Testing & Privacy (jump to section)

Other HIV-Related Laws (jump to section)

HIV/AIDS | Discrimination | Maine

Maine Discrimination Q&A

Does Maine have laws protecting people with HIV from discrimination?

Yes, Maine has enacted anti-discrimination laws protecting people with HIV from discrimination in employment, housing and public accommodations. In addition, there are a number of federal laws that protect people from discrimination based on their HIV status.

People with HIV are protected under laws that prohibit discrimination on the basis of disability. This includes the federal Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA),  and Maine disability & anti-discrimination laws.

Who is protected under anti-discrimination laws?

The following people are protected under the Maine Human Rights Act (MHRA) and the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA):

  • People with AIDS or who are HIV-positive, even if they are asymptomatic and have no outward or manifest signs of illness.
  • People who are regarded or perceived as having HIV.
  • A person who does not have HIV, but who has a “relationship” or “associates” with a person with HIV—such as friends, lovers, spouses, roommates, business associates, advocates, and caregivers of a person or persons with HIV.

What laws protect people with HIV from discrimination in employment?

People with HIV are protected from employment-related discrimination under the MHRA1 and the federal ADA. Both of these statutes, which are almost identical, prohibit discrimination in employment on the basis of a person’s disability. Maine law covers state and private employers with one or more persons. The ADA covers employers with 15 or more employees.

The Rehabilitation Act of 1973 prohibits discrimination on the basis of disability in programs conducted by federal agencies, in programs receiving federal financial assistance, in federal employment and in the employment practices of federal contractors.

For more information about employment discrimination in Maine, see: Discrimination | Employment | Maine 

What do these anti-discrimination laws prohibit?

An employer may not take adverse action against an applicant or employee simply on the basis that the person has a disability such as HIV or AIDS. This means that an employer may not terminate, refuse to hire, rehire, or promote, or otherwise discriminate in the terms or conditions of employment, based on an individual’s HIV/AIDS status.

The focus here is whether a person with AIDS or HIV was treated differently than other applicants or employees in similar situations.

The following are examples of unlawful discrimination:

  • An employer may not refuse to hire a person with HIV based on fear that HIV will be transmitted to other employees or to customers.
  • An employer may not refuse to hire or make an employment decision based on the possibility, or even probability, that a person will become sick and will not be able to do the job in the future.
  • An employer cannot refuse to hire a person because it will increase health or workers’ compensation insurance premiums.

Can an employer in Maine ever require an applicant or employee to take an HIV test?

No, an employer may not require an applicant or an employee to submit to an HIV test or disclose HIV status as a condition of employment or to maintain employment.

There is an exception, however, permitting an employer to require an HIV test when based on a “bona fide occupational qualification.” There are few, if any, employment settings in which an employer could prevail in its view that an HIV test is based on a “bona fide occupational qualification.”

Nevertheless, one recent legal development merits special attention here. Some courts have ruled that HIV-positive health care workers who perform invasive procedures can be terminated from employment because of the risk of HIV transmission posed to patients. The AIDS Law Project believes that these cases have been wrongly decided. In light of these cases, however, it is critical that a healthcare worker obtain legal advice or assistance if an employer requires an HIV test as a condition of employment.

What may an employer ask about an employee’s health during the application and interview process?

Under the ADA and Maine law, prior to employment, an employer cannot ask questions that are aimed at determining whether an employee has a disability. Examples of prohibited pre-employment questions are:

  • Have you ever been hospitalized or under the care of a physician?
  • Have you ever been on workers’ compensation or received disability benefits?
  • What medications do you take?

After an offer of employment, can an employer require a medical exam? What guidelines apply?

After a conditional offer of employment, the ADA and Maine Law permit an employer to require a physical examination or medical history. The job offer, however, may not be withdrawn unless the results demonstrate that the person cannot perform the essential functions of the job with or without reasonable accommodation. The same medical inquiries must be made of each person in the same job category. In addition, these physical examination and medical history records must be segregated from personnel records, and there are strict confidentiality protections. After employment has begun, the ADA and Maine Law permit an employer to require a physical examination, only if it is job-related and consistent with business necessity.

How have the courts addressed fears that health care employees who perform invasive procedures, such as surgeons, will transmit HIV to patients?

The risk of HIV transmission from a health care worker to a patient is considered so small that it approaches zero. Nevertheless, in cases where hospitals have sought to restrict or terminate the privileges of HIV-positive health care workers who perform invasive procedures, courts have reacted with tremendous fear and have insisted on an impossible “zero risk” standard. As a result, the small number of courts that have addressed this issue under the ADA have upheld such terminations.

