An Emergency Preparedness Response to Opioid-Prescribing Enforcement Actions in Maryland, 2018-2019.

Federal and state enforcement authorities have increasingly intervened on the criminal overprescribing of opioids. However, little is known about the health effects these enforcement actions have on patients experiencing disrupted access to prescription opioids or medication-assisted treatment/medication for opioid use disorder. Simultaneously, opioid death rates have increased. In response, the Maryland Department of Health (MDH) has worked to coordinate mitigation strategies with enforcement partners (defined as any federal, state, or local enforcement authority or other governmental investigative authority). One strategy is a standardized protocol to implement emergency response functions, including rapidly identifying health hazards with real-time data access, deploying resources locally, and providing credible messages to partners and the public. From January 2018 through October 2019, MDH used the protocol in response to 12 enforcement actions targeting 34 medical professionals. A total of 9624 patients received Schedule II-V controlled substance prescriptions from affected prescribers under investigation in the 6 months before the respective enforcement action; 9270 (96%) patients were residents of Maryland. Preliminary data indicate fatal overdose events and potential loss of follow-up care among the patient population experiencing disrupted health care as a result of an enforcement action. The success of the strategy hinged on endorsement by leadership; the establishment of federal, state, and local roles and responsibilities; and data sharing. MDH's approach, data sources, and lessons learned may support health departments across the country that are interested in conducting similar activities on the front lines of the opioid crisis.

COVID 19 and Nepal: Identification of Critical Public Health Measures.

The COVID-19 pandemic is unfolding at an unprecedented pace. The unprecedented threat provides an opportunity to emerge with robust health systems. Nepal has implemented several containment measures such as Rapid Response Team formulation; testing; isolation; quarantine; contact tracing;surveillance, establishment of COVID-19 Crisis Management Centre and designation of dedicated hospitals to gear up for the pandemic. The national public health emergency management mechanisms need further strengthening with the proactive engagement of relevant ministries; we need a strong, real-time national surveillance system and capacity building of a critical mass of health care workers; there is a need to further assess infection prevention and control capacity; expand the network of virus diagnostic laboratories in the private sector with adequate surge capacity;implement participatory community engagement interventions and plan for a phased lockdown exit strategy enabling sustainable suppression of transmission at low-level and enabling in resuming some parts of economic and social life.

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.

Emergency Preparedness, Resilience and Response (EPRR).

As an organisation, locality or nation, there is a growing need to respond to a wide range of incidents and emergencies that could affect health and the care of patients. Responses to both domestic and international incidents have shown that collaboration, understanding and joint responses across organisations have improved the outcome of those affected by incidents which impact on health. Emergency response is something that is of increasing importance and has been tested on multiple occasions during recent events in the UK. Regarding health, the aim is to respond rapidly and efficiently, reducing potential morbidity and mortality to the lowest possible level in a given circumstance. This paper discusses what is meant by EPRR (Emergency, Preparedness, Resilience and Response), types of potential incidents, how we collectively prepare for responding and what has been learnt during recent events. It concludes with an outline of some selected current activity and highlights the likelihood of increased cross-sector working in EPRR.

Summary of latest NHS England Emergency Preparedness Resilience and Response (EPRR) guidance.

The National Health Service (NHS) England Emergency Preparedness, Resilience and Response Framework exists to provide a structure by which NHS England and NHS-funded bodies prepare for and respond to a range of emergencies. This framework exists to ensure that in emergencies the NHS retains the capability to deliver appropriate care to patients. Rather than dealing with individual scenarios, the framework aims to maintain the adaptability and capacity to deal with a variety of emergencies, their consequences and guide recovery plans. This paper summarises this guidance and elucidates the reasoning and mechanisms by which this care will be facilitated and delivered.

How a major incident plan can be used in an acute healthcare setting.

All NHS Trusts face a diverse range of potential threats and disruptions that can overwhelm the delivery of their routine healthcare services. Major incidents range from significant infrastructure failure to responding to significant casualty numbers from natural disasters and malicious incidents. Major incident plans are one of the body of documents that support trusts and in this instance acute NHS trusts in emergency preparedness. Major incident plans can be used as a reference point for staff of all disciplines, that is, clinical and non-clinical. Major incident plans incorporate the requirements of the Civil Contingencies Act 2004 for NHS-funded providers to ensure trusts conduct risk assessments, emergency planning, cooperating with other organisations, and internal and external communication. This paper summarises some of the key aspects in the construction and the use of major incident plans in acute care trusts.

Judicial Opinions Arising from Emergency Preparedness, Response, and Recovery Activities.

