HIV/AIDS Prevalence and Mortality Technical Notes 2004
Surveillance of HIV/AIDS
The Minnesota Department of Health (MDH) collects case reports of HIV
infection and AIDS diagnoses through a passive and active HIV/AIDS surveillance
system. Passive surveillance relies on physicians and laboratories to
report new cases of HIV infection or AIDS directly to the MDH in compliance
with state law (1). Active surveillance
conducted by MDH staff involves routine visits and correspondence with
select facilities to ensure completeness of reporting and accuracy of
the data.
Factors that impact the completeness and accuracy of HIV/AIDS surveillance
data include: compliance with case reporting, timeliness of case reporting,
test-seeking behaviors of HIV-infected individuals, and the availability
and targeting of HIV testing services. Certain events have also impacted
trends in HIV/AIDS surveillance data. For example changes over time in
the surveillance case definition (most notably the 1993 expansion of the
case definition for adults and adolescents (2))
have resulted in artificial jumps in AIDS case counts at the time the
new definition went into effect or in the preceding year because changes
in case definition allowed for retrospective diagnoses.
Vital Status of HIV/AIDS Cases
Persons are assumed alive unless the MDH has knowledge of their death. Persons are assumed residing in Minnesota if their most recently reported state of residence was Minnesota and the MDH has not received notice of relocation outside of the state. Vital status information is updated by monthly visits to select reporting facilities, correspondence with other health departments, daily obituary reviews in local newspapers, annual death certificate reviews, and periodic matches with the National Death Index. “AIDS deaths” refers to all deaths among AIDS cases regardless of the cause.
Place of Residence for HIV/AIDS Cases
Persons are assumed to be residing in Minnesota if their most recently reported state of residence was Minnesota and the MDH has not received notice of relocation outside of the state. Likewise, a person’s county or city of residence is assumed to be the most recently reported value unless the MDH is otherwise notified. Residence information is updated through standard case reporting, monthly visits to select reporting facilities and/or correspondence with other state health departments. Persons diagnosed with HIV infection while imprisoned in a state correctional facility are included in the data presented unless otherwise noted (federal and private prisoners are excluded). Residential relocation, including release from state prison, is difficult to track and therefore data presented by current residence must be interpreted in this light. Data on residence at time of diagnosis are considered more accurate, limited only by the accuracy of self-reported residence location.
Data Tabulation and Presentation
Unless otherwise noted, data analyses exclude persons diagnosed in federal
or private correctional facilities (inmates generally are not Minnesota
residents before incarceration and do not stay in Minnesota upon their
release), infants with unknown or negative HIV status who were born to
HIV positive mothers. Data include HIV-infected refugees who resettled
in Minnesota as part of the HIV-Positive Refugee Resettlement Program.
The HIV/AIDS surveillance system is a live database that is continuously
updated to reflect the most current information available. Variables such
as current state of residence are over-written when updates are made.
Annual archive files were initiated in 2001. Thus, the numbers of HIV/AIDS
cases residing in Minnesota in 2000 and 2001 were estimated using the
current state of residence variable while the number in previous years
(1990-1999) was estimated using state of residence at time of diagnosis,
vital status, and date of death variables. The number of HIV/AIDS cases
alive in a certain year was calculated by summing cases with an HIV/AIDS
diagnosis in that year or prior whose vital status in 2001 was “alive”
or whose date of death was either after the calendar year of interest
or missing.
Mode of Exposure Hierarchy
All state and city HIV/AIDS surveillance systems funded by the Centers
for Disease Control and Prevention use a standardized hierarchy of mode
of exposure categories. HIV and AIDS cases with more than one reported
mode of exposure to HIV are classified in the exposure category listed
first in the hierarchy. In this way, each case is counted as having only
one mode of exposure. The only exception to this rule is the joint risk
of male-to-male sex (MSM) and intravenous drug use (IDU), which makes
up a separate exposure category in the hierarchy. The following is a list
of the hierarchy for adolescent/adult HIV/AIDS cases:
(1) MSM
(2) IDU
(3) MSM/IDU
(4) Hemophilia patient
(5) Heterosexual contact
(6) Receipt of blood transfusion or tissue/organ transplant
(7) Other (e.g. needle stick in a health care setting)
(8) Risk not specified.
The following is the list of the hierarchy for pediatric HIV/AIDS cases:
(1) Hemophilia patient
(2) Mother with HIV or HIV risk
(3) Receipt of blood transfusion or tissue/organ transplant
(4) Other
(5) Risk not specified.
Heterosexual contact is only designated if a male or female can report
specific heterosexual contact with a partner who has, or is at increased
risk for, HIV infection (e.g. an intravenous drug user). For females this
includes heterosexual contact with a bisexual male (mainly due to the
elevated prevalence of HIV infection among men who have sex with men).