The employment provisions in the ADA provide that an employee is not qualified to perform the job if he or she poses a “direct threat to the health or safety of others.” To determine whether an employee poses a “direct threat,” a court analyzes:

  • The nature, duration and severity of the risk;
  • The probability of the risk; and
  • Whether the risk can be eliminated by reasonable accommodation.

In the case of HIV-positive health care workers, courts have ignored the extremely remote probability of the risk and instead have focused on the nature, duration and severity of the risk. The following excerpt from a recent case is typical of courts’ approach:

“We hold that Dr. Doe does pose a significant risk to the health and safety of his patients that cannot be eliminated by reasonable accommodation. Although there may presently be no documented case of surgeon-to-patient transmission, such transmission clearly is possible. And, the risk of percutaneous injury can never be eliminated through reasonable accommodation … Thus, even if Dr. Doe takes extra precautions … some measure of risk will always exist …” (Doe v. University of Maryland Medical System Corporation, 50 F.3d 1261 (4th Cir. 1995)).

It is important to note that only a small number of courts have addressed the rights of HIV-positive health care workers. The AIDS Law Project believes that these cases have been incorrectly decided and are inconsistent with the intent of Congress in passing the ADA. Because of the unsettled nature of the law in this area, a health care worker who is confronted with potential employment discrimination should consult a lawyer or public health advocate.

Assessing Discrimination by an Employer

While it may be useful to consult with a lawyer, the following steps can be helpful in beginning to consider and assess a potential employment discrimination problem.

  1. Consider the difference between unfairness and illegal discrimination. The bottom line of employment law is that an employee can be fired for a good reason, a bad reason, or no reason at all. A person can be legally fired for a lot of reasons, including a bad “personality match.” What they cannot be fired for is a discriminatory reason specifically outlawed by a statute.
  2. To prove a discrimination claim (i.e., that you were fired, demoted, etc. because of discrimination and not because of some legitimate reason), you must be able to show the following:
  • The employer knew or figured out that you are HIV-positive or have AIDS;
  • You were qualified to perform the essential functions of the job with or without reasonable accommodation; and
  • Adverse action was taken against you because of your HIV or AIDS status and the pretextual reason given by the employer for the adverse action is false.
  1. If your employer knows that you have HIV or AIDS, identify exactly who knows, how they know, and when they found out. If you have not told your employer, is there any other way the employer would know or suspect your HIV status?
  2. Consider the reasons why you believe that you are being treated differently because of HIV status, including the following areas: 
  • Have other employees in similar situations been treated differently or the same?
  • Has your employer followed its personnel policies? 
  • Did the adverse treatment begin shortly after the employer learned of your HIV status?
  • Have you been out of work due to illness for any period of time and did the adverse treatment begin upon your return to work?
  • What will your employer’s version of events be? How will you prove that the employer’s version is false?
  1. Do you have any difficulty fulfilling the duties of your job because of any HIV-related health or medical issue? Does your condition prevent full-time work, or require time off for medical appointments, lighter duties or a less stressful position? You might want to brainstorm to create a reasonable accommodation that you can propose to your employer.

Here are some points to consider:

  • How does the company operate and how would the accommodation work in practice?
  • Put yourself in your supervisor’s shoes. What objections might be raised to the requested reasonable accommodation? For example, if you need to leave at a certain time for medical appointments, who would cover your duties?

What Maine laws prohibit discrimination in housing?

It is illegal under both Maine law14 and the National Fair Housing Amendments of 198815 to discriminate in the sale or rental of housing on the basis of HIV status. A person cannot be evicted from an apartment because of his or her HIV or AIDS status, or because he or she is regarded as having HIV or AIDS.

In addition, a person cannot be discriminated against in housing because of their “association” with a person with HIV. This means a person cannot be discriminated against because their roommate, lover, friend, relative, or business partner has HIV.

For more information about housing discrimination in Maine, see: Discrimination | Housing | Maine 

Are there any exceptions to these laws?

Yes, exceptions to Maine law exist for the rental of a room in an owner occupied building where not more than 4 rooms are rented; and for two family owner occupied buildings. In addition, the Fair Housing Act exempts, in some circumstances, ownership-occupied buildings with no more than four units, single-family housing sold or rented without the use of a broker and housing operated by organizations and private clubs that limit the occupancy to members.

Does Maine law protect against discrimination by health care providers, business, and other public places?

