# 4868
Few observers would deny that the world got off pretty easy with the pandemic of 2009. As bad as it was for some people, and as difficult as it was to manage in some regions, as pandemics go . . . novel H1N1 was relatively mild.
The next time, of course, we may not be so lucky.
Which is why it is imperative that we take lessons from the past 15 months, and use them to improve our response to the next global health threat.
We saw differing containment and mitigation responses around the world.
In some regions, tough – some would say `draconian’ – measures were taken, particularly early in the outbreak.
Other countries mounted a far less vigorous response.
These differing approaches give us an opportunity to see what worked, and what didn’t. And reviews of that data are underway.
But should the next pandemic prove more severe, a more coordinated response may prove desirable.
One of the major obstacles to such a coordinated response are the widely varying public health laws, regulations, infrastructures, and agencies around the world.
In an attempt to better understand these barriers, researchers have recently conducted a survey of the pandemic plans, policies, and public health laws of a number of European states.
Representatives of 32 states were sent questionnaires, of which 23 responded.
Austria, Belgium, Bulgaria, Croatia, Cyprus, Estonia, Finland, France, Germany, Hungary, Iceland, Ireland, Latvia, Lithuania, Malta, the Netherlands, Norway, Poland, Portugal, Slovakia, Slovenia, Sweden and Turkey
We’ve an open access study appearing in BMC Public Health that calls these disparate approaches in the law and public policy `incoherent’, and cites them as a being seriously problematic when dealing with a global health crisis.
Admittedly a bit data-heavy, and probably of greatest interest to public health wonks, but this study is eye-opening just the same.
A few excerpts from the abstract. Follow the link to read the study in its entirety.
Robyn Martin, Alexandra Conseil , Abie Longstaff , Jimmy Kodo , Joachim Siegert , Anne-Marie Duguet , Paula Lobato de Faria , George Haringhuizen, Jaime Espin and Richard Coker
BMC Public Health 2010, 10:532doi:10.1186/1471-2458-10-532
(EXCERPTS)
Methods
We undertook a survey of national public health laws across 32 European states using a questionnaire designed around a disease scenario based on pandemic influenza. Questionnaire results were reviewed in workshops, analysing how differences between national laws might support or hinder regional responses to pandemic influenza. Respondents examined the impact of national laws on the movements of information, goods, services and people across borders in a time of pandemic, the capacity for surveillance, case detection, case management and community control, the deployment of strategies of prevention, containment, mitigation and recovery and the identification of commonalities and disconnects across states.
Results
Results of this study show differences across Europe in the extent to which national pandemic policy and pandemic plans have been integrated with public health laws. We found significant differences in legislation and in the legitimacy of strategic plans. . States differ in the range and the nature of intervention measures authorized by law, the extent to which borders could be closed to movement of persons and goods during a pandemic, and access to healthcare of non-resident persons. Some states propose use of emergency powers that might potentially override human rights protections while other states propose to limit interventions to those authorized by public health laws.
Conclusion
These differences could create problems for European strategies if an evolving influenza pandemic results in more serious public health challenges or, indeed, if a novel disease other than influenza emerges with pandemic potential. There is insufficient understanding across Europe of the role and importance of law in pandemic planning. States need to build capacity in public health law to support disease prevention and control policies. Our research suggests that states would welcome further guidance from the EU on management of a pandemic, and guidance to assist in greater commonality of legal approaches across states.
The complete article is available as a provisional PDF. The fully formatted PDF and HTML versions are in production.
