Issue Category: Public Health Preparedness

Mental Health is Vital to Preparedness and Response

By Dr. Octavio N. Martinez, Jr., MD, MPH, MBA, FAPA, Executive Director, the Hogg Foundation for Mental Health at The University of Texas at Austin

This story was published in Ready or Not: Protecting the Public’s Health from Diseases, Disasters and Bioterrorism.

The health effects from a public health emergency go way beyond the physical, taking an enormous mental toll in the immediate aftermath and the years following—and often can harm our children the most.

We must do more to know how to ensure mental health and physical health go hand-in-hand in response planning and efforts. We must also do a far better job of increasing our mental health workforce and ensuring and increasing access to mental health services both during and after an emergency.

Using Data to Plan for Maintaining Access to Mental Health Services

To prepare for any type of emergency, communities must be aware of vulnerable populations—typically children, the elderly and those who have an underlying medical condition or are mentally ill. We have gotten better at identifying where groups of these populations live.

And, we should also be able to access databases to predict what portion of a certain population might have substance use disorders, for example—and then understand what kind of continued treatment and medication are needed and where they might best be distributed.

Paired with this, we should be able to identify geographically which communities will have the hardest time bouncing back from an emergency and will need more resources.

While some neighborhoods might have good infrastructure and better access to transportation and physical and mental health services, others will struggle. The neighborhoods that will struggle should be identified in advance and plans created to help them. And, we can create plans based on any number of scenarios: fires, floods, wind damage, loss of power, etc. If you combine all the knowledge and data together, you can then coordinate resources and everyone has a chance to be healthy.

Long-term Strategies to Improve Responses to Emergencies

We also must acknowledge that human connections are incredibly important. In-between disasters, preparedness work should focus on strengthening families and communities so they are resilient enough to weather an emergency.

For example, after Hurricane Katrina, New Orleans developed community leaders specifically focused on mental wellness, resilience and recovery. The gains in improved access to care and lessened stigma were noticeable—and these should help ensure responders and communities can work together to forge a better response during the next emergency.

While this is by no means a quick fix, taking a long-term approach to emergency preparedness and community health will pay dividends in improved health of the entire population. We should bring this research to other cities and communities that will likely face similar events.

Additionally, psychological effects can take years to manifest and get under control—especially if there isn’t access to mental health services. We learned from Hurricanes Katrina and Sandy that PTSD and suicidal ideation increased dramatically after these events. However, if we were able to step in earlier and connect individuals with mental health professionals, it’s likely these issues and potentially other health issues (substance use disorders, increased anxiety, depression, etc.) could have been prevented or lessened.

Further, while we are getting better at recognizing that mental health is a key component to physical health, the workforce in this area is inadequate—and we’ve known this for a while, especially as the opioid epidemic has continued. By increasing our workforce and ensure they have the right skill sets; we could help tackle the opioid epidemic and better prepare our communities to bounce back from a disaster.

Additional Research is Needed

The devil is often in the details and coordination among the various federal, state and local agencies, organizations and others must be improved. To do so, the nation has to prioritize funding into research and assessments post emergencies—so we can truly understand how these events affect the mental health and stability of a community at a population level.

While the National Institutes of Health has a Disaster Research Response Project, it needs to better include measures on mental health and substance use disorders. We must take each disaster as a learning opportunity that can prepare us for the next one and enable us to save more lives. Increasing research would also help build a network of behavioral health disaster experts.

First Responders

Our first responders and volunteers must be trained to identify and assist people who exhibit psychiatric symptoms, i.e., in “psychological first aid.” And, going beyond this training, we know that mental health must be better integrated with the traditional health services.

Responders and volunteers must also be cared for—they are at risk for suffering secondary psychiatric distress themselves. We need better ways to monitor them during but also after the crisis to ensure they are receiving the appropriate interventions and care.

Part of the solution is increased mental health providers, which would serve many roles: keeping our first responders in good shape, filling gaps in mental health services and, by increasing access to care, hopefully preventing someone from developing a serious and chronic mental health illness.

Quite simply, if we intentionally make mental health part of our preparedness and response systems it will have untold benefits for communities before, during and after an emergency—we will build resiliency and improve well-being.

Local Public Health Preparedness and Response to Hurricanes and Other Emergencies: High Tech and High Touch

By Umair Shah, MD, MPH, Executive Director and Local Health Authority for Harris County Public Health

This story was published in Ready or Not? 2017.

