Issue Category: Public Health Preparedness

Ready or Not 2010

«state» Scored «capspellscore» out of Ten Key Indicators for Emergency Health Preparedness in New Report

Report Finds States Achieve Highest Ever Scores for Public Health Preparedness, But Progress Threatened by Budget Cuts

Washington, D.C., December 14, 2010 – In the eighth annual Ready or Not? Protecting the Public from Diseases, Disasters, and Bioterrorism report, «state» achieved «spellscore» out of 10 key indicators of public health emergency preparedness. Overall, states achieved the highest scores ever for health emergency preparedness with 14 states scoring nine or higher. Three states (Arkansas, North Dakota, and Washington State) scored 10 out of 10. Another 25 states and Washington, D.C. scored in the 7 to 8 range. No state scored lower than a five

The scores reflect nearly ten years of progress to improve how the nation prevents, identifies, and contains new disease outbreaks and bioterrorism threats and responds to the aftermath of natural disasters in the wake of the September 11, 2001 and anthrax tragedies. In addition, the real-world experience responding to the H1N1 flu pandemic – supported by emergency supplemental funding – also helped bring preparedness to the next level.

However the Ready or Not? report, released today by the Trust for America’s Health (TFAH) and the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation notes that the almost decade of gains is in real jeopardy due to severe budget cuts by federal, state, and local governments. The economic climate change has led to cuts in public health staffing and basic capabilities, which are needed to successfully respond to crises. Thirty-three states and Washington, D.C. cut public health funding from fiscal years (FY) 2008-09 to 2009-10, with 18 of these states cutting funding for the second year in a row. The report also notes that just eight states (Alabama, Arkansas, Kentucky, Nebraska, North Dakota, South Dakota, Texas, and West Virginia) have increased funding for two or more consecutive years.

«state» «increased» its public health budget from FY 2008-09 to 2009-10«wasone». The Center on Budget and Policy Priorities has found that states have experienced overall budgetary shortfalls of $425 billion since FY 2009.

In addition to state cuts, federal support for public health preparedness has been cut by 27 percent since FY 2005 (adjusted for inflation). Local public health departments report losing 23,000 jobs – totaling 15 percent of the local public health workforce – since January 2008. The impact of the recession were not as drastically felt by public health until more recently because of supplemental funds received to support the H1N1 pandemic flu response and from the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act.

“There is an emergency for emergency health preparedness in the United States,” said Jeff Levi, PhD, Executive Director of TFAH. “This year, the Great Recession is taking its toll on emergency health preparedness. Unfortunately, the recent and continued budget cuts will exacerbate the vulnerable areas in U.S. crisis response capabilities and have the potential to reverse the progress we have made over the last decade.”

No. Indicator «state» Number of States Receiving Points
A checkmark means the state received a point for that indicator
1 Funding Commitment – Did the state maintain or increase funding for public health programs from FY 2008-09 to FY 2009-2010? «Indicator1» 17
2 Health Information Technology – Does the state currently send and receive electronic health information to health care providers and community health centers? «Indicator2» 43 and D.C.
3 Electronic Syndromic Surveillance – Does the state health department have an electronic syndromic surveillance system that can report and exchange information? «Indicator3» 40 and D.C.
4 Incident Response Capacity – Did the state acknowledge pre-identified staff of emergency exercises or incidents within the target time of 60 minutes at least twice during 2007-08? «Indicator4» 44 and D.C.
5 Emergency Operations Center (EOC) – Did the state public health department activate its EOC as part of a drill, exercise, or real incident a minimum of two times in 2007-08? «Indicator5» 44 and D.C.
6 After Action Reports – Did the state develop at least two After-Action Report/Improvement Plans (AAR/IPs) after exercise or real incident in 2007-08? «Indicator6» 48 and D.C.
7 Community Resilience – Children and Preparedness – Does the state require all licensed child care facilities to have a multi-hazard written evacuation and relocation plan? «Indicator7» 25 and D.C.
8 Foodborne disease detection and reporting – Was the state able to rapidly identify disease-causing E.coli O157:H7 and submit results by PulseNet within four working days 90% of the time? «Indicator8» 29
9 Public Health Laboratories – Surge Workforce – Does the state have the necessary lab workforce staffing to work five, 12-hour days for six to eight weeks in response to an infectious disease outbreak, such as novel influenza A H1N1? «Indicator9» 47
10 Public Health Laboratories – Did the state increase Laboratory Response Network for Chemical Treat (LRN-C) capability? «Indicator10» 49 and D.C.
Total «Score»

Note: Indicators 4, 5, 6, and 8 are based on findings from a recently released report from the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) based on activities in 2007-08.

