newborns routinely aids tested these days, is it really true?

[contactmaya]

Ds1 born in a hospital in 2005 was not aids tested. Ds2 in 2008 was a homebirth, not aids tested.

 

Is it really true they routinely aids test newborns these days? My insurance told me this. It seems a bit strange, especially if the mother is already routinely aids tested at her first prenatal appt. 

 

I dont want my newborn undergoing a pointless test like this.

 

When did they introduce this? Is it really true?

[nia82]

Hm I don't think so. DS was born in 2008 in CA and nobody wanted to test him. DD was born this year but in a freestanding birthing center anyways so they are pretty non-invasive. I did consent to having AIDS tests for me in both pregnancies - they did say with DS that if I am not tested, the hospital will test the newborn. I did not want that to happen. With DD I agreed as it was mandatory for waterbirth.

[scottishmommy]

I bet it depends on the state. I don't think my hospital does.

[TCMoulton]

In Illinois if the mother is not tested during her pregnancy than the child is tested while in the hospital after birth.

[mammamo]

I would think since that have to get special consent for adults, that they would have to get consent for it, if the child were going to be tested. That is completely an assumption, though.

[emmaegbert]

I was told the other day by my health insurance company that its required by law in New York State. I know my child will not have been exposed to HIV so personally I feel its unnecessary, but I don't feel strongly against the testing. My MWs also told me that they are required by state law to do the eye treatment after birth. However, they are willing to forgo it as long as I promise not to report this fact to anyone.

Sounds like things vary a lot by state.

My other two were born in California, and you could pretty much waive anything you wanted there.

[cameragirl]

In CA, mothers are routinely tested. If the mom tests negative, there is no reason to test the infant. There is special consent required for mom's test, since a positive result generally requires some counseling.

[emmaegbert]

true, I was tested for a lot more STDs in general when pregnant in CA, and nothing much here (NY). It makes sense to test the mothers- then you can take preventative measures to minimize likelihood of exposure of the baby, or treat immediately if necessary. I am personally not concerned that I have been exposed to any STDs in the 2.5 years since I was tested during my previous pregnancy so I haven't been worrying about it myself.

Edited by emmaegbert - 9/23/11 at 9:34am

[erigeron]

Unless they can test for hiv in the blood squeezed onto the card for a heel stick, my dd was not tested. she didn't leave my sight in the hospital.

[kathrineg]

Depends on the state.

[cameragirl]

The heel stick for the card is usually for state mandated testing for diseases/conditions that could severely affect the infant before symptoms are obvious. I believe they draw more than that for an HIV test.

BTW - treating the mother with anti-retrovirals is very effective during pregnancy. I still don't see why they would check the baby unless the mother tests positive or refused any testing.

[kathrineg]

It's probably easier to mandate testing for a child than for an adult depending on state law.

It's probably easier to just have a blanket testing policy than to keep records on individual mothers and keep track of who got tested and who didn't, especially if they're not getting consistent prenatal care. 

Just speculation, but it makes decent sense to me as a public health policy considering the low risk involved in the testing and the potentially high benefit to the child.

[emmaegbert]

Originally Posted by kathrineg 

Just speculation, but it makes decent sense to me as a public health policy considering the low risk involved in the testing and the potentially high benefit to the child.

I agree, and as long as its covered by my insurance, I wouldn't go to the trouble of trying to refuse something like this that is so low risk to my baby, even though I am sure that we have not been exposed to HIV.

[justKate]

Originally Posted by TCMoulton 

In Illinois if the mother is not tested during her pregnancy than the child is tested while in the hospital after birth.

This is the law in VA, too.  My midwife says I can refuse consent, but why go through that when they can just test me?  Not my hill to die on.