Watchdog group says biological defenses remain insufficient

The nation's public health system is still woefully unprepared to handle a biological terrorism attack, according to a report released Tuesday by the Trust for America's Health.

The organization, a nonpartisan public health watchdog, sharply criticized a lack of leadership from the federal government and the absence of an overarching strategy to deal with an attack.

"More than three years after 9/11, there is no clear definition for what the public should expect as protection in the event of bioterrorist attack or public health emergency," the group said in the report, Ready or Not? Protecting the Public's Health in the Age of Bioterrorism-2004. "There are no real performance standards in place to assess how well the public would be protected in the event of such tragedies."

An official at the Health and Human Services Department criticized the report as overly negative. The official, who asked to remain anonymous, said that $4 billion of federal funding has been channeled to state and local departments.

"We are light years ahead of where we were in September of 2001," the official said. The Trust for America's Health "did this same report last year. They just keep dredging up the same issues."

Trust officials said, however, that Tuesday's report covers much of the same territory as last year's because many of their concerns have been left unresolved.

Earlier this month, Health and Human Services Secretary Tommy Thompson said he was surprised that terrorists have not launched a biological weapons attack against the nation's vulnerable food supply.

"Health preparedness is probably the weakest link in homeland security," said Lowell Weicker, a former senator and Connecticut governor who helped introduce the report.

Trust for America's Health measured each state's public health readiness based on 10 indexes, including spending on biological terrorism defenses and emergency planning. The report indicated that many states had actually improved their public health preparedness--compared with the organization's report from last year--but Trust officials still chastised the federal government for cutting funding and failing to provide strong leadership.

"The policies are still ill-defined and inconsistent," said Shelley Hearne, the executive director of the Trust for America's Health. "We actually are not putting in sufficient resources to get the job done … it is spread so thin, unfortunately it is not covering the bases."

Florida and North Carolina are most prepared to deal with a bioterror attack, according to the report. Both those states met nine of the criteria. Alaska and Massachusetts are the two states least prepared to respond, the report noted, satisfying only three of the criteria.

"All of our data measures show that Florida is taking public health very seriously," Hearne said. "They have built an infrastructure across the state that I would call seamless."

The report laid the blame for the overall lack of preparedness at the feet of the federal government. Hearne called on federal officials to develop a biological terrorism "game plan," conduct emergency drills and limit manufacturers' liability to encourage vaccine development. She said also officials and lawmakers should work to strengthen the underlying public health infrastructure.

"I'm not sure what else needs to happen to get the message out there that we must make public health defenses a No. 1 priority," she said.

Stay up-to-date with federal news alerts and analysis — Sign up for GovExec's email newsletters.
Close [ x ] More from GovExec

Thank you for subscribing to newsletters from
We think these reports might interest you:

  • Sponsored by G Suite

    Cross-Agency Teamwork, Anytime and Anywhere

    Dan McCrae, director of IT service delivery division, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA)

  • Data-Centric Security vs. Database-Level Security

    Database-level encryption had its origins in the 1990s and early 2000s in response to very basic risks which largely revolved around the theft of servers, backup tapes and other physical-layer assets. As noted in Verizon’s 2014, Data Breach Investigations Report (DBIR)1, threats today are far more advanced and dangerous.

  • Sponsored by One Identity

    One Nation Under Guard: Securing User Identities Across State and Local Government

    In 2016, the government can expect even more sophisticated threats on the horizon, making it all the more imperative that agencies enforce proper identity and access management (IAM) practices. In order to better measure the current state of IAM at the state and local level, Government Business Council (GBC) conducted an in-depth research study of state and local employees.

  • Sponsored by Aquilent

    The Next Federal Evolution of Cloud

    This GBC report explains the evolution of cloud computing in federal government, and provides an outlook for the future of the cloud in government IT.

  • Sponsored by LTC Partners, administrators of the Federal Long Term Care Insurance Program

    Approaching the Brink of Federal Retirement

    Approximately 10,000 baby boomers are reaching retirement age per day, and a growing number of federal employees are preparing themselves for the next chapter of their lives. Learn how to tackle the challenges that today's workforce faces in laying the groundwork for a smooth and secure retirement.

  • Sponsored by Hewlett Packard Enterprise

    Cyber Defense 101: Arming the Next Generation of Government Employees

    Read this issue brief to learn about the sector's most potent challenges in the new cyber landscape and how government organizations are building a robust, threat-aware infrastructure

  • Sponsored by Aquilent

    GBC Issue Brief: Cultivating Digital Services in the Federal Landscape

    Read this GBC issue brief to learn more about the current state of digital services in the government, and how key players are pushing enhancements towards a user-centric approach.


When you download a report, your information may be shared with the underwriters of that document.