It has been nearly a decade since the first cases of AIDS were reported by the United States Centers for Disease Control (CDC). During that time there have been over 200 statutes enacted in every jurisdiction in the country. Unfortunately, the content of the legislation is highly diverse, even inconsistent, from state to state, and there is very little guiding federal legislation or regulation. The profound social, moral and public policy dilemmas that are magnified by the Human Immunodeficiency Virus (HIV) epidemic are still no closer to resolution. Should testing for HIV infection be voluntary, routine or compulsory when there is a higher risk of transmission of HIV? Should America return to traditional moral values of abstinence outside of marriage and zero tolerance of drug use, or should we teach safe sex and use of sterile injection equipment? Should health care professionals maintain strict confidentiality or do they have a duty to protect third parties in imminent danger?

In response to the public outcry for mandatory testing for AIDS, this Article explores the major issues concerning the identification of persons with AIDS in society. The Article first studies testing procedures and the purposes behind them to determine if a call for mandatory testing of the general populace would better achieve society's objectives for identifying individuals with AIDS. Concluding that testing should not be required of the population as a whole, the Article then explores whether testing should be required of certain subpopulations which society perceives as likely to have or to spread the disease. In this context, too, the Article concludes that mandatory testing would be unwarranted, and that funds proposed for mandatory testing would be put to better use in education and universal precautions to prevent the further spread of AIDS.

This article reviews legislative options to prevent the transmission of HIV infection. It distinguishes between pre-exposure measures designed to prevent intitial exposure, and post-exposure measures aimed at preventing infected individuals from exposing others. Part I identifies education as the key component of a comprehensive prevention program, and reviews options for pre-exposure education programs designed to avoid or minimize exposure. Part II reviews post-exposure prevention measures, focusing on reporting and contact tracing provisions. Mandatory reporting by name of individuals testing HIV positive and mandatory contact tracing are opposed as counterproductive prevention measures; voluntary partner notification is supported. Part III examines various prevention efforts for settings where there may be either a real or perceived risk of transmission of HIV infection. Part IV sets out conclusions.

Promises of confidentiality of HIV-related medical records and protection from discrimination based on HIV seropositivity are two of the legislative inducements state governments have offered to encourage voluntary HIV testing. Yet neither can be granted without impact on others whose interests range from those of a lover to those of an insurer. Politics as well as practicalities prevent the absolute protection of records from unauthorized disclosure and of individuals from discrimination. This article details the already enacted statutory compromises that have been made to resolve the conflicts of these competing interests and closely examines the myriad fine decisions made in reaching those legislative decisions.

Financing health care for perons with HIV infection is an increasing burden on states and their taxpayers. The major problems of state policy in the 1990s are how to organize and finance both early detection of infection and preventive drug treatment for persons without symptoms and how to provide a full range of health and social services for infected persons whose life expectancy is unknown. This article first describes the shift in the perceptions of HIV infection from a plague to a chronic disease and the implications of this shift for state government. Then it places the history of financing for health care in the context of general health care financing policy during the past decade. Next it describes the history of state action to finance care for HIV infection, especially the use of of Medicaid Waivers, problems of state financing for expensive prescription drugs, and state initiatives, especially in California, Michigan, New Jersey and New York. Finally, the article presents seven policy questions that states should consider in deciding what, if any, legislation or regulations to enact in order to organize treatment and pay some or all of the costs of care for persons with HIV infection.

Persons afflicted with acquired immune deficiency syndrome (AIDS) or its preceding medical conditions face a potential problem with assured access to basic threshold medical care. Subject to certain limitations, there is no guarantee that a physician will fulfill the health care needs of any population of patients. Individuals with AIDS, thus, have a considerable interest in the development of a duty on behalf of physicians to provide treatment. This Note first highlights the limits of the legal duty to treat. It then examines the theoretical impetus propelling an ethical duty to treat. The Note concludes that the grounds for imposing an ethical duty on physicians are too weak to support that result, but the creation of an AIDS-specific legal duty is a viable alternative.