 

According to the report, while states have made progress, there are still a series of major ongoing gaps in preparedness, including in basic infrastructure and funding, biosurveillance, maintaining an adequate and expertly trained workforce, developing and manufacturing vaccines and medicines, surge capacity for providing care in major emergencies, and helping communities cope with and recover from emergencies.

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

  • Gaps in Funding and Infrastructure:The resources required to truly modernize public heath systems must be made available to bring public health into 21st century and improve preparedness;
  • A Surveillance Gap: The United States lacks an integrated, national approach to biosurveillance, and there are major variations in how quickly states collect and report data which hamper bioterrorism and disease outbreak response capabilities;
  • A Workforce Gap: The United States has 50,000 fewer public health workers than it did 20 years ago – and one-third of current workers are eligible to retire within five years. Policies must be supported that ensure there are a sufficient number of adequately trained public health experts – including epidemiologists, physicians, nurses, and other workers – to respond to all threats to the public’s health;
  • Gaps in Vaccine and Pharmaceutical Research, Development, and Manufacturing: The United States must improve the research and development of vaccines and medications;
  • A Surge Capacity Gap: In the event of a major disease outbreak or attack, the public health and health care systems would be severely overstretched. Policymakers must address the ability of the health care system to quickly expand beyond normal services during a major emergency;
  • Gaps in Community Resiliency Support: The United States must close the existing day-to-day gaps in public health departments which make it difficult to identify and service the most vulnerable Americans, who often need the most help during emergencies.

According to James Marks, Senior Vice President and Director of the Health Group at the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation, the gaps that remain and the risks of loss of our nation’s ability to respond during emergencies call out for an ongoing investment to rebuild and modernize our public health system. “This report makes it clear that not enough Americans are protected against health emergencies. And those whose health departments have done a good job preparing are at great risk of losing ground. The American public needs to know if their state and local health agency has the resources and expertise to respond to any health crisis. Detecting weaknesses and identifying how to fix those are why independent accreditation with specific, measurable standards of quality and performance are so critical to helping the public and their leaders know what more is needed to protect their families and communities.”

Score Summary:

A full list of all of the indicators and scores and the full report are available on TFAH’s web site at www.healthyamericans.org and RWJF’s Web site at www.rwjf.org. 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.

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

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.

The Robert Wood Johnson Foundation focuses on the pressing health and health care issues facing our country. As the nation’s largest philanthropy devoted exclusively to improving the health and health care of all Americans, the Foundation works with a diverse group of organizations and individuals to identify solutions and achieve comprehensive, meaningful and timely change. For more than 35 years the Foundation has brought experience, commitment, and a rigorous, balanced approach to the problems that affect the health and health care of those it serves. Helping Americans lead healthier lives and get the care they need–the Foundation expects to make a difference in our lifetime. For more information, visit rwjf.org

Ready or Not? 2009

New Report: «state» Scored «Score» out of 10 Key Indicators for Emergency Health Preparedness; New Report Finds H1N1 Reveals Gaps in Readiness

Washington, D.C., December 15, 2009 – The seventh annual Ready or Not? Protecting the Public’s Health from Diseases, Disasters, and Bioterrorism report, released today by the Trust for America’s Health (TFAH) and the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation (RWJF), found that the H1N1 flu outbreak has exposed serious underlying gaps in the nation’s ability to respond to public health emergencies and that the economic crisis is straining an already fragile public health system.

«state» achieved «Score» out of 10 key indicators of public health emergency preparedness.

Overall, the report found that 20 states scored six or less out of 10 key indicators of public health emergency preparedness. Nearly two-thirds of states scored seven or less. Eight states tied for the highest score of nine out of 10: Arkansas, Delaware, New York, North Carolina, North Dakota, Oklahoma, Texas, and Vermont. Montana had the lowest score at three out of 10. The preparedness indicators are developed in consultation with leading public health experts based on data from publicly available sources or information provided by public officials.

“The H1N1 outbreak has vividly revealed existing gaps in public health emergency preparedness,” said Richard Hamburg, Deputy Director of TFAH. “The Ready or Not? report shows that a band-aid approach to public health is inadequate. As the second wave of H1N1 starts to dissipate, it doesn’t mean we can let down our defenses. In fact, it’s time to double down and provide a sustained investment in the underlying infrastructure, so we will be prepared for the next emergency and the one after that.”

Overall, the report found that the investments made in pandemic and public health preparedness over the past several years dramatically improved U.S. readiness for the H1N1 outbreak. But it also found that decades of chronic underfunding meant that many core systems were not at-the-ready. Some key infrastructure concerns were a lack of real-time coordinated disease surveillance and laboratory testing, outdated vaccine production capabilities, limited hospital surge capacity, and a shrinking public health workforce. In addition, the report found that more than half of states experienced cuts to their public health funding and federal preparedness funds have been cut by 27 percent since fiscal year (FY) 2005, which puts improvements that have been made since the September 11, 2001 tragedies at risk.

