HIV Counseling and Testing 

at CDC-Supported Sites

 United States, 1999–2004 United States, 1999–2004

HIV Counseling and Testing 

at CDC-Supported Sites

 United States, 1999–2004

HIV Prevention 

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES 

Public Health Service 

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention 

Atlanta, Georgia 30333 
2

The HIV Counseling and Testing at CDC-Supported Sites—United States, 1999–2004 report is published by the

Division of HIV/AIDS Prevention–Intervention Research and Support, National Center for HIV, STD, and TB Prevention,

Coordinating Center for Infectious Diseases, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, Georgia.

All data are provisional.

The HIV Counseling and Testing at CDC-Supported Sites—United States, 1999–2004 report is not copyrighted

and may be used and copied without permission. Citation of the source is, however, appreciated.

Suggested citation 

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. HIV counseling and testing at CDC-supported sites—United States, 

1999–2004. 2006:[inclusive page numbers]. Available at: http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/topics/testing/reports.htm 

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention ............................................................. Julie Louise Gerberding, M.D., M.P.H.

Director 

Coordinating Center for Infectious Diseases .................................................................................. Mitchell L. Cohen, M.D.

Director 

National Center for HIV, STD, and TB Prevention ..................................................................... Kevin Fenton, M.D., Ph.D.

Director 

Division of HIV/AIDS Prevention–Intervention Research and Support ......................................... Robert S. Janssen, M.D.

Director 

Program Evaluation Research Branch .......................................................................................... Timothy S. Quinn, M.P.A.

Chief (Acting) 

David Hurst, Ph.D. 

Lead Behavioral Scientist 

Renee Stein, Ph.D. 

Behavioral Scientist 

Linda Wright-De Agüero, Ph.D., M.P.H. 

Supervisory Behavioral Scientist 

On the Web: http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/topics/testing/reports.htm 

Confidential information, referrals, and educational material on HIV infection and AIDS 

CDC-INFO (formerly the CDC National AIDS Hotline)

1-800-232-4636 (in English, en Español)

1-888-232-6348 (TTY)

E-mail: cdcinfo@cdc.gov

Acknowledgments 

Publication of this report would not have been possible without the contributions of the state, territorial, county, and municipal 

health departments and community-based organizations that provided HIV counseling and testing data to the Centers for 

Disease Control and Prevention. 

The following persons made substantial contributions to this report: Kelly Bell, Bernard Branson, Janet Cleveland, Sam 

Dooley, Michael Fanning, Annette Ladan, Tim Mastro, Evelyn McCarley-Foxworth, Robert Moran, Allyn Nakashima, Gene 

Shelley, Bertram Thomas, Marla Vaughan, and Jun Wan; Marie Morgan, Anne Olin, and Lynne Stockton (editing); Janet 

Brzuskiewicz and Diane Vitro (graphics); and Katrina McGhee (desktop publishing). 
3

Contents

Commentary ............................................................................................................................. 4

Table 1 Use of test- or aggregate-level reporting and type of counseling and testing reporting 

system, by health department, 1999–2004 ................................................................................. 8

Table 2 Aggregate-level data on HIV tests and HIV-positive results, by health department,

1999–2004 .................................................................................................................................. 9

Table 3 Reported HIV tests and HIV-positive results, by characteristics of persons tested,

1999–2004 ................................................................................................................................ 10

Table 4 Reported HIV tests and HIV-positive results, by race/ethnicity, sex, and age group of

persons tested, 1999–2004 ....................................................................................................... 11

Table 5 Reported HIV tests and HIV-positive results, by race/ethnicity and risk category of

persons tested, 1999–2004 ....................................................................................................... 13

Table 6 Reported HIV tests and HIV-positive results, by type of testing site and type of test,

1999–2004 ................................................................................................................................ 15

Table 7 Reported HIV tests and receipt of HIV results, by characteristics of persons tested

and by test result, 1999–2004 ................................................................................................... 16

Table 8 Reported HIV tests and receipt of HIV results, by race/ethnicity of persons tested

and by test result, 1999–2004 ................................................................................................... 17

Table 9 Test-level data on HIV tests and HIV-positive results, by health department,

1999–2004 ................................................................................................................................ 18

Figure 1 Distribution of HIV tests and positive results, by age group of persons tested, 2004 ............. 20

Figure 2 Distribution of HIV tests, by race/ethnicity of persons tested, 1999–2004 .............................. 21

Figure 3 Distribution of HIV-positive results, by race/ethnicity of persons tested, 1999–2004 ............. 21

Figure 4 Distribution of HIV tests, by age group and sex of persons tested, 2004 ................................ 22

Figure 5 Distribution of HIV-positive results, by age group and sex of persons tested, 2004 ............... 22

Figure 6 Percentage of HIV-positive test results for males, by age group and race/ethnicity, 2004 ...... 23

Figure 7 Percentage of HIV-positive test results for females, by age group and race/ethnicity, 2004 ... 23

Figure 8 Percentage of HIV-positive test results, by risk category of persons tested, 1999–2004 ......... 24

Figure 9 Distribution of HIV tests and positive results, by site type, 2004 ............................................ 25

Technical Notes ...................................................................................................................... 26

Analysis Notes ........................................................................................................................ 28

Appendix ................................................................................................................................. 32
Commentary

The Centers for Disease Control and 

Prevention (CDC) supports health departments 

and community-based organizations to provide 

human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) counseling, 

testing, and referral (CTR) services. The goals of 

CTR, as defined by the 2001 Revised Guidelines 

for HIV Counseling, Testing, and Referral, are to 

ensure that HIV-infected persons and persons at 

increased risk for HIV infection (a) have access to 

HIV testing*

 to promote early knowledge of their 

HIV status; (b) receive high-quality HIV prevention counseling to reduce their risk for transmitting 

or acquiring HIV; and (c) have access to appropriate medical, preventive, and psychosocial support 

services [1, p.5]. 

The goals of CTR are reflected in CDC’s 2003 

Advancing HIV Prevention initiative, which 

emphasizes increasing the availability of, and 

access to, a range of critical HIV prevention 

services, such as routine testing and early identification of new cases, partner notification, referral to 

services and counseling, and care and treatment for 

HIV-infected persons [2]. A CDC report of the 

research underlying the Advancing HIV Prevention 

initiative describes the importance of early detection of HIV infection [3]: 

There are many benefits to early knowledge of

HIV infection, including early entry into treatment to

prevent illnesses that arise from a weakened immune

system, treatment of other conditions like substance

abuse and sexually transmitted diseases, and access to

social services and medical treatments, when appropriate. HIV-infected persons in care are now living longer

than before thanks to new highly effective treatments.

In addition to these personal benefits, knowledge of

one’s HIV infection can help prevent spread of the

infection to others. When people know that they are

infected with HIV, they are significantly more likely to

protect their partners from infection than when they

were unaware of their infection.

Since 1989, the HIV Counseling and Testing 

System (CTS) has been used to monitor CDCsupported HIV counseling and testing services. 

Through this system, each CDC-supported HIV 

counseling and testing event is reported to CDC 

and includes information about demographics, 

self-reported behavior, and HIV test results. Data 

from this system are used to guide the development of HIV prevention programs in response to 

the needs of various communities. 

HIV Counseling and Testing at CDCSupported Sites—United States, 1999–2004 

includes data about counseling and testing services 

that were supported with CDC funds during these 

years. Through cooperative agreements, the CDC 

funded 59 health departments to provide counseling and testing services†

: the 50 state health departments, 6 municipal or county health departments 

(Chicago, Houston, Los Angeles, New York, 

Philadelphia, and San Francisco), and the health 

departments of the District of Columbia, Puerto 

Rico, and the U.S. Virgin Islands. Health departments receiving CDC funds for counseling and 

testing may provide services directly to persons 

or indirectly through contracts with local health 

departments or community-based organizations. 

Health departments may also provide tests or 

laboratory services to local health departments or 

community-based organizations. HIV Counseling 

and Testing at CDC-Supported Sites—United 

States, 1999–2004 does not include information 

about counseling and testing services that were not 

supported with CDC funds, such as HIV tests 

conducted in health maintenance organizations or 

blood donation facilities. 

CDC-supported counseling and testing services 

were provided at a variety of agency sites including HIV counseling and testing centers, sexually 

transmitted disease (STD) clinics, family planning 

*HIV testing can be conducted by using a variety of different fluids (e.g., whole blood, serum, oral fluid) and a variety of test technologies that 

have been approved for diagnostic use by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA). Since September 2003, CDC has provided funds for 

rapid HIV testing, which provides the person being tested with test results in about 20 minutes. 

† American Samoa, Guam, Marshall Islands, Micronesia, Northern Mariana Islands, and Palau also received funds to provide counseling and 

testing services; however, because data collection in these areas was limited, this report does not include information on counseling and 

testing activities for these areas. 

4
clinics, prenatal/obstetric and gynecological 

clinics, hospitals/private medical doctors’ offices, 

community health centers/public health clinics, 

prisons/jails, drug treatment centers, tuberculosis 

clinics, and field visit/outreach settings. Staff 

members at these sites collected information about 

the number of tests provided, the results of those 

tests, and information about the demographics and 

behavioral risk factors of the persons tested. This 

information was then reported to their health 

department, which was required to report these 

data quarterly to CDC. 

Health departments submitted either test-level 

or aggregate-level (summary) data (see Table 1 for 

a list of the health departments and their reporting 

methods). Table 2 shows data for health departments that submit aggregate-level data, as well as 

totals for aggregate-level, test-level, and all 

CDC-supported tests. Tables 3–9 show data 

for health departments that submit test-level data; 

these test-level data account for approximately 

90% of all CDC-supported HIV tests from 1999 

through 2004. 

The data presented in the tables and figures of 

this report represent the number of HIV tests 

conducted in a particular year rather than the 

number of individuals tested. For example, a 

person who was tested twice in 1 year would be 

counted twice in the data. Because these data 

represent neither individuals nor the general 

population, data may not represent changes in the 

prevalence or incidence of HIV infection in the 

U.S. population.

Estimates of the total number of persons 

infected with HIV are available through applying 

HIV prevalence estimation techniques to CDC 

HIV/AIDS surveillance data [4]. HIV testing 

estimates for the general population are available 

from household-based sample surveys, such as the 

2002 Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System 

(BRFSS) [5]. Comparability of the data from 

surveillance reports, BRFSS, and this report is 

limited by differences in data collection and 

estimation techniques. The limitations and comparability of the data from this report are described in 

the Technical Notes. The reader is encouraged to 

review that section before drawing inferences from 

the data. 

Highlights of Analysis* 

Total HIV Tests and HIV-Positive Results 

From 1999 through 2004, the reported number 

of HIV tests remained relatively stable at approximately 1.9 million tests per year (Table 3). The 

largest number of tests with HIV-positive results 

(28,810) occurred in 2001, and the smallest number of tests with HIV-positive results (25,096) 

occurred in 2004. The rate of positive test results† 

decreased from 1.5% in 1999 to 1.3% in 2004. 

