Scientific research and product development in the United States to address injuries from a radiation public health emergency.

The USA has experienced one large-scale nuclear incident in its history. Lessons learned during the Three-Mile Island nuclear accident provided government planners with insight into property damage resulting from a low-level release of radiation, and an awareness concerning how to prepare for future occurrences. However, if there is an incident resulting from detonation of an improvised nuclear device or state-sponsored device/weapon, resulting casualties and the need for medical treatment could overwhelm the nation's public health system. After the Cold War ended, government investments in radiation preparedness declined; however, the attacks on 9/11 led to re-establishment of research programs to plan for the possibility of a nuclear incident. Funding began in earnest in 2004, to address unmet research needs for radiation biomarkers, devices and products to triage and treat potentially large numbers of injured civilians. There are many biodosimetry approaches and medical countermeasures (MCMs) under study and in advanced development, including those to address radiation-induced injuries to organ systems including bone marrow, the gastrointestinal (GI) tract, lungs, skin, vasculature and kidneys. Biomarkers of interest in determining level of radiation exposure and susceptibility of injury include cytogenetic changes, 'omics' technologies and other approaches. Four drugs have been approved by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for the treatment of acute radiation syndrome (ARS), with other licensures being sought; however, there are still no cleared devices to identify radiation-exposed individuals in need of treatment. Although many breakthroughs have been made in the efforts to expand availability of medical products, there is still work to be done.

Public Health Requirements and Authorities in State Statutory Disaster Recovery Law: A Cross-Sectional Legal Assessment.

State statutory laws serve as a vital tool for public health entities to assist communities with recovery from disasters. However, no systematic assessment has examined the content of state law addressing disaster recovery or explored if and how the public health role is discussed in state law addressing disaster recovery. This study examined public health-related requirements, authorities, and activities in state disaster recovery laws. Nexis Uni, a legal database, was used to identify codified state statutory laws that authorize or require specific state or local public health entity actions, or set conditions where public health entity actions could be authorized/required, related to disaster recovery planning, implementation, or evaluation (ie, health disaster recovery laws). Disaster recovery laws were reviewed and coded to identify health-related requirements, authorities, and activities planned for recovery. Most states (n = 47) have disaster recovery laws, and 17 states were found to have 30 codified statutory health disaster recovery laws. Half (n = 15) of identified laws require a public health liaison to or representation on a recovery committee or other organization/body working on recovery planning or implementation activities. State disaster recovery laws have limited public health requirements, authorities, and activities. Further research is needed to assess the potential public health benefits of components of state law supporting public health involvement in disaster recovery. The development and dissemination of best practices or model laws and tools to provide opportunities for public health actors to inform recovery decision making may enhance the potential for health promotion during disaster recovery.

Towards a legal toolkit for disaster resilience and transformation.

Law is acknowledged as playing an important role in the growing field of disaster resilience. Still, a detailed inquiry into the possible relationships between law and disaster resilience remains largely absent from the discourse. This paper explores how legal thinking, approaches, and instruments can act as 'tools' in altering the nature and conditions of disaster risks. It looks at how state institutions can wield them and non-state actors employ them to participate in processes of change. Moving beyond a resilience literature that has tended to focus on law in terms of statutes, regulations, and human rights, this paper examines the ways in which legal reasoning, procedure, and substantive law can be instrumentalised to resist shocks, provoke incremental adjustments, or even foment transformational shifts in underlying risk conditions. It concludes by suggesting that law can offer both a breadth of insights for reconceptualising how power influences resilience and a number of instruments for challenging these power structures.

Maintaining adequate donations and a sustainable blood supply: Lessons learned.

