Enter your email address to receive our daily LGBT news roundup

You're free to unsubscribe at any time.

National AIDS Trust responds to Queen’s Speech by urging ministers to focus more on HIV

Post your comment

Comments on this article are now closed.

Reader comments

  1. factsandfigures 8 May 2013, 5:37pm

    Given “In February the Government announced that from 1 October 2012, HIV treatment will be freely available to all patients living in England, regardless of their residency status or how long they have been in the UK. ” http://www.nat.org.uk/media/Files/Policy/2012/April-2012-QandA-Changes-to-NHS-charging-rules-for-HIV.pdf Should the question be ask for those later affected by the changes in the current proposed law should be addressed?

    Also the ASG funding to Local Authroities is “This funding is set to increase by £10.7 million over five years from £25.5 million in 2010/11 to £36.2 million in 2014/15 (£27.7 million in 2011/12, £30.3 million in 2012/13, and £33.1 million in 2013/14) http://www.nat.org.uk/media/FilesPolicy2012HIVSocialCareReport2012forweb.pdf

    Slightly missed in the news item?

    1. ChrisMorley 8 May 2013, 6:08pm

      “Should the question be ask for those later affected by the changes in the current proposed law should be addressed?”
      Please explain what this means in plain English. Who should ask what question of whom?

      Re your ASG [AIDS Support Grant] quote, ASG is paid to local authorities for HIV social care expenses. ASG doesn’t pay for HIV treatment.
      NHS Hospital Trusts are funded separately by the Department of Health for providing HIV treatment.

      1. factsandfigures 8 May 2013, 6:30pm

        HM Government current policy on HIV treatment that was introduced in 2012, as above indicates, any changes in UK legisation, was to suggest how this will affect people not covered under the current policy and changes being introduced?

        Q and A is to NAT and others in the persuit of supporting those affected by the forthcoming changes, if this will apply, will mean a change in current policy delivery?

        Re: the ASG and that of PN headline and guess Ms Jack comment “urging ministers to focus more on HIV” is a Q & A to what are Local Authoitires doing to support people living/affected by HIV/AIDS, to whom this responsbaility is charged? This has a wide range from Prisons, Detention Centre, those in the community…….

        1. ChrisMorley 8 May 2013, 7:58pm

          Well thank you for making this a little clearer, if not in plain English.

          So you wanted NAT’s statement about the Queen’s Speech to explain precisely what difference the government’s announced policy change will make to migrants living with HIV. I’d like to know too, as does NAT.

          The short answer is that no-one knows yet and so NAT and Pink News can’t tell us.

          This was the Queen’s Speech, which is little more than a shopping list of headline announcements of the laws the government wants to introduce. Deborah Jack in her statement told us the proposals were only “outlined” in the Queen’s Speech.

          The Department of Health hasn’t even published a consultation paper nor a White Paper setting out its detailed proposals. It will become clearer in the coming months.

  2. factsandfigures 8 May 2013, 5:49pm

    I refer to NAT webpage http://www.nat.org.uk/Our-thinking/People-in-greatest-need/Asylum%20and%20migration.aspx and its last thinking was published 2008/2009 and shouldn’t these publications be updated to take into consideration the present changes in Law, data and perspective?

    1. ChrisMorley 8 May 2013, 6:18pm

      I’m not sure where you get the information that this page was last updated in 2008/2009.

      The first section “NHS Treatment Charges for overseas visitors” which deals with “health tourism’ nad charging migrants for HIV tests and treatment, plainly tells you:
      “Treatment has only been free since 1 October 2012. We have put together a Q&A on the Changes to the NHS Charging Rules with more information on the new policy.”

      A relevant linked document available for download at the bottom of the page is plainly dated 2012.

        1. ChrisMorley 8 May 2013, 7:39pm

          factsandfigures, posting the same link really doesn’t answer my question.

          Forgive me if I’ve missed the words on the page but I can’t see any statement on that page that supports your claim
          “its last thinking was published 2008/2009 and shouldn’t these publications be updated”.

          I invite you to tell me which section of the page you found that the page was “published in 2008/2009″.

          I’ve provided you with evidence showing it and the relevant publication was updated in 2012.

          I’m happy to forgive you if you made an honest mistake, because we can all do that.

          1. factsandfigures 8 May 2013, 8:04pm

            Chris, I was refering to the Download documents on the page listed which informs 2008/2009 publication and it is those, I suggest should be brought up todate.

            The 2012 publication, which confirms HM Government approach to HIV treatment with restrictions. HM Government has yet to provide and respond to, if any, how this policy is to be changed? If so is this news item then misleading and incorrect? Shouldn’t this question be ask of Government first, before headlining?

            NAT states “National AIDS Trust (NAT) criticised the government’s focus on curbing “health tourism” and warned that it could make it harder for migrants to receive HIV tests and treatment.

          2. ChrisMorley 9 May 2013, 2:12pm

            factsandfigures this is a response to your reply below this, [there was no ‘post a reply’ button below that response]

            You’ll remember that the Pink News report was all about the government’s proposal to limit migrants access to the NHS. NAT’s response was that tightening access to the NHS “could make it harder for migrants to receive HIV tests and treatment”.

            So the two documents that are relevant to this which are listed for downloading on NAT’s webpage are
            – “Will I Have to Pay? Advice on getting NHS sexual health and HIV services for asylum seekers and migrants (2012)” which is bang up to date.
            The law hasn’t changed yet, and even the government can’t tell us what might change.

            The Pink News article also quotes NAT’s Deborah Jack talking about the myth of “Health Tourism”.
            The second relevant document is
            – “The Myth of HIV Health Tourism (2008)” which is still factually correct.

            Since that was written, the law changed and so the 2012 document tells you the current rules.

          3. factsandfigures 9 May 2013, 3:39pm

            Chris, thats your perspective, I have suggested mine, let others choose thier point of view?

            NAT could have been a bit more forthright including the 2012 changes when marking it statement, I have raised this issue with them earlier today.

            I disagree that a report published in 2008, is taken for granted will represent the current data and situation. Is NAT to use this if and when presenting it argurment through the consultation process?

            BHIVA and other orginsations have to review it policies and procedures over time, why not NAT and its reports?

            Therefore this does nothing to help support the current needs of people, thier lives and situations, if all we are doing to do is say hey, left not recover this topic, it was done 5 years ago, who does that help?

    1. ChrisMorley 8 May 2013, 6:24pm

      It is best to be aware that Migration Watch are a political anti-immigration lobbying organisation.

      By all means read what they have to say but you would need to cross check what they say and look for independent impartial and balanced perspectives.

  3. Diease riddled 9 May 2013, 10:04am

    Deborah Jack looks like a bloke or is it Bono in drag?

    1. Have you seen tht’s Lisa Power?????? Weird that these fierce looking women are telling us guyz how we should be having sex………….

      1. Nice bit of misogyny there.

These comments are un-moderated and do not necessarily represent the views of PinkNews.co.uk. If you believe that a comment is inappropriate or libellous, please contact us.

Top commenters this week

Latest stories

See all