Age Group 

From 1999 through 2004, the largest number of 

HIV tests was conducted for persons in the age 

groups 19–24 and 25–34 years; however, the 

largest number of HIV-positive test results was 

found for the age group 35–44 years (Table 3). For 

example, in 2004, although the age groups 19–24 

and 25–34 years accounted for 29% and 28% of all 

HIV tests, respectively, the age group 35–44 years 

accounted for 34% of all HIV-positive test results 

(Figure 1). The number of HIV tests was higher 

in 2004 than in 1999 for those in the age groups 

19–24, 45–54, 55–64, and 65 years and older, 

whereas the number of HIV tests was lower in 

2004 than in 1999 for those in the age groups 

younger than 13, 13–18, 25–34, and 35–44 years 

(Table 3). 

Race/Ethnicity 

From 1999 through 2004, the number of HIV 

tests consistently declined among whites (Table 3). 

Whites accounted for 43% of all HIV tests in 1999 

and 36% in 2004 (Figure 2). During this period, 

the number of HIV tests increased for blacks. In 

1999, blacks accounted for 34% of all HIV tests; 

by 2004, they surpassed whites and accounted for 

* Note that the results reported in this section reflect only data from health departments that use test-level reporting (see Table 1 and 

Technical Notes for additional details). 

† The rate of positive test results is calculated by dividing the total number of positive test results by the total number of tests in a given 

calendar year. 

5
39% of all HIV tests. From 1999 through 2004, 

blacks accounted for more than 50% of HIVpositive test results (Figure 3). For each of these 

years, the number of HIV-positive test results for 

blacks was more than twice that for whites or 

Hispanics (Table 3). 

Sex 

From 1999 through 2004, the number of HIV 

tests reported for females exceeded those reported 

for males by approximately 6% (Table 3). For each 

of these years, the reported number of test results 

that were HIV-positive for males was more than 

double that for females. 

Sex and Age Group 

In 2004, the proportion of HIV tests reported 

for females (vs. males) increased through the age 

group 13–18 years and then steadily declined 

(Figure 4). In 2004, for persons 19 years and older, 

males accounted for approximately 71% of test 

results that were HIV-positive (Figure 5). 

Race/Ethnicity, Sex, and Age Group 

From 1999 through 2004, the number of HIV 

tests among males and females in the white, black, 

and Hispanic racial/ethnic groups was highest 

among the age groups 19–24 and 25–34 years, 

with the exception of black males in 1999 (when 

more tests were given to 35- to 44-year-olds than 

to 19- to 24-year-olds; Table 4). In the age groups 

19–24 and 25–34 years, for both men and women, 

the percentage of HIV test results that were positive was higher for blacks and Hispanics than for 

whites (Table 4). However, during this period, the 

percentage of HIV test results that were positive 

declined for black and Hispanic females aged 19– 

24 and 25–34, and for black and Hispanic males 

aged 25–34. From 1999 through 2004, the percentage of test results that were positive was higher for 

black adolescent and adult females (13 years of 

age and older) than for white females in the same 

age group. 

In 2004, among males in every age group, the 

rate of positive test results for blacks and Hispanics was higher than that for whites (Figure 6). For 

males 25 and older, the rate of positive test results 

for blacks was similar to that of Hispanics. In 

2004, among black and Hispanic males in the age 

groups 35-44 and 45-54 years, more than 3% of 

the HIV test results were positive. In 2004, among 

females in every age group, the rate of positive test 

results for blacks was higher than that for both 

whites and Hispanics (Figure 7). 

Risk Category 

Between 1999 and 2004, the number of HIV 

tests increased by 24% among persons reporting 

male-to-male sexual contact* (Table 3). Among 

those reporting male-to-male sexual contact, 

the percentage of HIV tests that were positive 

declined from 5.6% in 1999 to 5.3% in 2004 

(Figure 8). Testing among those reporting 

male-to-male sexual contact and injection drug use 

accounted for a relatively small percentage of 

overall testing (approximately .6%), but this group 

had the highest rate of positive test results, averaging 6.9% for the 6-year period. The largest number 

of HIV tests was administered to those reporting 

heterosexual contact.† The rate of positive test 

results for this risk group remained below 1% from 

1999 through 2004. 

Risk Category and Race/Ethnicity 

From 1999 through 2004, the rate of positive 

HIV test results was more than twice as high for 

blacks who reported male-to-male sexual contact 

than for whites who reported the same risk factor 

(Table 5). The rate of positive test results for 

Hispanics who reported male-to-male sexual 

contact fell between that of blacks and whites for 

all 6 years. In 2004, among those who reported 

male-to-male sexual contact, the percentage of 

HIV test results that were positive was 10.1% for 

blacks, 5.7% for Hispanics, and 3.6% for whites. 

From 1999 through 2004, among those who 

* This risk category (“male-to-male sexual contact”) excludes persons who reported both male-to-male sexual contact and injection drug use. 

† This risk category (“heterosexual contact”) excludes persons who reported injection drug use. 

6
reported heterosexual contact, blacks had the 

highest rate of positive test results (range 1.2% to 

1.7%) compared with Hispanics (range 0.7% to 

0.9%) and whites (0.3% for all years). 

Test Site and Test Type 

For each year from 1999 through 2004, freestanding HIV counseling and testing centers and 

STD clinics reported the highest number of HIV 

tests and positive test results (Table 6; Figure 9). 

In 2004, the rate of positive results was 1.8% at 

HIV counseling and testing centers and 1% at STD 

clinics. That same year, the rate of positive results 

was highest in community health centers/public 

health clinics (2.4%), hospitals/private medical 

doctors’ offices (2.2%), field visit settings (1.8%), 

and HIV counseling and testing centers (1.8%). 

Between 1999 and 2004, testing in prisons/jails 

increased by 28% and testing in field visit settings 

more than doubled. Over those same years, testing 

declined by 17% in HIV counseling and testing 

centers, and by 41% in prenatal/obstetric and 

gynecological clinics. Between 1999 and 2004, the 

number of confidential tests increased by 13%, 

whereas the number of anonymous tests decreased 

by 37%. 

Receipt of Test Results 

In 2004, persons tested received their HIV test 

results for 78% of tests (Table 7). From 1999 

through 2004, blacks were less likely than members of other racial/ethnic groups to receive their 

results. In 2004, 71% of test results were received 

by blacks, compared with 82% for whites, 81% for 

Hispanics, 83% for Asians/Pacific Islanders, and 

78% for American Indians/Alaska Natives. From 

1999 through 2004, males were more likely than 

females to receive their test results. Overall, in 

2004, persons tested were more likely to receive 

their test results if the results were positive 

(84%) than if they were negative (78%). For 

every racial/ethnic group except Asians/Pacific 

Islanders, the percentage of positive test results 

received increased between 2003 and 2004 

(Table 8). For example, the percentage of positive 

test results received by blacks increased from 

79% in 2003 to 82% in 2004; for Hispanics, the 

same percentages increased from 83% to 86%.

References 

1. CDC. Revised guidelines for HIV counseling, 

testing, and referral and revised recommendations for HIV screening of pregnant women. 

MMWR 2001;50(No. RR-19):1–85. 

2. CDC. Advancing HIV Prevention: new strategies for a changing epidemic—United States, 

2003. MMWR 2003;52(15):329–332. 

3. CDC. Questions and answers: the science 

behind the new initiative, September 2003. 

Available at: 

http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/topics/prev_prog/ 

AHP/resources/qa/AHP_Science.htm. 

Accessed November 18, 2006. 

4. Glynn MK, Rhodes P. Estimated HIV prevalence in the United States at the end of 2003. 

National HIV Prevention Conference; June 

2005; Atlanta. Abstract T1-B1101. 

5. Anderson JE, Chandra A, Mosher WD. HIV 

Testing in the United States, 2002. Hyattsville, 

MD: National Center for Health Statistics; 

2005:1–32. Advance Data from Vital and 

Health Statistics, No. 363. 

7
egate-level reporting and type of counseling and testing reporting system, by health department, 1999–2004 

Test-level reporting 

Health department-specific systems Aggregate-level reporting 

California Alabama 

Colorado Alaska 

Florida Arkansas 

Houston Hawaii 

Indiana Iowa 

Los Angeles Kansas 

Louisiana King County, Washington 

Maine (since 2000) New Hampshire 

Maryland South Dakota 

Massachusetts West Virginia 

Michigan 

Minnesota 

Mississippi 

Montana 

New Mexico 

03) New York 

Oregon 

San Francisco 

South Carolina 

Tennessee 

Texas 

Virginia 

orporated in the alphabetical listing. 
ta on HIV tests and HIV-positive results, by health department, 1999–2004 

 HIV tests HIV-positive results 

9 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 

o. No. No. No. No. No. No. (%) No. (%) No. (%) No. (%) No. (%) No. (%) 

892 a 110,102 103,160 109,776 114,701 684 (0.7) a 935 (0.8) 709 (0.7) 638 (0.6) 772 (0.7) 

796 6,083 6,079 6,204 5,591 3,651 9 (0.2) 12 (0.2) 13 (0.2) 10 (0.2) 12 (0.2) — 

888 80,865 76,843 83,696 75,697 67,570 328 (0.4) 316 (0.4) 155 (0.2) 273 (0.3) 277 (0.4) 295 (0.4) 

627 8,702 8,189 8,551 8,360 8,412 31 (0.3) 34 (0.4) 42 (0.5) 51 (0.6) 40 (0.5) 26 (0.3) 

255 12,267 10,608 9,844 10,710 10,702 44 (0.3) 37 (0.3) 37 (0.4) 42 (0.4) 43 (0.4) 56 (0.5) 

496 12,292 11,465 11,423 11,075 15,155 28 (0.2) 33 (0.3) 28 (0.2) 38 (0.3) 41 (0.4) 73 (0.5) 

685 29,313 28,310 28,159 27,435 28,853 257 (0.8) 259 (0.9) 231 (0.8) 264 (0.9) 317 (1.2) 276 (1.0) 

285 b b b b b 7 (0.3) b b b b b 

284 3,103 3,259 2,926 2,914 3,356 15 (0.5) 14 (0.5) 20 (0.6) 29 (1.0) 8 (0.3) 26 (0.8) 

094 2,156 1,942 2,160 c c 18 (0.6) — — 7 (0.3) c c 

406 1,195 4,157 4,903 4,898 5,173 7 (0.5) 8 (0.7) 19 (0.5) 17 (0.3) 9 (0.2) –– 

897 5,412 5,492 5,554 5,078 5,098 16 (0.3) 31 (0.6) 30 (0.5) 33 (0.6) 40 (0.8) 39 (0.8) 

605 161,388 266,446 266,580 261,534 262,671 1,444 (0.5) 744 (0.5) 1,510 (0.6) 1,473 (0.6) 1,425 (0.5) 1,563 (0.6) 

519 1,905,051 1,962,061 1,946,021 1,867,892 1,892,734 27,535 (1.5) 27,067 (1.4) 28,810 (1.5) 28,439 (1.5) 26,984 (1.4) 25,096 (1.3) 

24 2,066,439 2,228,507 2,212,601 2,129,426 2,155,405 28,979 (1.4) 27,811 (1.3) 30,320 (1.4) 29,912 (1.4) 28,409 (1.3) 26,659 (1.2) 

 adjustments have been made to some of the cells.

se of small cell count.

