Study: U.S. Unprepared For Public Disaster

Majority Of States Cited As Being At Unacceptable Level To Cope With Widespread Public Health Emergencies

(CBS/AP)  A new study indicates that five years after the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, public health emergency preparedness is still not at an acceptable level in most states.

Researchers for Trust for America's Health looked at 10 factors, including having enough labs to test for biological threats and having enough hospital beds to handle a moderately severe flu pandemic.

No state received a perfect score. However, executive director Jeffrey Levi said Kansas and Oklahoma received the highest scores, with nine out of the 10 indicators met. California, Iowa, Maryland and New Jersey are at the bottom, with scores of four out of 10.

"The nation is nowhere near as prepared as we should be for bioterrorism, bird flu and other health disasters," Levi said. "We continue to make progress each year, but it is limited. As a whole, Americans face unnecessary and unacceptable levels of risk."

Levi said many states are vulnerable when it comes to pandemics. He said if one struck today, half the states wouldn't be able to address the surge in demand for health care in the first two weeks of the outbreak. "That's distressing," he said.

Some of the study's key findings include:

Only 15 states are rated at the highest preparedness level to provide emergency vaccines, antidotes and medical supplies from the Strategic National Stockpile.

Twenty-five states would run out of hospital beds within two weeks of a moderate pandemic flu outbreak.

Forty states face a shortage of nurses.

Eleven states and the District of Columbia lack sufficient capabilities to test for biological threats.

Six states cut their public health budgets from fiscal year 2005 to 2006; the median rate for state public health spending is $31 per person per year.

The report recommends the federal government establish "optimally achievable standards" to ensure that each state is made accountable for its public health resources. Also, the report suggests the government grant temporary health benefits for people with little or no insurance during states of emergency.

The report said Missouri has enough scientists and labs to deal with a chemical terrorism threat and test for anthrax or plague. It also has year-round, lab-based influenza surveillance, has two weeks' hospital bed surge capacity in a moderate pandemic and is one of only 14 states fully prepared to distribute vaccines or antidotes in a health disaster.

Missouri maintained its seasonal flu vaccination rate for adults over age 65, the report found. The state is compatible with the national surveillance system operated by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and it increased or maintained funding for public health services over the past year.

But Missouri is one of 40 states that have a nursing shortage. And the state is below the national median for the number of adults over 65 who have ever received pneumonia vaccine, the report found.

The report found that Kansas has enough scientists and labs to deal with a chemical terrorism threat and test for anthrax or plague. It also has year-round, lab-based influenza surveillance, has two weeks' hospital bed surge capacity in a moderate pandemic and is one of only 10 states that does not have a nursing shortage, the report found.

Kansas maintained its seasonal flu vaccination rate for adults over age 65 and is at or above the national median for the number of adults over 65 who have ever received pneumonia vaccine. The state is compatible with the national surveillance system operated by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and it increased or maintained funding for public health services over the past year.

But the state is not fully prepared to distribute vaccines or antidotes in a health disaster, the report found. Only 14 states met that indicator.


©MMVI, CBS Broadcasting Inc. All Rights Reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed. The Associated Press contributed to this report.

Share:

Digg

Facebook

Yahoo! Buzz

Twitter

Mixx

More From Health

• House Votes to Ban Abortion Subsidies
• H1N1 Info is Scarce, Confusing for Many
• Feed Your Family on $10 a Day!
• H1N1 Can Lead to Encephalitis in Kids
• Poll: One-Third Who Seek Vaccine, Get It
• Duke Sex Toy Study Panned by Priest
• Report: Obesity Causes 100K Cancer Cases

• 

  VideoAbortion Debate Heats Up

• 

  VideoHealth Care Bill Passes

Add a Comment See all 13 Comments

by randalds December 13, 2006 4:34 PM EST

I wonder if we would have been better off spending the trillion dollars we will spend in Iraq on some real homeland security at home.

Posted by frankly6 at 08:10 AM : Dec 13, 2006

Of course that makes much more sense frankly6, which is why airhead Bush won't do it. If you point out to him and his fellow republicans how much sense that makes they'll just start saying you want the terrorists to win and that you hate the troops and whatever other line the White House wants them to bleat out.

Reply to this comment

by pendragon679 December 13, 2006 3:45 PM EST

This should come as no surprise to anyone who's been awake for the past few years.

