Ryan White Act

[BVESBC]

This was spun off another thread as it did not hold to the topic of treating pt's with a communicable disease.

DwayneEMTB wrote:

According to JEMS: (Though I just glanced through the article and have done no further research to verify)

"Emergency responders are protected by a number of laws and standards of care regarding occupational exposure to communicable diseases. Since 1994, the emergency-responder provisions of the Ryan White Care Act (Public Law 101-381) provided such protection. However, in a recent action that went unnoticed in the emergency-response community, Congress removed these provisions in the latest reauthorization of this law (Public Law 109-415)

This development is bad news for emergency responders-and must be addressed by all of us immediately."

(JEMS; March 2008, vol33 No.3 Page 136)

Does this effect anyone's opinion?

Dwayne

BVES wrote

This was copied from WashingtonWatch.com

P.L. 109-415, The Ryan White HIV/AIDS Treatment Modernization Act of 2006

This item is from the 109th Congress (2005-2006) and is no longer current. Comments, voting, and wiki editing have been disabled, and the cost/savings estimate has been frozen.

H.R. 6143 would reauthorize the Ryan White program in title XXVI of the Public Health Service Act. The Ryan White program provides grants to fund medical care and other support services for individuals with HIV/AIDS. The bill would modify certain provisions while maintaining the overall structure of the existing program.

I could not find just what provisons would be modified, is this just a reauthorization for funding??

[UMSTUDENT]

This was spun off another thread as it did not hold to the topic of treating pt's with a communicable disease.

DwayneEMTB wrote:

According to JEMS: (Though I just glanced through the article and have done no further research to verify)

"Emergency responders are protected by a number of laws and standards of care regarding occupational exposure to communicable diseases. Since 1994, the emergency-responder provisions of the Ryan White Care Act (Public Law 101-381) provided such protection. However, in a recent action that went unnoticed in the emergency-response community, Congress removed these provisions in the latest reauthorization of this law (Public Law 109-415)

This development is bad news for emergency responders-and must be addressed by all of us immediately."

(JEMS; March 2008, vol33 No.3 Page 136)

Does this effect anyone's opinion?

Dwayne

BVES wrote

This was copied from WashingtonWatch.com

P.L. 109-415, The Ryan White HIV/AIDS Treatment Modernization Act of 2006

This item is from the 109th Congress (2005-2006) and is no longer current. Comments, voting, and wiki editing have been disabled, and the cost/savings estimate has been frozen.

H.R. 6143 would reauthorize the Ryan White program in title XXVI of the Public Health Service Act. The Ryan White program provides grants to fund medical care and other support services for individuals with HIV/AIDS. The bill would modify certain provisions while maintaining the overall structure of the existing program.

I could not find just what provisons would be modified, is this just a reauthorization for funding??

This definitely needs to be investigated furhter. This is something that is central to our health and safety as EMS professionals.

[Scaramedic]

Does anybody use GOOGLE?

It took me about 5 seconds to find this.

Ryan White Bill Side by Side Comparison

[DwayneEMTP]

This was spun off another thread as it did not hold to the topic of treating pt's with a communicable disease.

Man, I like your attitude. The fit in the other thread was weak at best.

Does anybody use GOOGLE?

It took me about 5 seconds to find this.

Ryan White Bill Side by Side Comparison

Lots of big words...No pictures...I couldn't make heads nor tails of it... :wink:

[BVESBC]

Does anybody use GOOGLE?

It took me about 5 seconds to find this.

Ryan White Bill Side by Side Comparison

Unless I'm missing something all I see is a lot of funding info. The info from washingtonwatch.com has tons more info, but appears to also only be funding related.

[Dustdevil]

Unless I'm missing something all I see is a lot of funding info. The info from washingtonwatch.com has tons more info, but appears to also only be funding related.

You're not missing anything. The government is.

As usual, they are so focused on spending money that they totally miss the point.

[Lone Star]

[b]Cause for Alarm

Why do we need this law? Some will say the bloodborne pathogens standard of the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) is sufficient. This isn’t true, because 1) OSHA does not have jurisdiction over state and local governments in about half of the states; 2) the bloodborne pathogens standard does not provide a clearly stated post-exposure procedure to be followed and does not give clear time frames for testing and notification; and 3) OSHA does not provide the clear coverage of volunteers that the Ryan White Law provided.

What If OSHA Doesn’t Apply?

Another problem with the OSHA BBP standard is that it doesn’t apply to state and local governmental employees in about half of the states. State and local governmental employees are covered by federal OSHA standards only in states with occupational safety and health plans that have been approved by federal OSHA. Federal OSHA has no jurisdiction over state and local government employees in the following states/territories—which don’t have OSHA-approved plans—Alabama, Arkansas, Colorado, Delaware, Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Illinois, Kansas. Louisiana, Maine, Massachusetts, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, New Hampshire, New Jersey, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South Dakota, Texas, West Virginia, Wisconsin, Washington, D.C., and Guam.

http://www.jems.com/news_and_articles/arti...w_repealed.html

http://www.jems.com/news_and_articles/arti...9/now_what.html