Under the ADA and MHRA, it is unlawful to exclude a person with HIV from a public place (what the law refers to as a “place of public accommodation”) or to provide unequal or restricted services to a person with HIV in a public place. Under both statutes, the term “public accommodation” includes any establishment or business that offers services to the public. In addition, the Federal Rehabilitation Act of 19738 prohibits discrimination on the basis of disability in any agency or program that receives federal funding, including hospitals, medical or dental offices, and educational institutions.

Therefore, people with HIV are protected from discrimination in virtually every public place or business, including bars, restaurants, hotels, schools, vocational or other educational programs, taxi cabs, buses, airplanes and other modes of transportation, health clubs, hospitals and medical and dental offices, as long as these facilities are generally open to the public.

In addition, Maine law specifically prohibits discrimination in education based on disability.

For more information about public accommodations discrimination in Maine, see: Discrimination | Public Accommodations | Maine 

Is discrimination by health care professionals against people with HIV still a problem?

Believe it or not, yes, people with HIV still face discrimination by hospitals, doctors, dentists, and other health care providers. This discrimination can take the form of an outright refusal to provide medical services or an illegal referral because of a patient’s HIV status.

What types of arguments do doctors who discriminate against people with HIV make, and are they legitimate?

Doctors typically try to justify discrimination against people with HIV with one of two arguments:

  1. “Treating People with HIV is Dangerous” (Some doctors refuse to treat people with HIV based on an irrational fear of HIV transmission); and
  2. “Treating People with HIV Requires Special Expertise” (Some doctors refer patients to other medical providers based on an inaccurate belief that general practitioners are not qualified to provide care to patients with HIV).

Both an outright refusal to provide medical treatment and unnecessary referrals on the basis of a person’s disability are unlawful under the ADA and Maine law.

How have courts and medical experts responded to these arguments?

Courts and medical experts have responded to these arguments in the following ways:

  1. “Treating People with HIV is Dangerous”

Doctors and dentists may claim that a refusal to treat a patient with HIV is legitimate because they fear they might contract HIV themselves through needle sticks or other exposures to blood. However, studies of health care workers have concluded that risk of contracting HIV from occupational exposure is minuscule, especially with the use of universal precautions.

For this reason, in 1998, the United States Supreme Court ruled in the case Bragdon v. Abbott that health care providers cannot refuse to treat people with HIV based on concerns or fears about HIV transmission (524 U.S. 624 (1998)).

In addition to the legal perspective, both the American Medical Association and the American Dental Association, and many other professional health care organizations, have issued policies that it is unethical to refuse treatment to a person with HIV.

  1. “Treating People with HIV Requires Special Expertise”

In these cases, the merits of a discrimination claim depend upon whether, based on objective medical evidence, the services or treatment needed by the patient require a referral to a specialist or are within the scope of services and competence of the provider.

In United States v. Morvant, a federal trial court rejected a dentist’s claim that patients with HIV require a specialist for routine dental care (898 F. Supp. 1157 (E.D. La 1995)). The court agreed with the testimony of experts who said that no special training or expertise, other than that possessed by a general dentist, is required to provide dental treatment to people with HIV. The court specifically rejected the dentist’s arguments that he was unqualified because he had not kept up with the literature and training necessary to treat patients with HIV. While this case arose in the context of dental care, it is applicable to other medical settings as well.

What are the specific provisions of the ADA that prohibit discrimination by health care providers?

Under Title III of the ADA (42 U.S.C. §§ 12181-12188), it is illegal for a health care provider to:

  1. Establish “eligibility criteria” for the privilege of receiving medical services, which tend to screen out patients who have tested positive for HIV.
  2. Deny an HIV-positive patient the “full and equal enjoyment” of medical services or to deny an HIV-positive patient the “opportunity to benefit” from medical services in the same manner as other patients.
  3. Provide “different or separate” services to patients who are HIV-positive or fail to provide services to patients in the “most integrated setting.”
  4. Deny equal medical services to a person who is known to have a “relationship” or “association” to a person with HIV, such as a spouse, partner, child, or friend.

What specific health care practices constitute illegal discrimination against people with HIV?

