
Preparing for Health Emergencies: Prevention is More Cost Effective than Response

Some of the nation’s top health security experts delivered a
blunt message to lawmakers on Capitol Hill this week: It costs a lot less to
adequately fund prevention and preparedness programs up front than it does to
respond when a disease outbreak turns into a crisis.
“Investing in
preparedness before an emergency reduces the cost of response,” Paul Petersen,
director of the Emergency Preparedness Program at the State of Tennessee
Department of Health, said, noting that state and local public health
departments are uniquely positioned to respond first in the event of a crisis.
Peterson was joined at the congressional seminar by experts
from the Johns Hopkins Center for Health Security, other local public health
officials, and NTI’s senior director for global biological policy and programs,
Dr. Elizabeth (Beth) Cameron. The event was sponsored by Hopkins and the
non-profit, non-partisan Trust for America’s Health.
Crystal Watson, a senior associate at Johns Hopkins Center
for Health Security, said the administration’s proposed health security funding
levels for fiscal year 2018 represent a 9% overall reduction, including a 2%
reduction for radiological and nuclear security.
Local officials talked about what such reductions would mean
for their communities. “The challenges we have around West Nile Virus and Zika
have really been on our radar,” said Umair Shah, executive director of the Harris
County, Texas Public Health Department. He noted that a reduction in resources
does not lead to a reduction in the department’s responsibility to respond to
health security threats.
Beyond the United States, “every country in the world needs
to have a basic level of preparedness,” said NTI’s Cameron. “Epidemics,
whether intentional, accidental or naturally occurring can cost thousands to millions of lives
and billions of dollars. Prevention saves lives and averts political and
economic insecurity.”
The majority of the discussion addressed naturally occurring
(though still serious and deadly) outbreaks and epidemics, but Cameron reminded
the group that “the next epidemic could be caused by a bio-terrorist attack.”
The Nuclear Threat Initiative is working to help prevent
terrorists from acquiring material for weapons of mass destruction and
disruption, including bioweapons.
Learn more about our work on this issue, and other
biosecurity topics here.
Stay Informed
Sign up for our newsletter to get the latest on nuclear and biological threats.
More on Risky Business

Improving Biosecurity with A Three-legged Stool Approach
A pandemic is not a once in a century event, and the international community must prepare now for the next one. It is essential the international community strike a balance between fostering and supporting beneficial AIxBio innovation while guarding against accidental or deliberate misuse of these tools.

The Private Sector’s Role in Advancing Global Health Security
Through evidence-based investments in capacity building and the establishment of biosecurity best practices for life science research, the private sector can play a critical role in strengthening biosecurity and advancing pandemic preparedness.

“The World is Watching”: Dr. Luciana Borio on the U.S. Response to Bird Flu
Biodefense and infectious disease specialist and NTI board member Luciana Borio, M.D. on the challenges, opportunities, and priorities for marshalling an effective response to H5N1 bird flu.