Definition
Rate of newly reported cases of HIV by date of diagnosis per 100,000 population.
Numerator
Number of persons newly diagnosed with HIV
Denominator
Total resident population
Why Is This Important?
"An estimated 35,000 North Carolinians have HIV/AIDS (including those who are unaware of their status). Furthermore, HIV/AIDS
was the seventh leading cause of death among 25- to 44-year-olds in 2007." - North Carolina Institute of Medicine. Healthy
North Carolina 2020: A Better State of Health.
Other Objectives
Healthy North Carolina 2020
How Are We Doing?
According to Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC)
HIV Surveillance reports, the 2010 rate for North Carolina was 17.8 new cases of HIV per 100,000 population. The total number
of new HIV diagnoses in North Carolina was 1,487 in 2010, down from a peak of 1,812 new diagnoses in 2008.
What Is Being Done?
In 2006, North Carolina developed and began to implement three effective and integrated HIV/AIDS prevention and care strategies,
which are: 1) identifying new cases of HIV early; 2) linking newly identified HIV-positive individuals into care and treatment
programs; and, 3) keeping HIV-positive individuals in care and treatment.
Other Program Information
NC DHHS, Programs and Services: HIV/STD Prevention & Care
North Carolina HIV/STD Reports, Epidemiology Section, Division of Public Health
NC Healthy Schools, HIV/STD Prevention
Graphical Data Views
New HIV Infection Diagnoses North Carolina vs. HNC 2020 Target, 2008-2010
| North Carolina vs. HNC2020 |
Year |
Infections per 100,000 Population |
Numerator |
| North Carolina |
2008 |
24.7 |
2,276 |
| North Carolina |
2009 |
19.7 |
1,844 |
| North Carolina |
2010 |
17.8 |
1,669 |
| HNC 2020 Target |
2008 |
22.2 |
|
| HNC 2020 Target |
2009 |
22.2 |
|
| HNC 2020 Target |
2010 |
22.2 |
|
Data Notes
Estimated numbers resulted from statistical adjustment that accounted for reporting delays, but not for incomplete reporting.
Rates are per 100,000 population.
The HNC 2020 target, which is the target to be reached by 2020, is repeated in the data table for graphing purposes.
Data Sources
HIV Surveillance Report, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
New HIV Infection Diagnoses North Carolina vs. United States, 2008-2010
| North Carolina vs U.S. |
Year |
Newly Diagnosed HIV Cases per 100,000 |
| North Carolina |
2008 |
24.7 |
| North Carolina |
2009 |
19.7 |
| North Carolina |
2010 |
17.8 |
| United States |
2008 |
19.4 |
| United States |
2009 |
17.4 |
| United States |
2010 |
16.1 |
Data Notes
North Carolina vs. United States data are obtained from the Center for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). The CDC data
include statistical adjustment for reporting delays, and are not comparable to the state rates available from the N.C. Department
of Health and Human Services Epidemiology Section's HIV/STD Surveillance Reports.
