coverage will have one or two insurance options for workers through what's known as a group plan. The employers then pick up most of the premium, or cost of coverage. ICHRAs are different: Employers contribute to health insurance coverage, but the workers then pick their own insurance plans. The employers that use ICHRAs hire outside firms to help people make their coverage decisions. ICHRAs were created during President Donald Trump's first administration. Enrollment started slowly but has swelled in recent years. What's the big deal about ICHRAs? They give business owners a predictable cost, and they save companies from having to make coverage decisions for employees. 'You have so many things you need to focus on as a business owner to just actually grow the business,' said Jeff Yuan, co-founder of the New York-based insurance startup Taro Health. Small businesses, in particular, can be vulnerable to annual insurance cost spikes, especially if some employees have expensive medical conditions. But the ICHRA approach keeps the employer cost more predictable. Yuan's company bases its contributions on the employee's age and how many people are covered under the plan. That means it may contribute anywhere from $400 to more than $2,000 monthly to an employee's coverage. How is this approach different? ICHRAs let people pick from among dozens of options in an individual insurance market instead of just taking whatever their company offers. That may give people a chance to find coverage more tailored to their needs. Some insurers, for instance, offer plans designed for people with diabetes. And workers can keep the coverage if they leave — potentially for longer periods than they would be able to with traditional employer health insurance plans. They likely will have to pay the full premium, but keeping the coverage also means they won't have to find a new plan that covers their doctors. Mark Bertolini, CEO of the insurer Oscar Health, noted that most people change jobs several times. ' Insurance works best when it moves with the consumer,' said the executive, whose company is growing enrollment through ICHRAs in several states. What are the drawbacks for employees? Health insurance plans on the individual market tend to have narrower coverage networks than employer-sponsored coverage. It may be challenging for patients who see several doctors to find one plan that covers them all. People shopping for their own insurance can find coverage choices and terms like deductibles or coinsurance overwhelming. That makes it important for employers to provide help with plan selection. The broker or technology platform setting up a company's ICHRA generally does this by asking about their medical needs or if they have any surgeries planned in the coming year. How many people get coverage this way? There are no good numbers nationally that show how many people have coverage through an ICHRA or a separate program for companies with 50 workers or less. However, the HRA Council, a trade association that promotes the arrangements, sees big growth. The council works with companies that help employers offer the ICHRAs. It studies growth in a sample of those businesses. It says about 450,000 people were offered coverage through these arrangements this year. That's up 50% from 2024. Council Executive Director Robin Paoli says the total market may be twice as large. Still, these arrangements make up a sliver of employer-sponsored health coverage in the United States. About 154 million people were enrolled in coverage through work last year, according to KFF. Will growth continue? Several things could cause more employers to offer ICHRAs. As health care costs continue to climb, more companies may look to limit their exposure to the hit. Some tax breaks and incentives that encourage the arrangements could wind up in a final version of the Republican tax bill currently under consideration in the Senate. More people also will be eligible for the arrangements if extra government subsidies that help buy coverage on the Affordable Care Act's individual marketplaces expire this year. You can't participate in an ICHRA if you are already getting a subsidy from the government, noted Brian Blase, a White House health policy adviser in the first Trump administration. 'The enhanced subsidies, they crowd out private financing,' he said. ___ The Associated Press Health and Science Department receives support from the Howard Hughes Medical Institute's Science and Educational Media Group. The AP is solely responsible for all content.
BBC News
an hour ago
- BBC News
Herefordshire and Worcestershire NHS staff facing redundancy
Up to 200 people face being made redundant as an NHS board attempts to halve its move would affect administrative staff at NHS Herefordshire and Worcestershire Integrated Care Board (ICB), which has a budget of £2.2bn and commissions healthcare services across the two ICB's chief executive, Simon Trickett, said such a move would free up £23m to re-invest in frontline have been set a target of halving their costs by the government, as part of wide-ranging health reforms that will also see the abolition of NHS England which, in March, Health Secretary Wes Streeting said would take place within two years. Most ICBs are expected to reduce their costs by merging with a neighbouring health board, which in this case would see a merger with Coventry and Warwickshire ICB (CW), although there is no immediate plan to do this. "We are now in the midst of a re-organisation of how the management of integrated care boards work," said Mr Trickett."We won't merge ICBs but we will share management and leadership capacity and have one team running two ICBs – Herefordshire and Worcestershire ICB and Coventry and Warwickshire ICB."The net result of that will be a 50% reduction in running costs – that equates to £23m. This is a lot of money taken out of management to be available to put into frontline care."Addressing Worcestershire County Council's health and wellbeing board on Tuesday, he said it would likely result in between 150 and 200 redundancies out of the estimated 250 people directly employed by the ICB. 'No compromises' Mr Trickett described the deal with CW as "an interim arrangement that can allow the savings to be delivered".However, he said there would be no merger with that board at this stage because the government wanted health boards to align with strategic mayoral savings would be made by not having to service NHS England's infrastructure, Mr Trickett said the role of the board was also changing, with staff being asked to be less "hands-on" as it becomes a more strategic commissioner."The NHS in this part of the country is far from perfect, but we have made some good progress," Mr Trickett said. "We want to continue that."I won't be willing to compromise things that make a difference for patients, to hit this target." This news was gathered by the Local Democracy Reporting Service, which covers councils and other public service organisations. Follow BBC Hereford & Worcester on BBC Sounds, Facebook, X and Instagram.