00.03.
 and HIV-positive results, by characteristics of persons tested, 1999–2004

 HIV tests HIV-positive results 

9 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 

o. No. No. No. No. No. No. (%) No. (%) No. (%) No. (%) No. (%) No. (%) 

490 4,245 2,281 1,692 1,327 1,144 103 (2.3) 74 (1.7) 49 (2.1) 41 (2.4) 32 (2.4) 30 (2.6)

67 3,348 3,306 2,834 2,230 2,215 31 (0.7) 31 (0.9) 20 (0.6) 19 (0.7) 20 (0.9) 16 (0.7) 

60 221,092 215,656 206,743 189,964 190,791 496 (0.2) 502 (0.2) 485 (0.2) 478 (0.2) 493 (0.3) 454 (0.2) 

922 529,900 548,987 548,109 527,908 544,765 2,898 (0.6) 2,947 (0.6) 3,093 (0.6) 3,183 (0.6) 3,175 (0.6) 3,205 (0.6) 044 536,682 546,164 541,040 523,182 530,509 9,358 (1.7) 8,659 (1.6) 8,644 (1.6) 8,044 (1.5) 7,745 (1.5) 7,097 (1.3) 

647 374,250 383,742 375,445 357,510 352,890 9,824 (2.7) 9,664 (2.6) 10,522 (2.7) 10,472 (2.8) 9,556 (2.7) 8,498 (2.4) 

071 154,013 167,313 173,425 175,146 183,374 3,557 (2.5) 3,754 (2.4) 4,314 (2.6) 4,539 (2.6) 4,439 (2.5) 4,376 (2.4) 

267 39,506 43,269 45,870 46,689 49,684 663 (1.8) 710 (1.8) 864 (2.0) 932 (2.0) 895 (1.9) 955 (1.9) 

722 13,248 15,522 15,324 14,577 14,286 161 (1.3) 150 (1.1) 223 (1.4) 195 (1.3) 188 (1.3) 153 (1.1) 

029 28,767 35,821 35,539 29,359 23,076 444 (1.6) 576 (2.0) 596 (1.7) 536 (1.5) 441 (1.5) 312 (1.4) 

432 771,686 750,317 732,050 687,988 687,649 6,265 (0.8) 5,875 (0.8) 6,270 (0.8) 6,356 (0.9) 6,100 (0.9) 5,835 (0.8) 

580 677,469 715,401 697,064 686,336 735,115 14,740 (2.3) 14,303 (2.1) 15,273 (2.1) 14,818 (2.1) 13,721 (2.0) 12,877 (1.8) 

111 370,979 400,789 421,462 397,617 372,239 5,531 (1.6) 5,840 (1.6) 6,122 (1.5) 6,192 (1.5) 5,900 (1.5) 4,999 (1.3) 

318 30,014 31,159 32,349 31,298 31,237 186 (0.6) 210 (0.7) 222 (0.7) 230 (0.7) 267 (0.9) 233 (0.7) 

075 11,880 12,245 11,934 12,039 11,205 138 (1.1) 125 (1.1) 124 (1.0) 122 (1.0) 148 (1.2) 124 (1.1) 

787 25,169 28,841 29,731 32,269 34,596 320 (1.3) 325 (1.3) 341 (1.2) 404 (1.4) 514 (1.6) 639 (1.8) 

216 17,854 23,309 21,431 20,345 20,693 355 (1.8) 389 (2.2) 458 (2.0) 317 (1.5) 334 (1.6) 389 (1.9) 

545 910,604 950,274 944,762 909,341 932,579 18,561 (2.1) 18,098 (2.0) 19,771 (2.1) 19,545 (2.1) 18,741 (2.1) 17,662 (1.9) 

586 979,789 998,421 989,736 942,743 947,369 8,709 (0.9) 8,505 (0.9) 8,764 (0.9) 8,709 (0.9) 7,989 (0.8) 7,216 (0.8) 

388 14,658 13,366 11,523 15,808 12,786 265 (2.6) 464 (3.2) 275 (2.1) 185 (1.6) 254 (1.6) 218 (1.7) 

518 11,839 11,472 11,827 12,119 10,319 854 (7.4) 825 (7.0) 806 (7.0) 747 (6.3) 818 (6.7) 697 (6.8)

971 134,169 147,908 155,492 155,511 159,663 7,241 (5.6) 7,122 (5.3) 7,982 (5.4) 8,259 (5.3) 8,480 (5.5) 8,413 (5.3) 

799 144,894 142,063 136,152 131,844 124,537 4,477 (3.2) 4,163 (2.9) 4,411 (3.1) 3,916 (2.9) 3,361 (2.5) 2,755 (2.2) 

856 1,397,986 1,390,587 1,396,188 1,333,292 1,382,771 12,751 (0.9) 12,705 (0.9) 13,164 (0.9) 12,753 (0.9) 11,939 (0.9) 11,332 (0.8) 

375 216,163 270,031 246,362 235,126 215,444 2,212 (1.0) 2,252 (1.0) 2,447 (0.9) 2,764 (1.1) 2,386 (1.0) 1,899 (0.9) 

519 1,905,051 1,962,061 1,946,021 1,867,892 1,892,734 27,535 (1.5) 27,067 (1.4) 28,810 (1.5) 28,439 (1.5) 26,984 (1.4) 25,096 (1.3) 

evel data to CDC. See Table 1 and Technical Notes for details. Since 1999, the following areas have had test-level reporting: Arizona, California, Chicago, Colorado,

umbia, Florida, Georgia, Houston, Idaho, Illinois, Indiana, Kentucky, Los Angeles, Louisiana, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi, Missouri,

rsey, New Mexico, New York, New York City, North Carolina, Ohio, Oklahoma, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Puerto Rico, Rhode Island, San Francisco,

S. Virgin Islands, Utah, Vermont, Virginia, Washington, Wisconsin, and Wyoming. Maine began test-level reporting in 2000 and North Dakota in 2003.

because of concerns about data reliability.

tments have been made to some of the cells.

this variable. 

partner at risk, who had a diagnosis of a sexually transmitted disease, who exchanged sex for drugs or money, who had sex while using noninjection drugs, who 

hose only risk factor was heterosexual contact. 

 a risk factor, whose record contained no data on risk factors, or who reported other risk factors (i.e., perinatal exposure, hemophilia, receipt of blood 

). 
 and HIV-positive results, by race/ethnicity, sex, and age group of persons tested, 1999–2004

 HIV tests HIV-positive results 

9 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 

o. No. No. No. No. No. No. (%) No. (%) No. (%) No. (%) No. (%) No. (%) 

White, not Hispanic 

031 830 671 536 431 407 10 (1.0) 6 (0.7) 

— — — — 

327 27,722 26,276 24,526 21,779 21,013 37 (0.1) 37 (0.1) 33 (0.1) 35 (0.1) 34 (0.2) 30 (0.1) 

911 91,001 91,027 90,670 86,260 89,838 435 (0.5) 358 (0.4) 470 (0.5) 437 (0.5) 471 (0.5) 468 (0.5) 

487 104,559 101,364 98,671 95,478 97,255 1,849 (1.7) 1,613 (1.5) 1,616 (1.6) 1,497 (1.5) 1,501 (1.6) 1,409 (1.4) 

964 86,273 83,270 79,956 75,054 74,543 1,779 (2.0) 1,699 (2.0) 1,885 (2.3) 1,986 (2.5) 1,830 (2.4) 1,769 (2.4) 

657 41,942 42,125 42,452 41,748 42,928 561 (1.4) 558 (1.3) 618 (1.5) 724 (1.7) 693 (1.7) 701 (1.6) 

449 16,955 17,300 17,532 17,363 18,574 134 (0.8) 148 (0.9) 204 (1.2) 168 (1.0) 184 (1.1) 206 (1.1) 

565 5,077 9,454 10,172 8,188 5,312 73 (1.6) 56 (1.1) 159 (1.7) 171 (1.7) 139 (1.7) 60 (1.1) 

287 1,042 826 608 593 502 6 (0.5) 

— — — — — 

499 64,963 59,612 56,286 49,778 46,972 54 (0.1) 53 (0.1) 48 (0.1) 46 (0.1) 36 (0.1) 28 (0.1) 

426 125,488 122,106 120,643 112,906 114,051 205 (0.2) 208 (0.2) 181 (0.1) 179 (0.1) 159 (0.1) 142 (0.1) 

015 97,040 92,021 89,382 83,943 84,817 436 (0.4) 415 (0.4) 428 (0.5) 387 (0.4) 356 (0.4) 370 (0.4) 

504 64,585 61,267 58,716 53,383 51,389 459 (0.7) 447 (0.7) 397 (0.6) 450 (0.8) 451 (0.8) 360 (0.7) 231 26,243 26,341 26,014 24,813 25,474 128 (0.5) 166 (0.6) 152 (0.6) 178 (0.7) 168 (0.7) 201 (0.8) 

280 7,282 7,548 7,432 7,056 7,325 21 (0.3) 24 (0.3) 26 (0.3) 38 (0.5) 32 (0.5) 47 (0.6) 

685 7,159 6,693 6,215 5,308 4,010 30 (0.5) 23 (0.3) 26 (0.4) 25 (0.4) 12 (0.2) 13 (0.3) 

Black, not Hispanic 

341 1,088 864 698 565 637 42 (3.1) 26 (2.4) 11 (1.3) 13 (1.9) 8 (1.4) 11 (1.7) 

883 27,853 27,966 27,241 26,021 29,357 99 (0.4) 115 (0.4) 128 (0.5) 141 (0.5) 176 (0.7) 188 (0.6) 056 78,546 84,752 82,867 80,917 91,084 841 (1.2) 879 (1.1) 996 (1.2) 1,012 (1.2) 1,073 (1.3) 1,257 (1.4) 

707 89,182 92,015 86,765 83,895 91,448 2,713 (3.2) 2,397 (2.7) 2,370 (2.6) 2,200 (2.5) 2,064 (2.5) 2,034 (2.2) 430 78,536 83,217 77,954 74,772 77,392 3,420 (4.7) 3,341 (4.3) 3,728 (4.5) 3,475 (4.5) 3,021 (4.0) 2,685 (3.5) 129 35,655 40,974 41,566 43,603 47,971 1,540 (4.9) 1,593 (4.5) 1,782 (4.3) 1,802 (4.3) 1,742 (4.0) 1,636 (3.4) 

