Federal Funding for Health Security in FY2018

Total Page:16

File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb

Federal Funding for Health Security in FY2018 Health Security Volume 15, Number 4, 2017 ª Mary Ann Liebert, Inc. DOI: 10.1089/hs.2017.0047 Federal Funding for Health Security in FY2018 Crystal Watson, Matthew Watson, and Tara Kirk Sell This article is the latest in an annual series analyzing federal funding for health security programs. It examines proposed funding in the President’s Budget Request for FY2018 and provides updated amounts for FY2017 and actual funding for FY2010 through FY2016. The proposed FY2018 budget for health security–related programs represents a significant decrease in funding from prior years and previous administrations. In total, the President’s proposed FY2018 budget includes $12.45 billion for health security–related programs, an estimated decrease in funding of $1.25 billion, or 9%, from the estimated $13.71 billion in FY2017 and an 11% decrease from the FY2016 actual funding level of $13.99 billion. Most FY2018 health security funding ($6.67 billion, 54%) would go to programs with multiple-hazard and preparedness goals and missions, representing a 14% decrease in this funding compared to FY2017. Radiological and nuclear security programs would receive 20% ($2.48 billion) of all health security funding, a slight decrease of 2% from the prior year. Biosecurity programs would be funded at $1.53 billion (12% of health security funding) in FY2018, a decrease of 6% compared to FY2017. Chemical security programs would represent 3% ($389.7 million) of all health security funding in FY2018, a 9% decrease from the prior year. Finally, 11% of health security funding ($1.39 billion) would be dedicated to pandemic influenza and emerging infectious diseases programs, the only category of funding to see an increase (3%) above FY2017. his article is the latest in an annual series ana- To organize this analysis, US federal funding is divided Tlyzing federal funding for health security programs.1-14 into 5 domains critical to strengthening health security: It examines proposed funding in the President’s Budget Request for FY2018 and provides updated amounts for Biosecurity: Federal programs focused on prevention, pre- FY2017 and actual funding for FY2010 through FY2016. paredness, and response to attacks on civilians with bio- Health security is a ‘‘state in which a nation and its logical agents and accidental releases of biological material; people are prepared for, protected from, and resilient in Radiological and Nuclear Security: Federal programs thefaceofhealththreats.’’15,16 Building health security focused on prevention, preparedness, and consequence for the nation is the responsibility of multiple agencies in management of radiological and nuclear terrorism and the US federal government and of state, tribal, territorial, large-scale radiological accidents; and local governments and the private sector. To better Chemical Security: Federal programs focused on pre- Downloaded by Johns Hopkins Univ e-journal package from online.liebertpub.com at 08/11/17. For personal use only. understand and define the federal role in health security, vention, preparedness, and response to large-scale this analysis aims to identify health security–related acute chemical exposures of civilian populations, both programs in public health, health care, national security, intentional and accidental; and defense and to report funding levels for that ongoing Pandemic Influenza and Emerging Infectious Diseases: work. Federal programs focused on preparedness and Crystal Watson, DrPH, MPH, is a Senior Associate; Matthew Watson is a Senior Analyst; and Tara Kirk Sell, PhD, MA, is a Senior Associate; all are at the Johns Hopkins Center for Biosecurity, Baltimore, Maryland. 1 FEDERAL FUNDING FOR HEALTH SECURITY IN FY2018 response to large, naturally occurring, and potentially The authors recognize that this is not a perfect ac- destabilizing epidemics; and counting of all of the federal health security work. Analysis Multiple-Hazard and General Preparedness: Federal of agency budgets and programs included in previous programs focused on multiple hazards or on building years resulted in a number of program additions and a few infrastructure and capacity to respond to large-scale changes in the categorization of programs. As a result, health threats. funding totals for different areas of health security and agencies included may be difficult to compare with pre- vious years’ articles. However, funding comparisons can General Methods be made between fiscal years within this article. Federal funding amounts were analyzed from FY2010 This analysis of federal health security funding documents through proposed funding for FY2018, using information funding levels for health security–related programs. It sepa- from FY2018 federal agency budget materials as well as rates funding for health security into categories based on budget documents from prior years. Sources for this anal- the major focus of the program being included. Choices ysis include federal agency ‘‘Budgets in Brief,’’ agency regarding how an individual program is categorized can be congressional budget justifications, and personal contacts difficult because of limited publicly available information with agency representatives to obtain and track program describing the programs or identifying program-level fund- funding. For the purpose of this analysis, programs have ing amounts. been categorized according to whether they focus on bio- Efforts are made each year to obtain funding information defense, chemical hazards, radiological/nuclear hazards, down to the program level in order to be as accurate