Importance of Health Policy: Lassa Fever and EUs EWRS Policy - Term Paper Example

Importance of Health Policy: Lassa fever and EU’s EWRS policy Name Institution Date Introduction Communicable diseases pose significant threat in global health security. Therefore, they stress a need for a full-fledged health policy that can contend with epidemics and outbreaks like the Lassa fever in 2016. Health policy, on the other hand, refers to the plans, decisions, and actions that have been agreed to accomplish certain healthcare objectives with any given society (Teitelbaum & Wilensky, 2012). They are a set of regulations, rules, and directives that governments should apply to translate health interventions into practice, programme, or healthcare services. The World Health Organization asserts that an unequivocal health policy stands to accomplish certain goals: defining a vision for future health care; outlining the main concerns and the accepted responsibilities of varied stakeholders or interest groups, and lastly building consensus on healthcare and informing people. However, health-related policies and their subsequent implementation are often cited as being extremely intricate (Teitelbaum & Wilensky, 2012). This paper examines a health policy designed for tackling communicable disease. Emphasis is placed on the Early Warning and Response System (EWRS) policy that the European Union set up to handle communicable diseases like Lass fever. A case study of Lassa fever in the United Kingdom is examined. The importance of the EWRS policy, in addition to its failures and how it can be implemented effectively are also examined. EWRS Policy overview The World Health Organisation’s Assembly adopted the International Health Regulations (IHR) in 2005, which later became enforced in 2007. The regulation requires the commitment of the international community on providing appropriate public health intervention to the international spread of diseases in manners that are proportionate with and limited to public health hazards (EPHA, 2011). Unnecessary interventions are to be avoided. The member states must as well inform the WHO immediately on an outbreak of diseases and public health risks. In response, Europe came up with another policy called the EWRS, which the European Union (EU) found to ensure a swift and effective response to communicable diseases epidemics and outbreaks. The EWRS policy, which is at the core of this paper’s analysis, requires that the European Commission (EC) and a proficient public health authority in each Member State gets into permanent communication to determine the measures needed for protection of public health from risks associated with the communicable diseases (EPHA, 2011). As a response, the European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control (ECDC) was assigned the role of overseeing the EWRS policy. In turn, the ECDC does the role of collecting, evaluating, and disseminating technical and scientific data linked to the communicable disease. The ECDE also furnishes the EC and its member countries, and international organizations like the WHO with information (Health Protection Surveillance Centre, 2015). As a requirement, the EWRS requires that a disease incidence is reported to it when the disease extends to more than one European country, when there is sequential grouping of incidences of the same type of disease, particularly when it is caused by a pathogenic agent, and there is a risk of spreading to other EU member countries, and lastly, when the disease requires timely and collective efforts. Case of Lassa fever and EWRS efficiency Lassa fever, as the Centre for Disease Control and Prevention (2016) describes it, refers to an acute viral haemorrhagic fever (VHF) that Lassa virus causes. In turn, the human agents acquire the virus from a rat of the Mastomys species, which releases the virus through its droppings and urine. Later, person-to-person transmission of the disease happens when individuals have direct contact with contaminated body fluids like urine, blood, semen, faeces, or saliva (Bello et al., 2016).. Between 15 and 20 percent of individuals hospitalised with the disease are likely to die. Currently, the disease is prevalent in parts of West Africa, such as Nigeria, although it tends to spread to Europe time and again (World Health Organisation, 2016; Senthilingam, 2016). Since the 2009 incident of a severe case of Lass fever in Europe, EWRS has ensured that the disease does not create a major public health hazard to EU countries, despite the fact that cases of the epidemic continue to be reported in West Africa (European Public Health Alliance, 2011; Berger, 2015). For instance, a patient aged 66 was on January 8, 2009, admitted to the Homerton University Hospital (HUH), London with symptoms of Lassa fever, after having travelled from Nigeria. As a requirement by the EWRS, the concerned health authorities in the country were alerted, although late (on January 22, 2009). The HUH informed the high-security infectious diseases unit (HSIDU), the Health Protection Unit (HPU), and the North East and North Central London (NENCL). The disease was detected a day later. The patient died six days later (Berger, 2015). The Incident Control Team (ICT) responded fast and reported to the World Health Organization (WHO) and the ECDE, as a requirement by the EWRS and IHR policies. Other European nations were alerted through the media. Risk assessment was done, as from January 23, 2008, on the people who had been in direct contact with the patient, including the medical staff, family members and neighbours still had contact with the public without restriction. The ECDC also assessed other passengers travelling to other countries in Europe. Some 328 individuals at HUH were found to have possibly contacted the patient, and were put on a 21-day surveillance. However, the Lassa fever showed some weaknesses of the EWRS, as the disease was diagnosed almost two weeks later, and no travel restrictions had been made to travellers from West Africa. In all, early diagnosis is crucial to manage the communicable disease successfully. Importance of the EWRS policy The EWRS policy is important in the case of Lassa fever, as it encourages inter-country preparedness. In this respect, it considers three issues when there is a health risk from communicable diseases like Lassa fever: issuing a public order and restricting individual movements and