BIOTERRORISM: Massachusetts emergency preparedness progress may be in jeopardy

Elizabeth Cooney: December 17, 2010

Almost 10 years after the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks and the anthrax mystery mailings, state public health departments have become better prepared to face emergencies, but a new report from a national health policy group says gains made by Massachusetts and many other states may be in danger. The state’s emergency preparedness chief said the findings do not reflect current capacity.
The Trust for America’s Health and the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation compiled scores for the 50 states based on how well they prevent, identify, and respond to new disease outbreaks, threats of bioterrorism, and natural disasters. Massachusetts, regarded as the birthplace of public health, scored six out of a possible 10 points. Only two states -- Iowa and Montana -- scored lower, with five points.
Like many other states, Massachusetts has seen cuts to its public health budget, from fiscal 2008-2009 to 2009-2010, which the report’s authors link to poorer readiness. The state also fell short on how it communicated with staff during emergency exercises, developing incident reports within 60 days, and rapidly identifying and submitting results of testing for foodborne diseases caused by e. coli contamination.
“That was a snapshot of our capacity at that time but it doesn’t really reflect the changes to programs we made since then,” Mary Clark, director of the Massachusetts Emergency Preparedness Bureau, said in an interview. The report looked at 2007 and 2008, which she says is outdated.
The four issues on which the state did not meet the report’s standards were based on incomplete information or have been rectified, she said. Although the state’s public health budget has been cut, the legislature has funded emergency preparedness separately. The state now meets the two criteria for staff notification and incident reporting. And a better system is now in place for reporting foodborne illness test results to the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
Rhode Island also scored six out of 10 points. Maine did slightly better with a score of seven out of 10. Connecticut, New Hampshire, and Vermont led New England with eight out of 10 points. Only Maine and New Hampshire had stable or increased funding for public health.
Clark said she sees a continued commitment to public health preparedness in Massachusetts and other states, as shown by their response to the H1N1 flu pandemic last year.
“It wasn’t as severe as it could have been. Despite the issues around vaccine availability and timeliness, Massachusetts, for example, had one of the highest rates of vaccination of all of the states in the US,” she said. “The ability to do that was based on emergency preparedness work done at the local and state level in the years since 2001.”
http://www.boston.com/news/health/blog/2010/12/mass_emergency.html