This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

AIDS Top‑importance This article is part of WikiProject AIDS, an attempt to build a comprehensive, detailed, and accessible guide to AIDS, HIV, and related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate in the project, you can choose to edit this article, or visit the project page for more information.AIDSWikipedia:WikiProject AIDSTemplate:WikiProject AIDSAIDS Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale. United States Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. U.S. Congress Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject U.S. Congress, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the United States Congress on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.U.S. CongressWikipedia:WikiProject U.S. CongressTemplate:WikiProject U.S. CongressU.S. Congress Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. This article has not yet been assigned a subject. The options are: "Person", "People", "Place", "Thing", or "Events". Law Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the legal field and the subjects encompassed by it.LawWikipedia:WikiProject LawTemplate:WikiProject Lawlaw Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

The Act is up for reauthorization in 2005.

That makes it sound as though the Article was written in 2004 or early 2005. That ought to be changed. It might also be better to replace the word "reauthorization" with something like "renew."

The referenced link at note 2 is broken. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Davedecot (talk • contribs) 20:44, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Since I unfortunately hit enter too soon on the deletion form (before having put in a proper reason)... the reason why I deleted the article is I think a redirect to Ryan White (which is all it was) is actually worse than no article at all, as it keeps people from noticing that we're missing anything on this and writing a proper article. (For the record, the earlier revisions that contained an article were copyvios, which is why the article was turned into a redirect by a contributor instead.) -- Schneelocke 16:29, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I just started an article on AIDS Drugs Assistance Programs. There's some things that don't add up.

This site says Ryan White funding for FY 2006 was $2 Billion http://www.statehealthfacts.org/comparemaptable.jsp?ind=534&cat=11

The article (as currently written) says that one-third of Ryan White funds goes to ADAP. ADAP has a budget of $1.4 Billion in FY 2007 so ADAP actually gets nearly 60 percent of the funding http://www.statehealthfacts.org/comparemaptable.jsp?ind=544&cat=11

Yet ADAP only has a budget of $100 Million in 2007 for drugs http://www.statehealthfacts.org/comparemaptable.jsp?ind=546&cat=11

So what happens to other $1.3 Billion?

Presumably or at least hopefully it is going to clinics. But I can't find that breakout anywhere. This has turned into more of a detective hunt than I expected. Americasroof (talk) 16:15, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you look at the Kaiser Family Foundation report in the references it has some answers. ADAP has a budget of $1.4 billion and about $700 million of that comes from Ryan White Act. The other half comes from Drug Rebates, State budgets and a couple other sources. ADAP would need a budget for its own staff and operations, that would include expensive payments to a lot of doctors, since I believe they also do testing and treatment. I know that sometimes they don't buy the drugs themselves, but instead buy insurance policies, so that would be a big expense too. But even so it's surprising to me that only $100 million of $1.4 billion is spent directly on drugs. That doesn't seem terribly efficient to me. --JayHenry (talk) 16:31, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your response. I forgot that Ryan White contributes only about half of ADAP and not the whole thing. It's interesting doing the math. Actual Drug cost of $100.1 Million / 102,000 patients = $981 (extraordinarily reasonable given HIV infamous costs). Drug cost with overhead of $1.4 Billion/102,000 = $13,725. I'm sure there are costs of setting up special clinics with specific personnel to handle the cases but it is indeed eye opening. Americasroof (talk) 20:32, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Occurs to me that, for every piece of Federal legislation passed, it would be a great idea to explicitly note whether any arguments in favor of the Constitutional authority of the legislation were presented, and if so, the proposed justification(s).

As initially discussed at Talk:United States Department of Health and Human Services#Proposed merge with Special Projects of National Significance, the Special Projects of National Significance might be better placed here given that it is a long-standing stub which is currently implemented as part of "Part F" of the Ryan White HIV/AIDS programme.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Klbrain (talk • contribs) 07:13, 12 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Mistake in this paragraph: "The Ryan White CARE Act mandates that EMS personnel can find out whether they were exposed to life-threatening diseases while providing care. (This notification provision was included in the original 1990 act, dropped in the 2006 reauthorization, and reinstated in the 2008 reauthorization)." 138.84.6.74 (talk) 20:12, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]