{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.01633045148895293, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0019212295869356388, 'mean_word_length': 5.165680473372781, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
HIV mandatory reporting debate heats up.


 An official recommendation by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) urging States to institute mandatory HIV reporting renewed the debate between privacy and good medicine. Mandatory reporting exists in 29 States, accounting for one quarter of the nation's population. The push for mandatory reporting is driven by the diminishing stigma of HIV infection and the growing evidence in favor of early, aggressive treatment of the disease. The debate centers around whether names should be used in the reporting, or whether programs would be more effective if participants were identified by a number. Coded number systems are more costly to run and seem less effective in tracking an epidemic. The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) strongly opposes mandatory reporting and has cited evidence that name reporting intimidates people from seeking HIV testing. Federal funding for HIV/AIDS surveillance programs will most likely be tied to compliance with mandatory reporting systems.