Data Sources
HIV Surveillance Report, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
New HIV Infection Diagnoses by County, 2007-2011
| County |
Infections per 100,000 Population |
Lower Limit |
Upper Limit |
Numerator |
| Alamance |
15.1 |
12.3 |
17.9 |
113 |
| Alexander |
** |
|
|
9 |
| Alleghany |
** |
|
|
2 |
| Anson |
10.8 |
5.2 |
16.5 |
14 |
| Ashe |
** |
|
|
6 |
| Avery |
** |
|
|
2 |
| Beaufort |
16.2 |
11.1 |
21.4 |
38 |
| Bertie |
21.9 |
12.8 |
31.1 |
22 |
| Bladen |
19.1 |
12.5 |
25.8 |
32 |
| Brunswick |
8.7 |
6.2 |
11.2 |
46 |
| Buncombe |
11.0 |
9.1 |
12.9 |
128 |
| Burke |
5.1 |
3.0 |
7.2 |
23 |
| Cabarrus |
9.6 |
7.5 |
11.7 |
83 |
| Caldwell |
3.7 |
1.8 |
5.6 |
15 |
| Camden |
** |
|
|
6 |
| Carteret |
4.6 |
2.3 |
6.9 |
15 |
| Caswell |
15.4 |
8.3 |
22.6 |
18 |
| Catawba |
9.5 |
7.3 |
11.6 |
74 |
| Chatham |
7.6 |
4.5 |
10.6 |
24 |
| Cherokee |
** |
|
|
6 |
| Chowan |
** |
|
|
4 |
| Clay |
** |
|
|
5 |
| Cleveland |
13.2 |
10.0 |
16.4 |
65 |
| Columbus |
19.8 |
14.5 |
25.0 |
55 |
| Craven |
13.6 |
10.4 |
16.8 |
68 |
| Cumberland |
27.3 |
24.7 |
29.9 |
431 |
| Currituck |
** |
|
|
6 |
| Dare |
** |
|
|
8 |
| Davidson |
8.3 |
6.3 |
10.3 |
66 |
| Davie |
** |
|
|
5 |
| Duplin |
13.7 |
9.4 |
18.1 |
38 |
| Durham |
30.5 |
27.5 |
33.4 |
405 |
| Edgecombe |
37.9 |
30.5 |
45.2 |
102 |
| Forsyth |
21.7 |
19.5 |
23.9 |
384 |
| Franklin |
9.1 |
5.6 |
12.5 |
27 |
| Gaston |
14.6 |
12.3 |
17.0 |
151 |
| Gates |
** |
|
|
3 |
| Graham |
** |
|
|
0 |
| Granville |
15.5 |
11.0 |
20.0 |
45 |
| Greene |
** |
|
|
9 |
| Guilford |
28.2 |
26.1 |
30.3 |
677 |
| Halifax |
18.6 |
13.5 |
23.7 |
51 |
| Harnett |
11.8 |
8.9 |
14.6 |
67 |
| Haywood |
4.5 |
2.1 |
7.0 |
13 |
| Henderson |
4.6 |
2.8 |
6.4 |
24 |
| Hertford |
17.6 |
10.1 |
25.2 |
21 |
| Hoke |
21.6 |
15.5 |
27.6 |
49 |
| Hyde |
** |
|
|
3 |
| Iredell |
5.7 |
4.1 |
7.4 |
45 |
| Jackson |
** |
|
|
11 |
| Johnston |
8.6 |
6.6 |
10.5 |
71 |
| Jones |
** |
|
|
6 |
| Lee |
13.6 |
9.4 |
17.8 |
40 |
| Lenoir |
19.8 |
14.6 |
24.9 |
57 |
| Lincoln |
4.2 |
2.1 |
6.3 |
16 |
| Macon |
** |
|
|
7 |
| Madison |
** |
|
|
0 |
| Martin |
** |
|
|
9 |
| McDowell |
** |
|
|
9 |
| Mecklenburg |
38.8 |
37.0 |
40.6 |
1,761 |
| Mitchell |
** |
|
|
7 |
| Montgomery |
** |
|
|
8 |
| Moore |
8.7 |
6.0 |
11.5 |
38 |
| Nash |
16.9 |
13.2 |
20.6 |
80 |
| New Hanover |
13.8 |
11.5 |
16.1 |
136 |
| Northampton |
23.8 |
14.4 |
33.1 |
25 |
| Onslow |
7.0 |
5.2 |
8.7 |
60 |
| Orange |
10.6 |
8.1 |
13.1 |
69 |
| Pamlico |
** |
|
|
5 |
| Pasquotank |
13.6 |
8.6 |
18.7 |
28 |
| Pender |
6.2 |
3.2 |
9.2 |
16 |
| Perquimans |
** |
|
|
5 |
| Person |
11.0 |
6.3 |
15.7 |
21 |
| Pitt |
20.2 |
17.1 |
23.3 |
163 |
| Polk |
** |
|
|
5 |
