Free STD check at Planned Parenthood

STD checks are free this month at the Emanuel Cleaver Blvd Planned Parenthood. You have to pay for the office visit, I paid $53. You can call for results in a week, but no news is good news. Office visit took awhile, nearly an hour and a half.

How is it free if you paid 53 bucks? False advertising maybe?

This clinic used to be free, now it looks like they only ask for a $10 donation.

http://www.kcfree.org/contact/appointment.html#HIV

I love PP. They have a little questionnaire asking about your sexual history. They see my number and freak the fuck out.

I love PP. They have a little questionnaire asking about your sexual history. They see my number and freak the fuck out. Originally Posted by SillyGirl

I actually had a nurse remove a digit once, she thought I made an error . . . I was like, "no, that's the number" - she just looked at me and asked where I hung out . . . she was apparently a little ignored at home. Too bad really, she was cute as a button. I actually called a client of mine and set her up a blind date for lunch the next day while I was in the office. She sent me flowers, the client sent a finder's fee (and I believe I heard they are now a "couple" - good for them).

How is it free if you paid 53 bucks? False advertising maybe? Originally Posted by KenMonk

The tests are free, the visit is not.

Free buffet at the strip club, $10 cover to get in.

Johnson County Health Department has a flat $30 rate for STD screening according to their Web site.

http://health.jocogov.org/CLS/STI.shtml

In Saint Joseph its completely free. I don't even pay for an office visit.

Johnson County Health Department has a flat $30 rate for STD screening according to their Web site.

http://health.jocogov.org/CLS/STI.shtml Originally Posted by KCQuestor

As discussed previously (the types of HIV testing available), I believe the JOCO Health Department still uses an inferior method of testing for the presence of HIV (accurate less often and not able to show a positive after a recent exposure). Although, they may have changed their tests they offer; I haven't used their services in a long time. However, admittedly Questor, if they have changed testing methods, that would be one hell of a good price.

@jayhawkrobbie posted a link to the best resource (for little or no cost) in KC presently, IM(VH)O, and they offer reduced prices for a "better" HIV detection test methodology (a more sensitive test that is accurate earlier after a recent exposure). Just ask during your visit - they'll explain the options. DO NOT use (accept) their "rapid" test - just say no thanks and tell them you're in a high risk lifestyle and ask for a better test - they can (and will) do it.

You can also get a free check for STDs and HIV if you become a "test subject" for one of those studies advertised for Quintiles. And they use Quest Diagnostics for their lab work.

Why not just donate blood? Dont they have to test it and if its postive they call you right.

Why not just donate blood? Dont they have to test it and if its postive they call you right. Originally Posted by KenMonk

Most likely, yes, if your contact information is correct you'll be notified. Sometimes they mix up and mislabel the samples or a volunteer leaves the tag off - so it isn't matched in all cases, even though it is still tested (and discarded if positive). This happens most often at high volume blood drives - not at brick and mortar full-time collection centers.

The downside is that in an effort to protect the blood supply the best they can, the test they use produces a rather large (some would say huge) number of false positives. So, you might endure six to twelve weeks of hell and anxiety if you've not had the "better" test and you find yourself notified by the Red Cross that you may be HIV positive. IMO, better to get the best test you can and know for certain before you donate. By the way, in most all cases, if you test positive (falsely) and you supply information to the Red Cross or other blood bank that you are not positive, it usually won't get you off their prohibited donor list (which is a shared national database). Once you're on that list, even if it is their mistake, you're usually on it for life.

So . . . yes, conceivably, that would work, and it would be free . . . but it isn't the best test (by far), the CDC concedes that it may not catch most recent exposures (hence the questions they ask and the exclusion of donors with certain encounters within a set period of time prior to donating) and it gives an unusually high number of false positives.

- Jackie

Most likely, yes, if your contact information is correct you'll be notified. Sometimes they mix up and mislabel the samples or a volunteer leaves the tag off - so it isn't matched in all cases, even though it is still tested (and discarded if positive). This happens most often at high volume blood drives - not at brick and mortar full-time collection centers.

The downside is that in an effort to protect the blood supply the best they can, the test they use produces a rather large (some would say huge) number of false positives. So, you might endure six to twelve weeks of hell and anxiety if you've not had the "better" test and you find yourself notified by the Red Cross that you may be HIV positive. IMO, better to get the best test you can and know for certain before you donate. By the way, in most all cases, if you test positive (falsely) and you supply information to the Red Cross or other blood bank that you are not positive, it usually won't get you off their prohibited donor list (which is a shared national database). Once you're on that list, even if it is their mistake, you're usually on it for life.

So . . . yes, conceivably, that would work, and it would be free . . . but it isn't the best test (by far), the CDC concedes that it may not catch most recent exposures (hence the questions they ask and the exclusion of donors with certain encounters within a set period of time prior to donating) and it gives an unusually high number of false positives.

- Jackie Originally Posted by Jackie Devlin

You would think blood banks would do a better job of testing blood. Thanks for the info you answered a lot of questions I had rolling around the ol'noodle.

You would think blood banks would do a better job of testing blood. Originally Posted by KenMonk

No problem, Ken . . .

A lot of it is economics, inability, and of all things, a patent dispute (over a testing method).

There's some pretty interesting reading about the blood supply on the Internet (from reliable sources such as the Red Cross and the CDC).

For instance, if I were having surgery, I'd be banking my own blood / plasma rather than risk the product in the national supply . . . Also, I might ask for an oxygen carrying blood substitute if I were in an accident, if using it instead of real blood would get me through alive without the need to hang a bag from a blood bank . . .

Have a good evening.

I never thought of that before. Would a blood bank save your blood for you or would you need to go to the person performing the surgery? It makes a lot of sense. I might have tolook that up because now i am very curious.