freedoms, enforcing country-specific health policies and concerned health authorities, as well as mobilizing labour and funding. This ensures that the entire society becomes prepared for the epidemic, as it would affect entire EU society, rather than merely the health sector (EPHA, 2011). It also ensures that the responsible organizations respond to a likely disruption the epidemic would cause. At this level, it could be argued that the EWRS offers guidelines that are consistent with the WHO’s ‘Readiness Framework’ that underscores the need for a reciprocal relation between all societal sectors. The EWRS policy requires that the organisations in the health care sector, whether nationally or internationally, communicate with other players in the society effectively to inform of the attacks and rates of fatality, the vulnerable population, and the period of the epidemic and the likely waves of infection (EPHA, 2011). As a response, many European countries like the United Kingdom and Germany have made efforts in preparation for the health implications of the risks from communicable diseases, yet have failed to give adequate attention to social, humanitarian and economic effects, particularly that the complexity and interdependence of systems to thoroughly assess the outbreak (Nikisins et al., 2015). This is the case for Lassa fever in UK, which demonstrated needs to have a framework for quick assessment of communicable disease. Recommendations Some lessons are learnt from the Lassa fever virulent disease as regards the preparedness of UK authorities. It is crucial for there to be an agreement on the descriptions of the seriousness of an endemic to progress the flexible nature of preparedness plans. Additionally, the countries that are fast affected should ensure that early assessments are done efficiently (Teitelbaum et al., 2012). There should be communication with other countries in other continents affected with communicable disease to ensure that passengers to Europe are screened adequately. In which case, during an epidemic in other countries outside the domain or jurisdiction of the EWRS, the modelling needs to be more linked to policies and operations across the globe, instead of merely the EU member states (EPHA, 2011). There is a need for the EWRS to underscore investments in decreasing the level of uncertainty to advance knowledge quality as regards diagnosis of communicable disease in Europe and other countries, as well as the degree and timeliness of reporting the outbreaks. This would in turn make sure that the capacity to assess a communicable disease is swift and the ability to calculate its severity is fast enough. Although the EU Member States are obligated under the IHRs, they need to show greater commitment to communicating with other states outside the EU to tackle health risks resulting from travelling (Rohwerder, 2015). There is also a need for the EWRS policy to underscore a common approach for sharing and analysing data, which should then be incorporate in state preparedness plans. The policymakers should also build shared perspectives and come up with efficient oversight mechanisms, as well as create consequential assessment processes (Brattberg & Rhinard, 2011). Policy makers would witness greater benefits when they have sufficient reliable data needed for improving surveillance systems for communicable diseases. At any rate, because of globalisation, many people travel to Europe from many countries across the globe where unclassified epidemics may exist (Gilsdorf et al., 2012). Therefore, investment in a global surveillance mechanism of epidemics would ensure that the EWRS policy pressures EU member state to liaise with the WHO to maintain stringent international and national prevention and control of communicable diseases. Conclusion The EWRS policy is important in the case of Lassa fever, as it encourages inter-country preparedness. However, it has failed to ensure speedy assessment of the epidemics, which puts the vulnerable populations in contact with the patients at risk. Some lessons are learnt from the Lassa fever virulent disease as regards the preparedness of UK authorities. It is crucial for there to be an agreement on the descriptions of the seriousness of an endemic to progress the flexible nature of preparedness plans. Additionally, the countries that are fast affected should ensure that early assessments are done efficiently. Policy makers would witness greater benefits when they have enough reliable data needed for improving surveillance systems for communicable diseases. References Bello, O., Akinajo, O., Odubamowo, K. & Oluwasalo, T. (2016). Lassa Fever in Pregnancy: Report of 2 Cases Seen at the University College Hospital, Ibadan. Case Reports in Obstetrics and Gynecology Volume 2016, Article ID 9673683 Berger, S. (2015). Infectious Diseases of the World. California: GIDEON Informatics Inc, Brattberg, E. & Rhinard, M. (2011). Multilevel governance and complex threats: The case of pandemic preparedness in the European Union and the United States. Global Health Governance, 5(1), 1-21 Centre for Disease Control and Prevention (2016). Lassa fever. Retrieved from CDC website: European Public Health Alliance (EPHA) (2011). EPHA Briefing on Health Threats from Communicable Diseases, including well-prepared Health Systems. Retrieved from: Gilsdorf, A., Morgan, D. & Leitmeyer, K. (2012). Guidance for contact tracing of cases of Lassa fever, Ebola or Marburg haemorrhagic fever on an airplane: results of a European expert consultation. BMC Public HealthBMC series, 12(1), DOI: 10.1186/1471-2458-12-1014 Health Protection Surveillance Centre (2015). The European Early Warning and Response System (EWRS): Ireland’s obligation to report certain communicable disease (i.e. infectious disease) information to the European Community. Retrieved from: Nikisins, S., Rieger, T., Patel, P. & Muller, R. (2015). International external quality assessment study for molecular detection of Lassa virus. PLoS Negl Trop Dis 9(5), 1-9 Rohwerder, B. (2015). Conflict early warning and early response. GSDRC Applied Knowledge Services. Retrieved: Senthilingam, M. (2016). Lassa fever death rates in Nigeria higher than expected. CNN. Retrieved: Teitelbaum, J. & Wilensky, S. (2012). Essentials of health policy and law. Burlington, MA: Jones & Bartlett Publishers World Health Organisation. (2016). Emergencies preparedness, response. Retrieved from WHO website: Read More