BACKGROUND: The availability of a safe blood supply is a key component of transfusion medicine. A decade of decreased blood use, decreased payment for products, and a dwindling donor base have placed the sustainability of the US blood supply at risk. STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS: A literature review was performed for blood center (BC) and hospital disaster management, chronically transfusion-dependent diseases, and appropriate use of group O-negative red blood cells (RBCs), and the Choosing Wisely campaign. The aim was to identify current practice and to make recommendations for BC and hospital actions. RESULTS: While BCs are better prepared to handle disasters than after the 9/11 attacks, messaging to the public remains difficult, as donors often do not realize that blood transfused during a disaster was likely collected before the event. BCs and transfusion services should participate in drafting disaster response plans. Hospitals should maintain inventories adequate for patients in the event supply is disrupted. Providing specialty products for transfusion-dependent patients can strain collections, lead to increased use of group O RBCs, and create logistical inventory challenges for hospitals. The AABB Choosing Wisely initiative addresses overuse of blood components to optimally use this precious resource. Group O-negative RBCs should be transfused only to patients who truly need them. CONCLUSIONS: Collecting and maintaining a blood supply robust enough to handle disasters and transfusion-dependent patients in need of specialty products is challenging. Collaboration of all parties should help to optimize resources, ensure appropriate collections, improve patient care, and ultimately result in a robust, sustainable blood supply.

Beyond SARS-CoV-2: Lessons That African Governments Can Apply in Preparation for Possible Future Epidemics.

Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) has placed unprecedented pressure on healthcare systems, even in advanced economies. While the number of cases of SARS-CoV-2 in Africa compared to other continents has so far been low, there are concerns about under-reporting, inadequate diagnostic tools, and insufficient treatment facilities. Moreover, proactiveness on the part of African governments has been under scrutiny. For instance, issues have emerged regarding the responsiveness of African countries in closing international borders to limit trans-continental transmission of the virus. Overdependence on imported products and outsourced services could have contributed to African governments' hesitation to shut down international air and seaports. In this era of emerging and re-emerging pathogens, we recommend that African nations should consider self-sufficiency in the health sector as an urgent priority, as this will not be the last outbreak to occur. In addition to the Regional Disease Surveillance Systems Enhancement fund (US$600 million) provided by the World Bank for strengthening health systems and disease surveillance, each country should further establish an epidemic emergency fund for epidemic preparedness and response. We also recommend that epidemic surveillance units should create a secure database of previous and ongoing pandemics in terms of aetiology, spread, and treatment, as well as financial management records. Strategic collection and analysis of data should also be a central focus of these units to facilitate studies of disease trends and to estimate the scale of requirements in preparation and response to any future pandemic or epidemic.

Hurricane Evacuation Laws in Eight Southern U.S. Coastal States - December 2018.

National Preparedness month is observed every September as a public service reminder of the importance of personal and community preparedness for all events; it coincides with the peak of the hurricane season in the United States. Severe storms and hurricanes can have long-lasting effects at all community levels. Persons who are prepared and well-informed are often better able to protect themselves and others (1). Major hurricanes can devastate low-lying coastal areas and cause injury and loss of life from storm surge, flooding, and high winds (2). State and local government entities play a significant role in preparing communities for hurricanes and by evacuating coastal communities before landfall to reduce loss of life from flooding, wind, and power outages (3). Laws can further improve planning and outreach for catastrophic events by ensuring explicit statutory authority over evacuations of communities at risk (4). State evacuation laws vary widely and might not adequately address information and communication flows to reach populations living in disaster-prone areas who are at risk. To understand the range of evacuation laws in coastal communities that historically have been affected by hurricanes, a systematic policy scan of the existing laws supporting hurricane evacuation in eight southern coastal states (Alabama, Florida, Georgia, Louisiana, Mississippi, North Carolina, South Carolina, and Texas) was conducted. After conducting a thematic analysis, this report found that all eight states have laws to execute evacuation orders, traffic control (egress/ingress), and evacuation to shelters. However, only four of the states have laws related to community outreach, delivery of public education programs, and public notice requirements. The findings in this report suggest a need for authorities in hurricane-prone states to review how to execute evacuation policies, particularly with respect to community outreach and communication to populations at risk. Implementation of state evacuation laws and policies that support hurricane evacuation management can help affected persons avoid harm and enhance community resiliency (5). Newly emerging and re-emerging infectious diseases, such as SARS-CoV-2, the virus that causes coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), have and will continue to additionally challenge hurricane evacuations.