No. Indicator «state» Number of States Receiving Points
A checkmark means the state received a point for that indicator
1 Purchased 50 percent or more of its share of federally-subsidized antiviral medications to prepare for a potential pandemic flu outbreak «Indicator1» 37 and D.C.
2 Submitted data on available hospital beds weekly for at least 50 percent of the facilities within the state to the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services during the 2009 H1N1 response. «Indicator2» 40
3 Public health lab has the capacity in place to assure the timely pick-up and delivery of disease samples on a 24/7, 365 day basis. «asterisk_wa» «Indicator3» 36 and D.C.
4 Public health lab reports having enough staff to work the intense hours needed during an emergency, like H1N1 (five, 12-hour days for six to eight weeks). «Indicator4» 39
5 Tracks diseases through an Internet system used by the CDC. «Indicator5» 44 and D.C.
6 Identified the pathogen responsible for reported food-borne disease outbreaks at a rate that met or exceeded the national average of 46 percent (combined data 2005-2007). «Indicator6» 36 and D.C.
7 Meets the Medical Reserve Corps (MRC) readiness criteria for medical volunteers during an emergency. «Indicator7» 41 and D.C.
8 Requires all licensed childcare facilities to have a multi-hazard written evacuation and relocation plan for emergencies, and verification that the laws are implemented. «Indicator8» 20 and D.C.
9 Has a law or legal opinion in place to limit liability against organizations that provide volunteer help during emergencies. «asterisk_hi» «Indicator9» 33 and D.C.
10 Increased or maintained level of funding for public health services from FY 2007-08 to FY 2008-09 «Indicator10» 23 and D.C.
Total «Score»

«footnote»

“State and local health departments around the country are being asked to do more with less during the H1N1 outbreak as budgets continue to be stretched beyond their limits,” said Michelle Larkin, J.D., Public Health Team Director and Senior Program Officer at the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation. “Public health provides essential prevention and preparedness services that help us lead healthier lives — without sustained and stable funding, Americans will continue to be needlessly at risk from the next public health threat.”

The report also offers a series of recommendations for improving preparedness, including:

  • Ensure Stable and Sufficient Funding. The 27 percent cut to federal support for public health preparedness since FY 2005 must be restored, and funding must be stabilized at a sufficient level to support core activities and emergency planning. Increased funding must also be provided to modernize flu vaccine production, improve vaccine and antiviral research and development, and fully support the Hospital Preparedness Program.
  • Conduct an H1N1 After-Action Report and Update Preparedness Plans with Lessons Learned. Strengths and weaknesses of the H1N1 response should be evaluated and used to revise and strengthen federal, state, and local preparedness planning, including assessing what additional resources are needed to be sufficiently prepared. Identified gaps in core systems, including communications, surveillance, and laboratories much be addressed. In addition, continued surge capacity concerns, including establishing crisis standards of care, must be addressed.
  • Increase Accountability and Transparency. Federal and state health departments should regularly make updates on progress made on benchmarks and deliverables identified in the Pandemic and All Hazards Preparedness Act available to the public so they can see how tax dollars are being used and how well protected their communities are from health threats.
  • Improve Community Preparedness. Additional measures must be taken to reach out quickly and effectively to high-risk populations, including strengthening culturally competent communications around the safety of vaccines. Health disparities among low-income and racial/ethnic minorities, who are often at higher risk during emergencies, must also be addressed.

Score Summary:

A full list of all of the indicators and scores and the full report are available on TFAH’s web site at www.healthyamericans.org and RWJF’s Web site at www.rwjf.org. 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: Arkansas, Delaware, New York, North Carolina, North Dakota, Oklahoma, Texas, Vermont
8 out of 10: Alabama, California, Colorado, District of Columbia, Hawaii, Kentucky, Michigan, Mississippi, Ohio, Oregon, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, Wisconsin
7 out of 10: Indiana, Iowa, Maryland, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Missouri, New Hampshire, South Dakota, Tennessee, Virginia
6 out of 10: Connecticut, Georgia, Illinois, Kansas, Louisiana, Nebraska, Nevada, New Jersey, New Mexico, Rhode Island, Utah, West Virginia, Wyoming
5 out of 10: Alaska, Arizona, Florida, Idaho, Maine, Washington
3 out of 10: Montana

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.

