Welcome Expert Panel on Isolation and Quarantine June 2-3, 2009 1.
-
Upload
stanley-french -
Category
Documents
-
view
215 -
download
0
Transcript of Welcome Expert Panel on Isolation and Quarantine June 2-3, 2009 1.
Welcome
Expert Panel on Isolation and QuarantineJune 2-3, 2009
1
Meeting Goals and ObjectivesGoals• Determine how the law can facilitate best practices and policies in
isolation and quarantine in the states • Make recommendations for best practices in isolation and quarantine law,
policy, and practice using data from the national survey and legal review• Identify data gaps and ambiguities in current laws, policies and practices
of isolation and quarantine in the states
Objectives• Review survey findings regarding policies and the practice of isolation and
quarantine in the states• Review survey findings of legal practice in states and compare with
national review of isolation and quarantine laws in states• Engage in iterative group process to identify best practices in isolation and
quarantine law, policies and practice2
Best Practices in Isolation and Quarantine
Isolation/Quarantine Expert PanelJune 2, 2009
UM Office of Public Health Practice
3
Overview
• Survey Response• Policy and Practice• Legal Basis
4
State Survey Response
• Pilot tested in four states• Survey administered by CSTE• 80% (41/51) completion rate by 50 states + D.C.• 78% of surveys were completed by State
Epidemiologist (designated key informant)• 73% consulted state legal advisor• # of responses varied by question
5
Policy and Practice
6
Number of Times in Past 5 years States have Invoked Isolation and/or Quarantine
(n=39 for Individuals, n=35 for Groups)
Policy and Practice
• Q & I Decisions and Procedures– 97% consider scientific concerns important or very important in
ordering Q & I (95% to terminate Q & I)– Legal concerns were important or very important in isolation (79%)
and quarantine (76%)– 53% had different procedures for implementing group versus
individual quarantine– 28% have an electronic tracking system for Q & I– 78% of states do not have incentives to enhance compliance
7
Policy and PracticeCriteria used to ORDER and TERMINATE isolation and quarantine
1=not important 2=of little importance 3=moderately important 4=important 5=very important
ORDER 1 2 3 4 5Response Count
Scientific (specific disease, transmission patterns, magnitude, severity, etc.)
0 0 1 26 12 39
Resources (available personnel, funding, logistical restrictions, etc.)
2 9 22 3 2 38
Legal (authority, etc.) 1 1 5 25 7 39Political (public pressure, legislative action, media attention, etc.)
8 14 14 1 1 38
TERMINATE 1 2 3 4 5Response Count
Scientific (specific disease, transmission patterns, magnitude, severity, etc.)
0 0 2 25 11 38
Resources (available personnel, funding, logistical restrictions, etc.)
4 8 21 4 2 39
Legal (authority, etc.) 2 1 6 24 5 38Political (public pressure, legislative action, media attention, etc.)
8 13 14 3 1 39
Policy and Practice
• Q & I Responsibility– State Health Officer (82%) and Local Health Officer (67%) most often
have decision-making authority regarding quarantine and isolation of individuals and groups
• State Epidemiologist is primary advisor to State Health Officer on Q & I
9
Policy and Practice
Q & I Component State Public Health
Local Public Health
Law Enforcement
Hospitals NGOs Other
Monitoring compliance
X X
Providing basic necessities to people
X X
Medical and mental health evaluation and treatment
X X
Social support services X X
Systems support X X
Funding support X X
Transport of persons X X
10
Organizations with primary responsibility for Q & I orders
• To maintain group Q & I, states are under-resourced in funding support (66%), physical infrastructure (66%), and human resources (61%)
Policy and Practice
• Response Coordination– 80% of states engage local public health before making Q & I decisions– 87% coordinate Q & I roles and responsibilities with local public health– Tribal health boards (31%) and Indian Health Services (15%) have
rarely been engaged
• Q & I Orders– 90% of states could obtain a Q & I order within 24 hours– 8% could obtain one in 24 to 48 hours
11
Policy and Practice
• Primary payers for healthcare during Q & I– Insured patient
• Private insurance (76%)• State health department (32%)
– Uninsured patient• Healthcare facility (57%)• State health department (49%)
12
Policy and Practice
• Q & I Preparedness– 20% of states have not conducted any exercise of Q & I– 64% of states reported that ‘10 percent or less’ of the
general public is ready for a Q & I order– 51% of states with public education campaigns have
focused on the general public• 32% targeted non-English speaking populations
– 45% of states used Pandemicflu.gov for the public education campaign
13
Legal Basis
• Legal procedure mandates– 87% of states have statutes, regulations or both for
individual due process– 70% for group due process– 72% mandate “least restrictive alternative”– 46% of states regulate implementation of due process
14
Legal Basis
• Legal Authority– Most statutes and regulations deal with Q & I at the individual level as
opposed to group level– 65% have written formal guidance on how to proceed with Q & I
orders– Chief Counsel (71%) and Attorneys General (44%) most often serve as
legal advisors– 55% of states agree CDC has legal authority to mandate Q & I– 16 states have MOUs with partner agencies on Q & I
15
Legal Basis Independent legal decision-making authority to declare an emergency for epidemics or other communicable disease
threats and/or implement isolation and quarantine of
Emergency Declaratio
ns
Quarantine of
Individuals
Isolation of
Individuals
Quarantine of
Groups
Isolation of
Groups
Response Count
Governor 39 9 9 9 9 39State Health Officer 6 35 35 32 33 35Chief Medical Executive
0 3 3 3 3 3
State Epidemiologist 0 4 4 5 4 5State Director of Emergency Preparedness
0 0 0 0 0 0
Local Health Officer 2 27 27 23 23 27Other 3 6 5 7 5 10Others:
Municipal and county governments; physician designated by State Health Officer; county or city chief executive official; local health officer for groups only with permission of State Health Officer; Dept of Health and Environment; on-call physicians and other disease control staff with delegated authority; Local Board of Supervisors or designee; Deputy Secretary of Health Planning and Assessment
Legal Basis
17
Since last Revised (N=41) Since last Reviewed (N=39)
< 2 years 24.4% 61.5%
2 to 5 years 41.5% 35.9%
6 to 10 years 7.3% 2.6%
> 10 years 26.8% 0%
Years since Q & I laws Revised/Reviewed