Harris County, Texas, is a large and rapidly growing community. We are the third largest county in the United States with 4.5 million residents spread over 1,700 square miles.

We are diverse in every sense of the word, making it vital to communicate in culturally competent ways. Additionally, since we are growing and people come from all over, they might not have experience with mosquito or hurricane seasons. We cannot assume our constituents, year after year, are the same. So we must continue to reach out to our community and educate.

That means we need adequate capacity within the department and a diverse team with a broad array of skills and experiences who continual drill and train.

To ensure we reach all our constituents, we are mobile—we take public health to the public. We’ve built health villages with large RV units—that focus on all aspects of health from mosquito abatement to dental services to immunizations.

We didn’t stop there – we knew to be a trusted source during an emergency we must foster a real intimate sense of community.

I mention this because, day-to-day, we rely both on high tech and high touch. We must remember the importance of both. As much as we talk about technology, social media and sophisticated surveillance systems, we cannot lose the high touch of knocking on a door or stopping to share a story, laugh or cry. At the end of the day, the high tech gets the visibility, but it’s the high touch that allows the high tech to succeed.

This is the backdrop that all our preparedness activities take.

Being Prepared

Even preceding Hurricane Katrina, we made sure that every single Harris County Public Health employee had up-to-date Incident Command Systems (ICS) training—and new staffers get this training as part of initiation.

And, every year, we practice—drills, exercises, call down lists, etc.—making sure we can perform all the tasks we’ll need to do during a response.

So, in reality, our response to Hurricane Harvey started more than a decade before the hurricane ever made landfall.

Hurricane Harvey

Before Harvey even hit, our preparedness director alerted staff and the executive team that a major response would be necessary. With this advanced warning, we put all assets in place before landfall.

We set up communications pathways and communicated to all staff, ensuring they were aware of what was coming and their roles and responsibilities.

Once we were in place, we turned to the community. Our communications team sent out messages before the storm about how to be prepared: get your kits ready; what will you do without power; what if you’re displaced; how will you care for the elderly, children and pets; and many more.

Aside from those messages, we needed to make sure people avoided flood water—there could be any number of dangers from power lines to insects to animals to sewage to toxins.

I highlight talking to the public because we’re all in this together. We can respond great from a systems perspective, but if, for instance, people lose access to medications or begin to eat unsafe foods, we could see infectious disease outbreaks or worsened chronic conditions.

In addition to communicating, building and leveraging partnerships is key to a good response.

For example, we worked with state public health and federal partners (the U.S. Air Force) to continue ground and aerial spraying for mosquitos to ensure there wouldn’t be increased levels of Zika or dengue or chikungunya. All levels of government coordinated to ensure we maintained adequate control over mosquitos and other infectious diseases.

Harris County also sheltered a number of people. Our epidemiologists relied on outside experts and volunteers to help them go cot-to-cot to make sure there wasn’t an infectious disease outbreak and that people maintained access to medicines—a high touch strategy.

This is just a small sample of all the activities we did to keep people safe. At the end of the day, a good response involves working across systems to ensure strong partnerships are in place.

Going Forward

I’m always struck by the fact that everyone talks about the importance of health during an emergency, but, when the emergency goes away, we often forget that we need to adequately resource public health agencies so they have the tools and resources to take on the next emergency.

It’s about capacity.

I worry, one day, there will be an emergency that we haven’t trained for enough and don’t have adequate resources in place. Public health can’t all of a sudden be ready to respond to a major emergency – we need to drill and train and have access to infrastructure and technology.

To better prepare for and respond to emergencies, we also must improve technology solutions, electronic surveillance activities, and infrastructure support. We need more epidemiologists and environmental toxicology experts. And, we need more social workers and community health workers to fan into the community and link folks with vital social services.

The best response features a combination of high tech and high touch. This is where our department shines day in and day out. We’ve never let one overtake the other.

Nationally, though, we can’t rest on our laurels—the next storm could be different and we need to be ready and prepared.

The Private Sector’s Role in Preparing for and Responding to Public Health Emergencies

By Nicolette A. Louissaint, Ph.D., Executive Director, Healthcare Ready

This story was published in Ready or Not? 2017.

The private sector can often respond to rapidly changing circumstances nimbly and usually knows the communities they serve incredibly well. As such, amidst an emergency, there is opportunity for private organizations to step in and fill any response gaps.