64 11,179 12,970 13,091 13,647 15,413 332 (3.3) 371 (3.3) 457 (3.5) 458 (3.5) 416 (3.0) 406 (2.6) 

405 3,138 3,276 3,137 2,496 2,645 83 (2.4) 101 (3.2) 119 (3.6) 104 (3.3) 87 (3.5) 100 (3.8) 

591 1,360 1,116 966 782 809 35 (2.2) 20 (1.5) 14 (1.3) 16 (1.7) 15 (1.9) 20 (2.5) 

304 53,040 53,347 50,959 48,115 51,018 205 (0.4) 183 (0.3) 172 (0.3) 138 (0.3) 149 (0.3) 123 (0.2) 

531 105,236 112,947 113,130 112,829 120,379 714 (0.7) 720 (0.7) 662 (0.6) 677 (0.6) 636 (0.6) 544 (0.5) 941 94,681 97,309 94,831 93,574 97,805 1,881 (2.0) 1,741 (1.8) 1,749 (1.8) 1,585 (1.7) 1,458 (1.6) 1,179 (1.2) 560 64,959 68,736 66,223 63,939 64,956 1,934 (3.1) 1,888 (2.9) 2,017 (2.9) 2,039 (3.1) 1,737 (2.7) 1,542 (2.4) 

946 20,783 24,533 25,878 27,791 30,972 616 (3.4) 652 (3.1) 810 (3.3) 866 (3.3) 835 (3.0) 849 (2.7) 

661 5,283 6,166 6,555 6,992 7,925 124 (2.7) 127 (2.4) 150 (2.4) 187 (2.9) 176 (2.5) 189 (2.4) 

814 4,133 3,221 3,089 2,867 2,660 79 (2.1) 61 (1.5) 67 (2.1) 53 (1.7) 40 (1.4) 48 (1.8) 
 and HIV-positive results, by race/ethnicity, sex, and age group of persons tested, 1999–2004 (continued)

9 

o. 

2000 

No. 

 HIV tests 

2001 

No. 

2002 

No. 

HIV-positive results 

2003 2004 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 

No. No. No. (%) No. (%) No. (%) No. (%) No. (%) No. (%) 

Hispanic 

041 978 638 615 441 373 9 (0.9) 23 (2.4) 17 (2.7) 12 (2.0) 12 (2.7) — 

490 15,527 15,797 16,244 14,348 13,817 33 (0.2) 54 (0.3) 50 (0.3) 60 (0.4) 43 (0.3) 38 (0.3) 477 45,412 49,044 51,689 48,803 46,141 400 (1.0) 461 (1.0) 483 (1.0) 523 (1.0) 492 (1.0) 496 (1.1) 

605 57,258 61,635 65,788 63,226 59,186 1,510 (3.0) 1,551 (2.7) 1,563 (2.5) 1,549 (2.4) 1,512 (2.4) 1,295 (2.2) 

98 33,759 36,629 39,240 38,203 35,465 1,390 (4.9) 1,484 (4.4) 1,578 (4.3) 1,612 (4.1) 1,540 (4.0) 1,279 (3.6) 

787 13,169 14,641 16,504 16,070 15,160 440 (4.1) 495 (3.8) 572 (3.9) 600 (3.6) 591 (3.7) 494 (3.3) 

943 5,879 7,046 7,997 7,590 6,647 130 (2.6) 118 (2.0) 157 (2.2) 175 (2.2) 165 (2.2) 140 (2.1) 

603 1,453 3,514 3,458 2,319 1,989 49 (1.9) 46 (3.2) 86 (2.4) 77 (2.2) 79 (3.4) 26 (1.3) 

079 1,029 652 635 507 404 19 (1.8) 17 (1.7) 16 (2.5) 10 (1.6) 7 (1.4) — 

746 23,052 23,157 22,305 20,707 19,848 49 (0.2) 43 (0.2) 32 (0.1) 43 (0.2) 30 (0.1) 18 (0.1) 852 58,422 61,214 61,433 57,664 54,647 172 (0.3) 191 (0.3) 177 (0.3) 208 (0.3) 168 (0.3) 131 (0.2) 

631 65,160 70,235 74,022 70,009 66,790 555 (0.9) 543 (0.8) 496 (0.7) 437 (0.6) 415 (0.6) 354 (0.5) 

32 31,071 33,933 36,500 33,848 30,966 514 (1.8) 528 (1.7) 538 (1.6) 543 (1.5) 512 (1.5) 384 (1.2) 

796 10,401 11,959 13,781 13,130 12,140 160 (1.8) 167 (1.6) 231 (1.9) 219 (1.6) 207 (1.6) 217 (1.8) 

356 3,949 4,932 5,696 5,530 4,735 53 (1.6) 47 (1.2) 58 (1.2) 54 (0.9) 56 (1.0) 63 (1.3) 

747 2,154 3,354 3,170 2,330 1,827 19 (0.7) 14 (0.6) 14 (0.4) 16 (0.5) 12 (0.5) 10 (0.5) 

264 1,811,486 1,859,690 1,843,838 1,761,611 1,787,016 26,377 (1.5) 25,808 (1.4) 27,543 (1.5) 27,225 (1.5) 25,540 (1.4) 23,560 (1.3) 

evel data to CDC. See Table 1 and Technical Notes for details. Since 1999, the following areas have had test-level reporting: Arizona, California, Chicago, Colorado,

umbia, Florida, Georgia, Houston, Idaho, Illinois, Indiana, Kentucky, Los Angeles, Louisiana, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi, Missouri,

rsey, New Mexico, New York, New York City, North Carolina, Ohio, Oklahoma, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Puerto Rico, Rhode Island, San Francisco,

S. Virgin Islands, Utah, Vermont, Virginia, Washington, Wisconsin, and Wyoming. Maine began test-level reporting in 2000 and North Dakota in 2003.

because of concerns about data reliability.

tments have been made to some of the cells.

s for Asian/Pacific Islander, American Indian/Alaska Native, other race/ethnicity, and not reported, only the data for white, not Hispanic; black, not Hispanic; and

als in other tables because of missing data on the "sex" variable.

se of small cell count.

this variable. 
 and HIV-positive results, by race/ethnicity and risk category of persons tested, 1999–2004

 HIV tests HIV-positive results 

9 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 

o. No. No. No. No. No. No. (%) No. (%) No. (%) No. (%) No. (%) No. (%) 

White, not Hispanic 

921 6,852 6,541 5,955 6,123 5,973 404 (5.8) 352 (5.1) 378 (5.8) 319 (5.4) 380 (6.2) 342 (5.7)

858 80,258 84,290 86,443 84,218 85,875 2,998 (3.8) 2,801 (3.5) 3,175 (3.8) 3,189 (3.7) 3,154 (3.7) 3,096 (3.6) 

200 79,838 73,925 74,077 71,835 70,174 913 (1.2) 809 (1.0) 797 (1.1) 811 (1.1) 706 (1.0) 648 (0.9) 

288 523,420 490,180 482,591 448,409 458,380 1,553 (0.3) 1,525 (0.3) 1,498 (0.3) 1,502 (0.3) 1,456 (0.3) 1,481 (0.3) 

65 81,318 95,381 82,984 77,403 67,247 397 (0.5) 388 (0.5) 422 (0.4) 535 (0.6) 404 (0.5) 268 (0.4) 

Black, not Hispanic 

084 2,236 2,270 3,230 3,482 2,031 252 (12.1) 260 (11.6) 241 (10.6) 257 (8.0) 248 (7.1) 176 (8.7)

233 21,450 25,013 25,624 26,885 30,177 2,474 (12.2) 2,486 (11.6) 2,771 (11.1) 2,799 (10.9) 2,865 (10.7) 3,051 (10.1) 

97 29,416 31,703 27,263 26,841 25,290 2,232 (7.6) 1,902 (6.5) 2,072 (6.5) 1,680 (6.2) 1,402 (5.2) 1,155 (4.6) 

089 541,959 546,252 542,570 533,248 581,443 8,488 (1.7) 8,450 (1.6) 8,716 (1.6) 8,375 (1.5) 7,725 (1.4) 7,253 (1.2) 

977 82,408 110,163 98,377 95,880 96,174 1,299 (1.7) 1,206 (1.5) 1,481 (1.3) 1,715 (1.7) 1,486 (1.5) 1,242 (1.3) 

Hispanic 

946 2,238 2,147 2,100 1,909 1,696 160 (8.2) 186 (8.3) 163 (7.6) 137 (6.5) 162 (8.5) 127 (7.5)

777 24,990 29,628 32,976 33,327 31,637 1,473 (6.5) 1,553 (6.2) 1,727 (5.8) 1,919 (5.8) 2,007 (6.0) 1,800 (5.7) 

44 30,470 31,162 29,188 27,213 23,251 1,243 (4.8) 1,372 (4.5) 1,455 (4.7) 1,323 (4.5) 1,121 (4.1) 801 (3.4) 

398 276,287 292,427 306,974 287,642 276,453 2,374 (0.9) 2,404 (0.9) 2,473 (0.8) 2,436 (0.8) 2,259 (0.8) 2,040 (0.7) 

846 36,994 45,425 50,224 47,526 39,202 281 (0.8) 325 (0.9) 304 (0.7) 377 (0.8) 351 (0.7) 231 (0.6) 

Asian/Pacific Islander 

 81 78 100 73 99 76 9 (11.1) 8 (10.3) — — — 11 (14.5)

281 3,624 4,246 5,165 5,450 5,742 92 (2.8) 101 (2.8) 111 (2.6) 134 (2.6) 170 (3.1) 144 (2.5) 

528 595 738 558 645 611 — 8 (1.3) 9 (1.2) 10 (1.8) 6 (0.9) 9 (1.5) 

790 22,084 21,592 22,262 21,256 21,487 69 (0.3) 68 (0.3) 84 (0.4) 62 (0.3) 60 (0.3) 57 (0.3) 

638 3,633 4,483 4,291 3,848 3,321 11 (0.3) 25 (0.7) 14 (0.3) 19 (0.4) 26 (0.7) 12 (0.4) 

American Indian/Alaska Native 

80 164 153 190 195 212 11 (6.1) 11 (6.7) 8 (5.2) 13 (6.8) 7 (3.6) 7 (3.3)

900 875 1,007 1,014 926 935 57 (6.3) 46 (5.3) 34 (3.4) 45 (4.4) 42 (4.5) 33 (3.5) 

001 1,981 1,655 1,952 2,015 1,915 18 (0.9) 20 (1.0) 17 (1.0) 27 (1.4) 34 (1.7) 30 (1.6) 

550 7,616 8,089 7,717 7,815 7,381 40 (0.5) 38 (0.5) 56 (0.7) 34 (0.4) 55 (0.7) 46 (0.6) 

