Advertisement

SKIP ADVERTISEMENT

Editorial

Hustling Dollars for Public Health

Credit...Jasu Hu

On Tuesday, a woman infected with the Zika virus gave birth to a girl with microcephaly, a malformed head, in New Jersey. Federal officials say there are more than 300 pregnant women possibly infected with Zika around the country. Yet every time an emergency like this happens, public health officials must go begging bowl in hand to Congress for the funds to deal with it. And as the current squabble between Republicans and President Obama over money for the Zika virus shows, there’s no guarantee of significant or even timely relief.

The obvious answer is to establish a permanent pool of money that federal health authorities can tap into quickly, much like the disaster relief fund that enables the Federal Emergency Management Agency to respond quickly to hurricanes and other natural disasters.

Such a fund would allow agencies like the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention to mobilize their resources to contain emerging threats like Zika and Ebola before they become large-scale problems. The money would be used for research, for vaccine development and to prevent the spread of the disease in the United States and overseas.

Zika is just such a threat. It is primarily transmitted by mosquitoes, can cause birth defects and has been linked to neurological disorders in adults. A study published in The New England Journal of Medicine last week estimated that the risk of microcephaly in newborns ranged from 1 percent to 13 percent for women infected with Zika in the first trimester.

A bill introduced by Representative Rosa DeLauro, a Connecticut Democrat, would put $5 billion into an existing public health emergency fund that was created in 1983 but has been largely dormant. The fund currently has a balance of just $57,000. In the Senate, Bill Cassidy, a Louisiana Republican and a doctor, has said he plans to introduce a bill that would provide emergency funds, though he has offered few details.

Some Republicans are likely to oppose setting aside the money. Many in the House have been reluctant to spend money on Zika; last month they passed a bill to provide $622 million to fight the disease, which is a lot less than the $1.1 billion the Senate approved and the $1.9 billion Mr. Obama has asked for.

Despite the concerns of fiscal conservatives, the health emergency fund could save lives and money. Consider Ebola. Had the American government moved quickly to help Guinea, Liberia and Sierra Leone fight that virus early in 2014, the disease might not have killed more than 11,000 people or caused a global panic. But the United States was slow to react, approving $5.4 billion for the disease in December 2014, months after it had caused or was suspected to have caused nearly 7,000 deaths and after Ebola cases had been confirmed in the United States.

That money was used to send doctors and nurses to West Africa, to help strengthen health systems in the affected countries, and for research. Some Ebola projects are still active, including vaccine development and testing. In public health, “the sooner you can get there the more effective you can be,” said Dr. Thomas Frieden, the C.D.C. director. “You can change the trajectory of an epidemic in a way that is very, very important.”

Giving public health officials a blank check would be unwise. But creating a system that is at once generous and disciplined by strong internal controls should be possible. Money in the present health emergency fund, for instance, can be used only when the secretary of health and human services declares an emergency. The secretary has to notify Congress of that decision and report how the money was spent within 90 days of the end of the fiscal year.

Without a less restricted fund, health officials fighting Zika have had to move money and scientists away from programs focused on other diseases, like Ebola, malaria and dengue. Robbing existing programs is sure to hurt public health the longer it goes on.

Follow The New York Times Opinion section on Facebook and Twitter, and sign up for the Opinion Today newsletter.

A version of this article appears in print on  , Section A, Page 22 of the New York edition with the headline: Hustling Dollars for Public Health. Order Reprints | Today’s Paper | Subscribe

Advertisement

SKIP ADVERTISEMENT