Applying the specific provisions of the ADA above to the practice of health care, the following practices are illegal:

  • A health care provider cannot decline to treat a person with HIV based on a perceived risk of HIV transmission or because the physician simply does not feel comfortable treating a person with HIV.
  • A health care provider cannot agree to treat a patient only in a treatment setting outside the physician’s regular office, such as a special hospital clinic, simply because the person is HIV-positive.
  • A health care provider cannot refer an HIV-positive patient to another clinic or specialist, unless the required treatment is outside the scope of the physician’s usual practice or specialty. The ADA requires that referrals of HIV-positive patients be made on the same basis as referrals of other patients. It is, however, permissible to refer a patient to specialized care if the patient has HIV-related medical conditions which are outside the realm of competence or scope of services of the provider.
  • A health care provider cannot increase the cost of services to an HIV-positive patient in order to use additional precautions beyond the mandated OSHA and CDC infection control procedures. Under certain circumstances, it may even be an ADA violation to use unnecessary additional precautions which tend to stigmatize a patient simply on the basis of HIV status.
  • A health care provider cannot limit the scheduled times for treating HIV-positive patients, such as insisting that an HIV-positive patient come in at the end of the day.

What are some potential remedies for discrimination under federal law?

To pursue a claim under the Americans with Disabilities Act for employment discrimination, the employer must have at least 15 employees. A person must file a claim with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) within 180 days of the date of the discriminatory act. A person may remove an ADA claim from the EEOC and file a lawsuit in state or federal court.

To pursue a claim under the Americans with Disabilities Act for discrimination in a place of public accommodation, a person may, without first going to an administrative agency, file a claim in state or federal court for injunctive relief only (i.e., seeking a court order that the discriminatory conduct cease). Money damages are not available for violation of Title III of the ADA unless they are sought by the United States Department of Justice. However, a person may recover money damages under the Federal Rehabilitation Act in cases against entities that receive federal funding.

To pursue a claim under the Rehabilitation Act, a person may file an administrative complaint with the regional office of the federal Department of Health and Human Services and/or file a lawsuit directly in court.

To pursue a claim under the National Fair Housing Act for discrimination in housing, a person may file a complaint with the United States Office of Housing and Urban Development within one year of the violation. A person may also bring a lawsuit within two years of the violation. A lawsuit may be filed whether or not a person has filed a complaint with HUD.


For more information about the MHRC complaint process see:

For information about filing a discrimination complaint under the ADA, see: 

Cases & Advocacy

To see HIV/AIDS cases or advocacy which GLAD has been directly involved with in Maine, go to: Cases and Advocacy – GLAD and under “By Issue” click on “HIV/AIDS” and under “By Location” click on “Maine.”

News & Press Releases

To see news and press releases about HIV/AIDS in Maine, go to: News & Press Releases – GLAD and under “By Issue” click on “HIV/AIDS” and under “By Location” click on “Maine.”

HIV/AIDS | Testing & Privacy | Maine

Maine Testing & Privacy Q&A

Does Maine have a law for governing informed consent for HIV testing?

Yes. Maine law mandates that an HIV test must be “voluntary and undertaken only with the patient’s knowledge that an HIV test is planned” (5 M.R.S.A §19203-A).

Maine, however, has eliminated its requirement that no HIV test may be conducted without a patient’s specific written informed consent.

The law now requires only that “[a] patient must be informed orally or in writing that an HIV test will be performed unless the patient declines”(5. M.R.S.A. §19203-A). While the title of § 19203-A is “voluntary informed consent required,” Maine’s law is not an informed consent system. Informed consent, whether oral or written, requires that a patient affirmatively assent before a test can be done. Current Maine law simply requires that a patient be notified that a test will occur and places the burden on the patient to opt out.)

The law also requires that the information given to patients before the test include the meaning of positive and negative test results. In addition, the patient must have the opportunity to ask questions.

Maine law authorizes anonymous HIV testing sites (5 M.R.S.A. §19203-B).

Health insurers or healthcare plans requiring an HIV test must still obtain written informed consent to perform an HIV test (5 M.R.S.A. §19203-A (2)).

In addition, Maine law prohibits a health care provider from denying medical treatment solely because an individual has refused consent to an HIV test (5 M.R.S.A. § 19203-A (3)).

What information should a person receiving HIV testing be given?

In 2007, in order to streamline testing procedures, Maine eliminated mandatory pre-test counseling for an HIV test. Patients who test positive for HIV, however, must be offered post-test counseling, unless the patient declines by signing a waiver. The counseling must at a minimum include:

  • The reliability and significance of the test results.
  • Information about preventive practices and risk reduction.
  • Referrals for medical care and support services, as needed (5 M.R.S.A. § 19204-A).