444 1,244 1,341 1,061 1,088 762 12 (0.8) 10 (0.8) 9 (0.7) — 10 (0.9) 8 (1.0) 
 and HIV-positive results, by race/ethnicity and risk category of persons tested, 1999–2004 (continued)

 HIV tests HIV-positive results 

9 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 

o. No. No. No. No. No. No. (%) No. (%) No. (%) No. (%) No. (%) No. (%) 

Other race/ethnicity 

91 181 177 168 207 230 11 (5.8) 7 (3.9) 8 (4.5) 8 (4.8) 10 (4.8) 19 (8.3)

960 2,116 2,633 2,992 3,442 3,523 96 (4.9) 95 (4.5) 97 (3.7) 123 (4.1) 173 (5.0) 180 (5.1) 

392 1,650 1,741 1,888 2,224 2,370 30 (2.2) 28 (1.7) 23 (1.3) 34 (1.8) 64 (2.9) 80 (3.4) 

678 18,490 20,353 20,840 22,971 24,995 148 (0.8) 155 (0.8) 166 (0.8) 187 (0.9) 228 (1.0) 331 (1.3) 

566 2,732 3,937 3,843 3,425 3,478 35 (1.4) 40 (1.5) 47 (1.2) 52 (1.4) 39 (1.1) 29 (0.8) 

Race/ethnicity not reported 

115 90 84 111 104 101 7 (6.1) — — 8 (7.2) 6 (5.8) 15 (14.9)

962 856 1,091 1,278 1,263 1,774 51 (5.3) 40 (4.7) 67 (6.1) 50 (3.9) 69 (5.5) 109 (6.1) 

337 944 1,139 1,226 1,071 926 36 (2.7) 24 (2.5) 38 (3.3) 31 (2.5) 28 (2.6) 32 (3.5) 

063 8,130 11,694 13,234 11,951 12,632 84 (0.8) 66 (0.8) 179 (1.5) 165 (1.2) 161 (1.3) 124 (1.0) 

739 7,834 9,301 5,582 5,956 5,260 177 (2.3) 258 (3.3) 170 (1.8) 63 (1.1) 70 (1.2) 109 (2.1) 

519 1,905,051 1,962,061 1,946,021 1,867,892 1,892,734 27,535 (1.5) 27,067 (1.4) 28,810 (1.5) 28,439 (1.5) 26,984 (1.4) 25,096 (1.3) 

evel data to CDC. See Table 1 and Technical Notes for details. Since 1999, the following areas have had test-level reporting: Arizona, California, Chicago, Colorado,

umbia, Florida, Georgia, Houston, Idaho, Illinois, Indiana, Kentucky, Los Angeles, Louisiana, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi, Missouri,

rsey, New Mexico, New York, New York City, North Carolina, Ohio, Oklahoma, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Puerto Rico, Rhode Island, San Francisco,

S. Virgin Islands, Utah, Vermont, Virginia, Washington, Wisconsin, and Wyoming. Maine began test-level reporting in 2000 and North Dakota in 2003.

because of concerns about data reliability.

tments have been made to some of the cells.

se of small cell count.

partner at risk, who had a diagnosis of a sexually transmitted disease, who exchanged sex for drugs or money, who had sex while using noninjection drugs, who 

hose only risk factor was heterosexual contact. 

 a risk factor, whose record contained no data on risk factors, or who reported other risk factors (i.e., perinatal exposure, hemophilia, receipt of blood 

). 
 and HIV-positive results, by type of testing site and type of test, 1999–2004

 HIV tests HIV-positive results 

9 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 

o. No. No. No. No. No. No. (%) No. (%) No. (%) No. (%) No. (%) No. (%) 

027 445,111 435,208 414,149 391,217 383,618 8,914 (1.9) 8,496 (1.9) 8,595 (2.0) 8,784 (2.1) 8,109 (2.1) 6,856 (1.8)

404 563,997 590,056 565,270 541,747 576,832 7,119 (1.3) 6,606 (1.2) 6,883 (1.2) 5,759 (1.0) 6,048 (1.1) 5,743 (1.0) 

671 120,402 123,630 124,477 113,500 114,525 2,187 (1.9) 2,327 (1.9) 2,339 (1.9) 2,225 (1.8) 1,825 (1.6) 1,494 (1.3) 

597 171,411 175,160 185,002 165,014 161,459 349 (0.2) 357 (0.2) 315 (0.2) 346 (0.2) 278 (0.2) 326 (0.2) 

457 128,778 117,903 106,179 93,953 86,142 917 (0.6) 722 (0.6) 649 (0.6) 486 (0.5) 311 (0.3) 297 (0.3) 

019 15,083 15,445 14,324 13,301 12,284 255 (1.6) 223 (1.5) 178 (1.2) 178 (1.2) 155 (1.2) 172 (1.4) 

270 128,542 147,120 146,461 150,124 147,913 2,192 (1.7) 2,364 (1.8) 3,391 (2.3) 3,960 (2.7) 3,935 (2.6) 3,535 (2.4)

925 116,087 124,496 130,992 111,739 136,054 2,643 (2.5) 2,506 (2.2) 2,669 (2.1) 2,573 (2.0) 1,787 (1.6) 1,966 (1.4) 

708 14,390 15,865 18,604 19,477 23,006 422 (2.5) 266 (1.8) 341 (2.1) 555 (3.0) 607 (3.1) 513 (2.2)

400 112,623 118,299 144,715 127,926 140,555 1,019 (1.6) 1,725 (1.5) 1,848 (1.6) 2,315 (1.6) 2,122 (1.7) 2,575 (1.8) 

041 88,627 98,879 95,848 139,894 110,346 1,518 (1.5) 1,475 (1.7) 1,602 (1.6) 1,258 (1.3) 1,807 (1.3) 1,619 (1.5) 

653 398,050 383,342 349,048 307,641 265,723 6,589 (1.6) 6,022 (1.5) 5,864 (1.5) 5,328 (1.5) 4,732 (1.5) 3,633 (1.4) 

737 1,493,551 1,565,054 1,584,597 1,541,129 1,611,534 20,692 (1.5) 20,854 (1.4) 22,738 (1.5) 22,916 (1.4) 22,056 (1.4) 21,261 (1.3) 

29 13,450 13,665 12,376 19,122 15,477 254 (1.0) 191 (1.4) 208 (1.5) 195 (1.6) 196 (1.0) 202 (1.3) 

519 1,905,051 1,962,061 1,946,021 1,867,892 1,892,734 27,535 (1.5) 27,067 (1.4) 28,810 (1.5) 28,439 (1.5) 26,984 (1.4) 25,096 (1.3) 

evel data to CDC. See Table 1 and Technical Notes for details. Since 1999, the following areas have had test-level reporting: Arizona, California, Chicago, Colorado,

umbia, Florida, Georgia, Houston, Idaho, Illinois, Indiana, Kentucky, Los Angeles, Louisiana, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi, Missouri,

rsey, New Mexico, New York, New York City, North Carolina, Ohio, Oklahoma, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Puerto Rico, Rhode Island, San Francisco,

S. Virgin Islands, Utah, Vermont, Virginia, Washington, Wisconsin, and Wyoming. Maine began test-level reporting in 2000 and North Dakota in 2003.

because of concerns about data reliability.

ments have been made to some of the cells.

B-GYN, obstetrics and gynecology.

cords that did not specify a site type. 

this variable. 
 and receipt of HIV results, by characteristics of persons tested and by test result, 1999–2004

 HIV tests HIV test results received 

2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 

No. No. No. No. No. No. (%) No. (%) No. (%) No. (%) No. (%) No. (%) 

3,096 1,230 998 778 902 1,627 (49.8) 1,352 (43.7) 1,000 (81.3) 774 (77.6) 593 (76.2) 729 (80.8)

2,432 2,350 2,072 1,562 1,720 2,011 (68.4) 1,672 (68.8) 1,592 (67.7) 1,405 (67.8) 1,073 (68.7) 1,298 (75.5) 

56,189 145,654 141,434 125,995 150,779 101,098 (64.6) 100,583 (64.4) 91,523 (62.8) 88,593 (62.6) 80,213 (63.7) 109,579 (72.7) 

97,464 399,931 404,929 382,987 444,522 264,412 (69.4) 272,781 (68.6) 270,521 (67.6) 271,123 (67.0) 260,498 (68.0) 335,011 (75.4) 

22,839 414,806 415,085 395,163 446,983 302,464 (72.6) 304,874 (72.1) 296,696 (71.5) 295,729 (71.2) 285,420 (72.2) 350,852 (78.5) 

03,998 297,864 294,642 277,938 305,575 215,994 (74.7) 225,413 (74.1) 220,100 (73.9) 217,250 (73.7) 207,411 (74.6) 245,500 (80.3) 

27,380 131,800 137,722 137,702 161,248 88,161 (77.1) 96,675 (75.9) 99,774 (75.7) 103,707 (75.3) 104,223 (75.7) 130,667 (81.0) 

32,140 33,191 35,771 36,299 43,738 22,400 (78.8) 25,188 (78.4) 25,725 (77.5) 27,690 (77.4) 28,194 (77.7) 36,506 (83.5) 

10,685 11,699 11,767 10,946 12,582 7,514 (80.6) 8,498 (79.5) 9,252 (79.1) 9,231 (78.4) 8,588 (78.5) 10,572 (84.0) 

16,840 28,079 28,055 21,713 18,487 10,464 (62.0) 11,467 (68.1) 20,640 (73.5) 22,175 (79.0) 17,426 (80.3) 15,104 (81.7) 

99,048 567,698 554,721 512,804 579,903 479,572 (78.2) 470,035 (78.5) 437,221 (77.0) 416,713 (75.1) 386,789 (75.4) 475,632 (82.0) 

82,870 491,264 492,532 485,734 596,279 271,567 (61.1) 294,446 (61.0) 298,630 (60.8) 304,094 (61.7) 309,285 (63.7) 425,372 (71.3) 

18,844 333,858 349,428 317,269 324,758 211,789 (73.6) 231,864 (72.7) 246,704 (73.9) 259,427 (74.2) 240,332 (75.8) 264,187 (81.3) 

26,500 26,968 28,154 27,064 28,253 21,055 (79.0) 20,590 (77.7) 21,078 (78.2) 22,321 (79.3) 21,460 (79.3) 23,547 (83.3) 

9,966 10,591 10,676 10,788 10,179 7,586 (74.5) 7,419 (74.4) 7,625 (72.0) 7,679 (71.9) 7,537 (69.9) 7,909 (77.7) 

22,403 24,576 25,245 27,030 32,649 15,790 (74.7) 16,719 (74.6) 18,101 (73.7) 18,729 (74.2) 20,733 (76.7) 26,709 (81.8) 

13,432 11,649 11,719 10,394 14,515 8,786 (60.6) 7,430 (55.3) 7,464 (64.1) 8,714 (74.4) 7,503 (72.2) 12,462 (85.9) 