as pos- pandemic influenza and emerging infectious diseases, or sible. However, in some cases, funding for specific programs multiple-hazard and general preparedness. Programs have cannot be separated from larger line items, and so those line been categorized based on their major focus, as described in items are either included in their entirety or are included in the budget documents or on program websites. Summary ta- ‘‘multiple-hazard and preparedness’’ section of this analysis. bles for program funding in each category are provided in this article, with more detailed tables available online (see supplemental material at www.liebertonline.com/hs/). This analysis of federal health security budgets prioritizes Overall Findings programs supporting prevention, preparedness, and response, as well as related research efforts. Specifically, research pro- The President’s proposed FY2018 budget for health grams that support either medical countermeasure (MCM) security–related programs represents a significant research and development (R&D) or threat/risk characteriza- decrease in funding from prior years and previous tion efforts were included in the analysis. Prevention programs administrations. In total, the President’s proposed explicitly targeted at preventing large-scale accidents or ter- FY2018 budget includes $12.45 billion for health rorist attacks with chemical, biological, or radiological agents security–related programs, an estimated decrease in are also included. Finally, federal emergency preparedness and funding of $1.25 billion, or 9%, from the estimated response programs are included if they focused on protecting $13.71 billion in FY2017 and an 11% decrease from the health of US citizens in large-scale health emergencies. the FY2016 actual funding level of $13.99 billion. The analysis excluded programs focused on routine pro- Most FY2018 health security funding ($6.67 billion, vision of health care, occupational health and safety, or 54%) would go to programs with multiple-hazard warfare between nation states. In addition, the analysis ex- and preparedness goals and missions, representing a cluded programs focused on protecting the warfighter with 14% decrease in this funding when compared to no stated or likely civilian applications now or in the future. FY2017. Radiological and nuclear security programs Specific inclusion and exclusion criteria and methods ap- would receive 20% ($2.48 billion) of all health se- plied to each domain are detailed in each respective section curity funding, a slight decrease of 2% from the prior of this analysis. year. Biosecurity programs would be funded at $1.53 billion (12% of health security funding) in FY2018, a Biosecurity Program Funding Downloaded by Johns Hopkins Univ e-journal package from online.liebertpub.com at 08/11/17. For personal use only. decrease of 6% compared to FY2017. Chemical se- curity programs would represent 3% ($389.7 million) of all health security funding in FY2018, a 9% de- This section focuses on funding for federal programs aimed at crease from the prior year. Finally, 11% of health prevention, preparedness, response, recovery, and mitigation security funding ($1.39 billion) would be dedicated of deliberate biological threats against the US civilian popu- to pandemic influenza and emerging infectious dis- lation, and of accidental releases of biological threat agents eases programs, the only category of funding to see an from a laboratory. In total, the President’s proposed budget increase (3%) above FY2017 (see Figures 1 and 2). includes $1.53 billion in FY2018 for programs solely devoted to civilian biodefense. The FY2018 proposed budget would 2 Health Security WATSON ET AL Biosecurity $1,529.3 (12%) Multi-Hazard and Preparedness $6,671.6 (54%) Radiological/Nuclear Security $2,476.6 (20%) Pandemic/Emerging Chemical Security Infectious Diseases $389.7 (3%) $1,386.2 (11%) Figure 1. FY2018 Federal Health Security Funding by Program Focus (in $millions) represent
Recommended publications
  • Compendium of the Findings of the OPCAST Pandemic Subgroup 12
    1 A Compendium of the Findings of the Obama PCAST Ad Hoc Subgroup on Pandemic Preparedness and Response December 23, 2020 Introduction A subset of the former members of President Obama’s Council of Advisors on Science and Technology (here OPCAST)—ten individuals who played particularly important roles in producing the six OPCAST reports between 2009 and 2016 that dealt with issues related to pandemic preparedness and response1—came together starting in March of this year to consider how insights from those studies might be combined with more recent research and current observations to develop suggestions about how the U.S. response to the COVID-19 pandemic could be improved. The Subgroup has produced six reports, addressing • the national strategic pandemic-response stockpile (May 20) • the role of contact tracing (June 18) • the role of public health data in controlling the spread of COVID-19 (July 28) • testing for the pathogen (August 18) • recommendations for the coming COVID-19 commission (September 21) • needs for improved epidemiological modeling (September 28) Each report was distributed, upon completion, to selected members of the Trump COVID-19 team and the Biden campaign staff, selected governors and members of Congress, selected public health experts outside government, and the media. The reports have also been posted on the OPCAST team’s website, http://opcast.org, together with a few opinion pieces based on them. In the current volume, we have assembled all six reports in full, preceded by a set of brief summaries. Four of the reports are followed by short updates taking account of developments since the reports first came out.
