Search

September 11 and the subsequent anthrax attacks marked the beginning of significant investment by the federal government to develop a national public health emergency response capability. Recognizing the importance of the public health sector's contribution to the burgeoning homeland security enterprise, this investment was intended to convey a "dual benefit" by strengthening the overall public health infrastructure while building preparedness capabilities. In many instances, federal funds were used successfully for preparedness activities. For example, electronic health information networks, a Strategic National Stockpile, and increased interagency cooperation have all contributed to creating a more robust and prepared enterprise. Additionally, the knowledge of rarely seen or forgotten pathogens has been regenerated through newly established public health learning consortia, which, too, have strengthened relationships between the practice and academic communities. Balancing traditional public health roles with new preparedness responsibilities heightened public health's visibility, but it also presented significant complexities, including expanded lines of reporting and unremitting inflows of new guidance documents. Currently, a rapidly diminishing public health infrastructure at the state and local levels as a result of federal budget cuts and a poor economy serve as significant barriers to sustaining these nascent federal public health preparedness efforts. Sustaining these improvements will require enhanced coordination, collaboration, and planning across the homeland security enterprise; an infusion of innovation and leadership; and sustained transformative investment for governmental public health.

Concerns about biosecurity in the food system raise a variety of issues about how the system is presently organized, why it might be vulnerable, what we could reasonably do to better secure it, and the costs of doing so. Emphasizing the role of incentives in efficient resource allocation, this article considers economic dimensions of three aspects of the general problem. One is the global problem, or the way biosecurity measures can affect how countries relate to each other and the global consequences that result. Another is how to best manage the immediate aftermath of a realized threat in order to minimize damage. The third is how to seek to prevent realization of the threat. Some policy alternatives are presented.

Over the past several years, the United States government has spent substantial resources on preparing the nation against a bioterrorist attack. This article analyzes the civilian biodefense funding by the federal government from fiscal years 2001 through 2005, specifically analyzing the budgets and allocations for biodefense at the Department of Health and Human Services, the Department of Homeland Security, the Department of Defense, the Department of Agriculture, the Environmental Protection Agency, the National Science Foundation, and the Department of State. In total, approximately $14.5 billion has been funded for civilian biodefense through FY2004, with an additional $7.6 billion in the President's budget request for FY2005.