611 W. Union Street
Benson, AZ 85602
(520) 586-0800

Health Choice Integrated Care crisis Line
1-877-756-4090

AzCH Nurse Assist Line
1-866-495-6735

NAZCARE Warm Line
1-888-404-5530



SEABHS
611 W. Union Street
Benson, AZ 85602
(520) 586-0800

AzCH Nurse Assist Line
1-866-495-6735

NAZCARE Warm Line
1-888-404-5530


powered by centersite dot net

Getting Started
Here are some forms to get started. These can be printed and brought with you so that you can pre-fill out some known info ahead of time. More...


Health Policy & Advocacy
Resources
Basic InformationMore InformationLatest News
Medicaid Could Save $2.6 Billion a Year With Dip in SmokingFDA Halts All Sales of Pelvic Mesh Products Tied to Injuries in WomenAnother Cost of the Opioid Epidemic: Billions of Dollars in Lost TaxesHealth Tip: Using an AEDNurse Practitioners Often Restricted From Prescribing Opioid TreatmentsForested Counties Have Lower Medicare Costs, Study FindsSimple CPR Doubles Survival OddsUninsured Get Short Shrift on Hospital StaysSpecial Bag Helps Patients Get Rid of Unused OpioidsHealth Tip: Responsibilities of Non-VaccinationDo Doctors Hounded by Malpractice Claims Just Shift Their Practice Elsewhere?Bans on Texting While Behind the Wheel Making Roads SaferColorado Sees Spike in ER Visits After Pot Made LegalMajor Medical Groups Call for Soda TaxesCould the U.S. Mail Deliver Better Colon Cancer Screening Rates?Opioid Rxs Decreasing, But Not for All DoctorsAfter Chinese Infant Gene-Editing Scandal, U.S. Health Officials Join Call for a BanAre 'Inactive' Ingredients in Your Drugs Really So Harmless?Need to Be Vaccinated? Try Your Local PharmacyBystanders Key to Cutting Cardiac Arrest DeathsMany Black Americans Live in Trauma Care 'Deserts'FDA Issues Asbestos Warning About Some Claire's Cosmetic ProductsFDA to Crack Down on Retailers That Keep Selling Tobacco to KidsBlood Donation by Teen Girls May Raise Anemia RiskNurses' Long Hours, Moonlighting Could Pose Patient Safety RiskBerkeley's Efforts Suggest Soda Taxes Do Cut Soda SalesOpioid Overdose Deaths Quadruple, Centered in 8 StatesPayments for Research Can Lead to Lies: StudyFDA Aims to Strengthen Sunscreen RulesAre Primary Care Doctors Prepared to Discuss Cancer Treatment?FDA Fell Short in Preventing Fentanyl Abuse Crisis, Report ClaimsPrimary Care Doctors Help Boost Life Spans, But More Are NeededMore Car Crashes Tied to Drivers High on OpioidsPoor Whites Bear the Brunt of U.S. Opioid Crisis, Studies FindFDA to Tighten Oversight of SupplementsAs U.S. Measles Outbreaks Spread, Why Does 'Anti-Vax' Movement Persist?Even Brief EMS Delay Can Cost Lives After Car CrashHealth Tip: Know Your Family's Medical HistoryPatients With Primary Care Docs May Get Better Health CareMany Paramedics Ignore Hand Hygiene Rules, Study FindsIs Brexit a Health Hazard?Blood Donors Needed as Cold Weather Freezes U.S. SupplyMedical Scribes Could Help Improve ER CareAHA: Medical Experts 'Sound the Alarm' on Medical MisinformationWhite House Plan to Disclose Drug Prices May Not Drive Down Costs: StudyCan Artificial Intelligence Read X-Rays?Virtual Doctor Visits Get High Marks in New SurveyBig Pharma's Marketing to Docs Helped Trigger Opioid Crisis: StudyDisrupted Sleep Plagues Hospital Patients, But New Program Might HelpOpioid Prescriptions Almost Twice as Likely for Rural vs. Urban Americans
Questions and AnswersLinksBook Reviews
Related Topics

Health Insurance
Healthcare

Is Testing for Zika in U.S. Blood Supply Worth the Cost?

HealthDay News
by By Amy NortonHealthDay Reporter
Updated: May 9th 2018

new article illustration

WEDNESDAY, May 9, 2018 (HealthDay News) -- Since 2016, every blood donation in the United States has been individually tested for the Zika virus. A new study suggests it's not worth it.

Researchers at the American Red Cross found that of roughly 4 million donor blood samples tested over 15 months, only eight were positive for mosquito-borne Zika virus. Even fewer were potentially infectious.

And it all came at a cost of nearly $42 million, the researchers reported.

Experts said it's a waste of money and precious laboratory resources -- and that screening the blood supply for Zika could be done more efficiently.

"We're not arguing that we shouldn't be screening for it," said senior researcher Susan Stramer, vice president of scientific affairs at the Red Cross.

The issue, she said, is in the way it's done.

Under guidance issued by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration in 2016, every blood donation is individually tested for Zika genetic material, at a cost of roughly $10 per test. No other country in the world does that, Stramer noted.

And based on the new findings, it looks to be "overkill," she said.

Zika virus is a mosquito-borne infection. When contracted during pregnancy, it can cause severe birth defects such as microcephaly -- an abnormally small head and brain.

In 2016, the United States saw 5,168 cases of Zika-related illness. The virus generally causes a fever, rash, headache and joint or muscle pain, according to the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

So far this year, the CDC says, U.S. states have reported 21 cases -- all in people who'd traveled to parts of the world heavily affected by Zika, such as the Caribbean and Central and South America.

Often, though, the infection causes no symptoms, which means people carrying Zika virus could unknowingly donate blood.

In August 2016, the FDA said all U.S. blood donations should be individually screened for Zika genetic material using a newly developed test.

Before that, the Red Cross had been screening donor blood only in states with a presumed risk of Zika transmission. That was done by so-called "minipool" testing: Instead of testing every blood donation individually, Stramer explained, blood was tested in batches -- from 16 donors in each. This makes the process more efficient, she noted.

Minipool testing is nothing new, Stramer said. It's used in screening donor blood for HIV and West Nile virus, for example.

After the FDA guidance was issued, however, the Red Cross switched to testing individual blood samples for Zika.

Stramer's team found that over 15 months and tests of nearly 4 million individual samples, screening caught nine samples that were positive for Zika. One was from a person who'd received an experimental Zika vaccine -- meaning eight people had mosquito-transmitted infections.

Of those donations, only four appeared potentially infectious, the researchers said.

The grand total cost of screening approached $42 million, the study found. Put another way, it cost nearly $5.3 million to catch one Zika-positive donation.

The findings are in the May 10 New England Journal of Medicine.

It's not clear what the risk of infection from donor blood is, Stramer said. But there have been four cases, all in Brazil, where people were apparently infected with Zika via blood transfusion. None of them, however, became ill.

"To my knowledge, there have been no [disease] cases from blood transfusions," said Dr. Evan Bloch, of Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine in Baltimore.

Bloch, who wrote an editorial published with the study, agreed with Stramer on the bottom line. Screening donor blood for Zika is reasonable, but the current process is flawed.

"It could be modified to a more rational approach," Bloch said.

Both he and Stramer pointed to the minipool approach, specifically.

Money is not the only issue, according to Stramer. Individual testing takes up lab capacity that is needed for screening blood for other infectious agents, too.

"We need an approach to testing that is more proportional to the risk," Stramer said.

More information

The World Health Organization has more on Zika virus.