“Risk not specified” refers to cases with no reported history
of exposure to HIV through any of the routes listed in the hierarchy of
exposure categories. These cases include persons who have not yet been
interviewed by MDH staff; persons whose exposure history is incomplete
because they died, declined to be interviewed, or were lost to follow-up;
and persons who were interviewed or for whom follow-up information was
available but no exposure was identified/acknowledged.
The growing number of cases with unspecified risk in recent years is,
in part, artificial and due to interviews that have not yet been completed.
In time, a number of these will be assigned a mode of exposure category.
However, part of the observed increase is real. As stated above, a person
must have intimate knowledge about his/her partner to meet the criteria
for heterosexual mode of exposure. Often cases will not be certain about
their partners’ HIV status or risk. Additionally, the perception
of social stigma presumably decreases the likelihood that a person will
acknowledge certain risk behaviors, particularly male-to-male sex or injecting
drug use. Thus, if the true numbers of cases due to heterosexual
contact, MSM, and/or IDU increase, a larger number of cases without a
specified risk would be expected.
A recent study by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention used
statistical methods to redistribute risk among female HIV/AIDS cases with
unspecified risk (3). The results
are helpful but are based on national data that are not necessarily applicable
to the state or local level. Speculation regarding the distribution of
risk behaviors among those with unspecified risk is difficult, especially
in men, for whom even a national study is not available.
Re-distribution of Mode of Exposure
In 2004 the Minnesota Department of Health began estimating mode of
exposure for cases with unspecified risk in its annual summary slides.
Estimation was done by using the risk distribution for living cases with
known risk by race and gender and applying it to those with unspecified
risk of the same race and gender. There were two exceptions to this method,
African-born cases and Asian/Pacific Islander women. For both African-born
and Asian/Pacific Islander women a breakdown of 95% heterosexual risk
and 5% other risk was used. For African-born males a breakdown of 5% male-to-male
sex, 90% heterosexual risk, and 5% other risk was used. These percentages
are based on epidemiological literature and/or community experience.
Below is an example of how the process worked for white, African American
and African-born females:
| Living Cases Among Females in 2004 | |||||
Race/Risk |
Heterosexual n (%†) |
IDU n (%†) |
Other n (%†) |
Unspecified n |
Total N |
| White | 178 (72) |
58 (24) |
10 (4) |
78 |
324 |
| African-American | 174 (69) |
62 (25) |
16 (6) |
107 |
359 |
| African-born | 43 (83) |
0 (0) |
9 (17) |
223 |
275 |
† Percent of those with know risk.
| Female Cases with Estimated Risk | ||||
Race/Risk |
Heterosexual |
IDU |
Other |
Total N |
| White | (.72*78) + 178 = 234 |
(.24*78) + 58 =77 |
(.04*78) + 10 =13 |
324 |
| African-American | (.69*107) + 174 = 248 |
(.25*107) + 62 = 88 |
(.06*107) + 16 =23 |
359 |
| African-born‡ | (.95*223) + 43 = 255 |
0 |
(.05*223) + 9 = 20 |
275 |
‡ Used a distribution of 95% heterosexual and 5% other.
Definitions Related to Race/Ethnicity
When data are stratified by race, Black race is broken down into African-born
and African American (not African-born) based on reported country of birth.
The terms “persons of color” and “non-Whites”
refer to all race/ethnicity categories other than White (Black, Hispanic,
American Indian, and Asian/Pacific Islander).
Interstate De-Duplication Project (IDEP)
In 2004, the Minnesota Department of Health (MDH) participated in IDEP.
IDEP is a CDC project aimed at eliminating duplicate reports of HIV and
AIDS cases among states. Each case of HIV and AIDS is assigned to the
state (or states when the diagnosis of HIV and AIDS occurs in two different
states) where a person was first diagnosed. The first round looked at
cases reported through December 31, 2001. Through this project, MDH identified
164 cases of HIV infection (including AIDS at first report) and 55 AIDS
cases whose first diagnosis was not in Minnesota. These cases were previously
considered as diagnosed in Minnesota and were counted in the cumulative
number of cases diagnosed in Minnesota. As such, the change of “ownership”
(where the case was diagnosed) has reduced both cumulative and yearly
totals for Minnesota. Additionally, MDH also identified 250 cases that
no longer live in Minnesota.
The results of IDEP are particularly noticeable in the total number of
persons living with HIV/AIDS in Minnesota, which increased from 4,895
to 5,002, a gain of only 107 cases, instead of 292 (new infections minus
deaths plus (difference between people moving in and people moving out))
between 2003 and 2004.
(1) Minnesota Rule 4605.7040 (return to text)
(2) MMWR 1992;41[no.RR-17]:1-19 (return to text)
(3) MMWR 2001; 50(RR-6):31-40 (return to text)

