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.

Integrating safety, security, sustainability, and social responsibility principles into the U.S. bioeconomy.

Bioindustrial manufacturing is undergoing rapid expansion and investment and is seen as integral to nations' economic progress. Ensuring that bioindustrial manufacturing benefits society as the field expands is of critical, urgent importance. To better understand the industry's ethical trajectory and to shape policy, we explored the views of biotechnology leaders on four aspects of ethical and social responsibility-safety, security, social responsibility, and sustainability-what we have termed "4S principles." We identified policy actions governments and other stakeholders may take to maximize societal benefits in industrial biotechnology. IMPORTANCE: We analyzed biotech leaders' views on safety, security, social responsibility, and sustainability to recommend policies to maximize benefits and economic growth.

Shaping the future US bioeconomy through safety, security, sustainability, and social responsibility.

Biomanufacturing practitioners and researchers describe the norms that should govern the growing, global field, to include safety, security, sustainability, and social responsibility. These '4S Principles' should be broadly adopted so that the future of the field may provide the greatest benefits to society.

Assessing barriers, opportunities and future directions in health information sharing in humanitarian contexts: a mixed-method study.

OBJECTIVES: Health information sharing continues to play a crucial yet underappreciated role in humanitarian settings, to guide evidence-based disease prevention, detection and response. We conducted a mixed-methods study to investigate and analyse existing approaches and practices to health information sharing across humanitarian settings over the past 20 years. SETTING: We sought to identify studies from any self-described humanitarian setting worldwide, and also targeted experts familiar with refugee settings, specifically long-term camps in Kenya, Jordan and Bangladesh, for key informant interviews. PARTICIPANTS: The systematic review did not directly involve participants. The identified reports were largely retrospective and observational, and focused on populations affected by humanitarian crises worldwide. Participants in the key informant interviews were experts with either broad geographical expertise or direct experience in refugee camp settings. PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES: Our study was qualitative, and both the systematic review and analysis of key informant interview responses focused on identifying themes related to barriers, tools and recommendations used between stakeholders to share health information, with a particular emphasis on infectious disease and surveillance data. RESULTS: We identified logistical challenges, difficulties with data collection and a lack of health information sharing frameworks as the most significant barriers to health information sharing. The most important tools to health information sharing included the use of third-party technologies for data collection and standardisation, formalised health information sharing frameworks, establishment of multilevel coordination mechanisms and leadership initiatives which prioritised the sharing of health information. CONCLUSIONS: We conclude that health information sharing can be strengthened in humanitarian settings with improvements to existing frameworks, coordination and leadership tools, in addition to promotion of health information communication. Furthermore, specific recommendations for improving health information sharing should be pursued according to the nature of the humanitarian setting and the efficacy of the health system present.

Global Fund contributions to health security in ten countries, 2014-20: mapping synergies between vertical disease programmes and capacities for preventing, detecting, and responding to public health emergencies.

BACKGROUND: The Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria is a robust vertical global health programme. The extent to which vertical programmes financially support health security has not been investigated. We, therefore, endeavoured to quantify the extent to which the budgets of this vertical programme support health security. We believe this is a crucial area of work as the global community works to combine resources for COVID-19 response and future pandemic preparedness. METHODS: We examined budgets for work in Kenya, Uganda, Vietnam, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Guatemala, Guinea, India, Indonesia, Nigeria, and Sierra Leone from January, 2014 to December, 2020. These ten countries were selected because of the robustness of investments and the availability of data. Using the International Health Regulations Joint External Evaluation (JEE) tool as a framework, we mapped budget line items to health security capacities. Two researchers independently reviewed each budget and mapped items to the JEE. Budgets were then jointly reviewed until a consensus was reached regarding if an item supported health security directly, indirectly, or not at all. The budgets for the study countries were inputted into a single Microsoft Excel spreadsheet and line items that mapped to JEE indicators were scaled up to their respective JEE capacity. Descriptive analyses were then done to determine the total amount of money budgeted for activities that support health security, how much was budgeted for each JEE capacity, and how much of the support was direct or indirect. FINDINGS: The research team reviewed 37 budgets. Budgets totalled US$6 927 284 966, and $2 562 063 054 (37·0%) of this mapped to JEE capacities. $1 330 942 712 (19·2%) mapped directly to JEE capacities and $1 231 120 342 (17·8%) mapped indirectly to JEE capacities. Laboratory systems, antimicrobial resistance, and the deployment of medical countermeasures and personnel received the most overall budgetary support; laboratory systems, antimicrobial resistance, and workforce development received the greatest amount of direct budgetary support. INTERPRETATION: Over one-third of the Global Fund's work also supports health security and the organisation has budgeted more than $2 500 000 000 for activities that support health security in ten countries since 2014. Although these funds were not budgeted specifically for health security purposes, recognising how vertical programmes can synergistically support other global health efforts has important implications for policy related to health systems strengthening. FUNDING: Resolve to Save Lives: An Initiative of Vital Strategies.

Leveraging Partnerships to Maximize Global Health Security Improvements in Guinea, 2015-2019.

In response to the 2014-2016 West Africa Ebola virus disease (EVD) outbreak, a US congressional appropriation provided funds to the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) to support global health security capacity building in 17 partner countries, including Guinea. The 2014 funding enabled CDC to provide more than 300 deployments of personnel to Guinea during the Ebola response, establish a country office, and fund 11 implementing partners through cooperative agreements to support global health security engagement efforts in 4 core technical areas: workforce development, surveillance systems, laboratory systems, and emergency management. This article reflects on almost 4 years of collaboration between CDC and its implementing partners in Guinea during the Ebola outbreak response and the recovery period. We highlight examples of collaborative synergies between cooperative agreement partners and local Guinean partners and discuss the impact of these collaborations in strengthening the above 4 core capacities. Finally, we identify the key elements of the successful collaborations, including communication and information sharing as a core cooperative agreement activity, a flexible funding mechanism, and willingness to adapt to local needs. We hope these observations can serve as guidance for future endeavors seeking to establish strong and effective partnerships between government and nongovernment organizations providing technical and operational assistance.

Mapping stakeholders and policies in response to deliberate biological events.

BACKGROUND: Recent infectious disease outbreaks have brought increased attention to the need to strengthen global capacity to prevent, detect, and respond to natural biological threats. However, deliberate biological events also represent a significant global threat, but have received relatively little attention. While the Biological Weapons Convention provides a foundation for the response to deliberate biological events, the political mechanisms to respond to and recover from such an event are poorly defined. METHODS: We performed an analysis of the epidemiological timeline, the international policies triggered as a notional deliberate biological event unfolds, and the corresponding stakeholders and mandates assigned by each policy. FINDINGS: The results of this analysis identify a significant gap in both policy and stakeholder mandates: there is no single policy nor stakeholder mandate for leading and coordinating response activities associated with a deliberate biological event. These results were visualized using an open source web-based tool published at https://dbe.talusanalytics.com. INTERPRETATION: While there are organizations and stakeholders responsible for leading security or public health response, these roles are non-overlapping and are led by organizations not with limited interaction outside such events. The lack of mandates highlights a gap in the mechanisms available to coordinate response and a gap in guidance for managing the response. The results of the analysis corroborate anecdotal evidence from stakeholder meetings and highlight a critical need and gap in deliberate biological response policy.