Legal Perspectives is aimed at informing healthcare providers, emergency planners, public health practitioners, and other decision makers about important legal issues related to public health and healthcare preparedness and response. The articles describe these potentially challenging topics and conclude with the authors' suggestions for further action. The articles do not provide legal advice. Therefore, those affected by the issues discussed in this column should seek further guidance from legal counsel. Readers may submit topics of interest to the column's editor, Lainie Rutkow, JD, PhD, MPH, at lrutkow@jhu.edu. This article describes and analyzes the body of emergency preparedness, response, and recovery litigation that has arisen since the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks. Search terms were developed to identify judicial opinions related to emergency preparedness, response, and recovery activities. Using the Thomson Reuters Westlaw legal database, searches were conducted to collect judicial opinions related to disasters that occurred in the United States between September 11, 2001, and December 31, 2015. An electronic form was used for data abstraction. Cases that did not directly involve emergency response, preparedness, or recovery activities were excluded. Data were summarized with descriptive statistics. We identified 215 cases for data abstraction. Many of the cases stemmed from preparedness, response, and recovery activities related to hurricanes (57.7%) and terrorist attacks (16.7%). The most prevalent emergency response activities at issue were disaster mitigation (29.3%), disaster clean-up (21.9%), a defendant's duty to plan (14.4%), evacuation (12.6%), and conditions of incarceration (12.1%). Although it can be anticipated that litigation will arise out of all phases of disaster preparedness, response, and recovery, policymakers can anticipate that the most litigation will result from pre-event mitigation and post-event recovery activities, and allocate resources accordingly.

Funding Public Health Emergency Preparedness in the United States.

The historical precedents that support state and local leadership in preparedness for and response to disasters are in many ways at odds with the technical demands of preparedness and response for incidents affecting public health. New and revised laws and regulations, executive orders, policies, strategies, and plans developed in response to biological threats since 2001 address the role of the federal government in the response to public health emergencies. However, financial mechanisms for disaster response-especially those that wait for gubernatorial request before federal assistance can be provided-do not align with the need to prevent the spread of infectious agents or efficiently reduce the impact on public health. We review key US policies and funding mechanisms relevant to public health emergencies and clarify how policies, regulations, and resources affect coordinated responses.

The new CMS emergency preparedness final rule and its impact on healthcare in 2017.

The new CMS Final Rule on Emer- gency Preparedness will be a major change for hospitals and many other types of healthcare providers, the authors claim. One of the most im- portant changes for hospitals will be the requirement to do the Security Risk Assessments and matching Emergency Plans for each separate facility, every year, instead of only doing a consolidated risk assess- ment on all facilities in one report. Failure to comply could have a major and disastrous economic im- pact on a hospital or other health care facility. In this article they pro- vide information and access to re- sources for complying.

Improving Long-Term Care Facility Disaster Preparedness and Response: A Literature Review.

Long-term care facilities (LTCFs) and their residents are especially susceptible to disruptions associated with natural disasters and often have limited experience and resources for disaster planning and response. Previous reports have offered disaster planning and response recommendations. We could not find a comprehensive review of studied interventions or facility attributes that affect disaster outcomes in LTCFs and their residents. We reviewed articles published from 1974 through September 30, 2015, that studied disaster characteristics, facility characteristics, patient characteristics, or an intervention that affected outcomes for LTCFs experiencing or preparing for a disaster. Twenty-one articles were included in the review. All of the articles fell into 1 of the following categories: facility or disaster characteristics that predicted preparedness or response, interventions to improve preparedness, and health effects of disaster response, most often related to facility evacuation. All of the articles described observational studies that were heterogeneous in design and metrics. We believe that the evidence-based literature supports 6 specific recommendations for facilities, governmental agencies, health care communities and academia. These include integrated and coordinated disaster planning, staff training, careful consideration before governments order mandatory evacuations, anticipation of the increased medical needs of LTCF residents following a disaster, and the need for more outcomes research. (Disaster Med Public Health Preparedness. 2017;11:140-149).

Medicare and Medicaid Programs; Emergency Preparedness Requirements for Medicare and Medicaid Participating Providers and Suppliers. Final rule.

This final rule establishes national emergency preparedness requirements for Medicare- and Medicaid-participating providers and suppliers to plan adequately for both natural and man-made disasters, and coordinate with federal, state, tribal, regional, and local emergency preparedness systems. It will also assist providers and suppliers to adequately prepare to meet the needs of patients, residents, clients, and participants during disasters and emergency situations. Despite some variations, our regulations will provide consistent emergency preparedness requirements, enhance patient safety during emergencies for persons served by Medicare- and Medicaid-participating facilities, and establish a more coordinated and defined response to natural and man-made disasters.

