The face of AIDS in the United States has changed dramatically over the course of the nearly three decades since the disease was first identified. With the advent of protease inhibitors, antiretroviral therapy, and other life-sustaining medications, an HIV-positive diagnosis is no longer viewed as a death sentence (Clinton, 2003); rather, AIDS is considered more of a chronic disease, not unlike, one might argue, multiple sclerosis or diabetes: a manageable, if not curable, medical condition. But anyone making such an argument would be wrong. However, unlike other chronic diseases, HIV/ AIDS is not now, nor has it ever been, a purely medical issue; it is a social issue, a political issue, a cultural issue, an economic issue, and, perhaps above all, a personal issue. A diagnosis of HIV/AIDS invites stigma, discrimination, and blame and brings fear, anxiety, depression, and isolation. The growing prevalence of HIV/AIDS among impoverished and minority populations translates into enhanced vulnerability for already marginalized, at-risk groups. Yet, despite the multifaceted socioeconomic and psychosocial components of this disease (Bogart et al., 2000), U.S. society is tending more and more toward a purely medical perception of HIV/AIDS, a perception that threatens the role of social workers within the field of HIV/AIDS service provision. Nowhere is this trend more apparent than in the 2006 Ryan White Treatment Modernization Act (RWTMA). In 2006, President George W. Bush signed into law the most recent reauthorization of what was previously known as the Ryan White Comprehensive AIDS Resources Emergency (CARE) Act. Originally signed into law in 1990 by President George H.W. Bush, the Ryan White CARE Act sought to make HIV/AIDS treatment, care, and medication available to low-income and no-income individuals. FROM CARE TO TREATMENT MODERNIZATION The 2006 reauthorization (RWTMA) significantly altered the CARE Act's language and funding, resulting in significant changes to HIV/AIDS service provision in the United States. However, although agencies across the country are adapting to the changes, the social work literature has yet to address the effects of the reauthorization on social work as a profession. The RWTMA places heightened emphasis on the medical aspects of HIV/AIDS service provision, and psychosocial aspects of service provision may be falling by the wayside. Thus, research is needed to determine the effect that the RWTMA is having on the profession of social work and on HIV/AIDS clients. In April 2006, a U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO) study found that AIDS Drug Assistance Program (ADAP) eligibility and drug formularies varied from state to state (GAO, 2006); furthermore, some state programs were paying more than necessary for medications and, in some states, less than 25 percent of Ryan White funding was being used to provide medical (Buchanan & Hatcher, 2007). It is not clear how many states were distributing their funds in this way, nor is it clear how the funding was being distributed if not for core medical services. However, the GAO report prompted the Bush administration to propose changes to the RyanWhite CARE Act, and the resulting RWTMA mandates that states use not less than 75 percent of funding to provide core medical services that are needed in the state for individuals with HIV/AIDS who are identified and eligible under this title (Duke, 2000b). Under the RWTMA, core medical services are defined as outpatient and ambulatory health services; ADAP treatments; AIDS pharmaceutical assistance; oral health care; early intervention services; health insurance premium and cost-sharing assistance for low-income individuals; home health care; medical nutrition therapy; hospice services; home- and community-based health services; mental health services; substance abuse outpatient care; and medical case management, including treatment adherence services. …