The public sector takes on an enormous burden and works tirelessly to respond to emergencies, and the private sector sees its role, especially when it operates in affected regions, to surge alongside the public sector, pivot nimbly and augment public efforts—thereby enhancing the public system’s response efforts.

Often to take advantage of public and private sector expertise, there just needs to be a connection between the two.

For example, during the Hepatitis A outbreak in San Diego, public officials reached out to the private sector for help locating a significant amount of vaccines—since one of the solutions was to do a mass vaccination campaign.

Instead of suggesting they import or special order something (possibly at an extremely high cost), Healthcare Ready (HcR), my organization, checked the levels of vaccines in pharmacies in the area. We found the private sector had enough in stock to supply what was needed. Sometimes you just need to know how and who to ask.

As evidenced by this example, one important aspect of coordinating emergency response is sharing critical information. HcR is designated by the Department of Homeland Security as an information sharing and analysis center (ISAC). So, the private sector knows they can trust us with their proprietary information—and we won’t share with any outside parties inappropriately.

This designation also gives us a fuller view of the resources in a community during an emergency. For example, during a flood, we can know where emerging challenges in the medical pipeline might be because roads are not accessible. We can inform the public sector and work on a solution to ensure vital supplies make it to the public workers who are saving lives.

The public sector knows we can provide them with accurate status of response supplies and what is or isn’t happening along the supply chain. It’s absolutely vital for the public sector to know what kind of relief they’ll be getting and when and what might be missing so they can adjust on the fly.

What we’ve learned from 2017’s Hurricanes

After this hurricane season, we realized that the private sector can do a lot fast and rapidly fill gaps to supplement public sector efforts by getting around bureaucracy.

When faced with an emergency response, we initially focus on resuming supply chain operation and work to support any patients who might be falling through the gaps that naturally occur. The public sector can rely on us to gain insight into what the private sector sees—with us being a central hub coordinating private sector information.

One recent example:  There was a small group of patients on St. Thomas who needed a specific drug that could only be prescribed every 30 days. The public sector folks asked us to look for ways to get the drug from Puerto Rico and onto a plane that was making routine trips between the islands after the hurricane.

As we looked into that, we also were able to reach out to the pharmacies on St. Thomas that we knew had re-opened. And we asked them to speak with their distributors who supply them with medicine. We actually found that one pharmacy had the necessary medicine and it was already on the island. We just had to connect the dots.

While this sounds easy written down, there are many competing priorities and everything is in flux during an emergency response. With the public sector relying on the private sector for these kinds of responsibilities it can free them up to handle other vital activities.

How we can better use the private sector?

While there many examples of public and private sectors working well together, too often the private sector is only looked at a supplier, notably of money and medicine, which is frustrating because clearly the private sector wants to and can help in other ways.

This might seem like a minor problem—but if the public sector is only engaging with the private sector amidst a crisis or when money is needed, the relationships aren’t developed that are necessary to work alongside one another during an emergency. A lot of emergency preparedness and response is about knowing the right organization or person to contact to obtain the life saving measure/supply you need.

Currently, in most places, states have just one Emergency Management Coordinator for the entire private sector—encompassing industries like transportation, healthcare, agriculture, food, etc. It really isn’t feasible for the level of coordination that needs to happen to go through a single node.

As such, there should be a coordinator for each industry, setup in advance with regular meetings to fold private sector emergency capabilities into the public sector’s response plans—so when a hurricane makes landfall we all know what to do.

Hurricane Katrina: What we learned, Then and Now

By Karen DeSalvo, Former Acting Assistant Secretary for Health, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services

This story was published in Ready or Not? 2017.

There are a significant amount of vital lessons that need to and have been learned from the preparation for, response to, and recovery from Hurricane Katrina. One long-term lesson that I think is worth highlighting and has shown its importance during recent weather-related emergencies is the need for public health to take a significant leadership and coordinator role before, during and after an emergency.

In the immediate aftermath of Hurricane Katrina, it was evident that connections were missing—whether it be local public health to state officials, public health to first responders, or public health to the community.

Public health leaders simply weren’t the chief health strategists for their communities. The field was focused on an important set of discrete responsibilities or program but not on the need to build connections with community leaders, first responders and other critical infrastructure that could ensure people had safe places to go and access to medications and other critical supports.