| Randolph |
5.8 |
4.0 |
7.6 |
41 |
| Richmond |
19.5 |
13.8 |
25.2 |
45 |
| Robeson |
21.0 |
17.5 |
24.6 |
138 |
| Rockingham |
8.8 |
6.1 |
11.6 |
41 |
| Rowan |
11.0 |
8.5 |
13.4 |
76 |
| Rutherford |
4.9 |
2.5 |
7.3 |
16 |
| Sampson |
12.9 |
9.0 |
16.9 |
41 |
| Scotland |
13.2 |
7.9 |
18.5 |
24 |
| Stanly |
8.7 |
5.3 |
12.0 |
26 |
| Stokes |
** |
|
|
6 |
| Surry |
3.3 |
1.4 |
5.2 |
12 |
| Swain |
** |
|
|
2 |
| Transylvania |
** |
|
|
10 |
| Tyrrell |
** |
|
|
2 |
| Union |
7.7 |
6.0 |
9.5 |
76 |
| Vance |
20.5 |
14.5 |
26.5 |
45 |
| Wake |
20.7 |
19.3 |
22.0 |
915 |
| Warren |
14.0 |
6.6 |
21.3 |
14 |
| Washington |
18.5 |
8.0 |
29.0 |
12 |
| Watauga |
5.0 |
2.2 |
7.9 |
12 |
| Wayne |
14.8 |
11.7 |
17.9 |
87 |
| Wilkes |
4.7 |
2.4 |
7.0 |
16 |
| Wilson |
27.8 |
22.6 |
33.0 |
110 |
| Yadkin |
** |
|
|
6 |
| Yancey |
** |
|
|
4 |
| North Carolina |
17.7 |
17.3 |
18.0 |
8,284 |
| United States |
19.4 |
|
|
|
Data Notes
County level data is available from the Epidemiology Section, which does not include any statistical adjustment for reporting
delays. Therefore, the state rate is not comparable between the Epidemiology Section and the CDC. The Epidemiology Section
periodically updates their rates to include additional reported cases; see HIV/STD Facts and Figures for the most comprehensive
data.
**Rates are displayed only for counties that have a minimum of 10 new diagnoses. Data for the U.S. is for 2010.
Data Sources
HIV/STD Surveillance Program, Epidemiology Section, N.C. Division of Public Health
NCHS Bridged Population Estimates
New NC HIV Infection Diagnoses by Race/Ethnicity, 2010
| Race/Ethnicity |
Newly Diagnosed HIV Cases per 100,000 |
Numerator |
| White Non-Hispanic |
6.3 |
339 |
| Black Non-Hispanic |
62.8 |
1,054 |
| Hispanic |
19.1 |
106 |
Data Notes
Rates are based on N.C. adult/adolescent HIV disease cases and population.
Data Sources
HIV/STD Surveillance Program, Epidemiology Section, N.C. Division of Public Health
New NC HIV Infection Diagnoses by Sex, 2006-2011
| Males vs. Females |
Year |
Newly Diagnosed HIV Cases per 100,000 |
Numerator |
| Male |
2006 |
33.1 |
1,174 |
| Male |
2007 |
35.4 |
1,277 |
| Male |
2008 |
36.3 |
1,340 |
| Male |
2009 |
32.4 |
1,211 |
| Male |
2010 |
30.2 |
1,128 |
| Male |
2011 |
31.3 |
1,189 |
| Female |
2006 |
12.2 |
461 |
| Female |
2007 |
13.3 |
512 |
| Female |
2008 |
11.7 |
460 |
| Female |
2009 |
10.4 |
412 |
| Female |
2010 |
8.9 |
354 |
| Female |
2011 |
9.0 |
367 |
Data Notes
Rates are based on N.C. adult/adolescent HIV disease cases and population.
Data Sources
HIV/STD Surveillance Program, Epidemiology Section, N.C. Division of Public Health
Page Content Updated On 11/30/2012,
Published on 11/30/2012