Reply to this comment

by olgreyghost December 13, 2006 3:06 PM EST

Party like it's 1999?!? But that brings back Y2K!!! AUUUUGHHHH!!!

Reply to this comment

by antoniof123 December 13, 2006 11:26 AM EST

Yes, and there are still those who think that the Republicans will keep us safe. Someone please tell me why those people who fear for their lives so much live in places that no one would attack. I mean if they lived in a big city like New York or LA or some place like that it would be different. Last I checked their were people still living there. It is just smoke and mirrors. Thank you to the Republicans you spent all our money killed people in the name of WMD and I still do not see any results. Wait we did lose all of our freedoms thank you King George and Vice King ***.

Reply to this comment

by frankly6 December 13, 2006 11:10 AM EST

I wonder if we would have been better off spending the trillion dollars we will spend in Iraq on some real homeland security at home.

Reply to this comment

by olgreyghost December 12, 2006 10:43 PM EST

Iwilli201:

I do believe in the Constitutional restraints on the government. They are what I refer to as the "permission" that government can give us to prepare ourselves. I have no problem with a terrorist having a trial with a jury of his peers as I also have no problem, when a terrorist attempts to cause harm to my family, in saving the taxpayers the expense of a trial ;) - if the government will let me...

Reply to this comment

by randalds December 12, 2006 8:39 PM EST

Giving up constitutional rights is the same thing as surrendering, this time to our own government rather then the terrorists. I'd rather keep my rights and take my chances with the terrorists then give them to Cowboy Bush and his merry band of fascists want-to-bes.

Reply to this comment

by lwilli201 December 12, 2006 8:28 PM EST

OlGreyGhost I could not agree with you more. There is not enough money to protect us from everything. People need to learn to be self sufficient. Most of the people in the US dont have a clue to the extent of damage inflicted by Catrina. The government is handcuffed when it comes to protecting us from terrorist because our constitution will not allow what it takes to protect us. They have all the rights we have including trial by jury. Have you heard the old saying "If it looks like a duck, sounds like a duck, then it must me a duck". These days it is called profileing which is taboo.

Reply to this comment

by randalds December 12, 2006 8:26 PM EST

Yes we should all do our part to be prepared ourselves, but we can't allow that to let the government off the hook. They do have a responsibility to do their best to protect us (within the law) and they simply are not. No one faults them by saying they have to be able to help in every emergency perfectly, but they are barely making a window-dressing effort and it's insulting and dangerous for them to claim to be the ones who can help.

Reply to this comment

by olgreyghost December 12, 2006 7:49 PM EST

The government cannot be held liable in a court of law for not being able to protect the people from a disaster. The government cannot physically be everywhere, prepared for everything (that's why they're called disasters). So folks it's up to us to fend for ourselves as best we can if the government will give us its permission to do so. Learn first aid, stock up on essentials of medicine and food, and learn how to purify water. Learn how to make fire and build a shelter. And do it fast...

Reply to this comment

by rharrin1 December 12, 2006 7:30 PM EST

This isn't news we didn't need 911 they can't even take care of the after effects of katrina.

Reply to this comment

by squiz2 December 12, 2006 7:17 PM EST

You would think that with all that has happened in the US over the past five years, they would be smart enough to increase funding for these operations. Further proof that the government is not concerned with the health and safety of its citizens. It just pretends that it is.

Reply to this comment

by randalds December 12, 2006 7:00 PM EST

But I thought Bush and the republicans were the party that was going to keep us safe? What a joke! Seems to me they've wasted too much money on a useless war of choice in Iraq, that had nothing to do we our safety, so that now there's not enough left to protect us at home where we need it. More lies and incompetence from this administration.

Reply to this comment

See all 13 Comments

Add a comment

Comment SUBMIT

Click here to add another comment.

The posting of advertisements, profanity, or personal attacks is prohibited. By using this Web site you agree to accept our Terms of Service. Click here to read the Rules of Engagement.

Comment reply

Submit Cancel

The posting of advertisements, profanity, or personal attacks is prohibited. By using this Web site you agree to accept our Terms of Service. Click here to read the Rules of Engagement.

Report offensive content:

If you believe this comment is offensive or violates the CBSNews.com Terms of Use, you can report it below (this will not automatically remove the comment). Once reported, our staff will be notified and the comment will be reviewed.

