11. BARBARA STEWART (NZ First) Link to this
to the Minister of Health
Has he received any reports indicating that the chlamydia epidemic may be much more widespread than previously estimated; if so, does he intend to increase surveillance on chlamydia?
Hon PETE HODGSON (Minister of Health) Link to this
Yes, I have received a report on chlamydia from the Institute of Environmental Science and Research. The report states that the total number of confirmed and probable chlamydia cases has increased a lot—by almost 40 percent, if one looks at reports coming in from sexual health clinics, and it has almost doubled if one looks at reports coming in from family planning clinics and student and youth health clinics. That is in the 5-year period ended December 2005, and is quite a big increase.
How often does the ministry review the list of notifiable conditions, and is there any intention to make chlamydia a notifiable disease; if not, why not?
I do not know the answer to the first question. Making chlamydia notifiable, in my view, is not the most important thing to do. I think the most important thing to do is to increase surveillance, as the member suggested in her primary question. There is some indication that some of the tests may not be as good as they could be; so we have to look at that. Then we need to progress the treatment. This disease is easily treated. A person needs to take two tablets, once. In the case of sexual health centres, those tablets are available on site; no prescription is needed.
Gordon CopelandHas the Minister, in line with historical and international precedents, put in place statistical capture to establish whether a link may exist between the chlamydia epidemic and the re-emergence of syphilis and other sexually transmitted diseases, and the legalisation of prostitution; if not, will he act on this suggestion?
Would he concede that his ministry should at least put in place routine antenatal testing for chlamydia in order to protect new-born babies against the unnecessary risk of eye and lung disease?
Yes, I do. I think that where an expectant mother accesses general practitioner services—for example, in the first triennium—chlamydia testing is close to routine. The problem is that not all pregnant women do access their general practitioner, which is why maternity services are under review, and a discussion paper is being looked at now.
What action, if any, has his ministry taken, following the recommendation of the Family Planning Association at the conclusion of a screening pilot funded in part by the Ministry of Health, that routine screening for chlamydia should be made available?
Routine screening for chlamydia is available. The question is whether it should be opportunistic or whether it should be left to the individual. It seems to me that there is a case for moving it to opportunistic, by which I mean that a person is offered chlamydia screening, proactively, even though the person fronted up to the doctor or the sexual health clinic for some other reason.