    [Show full text]
  • Aspectos Multidisciplinares Que Envolvem Direito, Gestão E Finanças Acerca Da Covid-19
    Coordenadores Alessandro Aveni Gustavo Javier Castro Silva Jonas Rodrigo Gonçalves ASPECTOS MULTIDISCIPLINARES QUE ENVOLVEM DIREITO, GESTÃO E FINANÇAS ACERCA DA COVID-19 1ª edição 2020 Editora Processus Alessandro Aveni, Gustavo Javier Castro Silva e Jonas Rodrigo Gonçalves. Aspectos multidisciplinares que envolvem Direito, gestão e finanças acerca da Covid-19. Coordenadores Alessandro Aveni, Gustavo Javier Castro Silva e Jonas Rodrigo Gonçalves. Diagramador e capista Danilo da Costa. Editor Jonas Rodrigo Gonçalves. Brasília: Editora Processus, 2020. 1ª edição 357 fls. ISBN: 978-65-88715-00-0 1.Covid-19. 2.Direito. 3.Gestão. 4.Finanças. I.Título. CDU 610 EQUIPE EDITORIAL Diretora Geral Prof. Claudine Fernandes de Araújo Diretor Acadêmico Prof. Dr. Gustavo Javier de Castro Silva, Faculdade Processus-DF, Brasil. Editor-CheFe Prof. MSc. Jonas Rodrigo Gonçalves, Faculdade Processus-DF, Brasil. Conselho editorial Prof. Dr. Aloísio Rucheinki, Universidade do Vale do Rio dos Sinos, Brasil. Prof. Dr. Arnaldo Santos Bastos, Universidade Federal de Goiás, Brasil. Profa. Dra. Caroline de Abreu Batista Claro, Universidade de Brasília, Brasil. Profa. Dra. Estefânia Naiara da Silva Lino, Universidade de Rio Verde, Brasil. Prof. Dr. Gustavo Rabay Guerra, Universidade, Federal da Paraíba, Brasil. Prof. Dr. Henrique Smidt Simon, Universidade Euro-Americano, Brasil. Prof. Dr. José Eduardo Souza de Miranda, Universidade de Cantabria, Santander, Espanha. Prof. Dr. Márcio Petrocelli Paixão, Universidade Federal do Rio de Janeiro, Brasil Profa. Msc. Patrícia Spagnollo Parise, Universidade de Rio Verde, Brasil Prof. Dr. Rildo Mourão Ferreira, Universidade de Rio Verde Avaliadores Prof. Dr. Arthur Henrique de Pontes Regis, Universidade de Brasília, Brasil. Prof. Dr. Gustavo Javier Castro Silva, Faculdade Processus-DF, Brasil.