With this realization, it was apparent public health had to connect more with the full gamut of organizations and people involved with an emergency response. And, since then, we have done so not only in New Orleans, but in communities across the country.

For example, during subsequent hurricanes in New Orleans, public health was able to work directly and quickly with hospitals and other care facilities to know if power was on and what beds and medications were available.

And, if you look at the response in Houston, you’ll note that public health was everywhere. They were in communities meeting people and alerting them to potential dangers and infectious diseases, what food and water was safe, etc. And, they were all over social media in a culturally competent way, reaching more and more people.

If you compare the Houston Harvey response to Katrina, it should be apparent that one of the benefits in Houston was the high level of connectedness between public health and the community they serve.

How we can better Prepare for the Next Emergency

In addition to public health continuing to be the coordinator for health for our communities in disaster and every day, to better respond to the next public health emergency, the nation needs to:

  • Expand funding;
  • Improve the foundational capabilities of public health;
  • Better leverage technology;
  • Increase training; and
  • Focus on the underlying health and resiliency of our communities—particularly those who are most vulnerable.

We need more funding for public health—we need public health departments at the local and state levels to have the foundational capabilities required to respond to public health emergencies but also to help build resilience between events.  These funds can’t be categorical, they have to provide core funding that can be nimble for a community to address their biggest health needs. For instance, parts of California might be more prone to wildfires while the Gulf Coast needs to focus on hurricanes. If we don’t have these capabilities in place, we’re forcing our public health workers to just react, rather than prepare to respond.

We also need more funding to go directly to local health departments. States have a huge responsibility during an emergency and often can’t funnel as many resources as you’d think to the local level. During Katrina, we saw this front and center.

While more funding is important, it must be paired with concrete expectations and accountability. Every single health department in the country should be accredited which will help ensure that they can stand up emergency operations when necessary.

When Katrina hit, we were using flip phones, Blackberries and an early version of Google maps. We’ve come a long way with technology in little over a decade, but our preparedness hasn’t quite kept up. We must do better with technology.

We have a great start with this by better leveraging the Department of Health and Human Services’ emPOWER, an online tool that houses and provides Medicare claims data to hospitals, first responders, and health officials to help map the electricity needs during an emergency. emPOWER enables responders to prioritize evacuations and can identify vulnerable populations who will need follow-up services. But it’s limited to the Medicare population.  This type of tool must be expanded to or created for Medicaid and, where appropriate, private payers. First responders and public health must have real-time population level data.

An additional reason more resources are needed is to increase drills and training that specifically focuses on local leadership and the U.S. Public Health Service Commissioned Corps. Annually, public health workers should drill in a vulnerable area alongside the Commissioned Corps—an invaluable resource. Currently, when the Commissioned Corps deploys to an emergency the connections with local responders aren’t there and often the Commissioned Corps can be underutilized.

Lastly, we simply must do more to improve the resiliency of our communities. The healthier a group of people are, the better they respond to an emergency.

In-between emergencies, public health must use data and find opportunities to engage more with vulnerable populations. For example, this could include creating pilot programs with Medicare providers, home health organizations and others involved with the care of older adults. We must improve the health of our older population and, at the same time, have the processes in place that can maintain their connection to care during an emergency that might result in evacuations and/or loss of power.

The nation’s preparedness has improved immensely since Hurricane Katrina—we must keep improving.

Q/A with Celeste Philip, MD, MPH Surgeon General and Secretary of the Florida Department of Health

This was published in Ready or Not? 2017.

TFAH: What are state public health responsibilities before a storm?

Dr. Philip: The Florida Department of Health (DOH) is designated as the lead agency for State Emergency Support Function 8 (EFS8), health and medical services. DOH coordinates the availability and staffing of special needs shelters; supports patient evacuation; ensures the safety of food and drugs; provide critical incident stress debriefing; and provides surveillance and control of radiological, chemical, biological and other environmental hazards.

DOH administers two statewide preparedness grants to build local capacity within the public health and health care community. The federal Public Health Emergency Preparedness (PHEP) grant supports all 67 county health departments (CHD) and public health laboratories in developing community preparedness, epidemiological surveillance and investigation, and medical countermeasure delivery. The Hospital Preparedness Program (HPP) funds 10 health care coalitions to build capabilities for medical surge, continuity of health care delivery, and preparedness partnerships among local health care partners.

