#655
Apparently, when it comes to making a decision on whether to stockpile Tamiflu for the citizens of Florida, the litmus test is whether the drug will be `totally effective'.
This from the Orlando Sentinel.
Money for bird-flu drug not in budgets
Health experts are warning that the world could be on the threshold of a crippling pandemic if the avian-flu virus mutates to the point where it spreads among humans.
To prepare, states have begun to stockpile an antiviral drug that with federal help is costing $14 per treatment instead of the up to $100 charged by a pharmacy.
Gov. Charlie Crist has asked the Florida Legislature to set aside $36.7 million, enough to treat 4.8 million people. But neither the House nor the Senate, which soon plan to put the final touches on their individual proposals for a $70 billion-plus state budget, have included the funding. That would make Florida the only state in the nation not in the federal program.
But legislative leaders who oversee health funding say they are reluctant to spend money on a drug that has a shelf life of five years.
"We have concerns whether in five years it would be totally effective," said Sen. Durell Peaden, R-Crestview, chairman of the Senate's Health and Human Services Appropriations Committee. "When we spend that much money, we want to make sure it's a drug that will be effective when needed."
Reasonable people can disagree over the merits of Tamiflu. I've never considered it a `cure', and it certainly hasn't been proven to be `totally effective'. At best, if administered early enough, it improves the odds that a patient will survive an avian flu infection.
There is also legitimate concern that, as Tamiflu is used to suppress the virus in places like Egypt and Indonesia, the virus could develop resistance to the drug. Already, we've seen indications that has happened in some instances.
So, while I personally believe we should be availing ourselves of this discounted antiviral, I do understand the reluctance on the part of some legislators. It isn't a clear cut decision. Putting all of our eggs in a Tamiflu basket is a bit of a gamble.
Since the objection seems to be over whether Tamiflu would be effective, and not whether a pandemic is a possibility, then it is only fair to ask what protective steps the legislature would consider to be worthy of funding?
There are many things that should be done, now, that the legislature could do in lieu of buying antivirals. A short list of items might include:
- We should have a State Flu Czar, with an appropriate budget, staff, and access to the Governor.
- A statewide education program needs to be implemented, teaching people how to deal with pandemic , including how to treat pandemic flu patients at home.
- PPE's (Personal Protective Equipment) needs to be stockpiled for essential workers, such as EMS, LEO (law enforcement), Emergency Management, and Utility workers. If we expect these people to do their jobs, and risk infection, we owe it to them to provide them with basic protective gear.
- Security for Hospitals, clinics, and EMS during a pandemic will be a major issue. If the state expects health care workers to report to work during a pandemic, they need to provide for their safety.
- Body bags, and burial sites must be arranged for, to handle the expected 128,000 deaths from a pandemic in this state. That figure could go higher, of course, since it was based on having a supply of tamiflu available.
Of course, if the legislature simply believes that a pandemic isn't a possible threat, then they need to come out and say so. They can go on record as saying that the CDC, the WHO, the Federal Government, 49 other States, the United Nations, and the nearly every country in the world are wrong about this.
If they consider that a potential pandemic is a threat, then they need to take steps to ensure that if one happens, the state will be in a position to do more than offer condolences to the families of the dead.
No, it isn't an easy decision.
But nobody ever said being in the legislature was going to be an easy job.