    [Show full text]
  • Mark B. Mcclellan, M.D., Ph.D. Duke University 100 Fuqua Drive Box 90120 Durham N.C
    CURRICULUM VITAE MARK B. MCCLELLAN, M.D., PH.D. DUKE UNIVERSITY 100 FUQUA DRIVE BOX 90120 DURHAM N.C. 27708 EDUCATION: 1993 Ph.D., Economics, Massachusetts Institute of Technology 1992 M.D., Harvard-MIT Division of Health Science and Technology, cum laude 1991 M.P.A., Regulatory Policy, Kennedy School of Government, Harvard University 1985 B.A., English/Biology, University of Texas, Austin, summa cum laude CLINICAL TRAINING: 1996 Diplomate, American Board of Internal Medicine 1993 – 1995 Resident in Internal Medicine, Department of Medicine, Brigham and Women's Hospital EMPLOYMENT: CURRENT POSTION 2015 - Present Director of the Duke-Margolis Center for Health Policy 2015 - Present Robert J. Margolis MD Professor of Business, Medicine and Health Policy 2015 - Present Faculty Member & Sr. Policy Advisor, University of Texas, Austin, Dell Medical School PREVIOUS POSITIONS 2007 – 2015 Senior Fellow in Economic Studies, Brookings Institution 2013 – 2015 Director, Initiatives on Value and Innovation in Health Care, Brookings Institution 2007 – 2013 Director, Engelberg Center for Health Care Reform, Brookings Institution 2006 – 2007 Visiting Senior Fellow, AEI-Brookings Joint Center for Regulatory Studies, American Enterprise Institute and the Brookings Institution 2004 – 2006 Administrator, Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services 2002 – 2004 Commissioner, U. S. Food and Drug Administration 2001 – 2002 Member, Council of Economic Advisers, and Senior Director for Health Care Policy, White House
    [Show full text]
  • Improving Pandemic Preparedness: Lessons from COVID-19
    Independent Task Force Report No. 78 Improving Pandemic Preparedness Lessons From COVID-19 Sylvia Mathews Burwell and Frances Fragos Townsend, Chairs Thomas J. Bollyky and Stewart M. Patrick, Project Directors Independent Task Force Report No. 78 Improving Pandemic Preparedness Lessons From COVID-19 Sylvia Mathews Burwell and Frances Fragos Townsend, Chairs Thomas J. Bollyky and Stewart M. Patrick, Project Directors The Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) is an independent, nonpartisan membership organization, think tank, and publisher dedicated to being a resource for its members, government officials, business executives, journalists, educators and students, civic and religious leaders, and other interested citizens in order to help them better understand the world and the foreign policy choices facing the United States and other countries. Founded in 1921, CFR carries out its mission by maintaining a diverse membership, with special programs to promote interest and develop expertise in the next generation of foreign policy leaders; convening meetings at its headquarters in New York and in Washington, DC, and other cities where senior government officials, members of Congress, global leaders, and prominent thinkers come together with Council members to discuss and debate major international issues; supporting a Studies Program that fosters independent research, enabling CFR scholars to produce articles, reports, and books and hold roundtables that analyze foreign policy issues and make concrete policy recommendations; publishing Foreign Affairs, the preeminent journal on international affairs and U.S. foreign policy; sponsoring Independent Task Forces that produce reports with both findings and policy prescriptions on the most important foreign policy topics; and providing up-to- date information and analysis about world events and American foreign policy on its website, CFR.org.
    [Show full text]
  • Of Critical Importance' 27 April 2020, by Katie Pearce
    Massive U.S. contact tracing effort 'of critical importance' 27 April 2020, by Katie Pearce countries have already deployed extensive contact tracing, including New Zealand, Iceland, Taiwan, Singapore, and South Korea. The United States, too, is gradually ramping up efforts—including a new hiring surge funded by the CDC, a Google/Apple tech partnership, and a statewide program in Massachusetts. In New York, Gov. Andrew Cuomo is working with Bloomberg Philanthropies to launch a massive contact tracing program that will include online training from the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health. "In the absence of a vaccine, we think this is really the big public health tool we have to control Credit: CC0 Public Domain transmission of COVID-19," says Crystal Watson, a lead author of the new report and assistant professor in the Bloomberg School. "We need to push hard for this." Before the United States can reopen safely, a new workforce at least 100,000 strong should be in The report acknowledges that a contact tracing place to trace the contacts of people diagnosed effort of this magnitude—"and of this critical and with COVID-19, according to a report from the historical importance for the functioning and Johns Hopkins Center for Health Security and reopening of society"—is without precedent. In an other experts. interview with the Hub, Watson offered more insight on the significance of this approach and the A long-used public health tool, contact tracing aims challenges ahead. to break the chain of transmission of a contagious disease by identifying and alerting those who may Is contact tracing on the scale the report have been exposed to it.
