A COVID-19 Lesson: Better Health Emergency Preparedness Standards Are Needed.

This article reports on an assessment of the value of 4 widely recognized standards of health sector emergency preparedness as predictors of effective preparedness for, and response to, the COVID-19 pandemic in the United States. The standards are sponsored by the National Health Security Preparedness Index (NHSPI), the Trust for America's Health (TFAH), the Emergency Management Accreditation Program (EMAP), and the Public Health Accreditation Board (PHAB). The measure of effectiveness was states' cumulative COVID-19 deaths per 100,000 population, from January 21, 2020, through January 20, 2022. Linear regression analysis found no statistically significant associations when controlling for 3 intervening variables. Cross-tabulation of states' preparedness status with their COVID-19 death rates found that high NHSPI and TFAH preparedness scores were generally, but not uniformly, associated with lower death rates. EMAP and PHAB accreditation had negligible association with low or high death rates. Lack of accreditation was associated with lower death rates. Higher prior state public health spending related to COVID-19 preparedness and higher state household income, an indicator of state economic strength, were associated with lower death rates. States with Democratic control of the legislative and executive branches of government generally had substantially lower death rates than states with Republican control. A science-based, practice-oriented research initiative is recommended to improve the predictive power of health sector preparedness standards and to enhance protection for US residents from large-scale future health threats.

Working mothers, breastfeeding, and the law.

Workplace barriers contribute to low rates of breastfeeding. Research shows that supportive state laws correlate with higher rates, yet by 2009, only 23 states had adopted any laws to encourage breastfeeding in the workplace. Federal law provided virtually no protection to working mothers until the 2010 enactment of the "reasonable break time" provision of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. This provision nonetheless leaves many working mothers uncovered, requires break time only to pump for (not feed) children younger than 1 year, and exempts small employers that demonstrate hardship. Public health professionals should explore ways to improve legal support for all working mothers wishing to breastfeed. Researchers should identify the laws that are most effective and assist policymakers in translating them into policy.

Needed: new authority to build public health system capacity for climate change health threats.

Strong public health system capacity is essential to protection against climate change health threats. Taken as a whole, the United States (U.S.) public health system lacks the requisite capacity. Unlike some other countries, the U.S. federal government and most state and local governments give low priority to strengthening public health capacity even though states and localities have begun investing billions of dollars in strategies to protect physical infrastructure from climate change-related severe weather events. I recommend enactment of new legislative authority specifically to develop public health capacity more rapidly and completely. Doing so can give new impetus to construction of, ultimately, a national public health system able to protect all those who reside in the U.S. from climate change health threats and to serve as a model for building such system capacity globally.

The scientific basis for law as a public health tool.

Systematic reviews are generating valuable scientific knowledge about the impact of public health laws, but this knowledge is not readily accessible to policy makers. We identified 65 systematic reviews of studies on the effectiveness of 52 public health laws: 27 of those laws were found effective, 23 had insufficient evidence to judge effectiveness, 1 was harmful, and 1 was found to be ineffective. This is a valuable, scientific foundation-that uses the highest relevant standard of evidence-for the role of law as a public health tool. Additional primary studies and systematic reviews are needed to address significant gaps in knowledge about the laws' public health impact, as are energetic, sustained initiatives to make the findings available to public policy makers.

A review of model public health laws.

Model public health laws (public health laws or private policies publicly recommended by at least 1 organization for adoption by government bodies or by specified private entities) are promoted as exemplary. We assessed the information sponsors of model public health laws provide on the methods used in developing their models and on their models' adoption and effectiveness. Through a systematic search, we identified 107 model public health laws published from 1907 to 2004. As of our assessment in 2005, only 18 (44%) of the sponsors presented any information on the procedures and evidence used in developing their model public health laws; information on adoption was provided for only 7 (6.5%) model laws. No sponsors provided information on model effectiveness. We recommend sponsors improve their disclosure of information about the methods and evidence used in developing model public health laws and about their adoption and effectiveness.

A legal framework for preventing cardiovascular diseases.

Cardiovascular diseases are major contributors to death, disability, disparities, and reduced quality of life in the United States. Successful prevention and control of these diseases requires a comprehensive approach applied across multiple public health settings and in all life stages. Individual lifestyle and behavior change, as well as the broader social, environmental, and policy changes that enable healthy lifestyles, are necessary. Legal strategies can be powerful tools in this endeavor. This review presents seven such strategies applicable at the federal, state, and local levels that can be employed by healthcare providers, public health practitioners, legislators, and other policymakers. They include direct regulation, economic incentives and disincentives, indirect regulation through private enforcement, government as information provider, government as direct provider of services, government as employer and landlord, and laws directed at other levels of government. These strategies may be accomplished through legislation or administrative changes in practices or procedures. Effective use of these strategies requires a broader understanding of the advantages and limitations of legal frameworks and the importance of tailoring strategies to local conditions and resources. Examples of key roles that health professionals can play in advancing such an understanding are presented.

Law as a tool for preventing chronic diseases: expanding the range of effective public health strategies.

Law, which is a fundamental element of effective public health policy and practice, played a crucial role in many of public health's greatest achievements of the 20th century. Still, conceptual legal frameworks for the systematic application of law to chronic disease prevention and control have not been fully recognized and used to address public health needs. Development and implementation of legal frameworks could broaden the range of effective public health strategies and provide valuable tools for the public health workforce, especially for state and local health department program managers and state and national policy makers. In an effort to expand the range of effective public health interventions, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention will work with its partners to explore the development of systematic legal frameworks as a tool for preventing chronic diseases and addressing the growing epidemic of obesity, heart disease, stroke, and other chronic diseases and their risk factors.