Hospital Evacuation and Shelter-in-Place: Who Is Responsible for Decision-Making?

OBJECTIVE: During natural disasters, hospital evacuation may be necessary to ensure patient safety and care. We aimed to examine perceptions of stakeholders involved in these decisions throughout the Mid-Atlantic region of the United States during Hurricane Sandy in October 2012. METHODS: Semistructured interviews were conducted from March 2014 to February 2015 to characterize stakeholders' perceptions about authority and responsibility for acute care hospital evacuation/shelter-in-place decision-making in Delaware, Maryland, New Jersey, and New York during Hurricane Sandy. Interviews were recorded, transcribed, and thematically analyzed using a framework approach. RESULTS: We interviewed 42 individuals from 32 organizations. Hospital executives from all states reported having authority and responsibility for evacuation/shelter-in-place decision-making. In New York and Maryland, government officials stated that they could order hospital evacuation, whereas officials in Delaware and New Jersey said the government lacked enforcement capacity and therefore could not mandate evacuation. CONCLUSIONS: Among government officials, perceived authority for hospital evacuation/shelter-in-place decision-making was viewed as a prerequisite to ordering evacuation. When both hospital executives and government officials perceive themselves to possess decision-making authority, there is the potential for inaction. Future work should examine whether a single entity bearing ultimate responsibility or regional emergency response coalitions would improve decision-making. (Disaster Med Public Health Preparedness. 2016;10:320-324).

An Assessment of State Board of Pharmacy Legal Documents for Public Health Emergency Preparedness.

Objective. To estimate pharmaceutical emergency preparedness of US states and commonwealth territories. Methods. A quantitative content analysis was performed to evaluate board of pharmacy legal documents (ie, statutes, rules, and regulations) for the presence of the 2006 Rules for Public Health Emergencies (RPHE) from the National Association of Boards of Pharmacy's (NABP) Model Pharmacy Practice Act. Results. The median number of state-adopted RPHE was one, which was significantly less than the hypothesized value of four. Rule Two, which recommended policies and procedures for reporting disasters, was adopted significantly more than other RPHE. Ten states incorporated language specific to public health emergency refill dispensing, and among these, only six allowed 30-day refill quantities. Conclusion. Based on the 2006 NABP model rules, it does not appear that states are prepared to expedite an effective pharmaceutical response during a public health emergency. Boards of pharmacy should consider adding the eight RPHE to their state pharmacy practice acts.

Adapting to the Changing Climate: An Assessment of Local Health Department Preparations for Climate Change-Related Health Threats, 2008-2012.

BACKGROUND: Climate change poses a major public health threat. A survey of U.S. local health department directors in 2008 found widespread recognition of the threat, but limited adaptive capacity, due to perceived lack of expertise and other resources. METHODS: We assessed changes between 2008 and 2012 in local public health departments' preparedness for the public health threats of climate change, in light of increasing national polarization on the issue, and widespread funding cutbacks for public health. A geographically representative online survey of directors of local public health departments was conducted in 2011-2012 (N = 174; response rate = 50%), and compared to the 2008 telephone survey results (N = 133; response rate = 61%). RESULTS: Significant polarization had occurred: more respondents in 2012 were certain that the threat of local climate change impacts does/does not exist, and fewer were unsure. Roughly 10% said it is not a threat, compared to 1% in 2008. Adaptation capacity decreased in several areas: perceived departmental expertise in climate change risk assessment; departmental prioritization of adaptation; and the number of adaptation-related programs and services departments provided. In 2008, directors' perceptions of local impacts predicted the number of adaptation-related programs and services their departments offered, but in 2012, funding predicted programming and directors' impact perceptions did not. This suggests that budgets were constraining directors' ability to respond to local climate change-related health threats. Results also suggest that departmental expertise may mitigate funding constraints. Strategies for overcoming these obstacles to local public health departments' preparations for climate change are discussed.

Health Resources Priority and Allocations System (HRPAS). Interim final rule.

This interim final rule establishes standards and procedures by which the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) may require that certain contracts or orders that promote the national defense be given priority over other contracts or orders. This rule also sets new standards and procedures by which HHS may allocate materials, services, and facilities to promote the national defense. This rule will implement HHS's administration of priorities and allocations actions, and establish the Health Resources Priorities and Allocation System (HRPAS). The HRPAS will cover health resources pursuant to the authority under Section 101(c) of the Defense Production Act as delegated to HHS by Executive Order 13603. Priorities authorities (and other authorities delegated to the Secretary in E.O. 13603, but not covered by this regulation) may be re-delegated by the Secretary. The Secretary retains the authority for allocations.