    [Show full text]
  • April17presserslides.Pdf
    100 120 140 160 20 40 60 80 0 Gallatin County COVID19 Cases COVID19 County Gallatin 3/13/2020 3/14/2020 3/15/2020 3/16/2020 3/17/2020 3/18/2020 3/19/2020 3/20/2020 3/21/2020 3/22/2020 3/23/2020 3/24/2020 3/25/2020 3/26/2020 3/27/2020 3/28/2020 3/29/2020 3/30/2020 3/31/2020 4/1/2020 – 4/2/2020 4/3/2020 as of April 17, 2020 4/4/2020 4/5/2020 4/6/2020 4/7/2020 4/8/2020 4/9/2020 4/10/2020 4/11/2020 4/12/2020 4/13/2020 4/14/2020 4/15/2020 4/16/2020 142 4/17/2020 Gallatin County Cases by Age and Gender – as of April 17, 2020 Gallatin County COVID19 Cases by Age Gallatin County COVID19 Cases by Gender 40 % Female % Male 35 30 25 20 49.3% 50.7% 15 10 5 0 100 120 20 40 60 80 0 Gallatin County Testing Data Data Gallatin County Testing 2/7/2020 2/9/2020 2/11/2020 2/13/2020 2/15/2020 2/17/2020 2/19/2020 2/21/2020 day Per Tests and # of Positive Day Per Tested # of People 2/23/2020 # of People Tested Daily Tested # of People 2/25/2020 2/27/2020 2/29/2020 3/2/2020 COVID19 County Gallatin 3/4/2020 3/6/2020 3/8/2020 3/10/2020 # of GC Positive Tests Daily 3/12/2020 3/14/2020 – 3/16/2020 as of April 3/18/2020 3/20/2020 3/22/2020 3/24/2020 3/26/2020 3/28/2020 3/30/2020 15, 4/1/2020 4/3/2020 2020 4/5/2020 4/7/2020 4/9/2020 4/11/2020 4/13/2020 4/15/2020 COVID19 Data MT Issues Stay at Home Order and Closure of Non- essential Business Planning for Re-opening Federal Social Distancing Guidance • Guidance issued by the CDC (and endorsed by President Trump) extended social distancing guidelines until April 30.
    [Show full text]
  • National Coronavirus Response a ROAD MAP to REOPENING
    National Coronavirus Response A ROAD MAP TO REOPENING Scott Gottlieb, MD Caitlin Rivers, PhD, MPH Mark B. McClellan, MD, PhD Lauren Silvis, JD Crystal Watson, DrPh, MPH MARCH 28, 2020 AMERICAN ENTERPRISE INSTITUTE National Coronavirus Response A ROAD MAP TO REOPENING Scott Gottlieb, MD Caitlin Rivers, PhD, MPH Mark B. McClellan, MD, PhD Lauren Silvis, JD Crystal Watson, DrPh, MPH MARCH 28, 2020 AMERICAN ENTERPRISE INSTITUTE AMERICAN ENTERPRISE INSTITUTE Contents Executive Summary ......................................................................................... 1 Slow the Spread in Phase I ........................................................................................................................1 State-by-State Reopening in Phase II ......................................................................................................2 Establish Immune Protection and Lift Physical Distancing During Phase III ...............................2 Rebuild Our Readiness for the Next Pandemic in Phase IV ...............................................................2 Phase I: Slow the Spread ..................................................................................3 Goals ..............................................................................................................................................................3 Thresholds for Action ................................................................................................................................3 Trigger to Begin to “Slow the Spread” ..................................................................................................3
    [Show full text]
  • Improving Pandemic Preparedness Lessons from COVID-19