TFAH: What are state public health responsibilities after a storm?

Dr. Philip: ESF8 assesses and stabilizes the public health and medical system; supports the ongoing sheltering of persons with special medical needs; coordinates patient movement and evacuations of health care facilities; conducts public health messaging; monitors, investigates and controls any threats to human health; and coordinates disaster behavioral health services with a sister agency.

During Hurricane Irma, ESF8 assisted with 76 patient movement missions that supported the transport of hospital, skilled nursing facility and assisted living facility clients. We conducted more than 1,000 post-impact facility inspections and more than 2,600 tests of public and private water systems and operated 113 special needs shelters.

TFAH: How do state health departments coordinate the public health response to a major storm?

Dr. Philip: Preparedness and response are driven by local leadership, personnel and assets. In Florida, each CHD coordinates and works directly with their local Emergency Management to meet the preparedness and response needs of their community. If the county Emergency Operations Center (EOC) cannot meet the local need, they request assistance through the state EOC via a web-based system that allows us to track and ensure completion of mission requests.

Based on these mission requests, the state ESF8 assesses regional and state assets. If the requested resources are not available in-state, ESF8 next looks to resources available from other states through the Emergency Management Assistance Compact (EMAC), or, in the case of a declared state of emergency, potential federal assets such as Disaster Medical Assistant Teams.

TFAH: Why are federal investments in public health critical on an ongoing basis?

Dr. Philip: During a major event, we are often shoulder-to-shoulder with our federal partners in the state EOC.  This includes representatives from HHS, ASPR, and also FEMA who help to coordinate any requests we make for federal assistance.

Federal investment is critical for building a public health infrastructure that has the capacity to prepare for and recover from weather and other hazardous situations. If states are better prepared to respond, requests for federal assistance may be lessened.  With the close succession of Hurricanes Harvey, Irma, and Maria, and wildfires in California, federal response agencies had to sustain their efforts across time and location which may not be feasible in the future.

TFAH: What federal programs and supports are critical for preparedness and response?

Dr. Philip: Both the PHEP and HPP statewide preparedness grants are important for public health preparedness and response. Preparedness programs in various HHS agencies hold meetings that provide training and networking opportunities for states.

TFAH: What is needed from the federal government to improve preparedness and response?

Dr. Philip: Knowing and having a relationship with our federal counterparts that will be deployed to the state EOC improves communication and manages expectations more effectively. A federal system that allows for tracking of deployed assets would improve situational awareness and real-time decision-making.

Better coordination of credentialing health care professionals between states would be helpful for patients who evacuate with their provider and for providers coming into disaster areas.

Streamlined and flexible funding to allow for nimble response as needed would greatly enhance public health’s ability to be effective.

TFAH: What lessons did you learn from the most recent storm? Was there anything different or new that happened?

Dr. Philip: Hurricane Irma posed a unique challenge because the track was very unpredictable, meaning that more hospitals decided to evacuate and more residents decided to shelter. This storm at some points was 500 miles wide – which exceeded the width of our state. And, personnel could not be moved around in advance of the storm as the track changed to support other counties in the new path. EMAC, federal and contracted assets were mobilized to support sheltering operations but some counties had to wait until the storm passed to receive additional staffing.

Because of the surge in last minute registrations to special need shelters, comprehensive planning and placement for each registrant could not be conducted resulting in the shelter having to accept clients with medical needs that exceeded the shelters’ level of care capacity.

Moving forward, we recognize a need to anticipate future storms that may impact much, or all of the state, a scenario not contemplated prior to Hurricane Irma. For DOH, statewide emergency response efforts could be bolstered by improving planning for our special needs residents, including better training and increased collaboration with other state agencies and the private sector to support Floridians with special needs.

Ready or Not? 2017

«state» Achieved «score_num» of 10 Indicators in Report on Health Emergency Preparedness

«state»’s Flu Vaccination Rate is «fvr_num» Percent, «flu_rank_upper»

Washington, D.C., December 19, 2017 – In Ready or Not? Protecting the Public’s Health from Diseases, Disasters and Bioterrorism, «state» achieved «score_lower» of 10 key indicators of public health preparedness.

In total, 25 states scored a 5 or lower—Alaska scored lowest at 2 out of 10, and Massachusetts and Rhode Island scored the highest at 9 out of 10.