The Robert Wood Johnson Foundation focuses on the pressing health and health care issues facing our country. As the nation’s largest philanthropy devoted exclusively to improving the health and health care of all Americans, the Foundation works with a diverse group of organizations and individuals to identify solutions and achieve comprehensive, meaningful and timely change. For more than 35 years the Foundation has brought experience, commitment, and a rigorous, balanced approach to the problems that affect the health and health care of those it serves. Helping Americans lead healthier lives and get the care they need–the Foundation expects to make a difference in our lifetime. For more information, visit rwjf.org

Health Problems Heat Up: Climate Change and the Public’s Health

«state» «haveNotHave»

Media Contact: Laura Segal (202) 223-9870 x 27 or [email protected].

(October 26, 2009, Washington, DC) — Trust for America’s Health (TFAH) released a new report today that finds only five states have published a strategic climate change plan that includes a public health response. The five states include California, Maryland, New Hampshire, Virginia, and Washington. This includes planning for health challenges and emergencies expected to develop from natural disasters, pollution, and infectious diseases as temperatures and sea levels rise.

Twenty-eight additional states«haveaplan» have published a strategic climate change plan, but the plan does not include a public health response to climate change. Seventeen states«donthaveaplan» have not published a strategic climate change plan.

The Health Problems Heat Up: Climate Change and the Public’s Health report examines U.S. planning for changing health threats posed by climate change, such as heat-related sickness, respiratory infections, natural disasters, changes to the food supply, and infectious diseases carried by insects.

“The changing environment has serious ramifications for our health,” said Jeff Levi, PhD, Executive Director of TFAH. “In the near future, more extreme weather events, rising temperatures, and worsening air quality mean we’ll see an upswing in climate-related illnesses and injuries. As countries around the world work to address climate change, federal, state, and local governments around the United States need to ramp up activities to protect people from the harms it poses to our health.”

“States are already overwhelmed by existing public health responsibilities, so we face a serious challenge as we see these new climate change related problems on the horizon. States and communities will need more resources to effectively plan and prepare for them,” Levi continued.

The report contains a number of state-based indicators related to efforts in the state or federal funding the state has received to prepare for public health implications of climate change.

«state»: Climate Change Public Health Indicators
1. Is «state» one of five states that have published a climate change plan detailing the role of public health in preventing and preparing for climate change? «publicRole»
2. Is «state» one of 12 states that have a climate change commission or advisory panel that includes a representative from the state department of public health? «stateCommission»
3. Is «state» one of 22 states that received grants from the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) for Environmental Health Tracking in 2009? «cdcEnvironmental»
4. Is «state» one of 33 states that received grants from the CDC for asthma prevention in 2009? «cdcAsthma»
5. Is «state» one of 49 states that received funding for an Arbovirus Vector-borne Disease Surveillance System (ArboNET) — used to track diseases spread through mosquitoes and other insects — in 2009? «arbovirus»

According to Health Problems Heat Up, communities across the United States are at-risk for negative health effects associated with climate change. Urban communities face natural disasters, such as floods and heat waves. Rural communities may be threatened by food insecurity due to shifts in crop growing conditions, reduced water resources, heat, and storm damage. Costal and low-lying areas could see an increase in floods, hurricanes, and tropical storms. Mountain regions are at risk of increasing heat and vector-borne diseases due to the melting of mountain glaciers and changes in snow melt. And communities around the country could experience new insect-based infectious diseases that used to only be affiliated with high temperature regions.

The report contains a series of policy recommendations, including:

  • Congress should provide funding for state and local health departments to conduct needs assessments and strategic planning for public health considerations of climate change;
  • The White House and the federal interagency working group on climate change should take into account the potential health implications of policies and programs under consideration;
  • Congress should increase support for tracking of environmental effects on health and research into the health effects of climate change;
  • CDC should set national guidelines and measures for core public health functions related to climate change, and in exchange for federal funding for climate change planning and response, CDC should require states and localities to report the findings to both the public and the federal government;
  • All state and local health departments should include public health considerations as part of climate change plans, including conducting needs assessments, developing strategic plans, and creating public education campaigns; and
  • Special efforts must be made to address the impact of climate change on at-risk and vulnerable communities.

The U.S. Senate is in the process of developing comprehensive climate change legislation. The U.S. House of Representatives recently passed a climate change bill that would direct the U.S. Secretary of Health and Human Services to create a national strategic action plan on climate change. This plan would encourage health professionals to prepare for and respond to the impact of climate change on public health in the United States and globally. The House bill also includes a Climate Change Health Protection and Promotion Fund to provide the funds needed to develop and carry out the strategic plan.

The full Health Problems Heat Up report, including state-specific information, is available on TFAH’s web site www.healthyamericans.org. The report was supported by a grant from The Pew Environment Group, which is the conservation arm of The Pew Charitable Trusts.

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.