45,629 756,055 762,588 730,435 816,058 517,752 (73.8) 544,555 (73.0) 549,117 (72.6) 554,457 (72.7) 532,744 (72.9) 643,556 (78.9) 

18,748 704,804 702,486 651,649 762,397 495,405 (69.6) 499,718 (69.5) 483,508 (68.6) 477,611 (68.0) 453,819 (69.6) 585,662 (76.8) 

8,686 5,745 7,401 8,999 8,081 2,988 (59.9) 4,230 (48.7) 4,198 (73.1) 5,609 (75.8) 7,076 (78.6) 6,600 (81.7) 

42,218 1,432,902 1,435,958 1,358,036 1,543,088 995,952 (71.8) 1,028,274 (71.3) 1,015,690 (70.9) 1,015,405 (70.7) 972,999 (71.6) 1,201,596 (77.9) 

20,852 20,500 20,113 18,753 22,491 16,048 (78.4) 16,223 (77.8) 16,679 (81.4) 16,213 (80.6) 15,126 (80.7) 18,935 (84.2) 

1,760 2,149 1,937 1,793 8,567 1,231 (69.9) 1,211 (68.8) 1,437 (66.9) 1,321 (68.2) 1,216 (67.8) 8,151 (95.1) 

8,233 11,053 14,467 12,501 12,390 2,914 (36.3) 2,795 (33.9) 3,017 (27.3) 4,738 (32.8) 4,298 (34.4) 7,136 (57.6) 

73,063 1,466,604 1,472,475 1,391,083 1,586,536 1,016,145 (71.6) 1,048,503 (71.2) 1,036,823 (70.7) 1,037,677 (70.5) 993,639 (71.4) 1,235,818 (77.9) 

evel data to CDC. See Table 1 and Technical Notes for details. Since 1999, the following areas have had test-level reporting: Arizona, California, Chicago, Colorado,

umbia, Florida, Georgia, Houston, Idaho, Illinois, Indiana, Kentucky, Los Angeles, Louisiana, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi, Missouri,

rsey, New Mexico, New York, New York City, North Carolina, Ohio, Oklahoma, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Puerto Rico, Rhode Island, San Francisco,

S. Virgin Islands, Utah, Vermont, Virginia, Washington, Wisconsin, and Wyoming. Maine began test-level reporting in 2000 and North Dakota in 2003.

because of concerns about data reliability.

ments have been made to some of the cells.

totals in other tables because of missing data on the "receipt of results" variable.

this variable. 
 and receipt of HIV results, by race/ethnicity of persons tested and by test result, 1999–2004

 HIV tests HIV test results received 

2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 

No. No. No. No. No. No. (%) No. (%) No. (%) No. (%) No. (%) No. (%) 

White, not Hispanic 

591,763 559,722 545,344 504,741 567,680 474,289 (78.3) 464,965 (78.6) 431,671 (77.1) 410,886 (75.3) 381,560 (75.6) 465,816 (82.1) 

4,526 4,557 4,549 4,276 5,285 3,809 (81.1) 3,741 (82.7) 3,829 (84.0) 3,799 (83.5) 3,453 (80.8) 4,606 (87.2) 

2,759 3,419 4,828 3,787 6,938 1,474 (49.5) 1,329 (48.2) 1,721 (50.3) 2,028 (42.0) 1,776 (46.9) 5,210 (75.1) 

Black, not Hispanic 

469,051 475,601 476,135 469,857 577,859 262,507 (60.9) 285,505 (60.9) 289,228 (60.8) 294,570 (61.9) 300,106 (63.9) 411,688 (71.2) 

10,257 9,985 9,574 8,856 11,218 7,830 (77.1) 7,789 (75.9) 7,972 (79.8) 7,496 (78.3) 7,023 (79.3) 9,206 (82.1) 

3,562 5,678 6,823 7,021 7,202 1,230 (37.6) 1,152 (32.3) 1,430 (25.2) 2,028 (29.7) 2,156 (30.7) 4,478 (62.2) 

Hispanic 

310,298 324,938 339,882 309,523 315,244 206,654 (73.8) 226,329 (72.9) 241,242 (74.2) 253,326 (74.5) 235,048 (75.9) 256,389 (81.3) 

5,148 5,177 5,222 4,700 4,698 3,864 (80.8) 4,140 (80.4) 4,307 (83.2) 4,295 (82.2) 3,892 (82.8) 4,026 (85.7) 

3,398 3,743 4,324 3,046 4,816 1,271 (41.6) 1,395 (41.1) 1,155 (30.9) 1,806 (41.8) 1,392 (45.7) 3,772 (78.3) 

Asian/Pacific Islander 

26,254 26,685 27,849 26,722 27,735 20,875 (79.1) 20,412 (77.7) 20,884 (78.3) 22,108 (79.4) 21,203 (79.3) 23,140 (83.4) 

183 196 202 235 224 131 (79.4) 146 (79.8) 152 (77.6) 166 (82.2) 201 (85.5) 178 (79.5) 

63 87 103 107 294 49 (40.8) 32 (50.8) 42 (48.3) 47 (45.6) 56 (52.3) 229 (77.9) 

American Indian/Alaska Native 

9,806 10,400 10,471 10,620 9,606 7,456 (74.7) 7,311 (74.6) 7,509 (72.2) 7,530 (71.9) 7,416 (69.8) 7,373 (76.8) 

109 114 111 126 115 94 (77.0) 81 (74.3) 85 (74.6) 90 (81.1) 99 (78.6) 96 (83.5) 

51 77 94 42 458 36 (41.9) 27 (52.9) 31 (40.3) 59 (62.8) 22 (52.4) 440 (96.1) 

Other race/ethnicity 

22,047 24,188 24,757 26,413 30,929 15,564 (74.9) 16,454 (74.6) 17,842 (73.8) 18,406 (74.3) 20,309 (76.9) 25,161 (81.4) 

281 275 334 438 613 192 (72.7) 229 (81.5) 213 (77.5) 265 (79.3) 354 (80.8) 513 (83.7) 

75 113 154 179 1,107 34 (38.2) 36 (48.0) 46 (40.7) 58 (37.7) 70 (39.1) 1,035 (93.5) 

Race/ethnicity not reported 

12,999 11,368 11,520 10,160 14,035 8,607 (61.4) 7,298 (56.1) 7,314 (64.3) 8,579 (74.5) 7,357 (72.4) 12,029 (85.7) 

348 196 121 122 338 128 (43.0) 97 (27.9) 121 (61.7) 102 (84.3) 104 (85.2) 310 (91.7) 

85 85 78 112 142 51 (28.7) 35 (41.2) 29 (34.1) 33 (42.3) 42 (37.5) 123 (86.6) 

73,063 1,466,604 1,472,475 1,391,083 1,586,536 1,016,145 (71.6) 1,048,503 (71.2) 1,036,823 (70.7) 1,037,677 (70.5) 993,639 (71.4) 1,235,818 (77.9) 

evel data to CDC. See Table 1 and Technical Notes for details. Since 1999, the following areas have had test-level reporting: Arizona, California, Chicago, Colorado,

lumbia, Florida, Georgia, Houston, Idaho, Illinois, Indiana, Kentucky, Los Angeles, Louisiana, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi, Missouri,

ersey, New Mexico, New York, New York City, North Carolina, Ohio, Oklahoma, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Puerto Rico, Rhode Island, San Francisco,

.S. Virgin Islands, Utah, Vermont, Virginia, Washington, Wisconsin, and Wyoming. Maine began test-level reporting in 2000 and North Dakota in 2003.

because of concerns about data reliability.

tments have been made to some of the cells.

 totals in other tables because of missing data on the "receipt of results" variable.

d tests for which no result was provided.
HIV tests and HIV-positive results, by health department, 1999–2004

 HIV tests HIV-positive results

99 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004

o. No. No. No. No. No. No. (%) No. (%) No. (%) No. (%) No. (%) No. (%) 

008 20,121 20,266 21,412 19,429 16,736 351 (1.9) 327 (1.6) 325 (1.6) 347 (1.6) 249 (1.3) 351 (2.1) 

935 144,141 132,469 126,804 118,907 102,509 1,253 (0.9) 1,240 (0.9) 1,302 (1.0) 1,318 (1.0) 1,325 (1.1) 1,060 (1.0) 

56 18,326 21,885 21,690 24,034 20,363 203 (1.2) 187 (1.0) 207 (0.9) 209 (1.0) 231 (1.0) 195 (1.0) 

774 21,029 22,623 22,703 16,963 16,262 364 (1.5) 125 (0.6) 158 (0.7) 197 (0.9) 136 (0.8) 57 (0.4) 

072 18,730 18,133 17,398 16,545 18,073 298 (1.4) 233 (1.2) 250 (1.4) 188 (1.1) 165 (1.0) 164 (0.9) 

59 10,112 10,165 8,181 10,851 13,093 89 (1.0) 116 (1.1) 113 (1.1) 81 (1.0) 139 (1.3) 147 (1.1) 

617 16,752 18,548 18,544 17,068 18,902 287 (1.8) 256 (1.5) 275 (1.5) 318 (1.7) 272 (1.6) 323 (1.7) 

694 232,352 260,904 286,650 293,444 272,867 4,614 (2.1) 4,987 (2.1) 6,045 (2.3) 6,316 (2.2) 6,228 (2.1) 5,252 (1.9) 

757 76,908 82,704 87,191 86,677 99,790 1,718 (2.3) 1,726 (2.2) 1,956 (2.4) 1,695 (1.9) 1,708 (2.0) 1,628 (1.6) 

427 19,987 19,975 22,521 17,321 23,677 581 (2.8) 407 (2.0) 267 (1.3) 511 (2.3) 463 (2.7) 542 (2.3) 

71 12,082 8,734 2,254 2,997 2,152 51 (0.4) 33 (0.3) 25 (0.3) 7 (0.3) 15 (0.5) 7 (0.3) 

484 46,141 45,203 43,488 44,157 47,052 344 (0.7) 431 (0.9) 431 (1.0) 358 (0.8) 338 (0.8) 345 (0.7) 

049 23,366 28,156 22,695 19,316 34,002 239 (1.0) 250 (1.1) 286 (1.0) 259 (1.1) 106 (0.5) 266 (0.8) 

385 19,344 17,828 17,389 15,859 14,121 124 (0.7) 134 (0.7) 97 (0.5) 117 (0.7) 103 (0.6) 60 (0.4) 

005 78,467 75,382 70,225 72,190 52,682 1,169 (1.6) 1,133 (1.4) 1,116 (1.5) 1,081 (1.5) 1,185 (1.6) 721 (1.4) 

280 60,397 50,082 52,056 55,130 65,285 652 (1.1) 618 (1.0) 577 (1.2) 606 (1.2) 569 (1.0) 661 (1.0) 