A provider must offer face-to-face post-test counseling, but may provide an alternative means of providing the information if the client declines face-to-face counseling. In addition, a written memorandum summarizing the contents of the post-test counseling information must be provided to the client.

Can a physician test a minor for HIV without consent of a parent or guardian?

A physician may test a minor for HIV without obtaining the consent of the minor’s parent or guardian (32 MRSA § 3292 permits a physician to provide medical treatment for venereal disease to a minor without parental consent. The Maine Department of Human Services has classified HIV as a venereal disease).

In addition, a physician is not obligated to, but may, inform the minor’s guardian or parent of any medical treatment rendered, including HIV test results.

If confidentiality is important to you, it is a good idea to talk to your doctor up front and understand his or her policies on this issue.

Are there specific requirements for the testing of pregnant people?

All pregnant women must be informed orally or in writing that an HIV test will be included in the standard panel of prenatal medical tests, unless the woman declines HIV testing. In addition, a health care provider is mandated to test a newborn for HIV within 12 hours of birth if the health care provider does not know the mother’s HIV status or “believes that HIV testing is medically necessary.” There is an exception to such newborn testing if the parent asserts an objection based on religious or conscientious beliefs.(5 M.R.S.A. § 19203-A(6))

Are there circumstances where Maine law permits HIV testing a person against their wishes?

Yes, Maine law permits involuntary HIV testing in certain limited circumstances, such as testing of a person convicted of a sexual assault crime, and of the source of an occupational exposure.

Are there state laws that protect the privacy of medical information, including HIV?

Maine law prohibits the disclosure of HIV test results to anyone other than the subject of the test without the subject’s authorization. (5 M.R.S.A. § 19203.)

When a medical record contains a person’s HIV status, the patient must elect in writing whether to authorize the release of that portion of the medical record. (5 M.R.S.A. § 19203-D.)

A health care provider who has been designated by the subject of the test to receive HIV test result information may make the results available only to other health care providers working directly with the patient and only for purposes of providing direct medical or dental patient care (5 M.R.S.A. § 19203 (2)).

Are there exceptions to these privacy protections?

HIV status can still be shared in the event of a medical emergency or certain limited threats to others.

Does a person with HIV have a Constitutional right to privacy?

Yes, many courts have found that a person has a constitutional privacy right to the nondisclosure of HIV status. Courts have based this right on the Due Process Clause of the U.S. Constitution, which creates a privacy interest in avoiding disclosure of certain types of personal information.

The constitutional right to privacy can only be asserted when the person disclosing the information is a state or government actor— e.g. police, prison officials, or doctors at a state hospital.

How do courts determine if a person’s constitutional right to privacy has been violated?

To determine whether there has been a violation of this right to privacy, courts balance the nature of the intrusion into a person’s privacy against the weight to be given to the government’s legitimate reasons for a policy or practice that results in disclosure.

Remedy for Unlawful HIV Testing or Disclosure

A person who violates Maine law regarding HIV testing or the confidentiality of HIV test results is liable to the subject for actual damages and costs plus a civil penalty of up to $1,000 for a negligent violation and $5,000 for an intentional violation (5 M.R.S.A. § 19206).

Does Maine have reporting laws that require HIV or AIDS diagnoses to be reported to the Maine Department of Health and Human Services?

Yes. All states require that certain health conditions be reported to public health authorities in order to track epidemiological trends and develop effective prevention strategies. Maine requires that healthcare providers and facilities report the names of individuals diagnosed with AIDS or HIV to the Department of Health and Human Services within 48 hours of the diagnosis (Department of Health and Human Services, Maine Center for Disease Control & Prevention, Chapter 258 (Rules for the Control of Notifiable Disease Conditions), 10-144). Information is kept confidential and may not be disclosed except as permitted by 5 M.R.S.A. § 19203 (Maine’s law on confidentiality of HIV tests).

Cases & Advocacy

To see HIV/AIDS cases or advocacy which GLAD has been directly involved with in Maine, go to: Cases and Advocacy – GLAD and under “By Issue” click on “HIV/AIDS” and under “By Location” click on “Maine.”

News & Press Releases

To see news and press releases about HIV/AIDS in Maine, go to: News & Press Releases – GLAD and under “By Issue” click on “HIV/AIDS” and under “By Location” click on “Maine.”

HIV/AIDS | Other HIV-Related Laws | Maine

What does it mean that an employer may have to provide a “reasonable accommodation” for an employee with a disability?

Persons with disabilities, such as HIV/AIDS, may experience health-related problems that make it difficult to meet some job requirements or duties. For example, a person may be exhausted or fatigued and find it difficult to work a full-time schedule.

