I know this will get discussed a lot in the coming year (and is waaay off topic of my usual posts), but this new law in New Jersey bugs me – lets look just from a “cost of health care perspective” (read the many other objections from all sides of the political spectrum in the article).
Do the math. NJ has approximately 115,000 births a year. In 2008 they will require two (2) HIV tests for every expectant mother (beginning of pregnancy and third trimester) – that’s 230,000 tests. I don’t know what an HIV test costs, but some big drug company is pretty happy right now.
Now you would ask, how many will find out about an infected newborn as a result of all this work? Well NJ has no (0) recorded cases of mother-to-child transmission of HIV in 2007 with two (2) recorded in 2006. Even at the high-point in 2005 with seven babies born infected, that is .00006% of babies born.
If they want to help out mothers and babies (which I am all for) why not fund free prenatal vitamins, counseling/classes, car seats or something 100% of moms/babies need?
N.J. Orders HIV Testing For Pregnant Women – washingtonpost.com
Wow, I never knew that N.J. Orders HIV Testing For Pregnant Women – washingtonpost.com. That’s pretty interesting…
I want to focus on my study in about the nature of law because i know someday i can use this as weapon when i graduated. I’ve been searching an situation or related to the law of about countries. I want to add about what i learned about this blog in my article in my website. Thanks for the info.
Can you share with us that law that talks all about the cost of health care perspective?