Carl Schmid, executive director, HIV + Hepatitis Policy Institute spoke to Contagion about the court case, and why everyone should be banding together for all preventative services on order to prevent acute infections in the future as well as the value of testing to get people into the continuum of care and prevent other transmissions.
In late February, The US Business Action to End HIV, the largest coalition of employers dedicated to ending the HIV epidemic in the United States, sent a letter to Congress urging them to prioritize sustained federal funding for HIV prevention and treatment and underscoring the business sector’s commitment to advancing public health and ensuring progress in the fight against HIV. “We have two goals, one to get people who are living with HIV on treatment, and two, to prevent new acquisition of HIV,” said Carl Schmid, Executive Director, HIV+Hepatitis Policy Institute.
Carl Schmid, executive director of the HIV+Hepatitis Policy Institute, told Inside Health Policy the bill will benefit from public debate. “We of course would like to see a National Hepatitis C Elimination program, but it is important that a program of such magnitude be publicly introduced and debated,” he said. “To date, we have not seen a draft bill but are looking forward to seeing one and reviewing it so that Congress can benefit from the perspective of community members and others.”
In 2001, Weldon fought to block same-sex marriage in the District of Columbia. That was the first time Carl Schmid, executive director of the HIV+Hepatitis Policy Institute, recalls encountering Weldon. “I hope he’s changed,” said Schmid. “How is he going to prevent HIV without outreach to the gay community and trans community and others?” Weldon was “really committed” to global HIV/AIDS programs such as President George W. Bush’s PEPFAR initiative (funding for which the Trump administration suspended in January) said Schmid. “But he also was very ingrained in the abstinence-only message.”
“Obviously the Biden admin defended the preventative services. We were not sure if the Trump administration would defend the coverage in the ACA, and it would have been bad if they did not, but they did and it was very, very, very critical to the case and how the Supreme Court will address it,” added Schmid. “That was a big deal, and so we talked before about PrEP and religious [freedom] but that’s no longer the issue … the Trump administration said the secretary has power over the task force members; they can make appointments, fire them, decide whether insurers should cover the preventive services that they recommend. We may not like that but they seem to be saying, ‘We have power, the secretary has power, so it’s OK.’ That may save the preventive services at the Supreme Court, that brief.”