D 2,233 2,306 2,487 2,789 2,877 ND 8 (0.4) 14 (0.6) 9 (0.4) 24 (0.9) 19 (0.7) 

465 66,691 87,106 72,331 60,339 84,351 1,277 (1.9) 1,216 (1.8) 1,610 (1.8) 1,270 (1.8) 1,245 (2.1) 1,438 (1.7) 

559 45,247 50,772 46,087 42,435 46,242 556 (1.3) 495 (1.1) 514 (1.0) 620 (1.3) 449 (1.1) 457 (1.0) 

432 58,485 59,104 59,472 36,294 44,575 514 (0.8) 459 (0.8) 550 (0.9) 611 (1.0) 322 (0.9) 402 (0.9) 

794 8,775 9,448 10,540 9,619 9,781 65 (0.8) 105 (1.2) 65 (0.7) 83 (0.8) 116 (1.2) 123 (1.3) 

637 39,594 34,599 24,343 24,305 17,601 233 (0.7) 254 (0.6) 238 (0.7) 160 (0.7) 176 (0.7) 116 (0.7) 

355 3,546 3,626 3,162 4,437 4,916 11 (0.3) 9 (0.3) 11 (0.3) 14 (0.4) 23 (0.5) 16 (0.3) 

817 5,921 5,816 6,407 7,396 7,678 52 (0.9) 24 (0.4) 50 (0.9) 44 (0.7) 34 (0.5) 40 (0.5) 

645 23,912 26,314 29,201 21,446 21,185 197 (0.8) 207 (0.9) 223 (0.8) 263 (0.9) 297 (1.4) 292 (1.4) 

444 57,908 63,576 66,639 66,187 67,921 1,823 (3.1) 1,459 (2.5) 1,423 (2.2) 1,332 (2.0) 1,124 (1.7) 1,116 (1.6) 

905 5,004 5,912 7,761 5,565 7,905 35 (0.3) 24 (0.5) 36 (0.6) 39 (0.5) 38 (0.7) 54 (0.7) 

555 95,348 91,529 93,581 92,094 96,632 1,826 (1.7) 1,663 (1.7) 1,619 (1.8) 1,824 (1.9) 1,669 (1.8) 1,743 (1.8) 

425 32,620 33,127 33,408 33,386 33,706 805 (2.6) 644 (2.0) 593 (1.8) 581 (1.7) 553 (1.7) 483 (1.4) 

432 105,790 119,009 105,700 107,068 119,073 697 (0.7) 739 (0.7) 886 (0.7) 754 (0.7) 743 (0.7) 716 (0.6) 

D ND ND ND 2,149 2,558 ND ND ND ND 6 (0.3) — 

815 41,424 42,627 39,934 44,285 47,841 359 (0.8) 383 (0.9) 407 (1.0) 410 (1.0) 430 (1.0) 477 (1.0) 

366 8,338 6,927 6,992 7,234 6,987 171 (1.5) 139 (1.7) 173 (2.5) 132 (1.9) 149 (2.1) 112 (1.6) 

051 21,475 21,342 21,691 20,874 19,990 182 (0.8) 201 (0.9) 212 (1.0) 213 (1.0) 221 (1.1) 194 (1.0) 

409 45,048 42,642 49,544 54,845 58,453 625 (1.2) 355 (0.8) 402 (0.9) 469 (0.9) 443 (0.8) 432 (0.7) 

384 27,165 28,477 29,655 31,340 32,916 290 (3.1) 712 (2.6) 739 (2.6) 687 (2.3) 666 (2.1) 648 (2.0) 

319 57,026 64,792 72,824 64,153 41,763 1,486 (3.4) 1,694 (3.0) 1,766 (2.7) 1,656 (2.3) 1,362 (2.1) 842 (2.0) 

659 3,088 3,075 3,017 2,814 3,147 21 (0.8) 20 (0.6) 18 (0.6) 19 (0.6) 24 (0.9) 24 (0.8) 

354 25,426 25,006 19,097 20,378 21,913 716 (3.2) 796 (3.1) 748 (3.0) 699 (3.7) 736 (3.6) 729 (3.3) 

392 39,505 43,648 46,373 45,109 48,900 911 (2.4) 824 (2.1) 848 (1.9) 811 (1.7) 777 (1.7) 762 (1.6) 

285 41,316 41,959 42,152 46,499 47,536 382 (1.0) 476 (1.2) 472 (1.1) 340 (0.8) 445 (1.0) 505 (1.1) 

221 102,449 92,063 86,694 56,377 49,864 1,252 (1.2) 1,220 (1.2) 1,044 (1.1) 1,026 (1.2) 822 (1.5) 717 (1.4) 

592 1,426 1,290 1,436 1,613 2,626 — 25 (1.8) 23 (1.8) 24 (1.7) 14 (0.9) 31 (1.2) 

411 6,409 5,913 6,004 6,883 8,089 33 (0.5) 30 (0.5) 34 (0.6) 47 (0.8) 60 (0.9) 72 (0.9) 
HIV tests and HIV-positive results, by health department, 1999–2004 (continued)

 HIV tests HIV-positive results

99 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004

o. No. No. No. No. No. No. (%) No. (%) No. (%) No. (%) No. (%) No. (%) 

84 1,552 2,050 2,446 2,453 2,778 9 (0.8) — — 22 (0.9) 11 (0.4) — 

13 75,702 78,125 79,076 80,756 79,141 460 (0.6) 437 (0.6) 435 (0.6) 453 (0.6) 534 (0.7) 517 (0.7) 

24 15,215 14,489 13,340 12,099 11,944 70 (0.5) 82 (0.5) 87 (0.6) 71 (0.5) 90 (0.7) 92 (0.8) 

24 19,040 18,772 19,423 19,659 19,477 134 (0.7) 153 (0.8) 128 (0.7) 127 (0.7) 141 (0.7) 130 (0.7) 

78 4,118 3,563 4,003 4,124 4,802 6 (0.1) 11 (0.3) 12 (0.3) 21 (0.5) 8 (0.2) 18 (0.4) 

19 1,905,051 1,962,061 1,946,021 1,867,892 1,892,734 27,535 (1.5) 27,067 (1.4) 28,810 (1.5) 28,439 (1.5) 26,984 (1.4) 25,096 (1.3) 

evel data to CDC. See Table 1 and Technical Notes for details. Since 1999, the following areas have had test-level reporting: Arizona, California, Chicago, Colorado,

umbia, Florida, Georgia, Houston, Idaho, Illinois, Indiana, Kentucky, Los Angeles, Louisiana, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi, Missouri,

rsey, New Mexico, New York, New York City, North Carolina, Ohio, Oklahoma, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Puerto Rico, Rhode Island, San Francisco,

S. Virgin Islands, Utah, Vermont, Virginia, Washington, Wisconsin, and Wyoming. Maine began test-level reporting in 2000 and North Dakota in 2003.

because of concerns about data reliability.

ments have been made to some of the cells.

icago, Houston, Los Angeles, New York City, Philadelphia, and San Francisco) are incorporated in the alphabetical listing.

se of small cell count; ND, no data (areas reported aggregate-level, not test-level, data).

 aggregate-level data. 

21
22
23


Technical Notes

Overview of the HIV Counseling 

and Testing System 

Counseling and testing data are collected to 

facilitate program monitoring and evaluation at the 

local, state, and national levels. These data include 

information that would typically be gathered in the 

process of providing testing services (e.g., age and 

risk factors). To standardize the collection of 

counseling and testing data, CDC provides health 

departments with variables, definitions, and coding 

conventions. CDC requires the health departments 

to submit quarterly reports on the HIV counseling 

and testing services supported by CDC. 

Health departments that report test-level data 

(Table 1) submit data to CDC electronically, using 

a specified file structure. CDC has assisted health 

departments in collecting counseling and testing 

test-level data by making available standardized 

machine-readable forms (scan forms) and scan 

software. Other health departments have developed their own data collection systems and may 

use one of the following: scanning technology 

similar to the CDC system; a system wherein the 

data are hand keyed; or, more recently, a Webbased system. 

Health departments that submit aggregate-level 

data (Table 1) complete a standardized set of 

tables, which include summary counts of testing 

activities by certain characteristics of persons 

(e.g., the number of tests administered to black 

females). Aggregate-level data are not presented in 

Tables 3–9 of this report because of (a) differences 

in variables used to report test- and aggregate-level 

data, (b) inability to manipulate aggregate-level 

data to cross-tabulate two or more variables, and 

(c) limited ability to evaluate the impact of missing

data on estimates. 

Limitations of the Collection 

and Reporting of Counseling 

and Testing Data 

Although service providers and health departments make considerable efforts to collect and 

report the data in a consistent manner, there are 

limitations in these processes. Data errors may 

occur in any large-scale data collection effort and 

may include errors in coding and data entry, 

conversion, and import. Limitations specific to the 

collection of counseling and testing data result 

from the complexity and sensitive nature of an 

HIV counseling and testing session and variations 

in the way service providers obtain data. People’s 

reluctance to discuss personal and highly sensitive 

topics and variation in the ability of service providers to elicit this information may result in 

misidentification of the risk factors of the person 

being tested. For example, an experienced counselor may be more effective than a new counselor in 

identifying behavioral risks, which may affect the 

risk factor data recorded for that person. 

Variations in data collection systems used by 

health departments may also limit the comparability of the data. Although standardized variables 

and definitions are provided, health departments 

may vary in how they apply these data elements. 

Differences in the wording of a particular item can 

undermine comparability. CDC, for example, 

defines “since 1978” as the recall period for 

behaviors that may place a person at risk for HIV; 

health departments may use a different recall 

period, such as “in the past 2 years” or “since your 

last HIV test,” in their data collection systems. 

Accurately estimating the receipt of HIV test 

results is complicated by differences in data collection systems (e.g., ease of update in a scan- vs. a 

26
Web-based system), management processes (e.g., 

length of time a form is held before data 

processing), and type of test (e.g., anonymous 

vs. confidential). 

Data Review Procedures 

CDC and health departments follow quality 

control procedures to help minimize error. Counseling and testing data are reviewed at various 

stages in the processes of data collection, submission, and analysis. The CDC-supported scanning 

system performs several consistency checks on the 

data, for example, to identify whether a response 

falls outside a predefined range of plausible 

values. Other data collection systems used by the 

health departments have similar checks to assist in 

validating data before submission to CDC. 