The report, issued today by the Trust for America’s Health (TFAH), found the country does not invest enough to maintain strong, basic core capabilities for health security readiness and, instead, is in a continued state of inefficiently reacting with federal emergency supplemental funding packages each time a disaster strikes.

According to Ready or Not?, federal funding to support the base level of preparedness has been cut by more than half since 2002, which has eroded advancements and reduced the country’s capabilities.

“While we’ve seen great public health preparedness advances, often at the state and community level, progress is continually stilted, halted and uneven,” said John Auerbach, president and CEO of TFAH.  “As a nation, we—year after year—fail to fully support public health and preparedness. If we don’t improve our baseline funding and capabilities, we’ll continue to be caught completely off-guard when hurricanes, wildfires and infectious disease outbreaks hit.”

No. Indicator «state» Number of States Receiving Points
A “Y” means the state received a point for that indicator
1 Public Health Funding Commitment: State increased or maintained funding for public health from FY 2015 to FY 2016 and FY 2016 to FY 2017. «phfc» 19 + D.C.
2 National Health Security Preparedness Index: State increased their overall preparedness scores based on the National Health Security Preparedness Index™ between 2015 and 2016. «nhspi» 33
3 Public Health Accreditation: The state public health department is accredited. «pha» 30 + D.C.
4 Antibiotic Stewardship Program for Hospitals:  State has 70 percent or more of hospitals reporting meeting Antibiotic Stewardship Program core elements in 2016. «asp» 20 + D.C.
5 Flu Vaccination Rate: State vaccinated at least half of their population (ages 6 months and older) for the seasonal flu from Fall 2016 to Spring 2017.* «fvr» 20
6 Enhanced Nurse Licensure Compact (eNLC): State participates in an eNLC. «enlc» 26
7 United States Climate Alliance: State has joined the U.S. Climate Alliance to reduce greenhouse gas emissions consistent with the goals of the Paris Agreement. «usca» 14
8 Public Health Laboratories: State laboratory provided biosafety training and/or provided information about biosafety training courses (July 1, 2016 to June 30, 2017). «lab_safety» 47 + D.C.
9 Public Health Laboratories: State laboratory has a Biosafety Professional (July 1, 2016 to June 30, 2017). «phl_staff» 47 + D.C.
10 Paid Sick Leave: State has paid sick leave law. «sick_leave» 8 + D.C.
Total «score_num»

Ready or Not? features six expert commentaries from public health officials who share perspectives on and experiences from the historic hurricanes, wildfires and other events of 2017, including from California, Florida, Louisiana and Texas.

The report also examines the nation’s ability to respond to public health emergencies, tracks progress and vulnerabilities, and includes a review of state and federal public health preparedness policies. Some key findings include:

  • Just 19 states and Washington, D.C. increased or maintained funding for public health from Fiscal Year (FY) 2015-2016 to FY 2016-2017.
  • The primary source for state and local preparedness for health emergencies has been cut by about one-third (from $940 million in FY 2002 to $667 million in FY 2017) and hospital emergency preparedness funds have been cut in half ($514 million in FY 2003 to $254 million in FY 2017).
  • In 20 states and Washington, D.C. 70 percent or more of hospitals reported meeting Antibiotic Stewardship Program core elements in 2016.
  • Just 20 states vaccinated at least half of their population (ages 6 months and older) for the seasonal flu from Fall 2016 to Spring 2017—and no state was above 56 percent.
  • 47 state labs and Washington, D.C. provided biosafety training and/or provided information about biosafety training courses (July 1, 2016 to June 30, 2017).

The Ready or Not? report provides a series of recommendations that address many of the major gaps in emergency health preparedness, including:

  • Communities should maintain a key set of foundational capabilities and focus on performance outcomes in exchange for increased flexibility and reduced bureaucracy.
  • Ensuring stable, sufficient health emergency preparedness funding to maintain a standing set of core capabilities so they are ready when needed. In addition, a complementary Public Health Emergency Fund is needed to provide immediate surge funding for specific action for major emerging threats.
  • Strengthening and maintaining consistent support for global health security as an effective strategy for preventing and controlling health crises. Germs know no borders.
  • Innovating and modernizing infrastructure needs – including a more focused investment strategy to support science and technology upgrades that leverage recent breakthroughs and hold the promise of transforming the nation’s ability to promptly detect and contain disease outbreaks and respond to other health emergencies.
  • Recruiting and training a next generation public health workforce with expert scientific abilities to harness and use technological advances along with critical thinking and management skills to serve as Chief Health Strategist for a community.
  • Reconsidering health system preparedness for new threats and mass outbreaks.  Develop stronger coalitions and partnerships among providers, hospitals and healthcare facilities, insurance providers, pharmaceutical and health equipment businesses, emergency management and public health agencies.
  • Preventing the negative health consequences of climate change and weather-related threats. It is essential to build the capacity to anticipate, plan for and respond to climate-related events.
  • Prioritizing efforts to address one of the most serious threats to human health by expanding efforts to stop superbugs and antibiotic resistance.
  • Improving rates of vaccinations for children and adults – which are one of the most effective public health tools against many infectious diseases.
  • Supporting a culture of resilience so all communities are better prepared to cope with and recover from emergencies, particularly focusing on those who are most vulnerable.   Sometimes the aftermath of an emergency situation may be more harmful than the initial event.  This must also include support for local organizations and small businesses to prepare for and to respond to emergencies.

The report was supported by a grant from the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation (RWJF) and is available on TFAH’s website at www.healthyamericans.org.

Score Summary:

A full list of all of the indicators and scores and the full report are available on TFAH’s website.  For the state-by-state scoring, states received one point for achieving an indicator or zero points if they did not achieve the indicator.  Zero is the lowest possible overall score, 10 is the highest.  The data for the indicators are from publicly available sources or were provided from public officials.

  • 9 out of 10: Massachusetts and Rhode Island
  • 8 out of 10: Delaware, North Carolina and Virginia
  • 7 out of 10: Arizona, Colorado, Connecticut, Hawaii, Minnesota, New York, Oregon and Washington
  • 6 out of 10: California, District of Columbia, Florida, Illinois, Maryland, Nebraska, New Jersey, North Dakota, South Carolina, South Dakota, Utah, Vermont and West Virginia
  • 5 out of 10: Georgia, Idaho, Maine, Mississippi, Montana and Tennessee
  • 4 out of 10: Alabama, Arkansas, Iowa, Louisiana, Missouri, New Hampshire, Oklahoma and Pennsylvania
  • 3 out of 10: Indiana, Kansas, Kentucky, Michigan, Nevada, New Mexico, Ohio, Texas, Wisconsin and Wyoming
  • 2 out of 10: Alaska

 Trust for America’s Health is a non-profit, non-partisan organization dedicated to saving lives by protecting the health of every community and working to make disease prevention a national priority. www.healthyamericans.org

The Senate’s Latest Obamacare Replacement Effort will not improve the Nation’s Health, Affordable Care Act

Washington, D.C., July 25, 2017 – The below is a statement from John Auerbach, president and CEO, of Trust for America’s Health (TFAH) on the Senate’s motion to proceed.

“Each new iteration of Obamacare repeal legislation has failed to do what a health bill should: improve the nation’s health.

We know—according to the Congressional Budget Office’s scores on any number of the attempted bills—that tens of millions of people will quickly lose access to health insurance and the preventive services and programs which keep them from developing debilitating and costly chronic diseases.

That is, simply, the opposite of what a bill—intended to improve the nation’s health—should do.

Continued attempts to eliminate the Prevention and Public Health Fund would irreparably harm the nation’s health. States and communities rely on the hundreds of millions of dollars they receive annually to work on the critical health issues—including the opioid epidemic, lead poisoning, obesity, tobacco use and vaccine-preventable illnesses—facing their citizens.

To date, any funding included in repeal legislation for the opioid crisis has been nowhere near enough to solve the problem and will not make up for the substantially larger cuts to Medicaid and the Prevention Fund.

Estimates have found that the total coverage cost for people receiving treatment for substance misuse disorders could reach $220 billion over the next decade. And, people with substance misuse disorders often suffer from additional health problems – for example, mental illness and chronic conditions such as heart disease or diabetes – and need the routine access to care and services provided by Medicaid. As such, substance misuse treatment must remain part of the Medicaid integrated care system.

TFAH encourages the Administration and Congress to start over and create a true healthcare bill that will improve upon Obamacare, keep people covered and safeguard the nation’s health.”

Trust for America’s Health is a non-profit, non-partisan organization dedicated to saving lives by protecting the health of every community and working to make disease prevention a national priority.

 ###