HIV/AIDS Administration Surveillance Report Delayed
 The HIV/AIDS Administration 2001-2006 Surveillance Report that was scheduled to be released this month has been delayed once again. This can only be described as yet another setback for the HIV/AIDS Administration, whose performance has been questioned on a variety of fronts including condom distribution, HIV testing, and program oversight.The Surveillance report provides an overview of the HIV epidemic in the city and helps us better understand where new HIV cases are occurring in the city, which populations are most affected, and what modes of transmission are most prevalent. I was looking forward to having the report this month, before AIDS Walk Washington, one of the most visible HIV/AIDS events in the city, so that we could accurately give information about HIV rates in DC. That's not going to happen. The HIV/AIDS Administration now says we can look for the report before the end of October. This will give Dr. Shannon Hader, the new Director of the HIV/AIDS Administration, and opportunity to review the report before it is released (Hader does not actually start work until mid-October). In light of this development, The October ACTION Lunch with Tiffany West-Ojo from the HIV/AIDS Administration to present the Surveillance Data has been rescheduled for November 15th. click here for more information about this event. Labels: HAA, Surveillance |
Comments on "HIV/AIDS Administration Surveillance Report Delayed"
-
Alex said ... (8:38 PM) :
-
Hank Tomlinson said ... (9:55 PM) :
-
David Mariner said ... (5:54 PM) :
-
hank tomlinson said ... (9:31 PM) :
post a commentI have to say that while I understand that it is a good idea to give Dr. Hader some time with the data before going public. We have been begging and pleading for this data for YEARS. So no one should be surprised by the hard feelings another delay is generating. And IMHO the administration should just take their lumps.
As a member of the CPG, and as someone who works closely with the Surveillance bureau through the CPG's Epi, Data, and Needs Asessment committee, I am disappointed with the one-month delay but am comfortable with the reasons behind the decision.
As much as Dr. Hader's review may be appreciated, the still-understaffed surveillance team has had their hands busy with the preparation of a new, competitive, 5-year grant application to CDC. With limited time and personnel resources, I would much rather see the surveillance staff focus their efforts on developing a reasoned and theoretically sound proposal for the next five years than to rush to prepare two mediocre documents. I am as eager to see the report as anyone, but, to me, this one month delay is understandable.
Hey Hank and Alex,
I definitely appreciate your comments.
IF it is in fact just a one month delay (and a one month delay often turns out to be more than one month with HAA) and IF the information is accurate (unlike the recent youth report which has some internal inconsistencies and questionable data), then that will certainly be a big step forward.
But Hank, I think that you create a false paradigm when you suggest we have to choose between getting the report on time and getting accurate well thought out data.
I understand that I'm raising the bar here, but I would like the report to be BOTH on time AND accurate. We shouldn't have to settle for one or the other.
I realize I'm raising the bar here considerably, but given the state of HIV in DC, I believe the bar needs to be raised.
I misspoke when I said that divided attention would result in the production of two mediocre documents. Given what I have seen and heard in our EDNA meetings, I have reason to be optimistic about the quality of the surveillance report. But I do think that focusing the attention of the higher level staff in Surveillance, at this time, on preparing for release of the report--instead of preparing an appropriate and well-conceived proposal for the next 5-year cooperative agreement--would be an error.
Surveillance is looking to add a considerable number of of FTEs to its staff, with monies earmarked by the new cooperative agreement (which won't be awarded until next year) and appropriated by the local government. Until those positions are filled, the limited personnel resources that can be commited to such important activities is limited. If I were speaking in paradigmatic terms, it would be a false choice. But I'm not speaking so broadly.
We all want the same things--accurate, relevant, and informative data reported on time and a good plan for future activities. I think HAA has made considerable movement in the right direction during the last year, and I think you're right to want to continue that inertia.