free hep c testing

Local blood banks do free screening when you donate.

The cost is to the American Red Cross and/or blood banks themselves- not the consumer.

The reason that the Red Cross and national blood banks took so long to adopt universal viral load testing in the nation's blood supply is that it was going to cost those organizations a LOT of money, in a field where money is not always readily available. Because of the dragging of their feet, huge numbers of people were infected with HIV infected blood even after we had the ability to test for it.

The problem with testing at a blood donation location is that tests are not fool proof- especially for Hepatitis C, since there is no solid window period. And if someone goes to test prior to recommended windows, they may be infected, and it will not be detectable yet in the blood. Because of this, blood that is infected can possibly get through into the blood supply, with a recipient of the blood getting infected. If someone believes they may have been infected and need to test, there are always other options, even if they are not that easy to find. Hospitals, local health centers... without a doubt, Hep C testing is not as widely available as say, HIV testing, but there are better options, and every state has an HIV hotline. People who get HIV are often coinfected with Hepatitis C, and so HIV hotlines tend to have resources for Hepatitis C testing as well.

Testing through a blood donation system when there has been a potential risk of transmission for Hepatitis potentially puts recipients at risk for infection.

From the CDC website Hepatitis C Virus FAQ:

"[question] Since more advanced tests have been developed for use in blood banks, what is the chance now that a person can get HCV infection from transfused blood or blood products?
[answer] Less than 1 chance per 2 million units transfused."

That is a very low number, but it is not zero. The truth is that a part of the safety of our blood supply is reliant upon people being honest when they fill out forms for blood donation that they have not had situations that might put them at risk for a communicable blood borne illness, and if someone is going to the Red Cross as a means of testing, then they probably feel they had a risk, and will have to lie on the forms to give blood in the first place, and depending on when the person's risk was (say it was a week ago, but they are too antsy to wait to test, as people sometimes are) then they may potentially put infected blood into the blood supply. It can happen. Even with all the sensitive and advanced tests they use, if a person tests before the virus is detectable, then that allows tainted blood to go right into the system. Please do not believe that the blood supply is 100 percent safe, because it is not. Science is not perfect. That's why I think it's imperative to be mindful that this is not a safe or ethical means for testing.

I understand the importance of testing availability. It is vital for everyone to be able to access testing, and I know that it can be really tough to find low or no cost Hepatitis C testing. This is in no small part a failure of our health care system and the budgeting it receives from our government. By all means... write, call, knock on the office door of all of your state reps and officials and demand action be taken to help detect and care for Hepatitis C for everyone! But by testing through a blood donation system, there are risks not only in potentially infecting someone else, but if you do test positive, your results may never get to you. Be it a clerical error, or problem with the mail, you may never get those results, and relying on "not hearing anything" for a conclusive test result is not healthy. I have spoken to callers who were tested Hep C positive and told they had been for many years, and they'd given blood in the interrim and never received anything back informing them of their status, so it does happen.

I can understand that you feel passionately that everyone should have access to testing dansbrother, and I applaud your vigor in standing up for what you believe in, but I do ask that you consider that there are reasons this is potentially harmful not only to the donor (results lost in the system not getting back to them) and potentially to those receiving it as well (such as potential infection via blood donated by someone knowing they had a risk, but not waiting the window period to go). There are other options, but they are often a lot less convenient and harder to find.

Until policies can be changed, and some of our reps can get on the ball with regard to Hep C, as I said before, every US state has an HIV resource hotline, and service agencies dealing with HIV, and HIV agencies work very diligently in advocacy and prevention of Hep C as well, since coinfection with both is really common, and much more serious than a single infection of either. They can help to find resources to help you if you have little or no money or ability to travel for testing. At the very least, I would say call the Red Cross and tell them (anonymously) your situation, and find out if there is any possible way you can test with them when they are in town without putting the blood supply at risk. They might just appreciate your concern for the blood supply and if they don't let you test with them when they come around, they may be able to help you find a way you can. Another option is to contact your local health department. and fill them in on your situation.

To find an HIV hotline in your state, try googling the name of your state along with "hiv hotline" or calling the CDC's National HIV and STD hotline at 800-342-2437, which is open 24 hours a day, 7 days a week.

I contracted Hep C while in the Navy. In 1985 I had to have massive blood transfusions. I know there were not proper blood testing procedures for tainted blood back then. But I still would not advocate using the Red Cross for as a screening method.