In certain circumstances, the employer has an obligation to modify or adjust job requirements or workplace policies in order to enable a person with a disability, such as HIV or AIDS, to perform the job duties. This is known as a “reasonable accommodation.”

Examples of reasonable accommodations include:

  • Modifying or changing job tasks or responsibilities;
  • Establishing a part-time or modified work schedule;
  • Permitting time off during regular work hours for medical appointments;
  • Reassigning an employee to a vacant job; or
  • Making modifications to the physical layout of a job site or acquiring devices such as a telephone amplifier to allow, for example, a person with a hearing impairment to do the job.

How can a person get a reasonable accommodation?

It is, with rare exception, the employee’s responsibility to initiate the request for an accommodation. In addition, an employer may request that an employee provide some information about the nature of the disability. Employees with concerns about disclosing HIV/AIDS status to a supervisor should contact GLAD Answers.

There is no fixed set of accommodations that an employee may request. The nature of a requested accommodation will depend on the particular needs of an individual employee’s circumstances.

Does an employer have to grant a request for a reasonable accommodation?

No, an employer is not obligated to grant each and every request for an accommodation. An employer does not have to grant a reasonable accommodation that will create an “undue burden” (i.e., significant difficulty or expense for the employer’s operation). In addition, the employer does not have to provide a reasonable accommodation if the employee cannot perform the job function even with the reasonable accommodation.

When is a “reasonable accommodation” for an employee an “undue burden” for an employer?

In determining whether a requested accommodation creates an undue burden or hardship for an employer, courts examine a number of factors, which include:

  • The employer’s size, budget and financial constraints;
  • The costs of implementing the requested accommodation; and
  • How the accommodation affects or disrupts the employer’s business.

Again, each situation is examined on a case-by-case basis.

An employer only has an obligation to grant the reasonable accommodation if, as a result of the accommodation, the employee is then qualified to perform the essential job duties. An employer does not have to hire or retain an employee who cannot perform the essential functions of the job, even with a reasonable accommodation.

Can a physician in Maine require an HIV test as a prerequisite for treatment?

No, a health care provider may not deny treatment or care based on the refusal to consent to HIV testing.

What are Maine laws regarding the purchase and possession of needles?

Under Maine law, a person who is 18 years of age or older may purchase a “hypodermic apparatus,” such as a hypodermic syringe and needle, from a pharmacist and other authorized sellers.

An individual, however, may not lawfully purchase or possess more than ten “hypodermic apparatuses” at any one time, unless otherwise authorized by law (such as a physician acting within the scope of employment).

Does Maine allow needle exchange programs?

Yes. Maine law authorizes the Maine Center for Disease Control and Prevention to certify needle exchange programs.  There is no limit on the number of hypodermic needles participants in these programs may possess.

Does Maine allow access to PrEP and PEP without a prescription?

Yes, in June 18, 2021, Governor Janet Mills signed LD 1115, An Act to Improve Access to HIV Prevention Medications, which expands access to a simple, safe, and effective medication known as HIV pre-exposure Prophylaxis (PrEP) that reduces the risk of HIV transmission by close to 100%. The new law authorizes pharmacists to dispense PrEP, as well as HIV Post- exposure Prophylaxis (PEP), without a prescription on a short-term basis.

For more information, see: Maine Becomes a Leader in Pharmacy Access to Effective HIV Prevention Drug – GLAD

Does Maine have a law that prohibits insurance companies from discriminating against some who is taking PrEP?

Yes, in 2019 the Maine Insurance Code was amended to prohibit discrimination under a life, disability income or long-term care insurance policy due to the fact that the individual has been prescribed preexposure prophylaxis medication to prevent HIV infection. For more information, see Title 24-A, §2159: Unfair discrimination — life insurance, annuities and health insurance .


Here is a list of HIV/AIDS organizations in Maine where you can get support and information: HIV Prevention, Outreach, and Education – HIV, STD, and Viral Hepatitis; MeCDC DHHS Maine 

Cases & Advocacy

To see HIV/AIDS cases or advocacy which GLAD has been directly involved with in Maine, go to: Cases and Advocacy – GLAD and under “By Issue” click on “HIV/AIDS” and under “By Location” click on “Maine.”

News & Press Releases

To see news and press releases about HIV/AIDS in Maine, go to: News & Press Releases – GLAD and under “By Issue” click on “HIV/AIDS” and under “By Location” click on “Maine.”