ShareThis Page
Even before Ebola contained, U.S. looks to next health crisis |

Even before Ebola contained, U.S. looks to next health crisis

The Associated Press

WASHINGTON — The next Ebola or the next SARS. Maybe even the next HIV. Even before the Ebola epidemic in West Africa is brought under control, public health officials are girding for the next health disaster.

“It’s really urgent that we address the weak links and blind spots around the world,” said Dr. Tom Frieden, director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. “Ebola is a powerful reminder that a health threat anywhere can affect us.”

Ebola sprang from one of those blind spots, in an area that lacks the health systems needed to detect an outbreak before it becomes a crisis. Now, the Obama administration has requested $600 million for the CDC to implement what it calls the Global Health Security Agenda, working with an international coalition to shore up disease detection in high-risk countries and guard against the next contagion.

There’s little doubt there will be a next time. Just in recent years, the world has had bird flu sicken people in Southeast Asia, the respiratory killer SARS spread from China, the 2009 flu pandemic, growing threats from antibiotic-resistant germs and SARS’ new cousin in the Middle East named MERS.

And what if the next bug spills across borders even more easily than Ebola?

If bird flu ever mutates to spread between people, “we better look out. It will make Ebola look like a picnic,” Sen. Tom Harkin, D-Iowa, warned a recent Senate Appropriations Committee as he questioned whether $600 million was enough to do the job.

After all, less than 20 percent of countries have reported meeting World Health Organization requirements showing they are adequately prepared to respond to emerging infectious threats.

The Obama administration kicked off the global health security project in February at a White House meeting with representatives of more than two dozen countries, unaware that Ebola was quietly brewing in Guinea. Additional countries signed on in later meetings in Finland and Indonesia, and again at the White House in September, where President Obama declared the world must “make sure we’re not caught flat-footed” again.

For its part in the international collaboration, the United States plans to assist at least 30 countries during the next five years to bolster local disease prevention and monitoring, improve laboratory diagnosis of pathogens, and strengthen emergency response to outbreaks.

Consider Uganda, where in 2010 a lack of a good laboratory system was one reason it took “a shockingly long” 40 days to determine a mysterious outbreak was yellow fever, said CDC scientist Jeff Borchert.

Last year, CDC began a pilot project to improve Uganda’s disease detection by piggybacking on a small program that tested babies born to HIV-positive mothers. Now, in a larger swath of the country, motorcycles race samples from sick patients to provincial capitals, where they’re shipped overnight to a central lab to test for a variety of diseases. The health ministry also set up an emergency operations center to oversee potential outbreaks.

In March, Uganda’s new system proved itself, Borchert said, as the country fought an outbreak of nearly 200 cases of meningitis, using that network for testing of patients in remote areas. And last month, in an another example of its overall preparedness, Ugandan officials rapidly tracked down contacts of a health worker who died of Marburg virus, an Ebola relative, a case that fortunately didn’t spread.

CDC has long trained public health workers in various countries to be disease detectives, but the international collaboration is supposed to be more comprehensive. Even before receiving any new funding, CDC started some additional small projects in countries such as India, Thailand, Jordan, Vietnam and Georgia to expand outbreak-fighting capabilities.

Then came Ebola. While the outbreak stalled work on broader global health security, it increased awareness of the ripple effect that one unprepared country can have.

Lawmakers want to know whether the United States will leave Ebola-ravaged Liberia, Sierra Leone and Guinea with health systems more capable of responding to outbreaks.

“Liberia is a country where they tell me that their electricity output is such that it would have trouble powering the Jumbotron at Dallas stadium,” said Sen. John Boozman, R-Ark. “Is this going to be something that we put in and it’s going to be an ongoing cost for us, you know, forever?”

CDC will expand its Ebola-specific work, such as training rapid response teams to investigate cases, “so they’re better able to detect and respond to not only Ebola, but other pathogens,” said Dr. Jordan Tappero, CDC’s director of global health protection. “It’s our intention to be there for the long-term to really build that public health capacity.”

Learning to tackle one disease can pay off against another: Nearby Nigeria beat back Ebola thanks in part to its polio-fighting program, which included labs and CDC-trained disease detectives who quickly switched gears to the new threat.

Scary outbreaks often spark calls for better global preparedness that fade as the disease does.

“We should avoid a cycle in which we let our guard down once the immediate public health crisis passes,” Rep. Henry Waxman, D-Calif., said last week.

Frieden offered hindsight: “The world would be a very different place today if Liberia, Guinea and Sierra Leone had had those systems in place a year ago. They could have contained this outbreak.”

TribLIVE commenting policy

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using you agree to our Terms of Service.

We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.

While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.

We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers

We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.

We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.

We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.

We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.