    Independent Task Force Report No. 78 Improving Pandemic Preparedness Lessons from COVID-19 Sylvia Mathews Burwell and Francis Fragos Townsend, Chairs Thomas J. Bollyky and Stewart M. Patrick, Project Directors ENDNOTES 1. Michael Levenson, “Scale of China’s Wuhan Shutdown Is Believed to Be Without Precedent,” New York Times, January 22, 2020, http://nytimes.com/2020/01/22/world/ asia/coronavirus-quarantines-history.html; and Emily Feng, “China Has Built Over 20 Mass Quarantine Centers for Coronavirus Patients in Wuhan,” NPR, February 24, 2020, http://npr.org/2020/02/24/808995258/ china-has-built-over-20-mass-quarantine-centers-for-coronavirus-patients-in-wuha. 2. Ben Casselman, “A Collapse That Wiped Out 5 Years of Growth, With No Bounce in Sight,” New York Times, July 30, 2020, http://nytimes.com/2020/07/30/business/ economy/q2-gdp-coronavirus-economy.html. 3. “Coronavirus ‘Could Cost Global Economy $8.8tn’ Says ADB,” BBC, May 15, 2020, http://bbc.com/news/business-52671992. 4. Jennifer B. Nuzzo et al., “Preparedness for a High-Impact Respiratory Pathogen Pandemic,” Johns Hopkins University Center for Health Security, September 2019, http://apps.who.int/gpmb/assets/thematic_papers/tr-6.pdf. 5. Katherine F. Smith et al., “Global Rise in Human Infectious Disease Outbreaks,” Journal of Royal Society Interface 11, no. 101 (2014): 1–6, http://doi.org/10.1098/ rsif.2014.0950. 6. Kate E. Jones et al., “Global Trends in Emerging Infectious Diseases,” Nature 451 (2008): 990–93, http://doi.org/10.1038/nature06536. 7. “World Health Report: Global Public Health Threats in the 21st Century,” World Health Organization, 2007, http://who.int/whr/2007/overview/en/index1.html.
    [Show full text]
  • Changes Needed in the US Approach to COVID-19
    Resetting Our Response: Changes Needed in the US Approach to COVID-19 Authors Caitlin Rivers, PhD, MPH Senior Scholar, Johns Hopkins Center for Health Security Assistant Professor, Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health Elena Martin, MPH Analyst, Johns Hopkins Center for Health Security Research Associate, Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health Crystal Watson, DrPH, MPH Senior Scholar, Johns Hopkins Center for Health Security Assistant Professor, Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health Monica Schoch-Spana, PhD Senior Scholar, Johns Hopkins Center for Health Security Senior Scientist, Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health Anita Cicero, JD Deputy Director, Johns Hopkins Center for Health Security Senior Scientist, Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health Tom Inglesby, MD Director, Johns Hopkins Center for Health Security Professor, Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health Suggested citation: Rivers C, Martin E, Watson C, Schoch-Spana M, Cicero A, Inglesby T. Resetting Our Response: Changes Needed in the US Approach to COVID-19. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins Center for Health Security; 2020. ©2020 The Johns Hopkins University. All rights reserved. Resetting Our Response: Changes Needed in the US Approach to COVID-19 2 Summary of Recommendations 1. Encourage and, where appropriate, mandate nonpharmaceutical interventions. 2. Close higher risk activities and settings in jurisdictions where the epidemic is worsening and reinstitute stay-at-home orders where healthcare systems are in crisis. 3. Bolster PPE supply chains and stockpiles and make information about the PPE manufacturing base and supply chain publicly available, with the goal of expanding PPE availability. 4. Bolster test supply chains, plan for shortages, and collaborate with states and commercial laboratories to expand capacity and improve test turnaround times.