Although health departments are often in the 

best position to assess the quality of counseling 

and testing data, CDC also conducts reviews to 

identify possible problems related to data conversion or transmission. CDC tabulates data for each 

health department quarterly and annually and 

returns them to health departments for validation, 

correction, and clarification of any unusual 

changes (e.g., a pronounced change in testing for a 

particular racial/ethnic group or age category). In 

addition, in preparation for this report, CDC 

created summary tables on key report variables for 

1998 through 2003 for each health department 

reporting test-level data. This provided health 

departments the opportunity to validate any appreciable changes in test statistics over time (e.g., an 

increase of 25% or more in HIV testing in prison 

settings) and explain these shifts. Health departments’ explanations for the shifts focused on 

program changes, community trends, and data 

collection. For example, the large change in the 

number of HIV tests reported by Philadelphia 

between 1999 (9,384) and 2000 (27,165) appears 

to have been caused by some providers in Philadelphia not submitting complete data to the health 

department in Philadelphia in 1999 (Table 9). The 

Philadelphia health department indicated that in 

1999 the true count of HIV tests should be 

approximately 23,000. Presumably, there was 

a corresponding change in the number of HIVpositive test results in 1999. 

During the review of the data, an anomaly was 

discovered in Mississippi’s data. Specifically, from 

2001 through 2004, Mississippi reported an unrealistically high number of tests given to men who 

reported having male-to-male sexual contact. 

Mississippi was not able to identify the source of 

this anomaly. Because of the magnitude of this 

anomaly (e.g., in 2000, Mississippi reported 999 

tests for men who reported having male-to-male 

sexual contact, whereas in 2001, Mississippi 

reported 18,402 tests for the same risk category), 

CDC was unable to include Mississippi’s data in 

this report. 

27
Analysis Notes

Refer to the Appendix for the set of variables 

collected and reported to CDC by those health 

departments who reported test-level data. Not 

all of the variables on the form were used in 

this report. Below are details on how some of 

the variables were calculated and presented in 

this report. 

Missing Data 

Some records* in the counseling and testing 

data were missing information on certain variables. 

Most variables with missing data were included in 

the “not reported” category in the tables. However, 

the “site type,” “test result this visit,” “posttest 

counseled,” and risk factor variables were treated 

as follows. 

• If “site type” was missing data, the response was 

included in the “other” category in the tables. 

• If “test result this visit” was missing data, the 

entire record was excluded from all tables in this 

report. For quality assurance purposes, CDC 

monitored the test result data and consulted with 

the health department if an unusually large 

percentage of records were missing data for 

this variable. 

• If “posttest counseled” was missing data, the 

entire record was excluded from tables showing 

data on receipt of results (Tables 7 and 8) but 

was included in tables reporting the number of 

tests (e.g., Table 3). Therefore, the total numbers 

of HIV tests shown in Tables 7 and 8 differ from 

those shown in Table 3. 

• If no risk factors were reported, the response 

was included in the “other” category in the 

tables that reported risk categories. 

Calculation of Percentage of HIV 

Test Results That Were Positive 

This variable was calculated as the number 

of HIV tests with a positive result divided by the 

total number of HIV tests for which a value was 

reported (i.e., “positive,” “negative,” “inconclusive,” or “no result”). 

Use of the Posttest Counseling 

Variable 

The 1999 through 2004 counseling and testing 

data do not contain a specific variable for receipt 

of an HIV test result. In this report, receipt of 

posttest counseling is used as a proxy for receipt 

of an HIV test result. 

Race/Ethnicity 

In the Federal Register for October 30, 1997, 

the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) 

announced the Revisions to the Standards for the 

Classification of Federal Data on Race and 

Ethnicity [1]. These revisions reflected a change 

in federal policy regarding the collection of 

data on race and ethnicity; implementation by 

January 1, 2003, was mandated. At a minimum, 

data for the following race categories should 

be collected: 

• American Indian or Alaska Native 

• Asian 

• black or African American 

• Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander 

• white 

*In this dataset, a record refers to the set of information that is collected about an HIV test and sent to CDC. 

28 
Additionally, systems must be able to retain 

information when multiple racial categories are 

reported. Two ethnicity categories should be 

collected regardless of race: 

• Hispanic 

• not Hispanic 

The 1999–2004 data in this report were 

collected by using the race/ethnicity categories 

approved under the previous OMB standards. 

Therefore, the tables do not reflect the new 

categories. Future collections of counseling 

and testing data will comply with the OMB’s 

revised standards. 

Risk Factor Categorization 

The 3 steps by which the reported risk factors 

were categorized to create the risk categories used 

in this report are described in the following text 

and boxes. 

Step 1: Reported Risk Factors 

The counselor collects risk factor information 

from each person tested. More than 1 risk factor 

may be reported for each person. Box 1 lists these 

risk factors with definitions. 

Step 2: Risk Factor Category Assigned 

by Hierarchy 

Using the combination of a person’s reported 

risk factor(s) (see Box 1) and the person’s sex (i.e., 

male or female), CDC assigns each person tested 

to a risk factor category. These categories are 

ordered hierarchically based on the presumed 

likelihood of HIV transmission. This hierarchy is 

based on the HIV transmission hierarchy used in 

CDC HIV/AIDS surveillance. A person is classified into a risk category on the basis of the risk 

factor(s) most likely to have been responsible for 

transmission. Persons with more than one reported 

risk factor are classified into the risk factor 

category listed first in the hierarchy (see step 2 in 

Box 2 for the order of risk categories in this hierarchy; categories are ordered from the most likely 

route of transmission to the least likely route of 

transmission). For example, a male who reports 

the following risk factors—sex with male, STD 

diagnosis, and sex with female—would be 

assigned to the risk factor category “male-to-male 

sexual contact.” The exception is men who report 

sexual contact with other men and injection drug 

use, for whom a separate risk category exists 

(i.e., “male-to-male sexual contact and injection 

drug use”). 

Step 3: Risk Categories Used in This Report 

For this report, the 15 risk factor categories 

were further collapsed into 1 of 5 risk categories. 

Box 2 further illustrates the process used for 

deriving the risk categories in this report from the 

risk factors recorded at the time of the counseling 

and testing session. The second and third columns 

show the relationship between the risk factor 

categories and the risk categories used in the tables 

and figures of this report. The numbers in parentheses in the third column correspond to the 

numbers listed in the second column. 

29
Box 1. Definitions of risk factors reported by person tested 

Risk Factor Definition 

(Persons reported whether they had engaged in any of the risk behaviors 

listed below since 1978.) 

Sex with male Had sex with a male. 

Sex with female Had sex with a female. 

Injection drug use Self-injected or received an injection of a nonprescription drug or substance; 

includes injection routes other than intravenous. 

Sex while under the influence of Engaged in sexual activities while under the influence of noninjection drugs, 

noninjection drugs or alcohol such as crack cocaine, or under the influence of alcohol. 

Exchange of sex for drugs/money Exchanged sex for drugs or money. 

STD diagnosis Received an STD diagnosis since 1978. 

Sex with injection drug user Had sex with an injection drug user (includes persons who injected through 

routes other than intravenous). 

Sex with man who had sex with a man Had sex with a man who had had sex with a man. 

Sex with person with HIV/AIDS Had sex with a person who had HIV infection or AIDS. 

Sex with person with other HIV/AIDS Had sex with a person who had another risk factor not listed above 

risk factor (e.g., a person who had hemophilia or who had received a transfusion of 

blood or blood products). 

Child of woman with HIV/AIDS Had mother with HIV infection or AIDS; child is younger than 13 years. 

Hemophiliac/recipient of blood or Had a hereditary bleeding disorder requiring therapy with clotting factor or 

blood products other blood products or had an injection of whole blood or blood product 

(other than immune globulin preparations) directly into the blood stream 

during 1978–1985. 

Health care exposure Exposed to HIV in a health care setting (patient or health care worker). 

Victim of sexual assault Exposed to HIV as a result of a sexual assault (adult or child). 

No acknowledged risk Had unknown risk exposure. 

30
Box 2. Process used to categorize reported risk factors 

l l

l

CDC classifi i

i

inati

 (i )

ission. 

i

i

i

j i

il l

i

is 

i inj i

i i

i i

i i

/ i

il f IV/AIDS 

li / ipi

l

Victi

l

l l

 inj i

l l

j i

i

l

il l

i

/

10 = Victi

l

;

 ri

ified 

l l

 inj i

l l ) 

j i

• i

• is (06) 

•

• il l

i

• Victi

• ;

•

• li i

• Heal

• l

•

• ifi

Step 1 

Risk Factors Reported by 

Person Tested 

The counse or se ects each risk 

factor reported. More than 1 risk 

factor may be se ected. 

Step 2 

Risk Factor Category Assigned 

through a Hierarchy 

es each person nto a risk 

factor category by us ng a 

comb on of the reported risk 

factor(s) (see step 1) and the person’s 

sex .e., male or female . This 

classification is based on the 

presumed hierarchy of HIV 

transm

Step 3 

Risk Categories Used in This Report 

The codes from the hierarchy are 

reported as 1 of 5 risk categories, as 

ndicated below. 

Sex w th male 

Sex w th female 

In ect on drug use 

Sex wh e under the inf uence of

 noninject on drugs 

Exchange of sex for 

 drugs/money 

STD diagnos

Sex w th ect on drug user 

Sex w th man who had sex w th

 a man 

Sex w th person w th HIV/AIDS 

Sex w th person w th other 

 HIV AIDS r sk factor 

Ch d o woman with H

Hemophi ac rec ent of

 blood or b ood products 

Health care exposure 

m of sexual assault 

No acknow edged risk 

01 = Ma e-to-ma e sexual contact and 

ect on drug use 

02 = Ma e-to-ma e sexual contact 

03 = In ect on drug use 

04 = Sex w th partner at risk 

05 = Perinata exposure 

06 = STD diagnosis 

07 = Exchange of sex for 

 drugs/money 

08 = Sex wh e under the inf uence of

 noninject on drugs 

09 = Hemophilia receipt of blood or

 blood products 

m of sexual assault 

11 = Health care exposure 

12 = No acknow edged risk 

13 = Heterosexual contact no other 

sk 

14 = Other 

15 = Not spec

Ma e-to-ma e sexual contact and

ect on drug use (01) 

Ma e-to-ma e sexual contact (02

In ect on drug use (03) 

Heterosexual contact 

Sex w th partner at risk (04) 

STD diagnos

Exchange of sex for 

 drugs/money (07) 

Sex wh e under the inf uence of 

noninject on drugs (08) 

m of sexual assault (10) 

Heterosexual contact

 no other risk (13) 

Other 

Perinatal exposure (05) 

Hemophi a/rece pt of blood or blood 

products (09) 

th care exposure (11) 

No acknow edged risk (12) 

 Other (14) 

 Not spec ed (15) 

Reference 

1. Office of Management and Budget. Revisions to 

the standards for the classification of federal 

data on race and ethnicity. Federal Register 

1997;62:58781–58790. Available at: http:// 

www.whitehouse.gov/omb/fedreg/ 

ombdir15.html. Accessed November 18, 2006. 

31 
Appendix

From 1999 through 2004, some health depart- all health departments used this form to collect 

ments used the CDC-provided form reproduced on data, all health departments that reported testthe next page to collect data from persons during level data submitted the data elements included 

the counseling and testing session. Although not on the form. 

32
33