Search

Health policies and the problems they constitute are deeply shaped by multiple publics. In this article we conceptualize health policy counterpublics : temporally bounded socio-political forms that aim to cultivate particular modes of conduct, generally to resist trajectories set by arms of the state. These counterpublics often emerge from existing social movements and involve varied forms of activism and advocacy. We examine a health policy counterpublic that has arisen in response to new forms of HIV public health surveillance by drawing on public documents and interview data from 2021 with 26 stakeholders who were critical of key policy developments. Since 2018, the national rollout of molecular HIV surveillance (MHS) and cluster detection and response (CDR) programs in the United States has produced sustained controversies among HIV stakeholders, including among organized networks of people living with HIV. This article focuses on how a health policy counterpublic formed around MHS/CDR and how constituents problematized the policy agenda set in motion by federal health agencies, including in relation to data ethics, the meaningful involvement of affected communities, informed consent, the digitization of health systems, and HIV criminalization. Although familiar problems in HIV policymaking, concerns about these issues have been reconfigured in response to the new sociotechnical milieu proffered by MHS/CDR, generating new critical positions aiming to remake public health. Critical attention to the scenes within which health policy controversies play out ought to consider how (counter)publics are made, how problems are constituted, and the broader social movement dynamics and activist resources drawn upon to contest and reimagine policymaking in public life. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Policy PointsMolecular HIV surveillance and cluster detection and response (MHS/CDR) programs have been a core public health activity in the United States since 2018 and are the "fourth pillar" of the Ending the HIV Epidemic initiative launched in 2019.MHS/CDR has caused controversy, including calls for a moratorium from networks of people living with HIV. In October 2022, the Presidential Advisory Council on HIV/AIDS (PACHA) adopted a resolution calling for major reforms.We analyze the policy landscape and present four proposals to federal stakeholders pertaining to PACHA's recommendations about incorporating opt‐outs and plain‐language notifications into MHS/CDR programs. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In recent years, applications of big data-driven predictive analytics in public health programs have expanded, offering promises of greater efficiency and improved outcomes. This commentary considers the turn toward predictive modeling in US-based HIV public health initiatives. Through two case studies, we analyze emergent ethical problems and risks. We focus on potential harms related to (1) classifying people living with HIV in public health systems, (2) new ways of combining and sharing individuals' health data that predictive approaches employ, and (3) how new applications of big data in public health challenge the underlying logics and regulatory paradigms that govern data re-uses and rights in public health practice. Drawing on critical technology scholarship, critical bioethics, and advocacy by organized networks of people living with HIV, we argue that stakeholders should enter into a new range of reform-oriented conversations about the regulatory frameworks, ethical norms, and best practices that govern re-uses of HIV public health data in the era of predictive public health interventions that target individuals. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In the United States, clinical HIV data reported to surveillance systems operated by jurisdictional departments of public health are re-used for epidemiology and prevention. In 2018, all jurisdictions began using HIV genetic sequence data from clinical drug resistance tests to identify people living with HIV in "clusters" of others with genetically similar strains. This is called "molecular HIV surveillance" (MHS). In 2019, "cluster detection and response" (CDR) programs that re-use MHS data became the "fourth pillar" of the national HIV strategy. Public health re-uses of HIV data are done without consent and are a source of concern among stakeholders. This article presents three cases that illuminate bioethical challenges associated with re-uses of clinical HIV data for public health. We focus on evidence-base, risk-benefit ratio, determining directionality of HIV transmission, consent, and ethical re-use. The conclusion offers strategies for "HIV data justice." The essay contributes to a "bioethics of the oppressed." [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article presents the response of the authors to comments on their article "Reassessing the Ethics of Molecular HIV Surveillance (MHS) in the Era of Cluster Detection and Response (CDR): Toward HIV Data Justice." They reiterate their argument concerning consent for reuse of HIV surveillance data. They cite the need for further social, behavior and ethical research MHS and CDR is needed.