Search

In response to the 2014-2016 West Africa Ebola virus disease (EVD) outbreak, a US congressional appropriation provided funds to the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) to support global health security capacity building in 17 partner countries, including Guinea. The 2014 funding enabled CDC to provide more than 300 deployments of personnel to Guinea during the Ebola response, establish a country office, and fund 11 implementing partners through cooperative agreements to support global health security engagement efforts in 4 core technical areas: workforce development, surveillance systems, laboratory systems, and emergency management. This article reflects on almost 4 years of collaboration between CDC and its implementing partners in Guinea during the Ebola outbreak response and the recovery period. We highlight examples of collaborative synergies between cooperative agreement partners and local Guinean partners and discuss the impact of these collaborations in strengthening the above 4 core capacities. Finally, we identify the key elements of the successful collaborations, including communication and information sharing as a core cooperative agreement activity, a flexible funding mechanism, and willingness to adapt to local needs. We hope these observations can serve as guidance for future endeavors seeking to establish strong and effective partnerships between government and nongovernment organizations providing technical and operational assistance.

Multiple costing tools have been developed to understand the resources required to build and sustain implementation of the International Health Regulations (IHR), including a detailed costing tool developed by WHO ("WHO Costing Tool") and 2 action-based costing tools, Georgetown University's IHR Costing Tool and CDC's Priority Actions Costing Tool (PACT). The relative performance of these tools is unknown. Nigeria costed its National Action Plan for Health Security (NAPHS) using the WHO Costing Tool. We conducted a desktop review, using the other tools to compare the cost estimates generated using different costing approaches. Technical working groups developed activity plans and estimated component costs using the WHO Costing Tool during a weeklong workshop with approximately 60 participants from various ministries, departments, and federal agencies. We retrospectively applied the IHR Costing Tool and PACT to generate rapid cost estimates required to achieve a Joint External Evaluation (JEE) score of "demonstrated capacity" (level 4). The tools generated similar activities for implementation. Cost estimates varied based on the anticipated procurement and human resources requirements and by the level of implementation (eg, health facility-level versus local government area-level procurement). The desktop IHR Costing Tool and PACT tools required approximately 2 and 8 person-hours to complete, respectively. A strategic costing approach, wherein governments select from a menu of recommended and costed actions following the JEE to develop a NAPHS, could accelerate implementation of plans. Major cost drivers, including procurement and human resources, should be prioritized based on anticipated resource availability and countries' priorities.

In 2016, the World Health Organization moved from using only a self-assessment to monitor national implementation of the International Health Regulations (IHR) to introducing an external evaluation process. In this article, we use preliminary findings from the published Joint External Evaluations to identify if and how the external evaluations differ from IHR self-assessments conducted in the same year. We found that of the 32 countries for which data were available, external assessment scores are consistently 1 to 1.5 points lower than self-assessment scores. This shows the importance of external evaluations and emphasizes that even more must be done to build sufficient capacity to prevent, detect, and respond to public health emergencies around the world.

The historical precedents that support state and local leadership in preparedness for and response to disasters are in many ways at odds with the technical demands of preparedness and response for incidents affecting public health. New and revised laws and regulations, executive orders, policies, strategies, and plans developed in response to biological threats since 2001 address the role of the federal government in the response to public health emergencies. However, financial mechanisms for disaster response-especially those that wait for gubernatorial request before federal assistance can be provided-do not align with the need to prevent the spread of infectious agents or efficiently reduce the impact on public health. We review key US policies and funding mechanisms relevant to public health emergencies and clarify how policies, regulations, and resources affect coordinated responses.