    [Show full text]
  • JULIE WILLEMS VAN DIJK and NICOLE SAFAR, in Their Official Capacities As Executives of Wisconsin Department of Health Services, Respondents
    STATE OF WISCONSIN I N S U P R E M E C O U R T Case No. 20AP765-OA WISCONSIN LEGISLATURE, Petitioners, v. Secretary-Designee ANDREA PALM, JULIE WILLEMS VAN DIJK and NICOLE SAFAR, In Their Official Capacities as Executives of Wisconsin Department of Health Services, Respondents. AFFIDAVIT OF JULIE WILLEMS VAN DIJK IN SUPPORT OF RESPONDENTS’ RESPONSE TO PETITION FOR ORIGINAL ACTION STATE OF WISCONSIN ) ) ss. COUNTY OF DANE ) I, Julie Willems Van Dijk, being first duly sworn, on oath, states as follows: 1. I am the Deputy Secretary of the Wisconsin Department of Health Services (DHS). Since March 16, 2020, I have been the DHS leader of the unified command structure at the State Emergency Operations Center (SEOC). I have over 30 years of experience in the field of public health, including seven years as the Marathon County Health Officer. 2. SARS-CoV-2, the virus that causes coronavirus disease 2019 (“COVID-19”), represents a grave global health emergency with significant potential to produce a high number of deaths. DHS has listed SARS-CoV as a Category I communicable disease at Wis. Admin. Code ch. DHS 145, Appendix A. 3. Individuals with COVID-19 report a wide range of symptoms including fever, cough, shortness of breath or difficulty breathing, repeated shaking with chills, muscle pain, headache, fatigue, sore throat, nausea, vomiting, and diarrhea. 4. While most people with COVID-19 recover, infection can lead to severe disease requiring hospitalization, intensive care, and mechanical ventilation. The risks of severe complications are highest for older persons and individuals with pre-existing health conditions such as diabetes or cardiovascular disease.
    [Show full text]
  • COVID-19 and the US Criminal Justice System: Evidence for Public Health Measures to Reduce Risk October 2020
    COVID-19 and the US Criminal Justice System: Evidence for Public Health Measures to Reduce Risk October 2020 Prepared for Center for Public Health and Human Rights Authors from the Johns Hopkins Center for Health Security and the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health Department of Environmental Health and Engineering Crystal Watson, DrPH, MPH, Senior Scholar, Johns Hopkins Center for Health Security, and Assistant Professor, Department of Environmental Health and Engineering Kelsey Lane Warmbrod, MS, MPH, Analyst, Johns Hopkins Center for Health Security, and Research Associate, Department of Environmental Health and Engineering Rachel A. Vahey, MHS, Analyst, Johns Hopkins Center for Health Security, and Research Associate, Department of Environmental Health and Engineering Anita Cicero, JD, Deputy Director, Johns Hopkins Center for Health Security, and Senior Scientist, Department of Environmental Health and Engineering Thomas V. Inglesby, MD, Director, Johns Hopkins Center for Health Security, and Professor, Department of Environmental Health and Engineering Authors from the Center for Public Health and Human Rights, Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, and Johns Hopkins School of Medicine Chris Beyrer, MD, MPH, Desmond M. Tutu Professor in Public Health and Human Rights and Director, Center for Public Health and Human Rights at the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health Leonard Rubenstein, JD, LLM, Professor of the Practice, Center for Public Health and Human Rights at the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School
    [Show full text]
  • National Coronavirus Response a ROAD MAP to REOPENING
    National Coronavirus Response A ROAD MAP TO REOPENING Scott Gottlieb, MD Caitlin Rivers, PhD, MPH Mark B. McClellan, MD, PhD Lauren Silvis, JD Crystal Watson, DrPh, MPH MARCH 28, 2020 AMERICAN ENTERPRISE INSTITUTE National Coronavirus Response A ROAD MAP TO REOPENING Scott Gottlieb, MD Caitlin Rivers, PhD, MPH Mark B. McClellan, MD, PhD Lauren Silvis, JD Crystal Watson, DrPh, MPH MARCH 28, 2020 AMERICAN ENTERPRISE INSTITUTE AMERICAN ENTERPRISE INSTITUTE Contents Executive Summary ......................................................................................... 1 Slow the Spread in Phase I ........................................................................................................................1 State-by-State Reopening in Phase II ......................................................................................................2 Establish Immune Protection and Lift Physical Distancing During Phase III ...............................2 Rebuild Our Readiness for the Next Pandemic in Phase IV ...............................................................2 Phase I: Slow the Spread ..................................................................................3 Goals ..............................................................................................................................................................3 Thresholds for Action ................................................................................................................................3 Trigger to Begin to “Slow the Spread” ..................................................................................................3
    [Show full text]