Broadening the Mandate of the Incident Command System to Address Community Mental and Behavioral Health Effects as Part of the Federal Response to Disasters.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: In the United States, the Federal Incident Command System (ICS) directs response to major oil spills. Its initial imperative is to prevent immediate impacts on human health and safety. Subsequently, the ICS primarily turns its attention to environmental concerns, including considering vulnerable ecosystems. There is a growing body of evidence that disasters such as major oil spills lead to adverse psychosocial effects; yet, preventing such effects has not been formally incorporated into ICS disaster mitigation considerations. RECENT FINDINGS: Community mental and behavioral effects are increasingly recognized as a significant impact of disasters. Standardized ecosystem analytical frameworks are key to ICS responses to its mandate for environmental protection. Similar frameworks have only begun to be developed for mental and behavioral effects. Providing the ICS with a formal mandate would likely lead to the prevention of community mental and behavioral effects being more systematically incorporated into ICS disaster responses.

Chemical-Biological Terrorism and Its Impact on Children.

Children are potential victims of chemical or biological terrorism. In recent years, children have been victims of terrorist acts such as the chemical attacks (2017-2018) in Syria. Consequently, it is necessary to prepare for and respond to the needs of children after a chemical or biological attack. A broad range of public health initiatives have occurred since the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001. However, in many cases, these initiatives have not ensured the protection of children. Since 2001, public health preparedness has broadened to an all-hazards approach, in which response plans for terrorism are blended with those for unintentional disasters or outbreaks (eg, natural events such as earthquakes or pandemic influenza or man-made catastrophes such as a hazardous-materials spill). In response to new principles and programs that have evolved over the last decade, this technical report supports the accompanying update of the American Academy of Pediatrics 2006 policy statement "Chemical-Biological Terrorism and its Impact on Children." The roles of the pediatrician and public health agencies continue to evolve, and only their coordinated readiness and response efforts will ensure that the medical and mental health needs of children will be met successfully. In this document, we will address chemical and biological incidents. Radiation disasters are addressed separately.

Legal Rules for the Response and Recuperation Before the Phenomenon of El Niño Costero, Peru, 2017.

OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to identify regulations that were established and implemented as an emergency disaster response to intense rain and floods generated by the El Niño coastal phenomenon. METHODS: A search was conducted for the legal norms approved and published between December 1, 2016 and December 31, 2017, in El Peruano, Peru's official newspaper. Twenty legal norms involved disaster emergency response, rehabilitation, and the reconstruction of the affected regions. RESULTS: Forty-six legal norms were identified, of which 41% were aimed at the declaration of emergencies and alerts, 22% to facilitate the management of economic resources, and 13% for coordination actions. Sixty-two percent of the approved standards were set for the regional level, 22% for the national level, 7% for the municipal level, and the remaining 10% corresponded with more than 1 level of government. CONCLUSIONS: The actions during and after the El Niño coastal phenomenon required the approval of standards included in the legal framework of Peru's disaster risk management, as well as a large number of unforeseen standards to address existing regulatory gaps and specific problems that occurred during this natural disaster.

Collaborating with Sovereign Tribal Nations to Legally Prepare for Public Health Emergencies.

Public health emergencies, including infectious disease outbreaks and natural disasters, are issues faced by every community. To address these threats, it is critical for all jurisdictions to understand how law can be used to enhance public health preparedness, as well as improve coordination and collaboration across jurisdictions. As sovereign entities, Tribal governments have the authority to create their own laws and take the necessary steps to prepare for, respond to, and recover from disasters and emergencies. Legal preparedness is a key component of public health preparedness. This article first explains legal preparedness and Tribal sovereignty and then describes the relationship between Tribal Nations, the US government, and states. Specific Tribal concerns with respect to emergency preparedness and the importance of coordination and collaboration across jurisdictions for emergency preparedness are discussed. Examples of collaborative efforts between Tribal and other governments to enhance legal preparedness are described.

Emergency Declarations for Public Health Issues: Expanding Our Definition of Emergency.

Emergency declarations are a vital legal authority that can activate funds, personnel, and material and change the legal landscape to aid in the response to a public health threat. Traditionally, declarations have been used against immediate and unforeseen threats such as hurricanes, tornadoes, wildfires, and pandemic influenza. Recently, however, states have used emergency declarations to address public health issues that have existed in communities for months and years and have risk factors such as poverty and substance misuse. Leaders in these states have chosen to use emergency powers that are normally reserved for sudden catastrophes to address these enduring public health issues. This article will explore emergency declarations as a legal mechanism for response; describe recent declarations to address hepatitis A and the opioid overdose epidemic; and seek to answer the question of whether it is appropriate to use emergency powers to address public health issues that are not traditionally the basis for an emergency declaration.