Building the legal foundation for an effective public health system.

Work has been underway nationally since the mid-1990s to equip state and community public health systems with the infrastructure needed to perform essential public health services. Key components of that infrastructure are a competent workforce, information and communication systems, health department and laboratory capacity, and legal authorities. As part of this transformative work, standards and assessment tools have been developed to measure the capacity and actual performance of public health systems. In addition, a number of states have examined the legal foundation for public health services and have revised and updated those authorities to improve their system's capacity in the context of evolving health challenges. Among those states are Nebraska, New Jersey, and Texas, all of which, beginning in 1999, have adopted dynamic new approaches to aligning public health's legal authorities with new missions and expectations for performance and accountability. This article describes the approaches that these three states have taken to strengthen their legal foundation for public health practice, to illuminate the perspectives legislators and health officials bring to the process, and to give decision makers in other states practical insight into the potential benefits of reviewing and restructuring public health's legal authorities. The underlying stimuli for the states' initiatives differed significantly, yet shared an important, common core. What they held in common was concern that outdated elements of the public health system and infrastructure hindrered delivery of essential public health services at the community level. Where they differed was in the type of tools they found most suitable for the job of rejuvenating those structures. The approaches taken, and the policy tools selected, reflect the unique health needs of each state, establish relationships among state and community health authorities and agencies, and provide guidance by elected and appointed policy makers. Each state continues to refine its approach as it gains experience with the new authorities.

What is public health legal preparedness?

Legal preparedness has gained recognition as a critical component of comprehensive public health preparedness for public health emergencies triggered by infectious disease outbreaks, natural disasters, chemical and radiologic disasters, terrorism and other causes. Public health practitioners and their colleagues in other disciplines can prepare for and respond to such an event effectively only if law is used along with other tools. The same is true for more conventional health threats. At first glance, public health legal preparedness may appear to be only a matter of having the right laws on the books. On closer examination, however, it is as complex as the field of public health practice itself. Public health legal preparedness has at least four core elements: laws (statutes, ordinances, regulations, and implementing measures); the competencies of those who make, implement, and interpret the laws; information critical to those multidisciplinary practitioners; and coordination across sectors and jurisdictions. The process of improving public health legal preparedness has begun in earnest with respect to potentially massive public health emergencies. Elected officials, public health, legal, and law enforcement practitioners, and national security organizations have contributed to initial benchmarks for the core elements. A few gaps in legal preparedness have been identified in the context of exercises, actual public health emergencies, and through more general assessments of public health preparedness conducted by CDC and the Department of Justice. While a strong beginning has been made, this work is incomplete. Redoubled effort is needed to define practical, measurable benchmarks or standards of legal preparedness, to identify and correct shortcomings, and to review findings from regular exercises and actual public health emergencies. There is great value in having this work move forward on two converging tracks, one defined by states and localities acting on their own initiative and the other shaped by the federal government as informed by state and local experience. The TOPOFF and Dark Winter exercises exemplify the grounded, case-based approach that teaches practical lessons about benchmarks, gaps, and steps to improve public health's legal preparedness. It goes without saying that action on both tracks should be taken by collaboratives whose membership includes representatives of the many different communities integral to the design and application of laws that affect the health of the public and the effectiveness of the public health system itself. Consistent with the concept of a public health or population health system with which we began this paper, participants in both tracks should include representatives of non-governmental bodies--community-based organizations, non-profit organizations active in disaster preparedness and response, and others. This paper presents a conceptual and analytic framework those groups may apply, one that is sufficiently broad to serve as an integrating schema across sectors and jurisdictions but also sufficiently flexible to accommodate the unique features of the many community and state public health systems which, together with federal partners, comprise the U.S. public health system, in sum, a framework responsive to the exigencies of our times, faithful to the guiding principles of American federalism, and conductive to a new standard of health protection for all our citizens.

The dimensions of public health law research.

Applied public health law research is an essential element for improving the legal foundation of public health practice. This article focuses on the proper scope and the methodology related to conducting public health law research. In addition to considering the issue of translating research into practice, the article provides overviews of three current public health law research projects and the lessons they provide for researchers.

Law, public health, and the diabetes epidemic.

The prevalence of new cases of diabetes continues to increase, and the health burden for those with diabetes remains high. This is attributable, in part, to low adoption of evidence-based interventions for diabetes prevention and control. Law is a critical tool for health improvement, yet assessments reported in this paper indicate that federal, state, and local laws give only partial support to guidelines and evidence-based interventions relevant to diabetes prevention and control. Public health practitioners and policymakers who are concerned with the human, fiscal, and economic costs of the epidemic can explore new ways to translate the evidence base for diabetes prevention and control into effective laws and policies.

The laboratory efficiencies initiative: partnership for building a sustainable national public health laboratory system.

Beginning in early 2011, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the Association of Public Health Laboratories launched the Laboratory Efficiencies Initiative (LEI) to help public health laboratories (PHLs) and the nation's entire PHL system achieve and maintain sustainability to continue to conduct vital services in the face of unprecedented financial and other pressures. The LEI focuses on stimulating substantial gains in laboratories' operating efficiency and cost efficiency through the adoption of proven and promising management practices. In its first year, the LEI generated a strategic plan and a number of resources that PHL directors can use toward achieving LEI goals. Additionally, the first year saw the formation of a dynamic community of practitioners committed to implementing the LEI strategic plan in coordination with state and local public health executives, program officials, foundations, and other key partners.