Select type of offense:

Offensive: Sexually explicit or offensive language

Spam: Advertisements, commercial links, or repetitive posts

Disruptive posting: Flaming or offending other users

Illegal activities: Promote cracked software, or other illegal content

Off-topic: Commentary unrelated to the storyline

Comments (optional):

Report Cancel

E-mail this comment to a friend.

E-mail this to: (Separate multiple e-mail addresses with commas. Limited to 10 addresses.)

Your e-mail address:

Send me a copy of this message

Note: Your e-mail address is used only to let the recipient know who sent the e-mail and in case of transmission error. Neither your address nor the recipients's address will be used for any other purpose.

Add your own personal message: (Optional)

Hi, I found this user's comment on CBSNews.com and thought you might be interested in reading it. Send e-mail Cancel

[randalds]

I wonder if we would have been better off spending the trillion dollars we will spend in Iraq on some real homeland security at home.

Posted by frankly6 at 08:10 AM : Dec 13, 2006

Of course that makes much more sense frankly6, which is why airhead Bush won't do it. If you point out to him and his fellow republicans how much sense that makes they'll just start saying you want the terrorists to win and that you hate the troops and whatever other line the White House wants them to bleat out.

[pendragon679]

This should come as no surprise to anyone who's been awake for the past few years.

[olgreyghost]

Party like it's 1999?!? But that brings back Y2K!!! AUUUUGHHHH!!!

[antoniof123]

Yes, and there are still those who think that the Republicans will keep us safe. Someone please tell me why those people who fear for their lives so much live in places that no one would attack. I mean if they lived in a big city like New York or LA or some place like that it would be different. Last I checked their were people still living there. It is just smoke and mirrors. Thank you to the Republicans you spent all our money killed people in the name of WMD and I still do not see any results. Wait we did lose all of our freedoms thank you King George and Vice King ***.

[frankly6]

I wonder if we would have been better off spending the trillion dollars we will spend in Iraq on some real homeland security at home.

[olgreyghost]

Iwilli201:

I do believe in the Constitutional restraints on the government. They are what I refer to as the "permission" that government can give us to prepare ourselves. I have no problem with a terrorist having a trial with a jury of his peers as I also have no problem, when a terrorist attempts to cause harm to my family, in saving the taxpayers the expense of a trial ;) - if the government will let me...

[randalds]

Giving up constitutional rights is the same thing as surrendering, this time to our own government rather then the terrorists. I'd rather keep my rights and take my chances with the terrorists then give them to Cowboy Bush and his merry band of fascists want-to-bes.

[lwilli201]

OlGreyGhost I could not agree with you more. There is not enough money to protect us from everything. People need to learn to be self sufficient. Most of the people in the US dont have a clue to the extent of damage inflicted by Catrina. The government is handcuffed when it comes to protecting us from terrorist because our constitution will not allow what it takes to protect us. They have all the rights we have including trial by jury. Have you heard the old saying "If it looks like a duck, sounds like a duck, then it must me a duck". These days it is called profileing which is taboo.

[randalds]

Yes we should all do our part to be prepared ourselves, but we can't allow that to let the government off the hook. They do have a responsibility to do their best to protect us (within the law) and they simply are not. No one faults them by saying they have to be able to help in every emergency perfectly, but they are barely making a window-dressing effort and it's insulting and dangerous for them to claim to be the ones who can help.

[olgreyghost]

The government cannot be held liable in a court of law for not being able to protect the people from a disaster. The government cannot physically be everywhere, prepared for everything (that's why they're called disasters). So folks it's up to us to fend for ourselves as best we can if the government will give us its permission to do so. Learn first aid, stock up on essentials of medicine and food, and learn how to purify water. Learn how to make fire and build a shelter. And do it fast...

[rharrin1]

This isn't news we didn't need 911 they can't even take care of the after effects of katrina.

[squiz2]

You would think that with all that has happened in the US over the past five years, they would be smart enough to increase funding for these operations. Further proof that the government is not concerned with the health and safety of its citizens. It just pretends that it is.

[randalds]

But I thought Bush and the republicans were the party that was going to keep us safe? What a joke! Seems to me they've wasted too much money on a useless war of choice in Iraq, that had nothing to do we our safety, so that now there's not enough left to protect us at home where we need it. More lies and incompetence from this administration.