Pandemic influenza control in Europe and the constraints resulting from incoherent public health laws.

Background With the emergence of influenza H1N1v the world is facing its first 21st century global pandemic. Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome (SARS) and avian influenza H5N1 prompted development of pandemic preparedness plans. National systems of public health law are essential for public health stewardship and for the implementation of public health policy[1]. International coherence will contribute to effective regional and global responses. However little research has been undertaken on how law works as a tool for disease control in Europe. With co-funding from the European Union, we investigated the extent to which laws across Europe support or constrain pandemic preparedness planning, and whether national differences are likely to constrain control efforts. Methods We undertook a survey of national public health laws across 32 European states using a questionnaire designed around a disease scenario based on pandemic influenza. Questionnaire results were reviewed in workshops, analysing how differences between national laws might support or hinder regional responses to pandemic influenza. Respondents examined the impact of national laws on the movements of information, goods, services and people across borders in a time of pandemic, the capacity for surveillance, case detection, case management and community control, the deployment of strategies of prevention, containment, mitigation and recovery and the identification of commonalities and disconnects across states. Results Results of this study show differences across Europe in the extent to which national pandemic policy and pandemic plans have been integrated with public health laws. We found significant differences in legislation and in the legitimacy of strategic plans. States differ in the range and the nature of intervention measures authorized by law, the extent to which borders could be closed to movement of persons and goods during a pandemic, and access to healthcare of non-resident persons. Some states propose use of emergency powers that might potentially override human rights protections while other states propose to limit interventions to those authorized by public health laws. Conclusion These differences could create problems for European strategies if an evolving influenza pandemic results in more serious public health challenges or, indeed, if a novel disease other than influenza emerges with pandemic potential. There is insufficient understanding across Europe of the role and importance of law in pandemic planning. States need to build capacity in public health law to support disease prevention and control policies. Our research suggests that states would welcome further guidance from the EU on management of a pandemic, and guidance to assist in greater commonality of legal approaches across states.

Plan d'accouchement et de naissance régime de santé public d'Andalousie

En la cub.: Plan de parto y nacimiento.

Comprehensive tobacco action plan for Andalusia 2005-2010 [Recurso electrónico] : Andalusian Public Health System

Es versión en inglés del Plan Integral de Tabaquismo de Andalucía. Publicado en la página web de la Consejería de Salud: www.juntadeandalucia.es/salud (Consejería de Salud / Ciudadanía / Quiénes somos / Planes y Estrategias)

II Comprehensive Mental Health Plan For Andalusia 2008-2012 : Andalusian Public Health System

A Comprehensive Plan is a medium-term planning instrument. Its development alone does not guarantee the achievement of the goals laid out in it, but by defining the goals, establishing priorities and setting out courses of action and concrete activities it will allow for an overall vision of the objectives being aimed towards and the tasks that will need to be carried out. The first Comprehensive Mental Health Plan for Andalusia 2003-2007 (I PISMA, Plan Integral de Salud Mental de Andalucía) was developed using this approach. Nine courses of action were covered in this Plan, which over its duration lead to noticeable progress in various fields.The assessment of the I PISMA and the experience gained from its development have channelled into this second Comprehensive Mental Health Plan for Andalusia 2008-2012 (II PISMA). The main principles for this second Plan are quality improvements, equality and efficiency of health services, aimed at public awareness of mental health in the Andalusian population, prevention of the illnesses and improvements to the care of patients and their families.

Childbirth and labour plan Andalusian public health System

En la cub.: Plan de parto y nacimiento. Publicado en la página web de la Consejería de Salud y Bienestar Social: www.juntadeandalucia.es/salud (Consejería de Salud y Bienestar Social / Ciudadanía / Inicio / Nuestra salud / Vida sana / Embarazo y salud)

The andalusian comprehensive cancer plan 2002-2006 : Andalusian Public Health System

Cancer is a major health problem in our Autonomous Community and is the second cause of death in both males and females. The incidence, mortality, potential years of life lost and resource consumption alongside the suffering endured by patients and families call for a commitment to be made by the Health Administration, healthcare professionals, patients and caregivers. This Plan is based on updated analyses of the mortality, incidence and survival of Cancer in Andalusia, of the situation of Cancer care and the resources available and of the expectations of patients and main caregivers, and on the conclusions of different Work Groups on the Management of Processes related to Cancer. The Andalusian Comprehensive Cancer Plan establishes an action programme that involves organisational and functional changes, new proposals for the training of professionals and a specific funding base.

Comprehensive heart disease action plan for Andalusia 2005-2009 : Andalusian Public Health System

The Comprehensive Heart Disease Action Plan for Andalusia 2005-2009 has been prepared within the framework of the presentations made both in the 3rd Andalusian Health Action Plan and in the Quality Plan of the Public Health System. Consequently, as with these two referral instruments, the improvement in the health results for the citizens of Andalusia continues to be sought without wavering, specifically with regard to meeting the needs and expectations of the population affected by health problems in this area.

Why Public Health Agencies Cannot Depend on Good Laboratory Practices as a Criterion for Selecting Data: The Case of Bisphenol A

In their safety evaluations of bisphenol A (BPA), the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and a counterpart in Europe, the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA), have given special prominence to two industry-funded studies that adhered to standards defined by Good Laboratory Practices (GLP). These same agencies have given much less weight in risk assessments to a large number of independently replicated non-GLP studies conducted with government funding by the leading experts in various fields of science from around the world. OBJECTIVES: We reviewed differences between industry-funded GLP studies of BPA conducted by commercial laboratories for regulatory purposes and non-GLP studies conducted in academic and government laboratories to identify hazards and molecular mechanisms mediating adverse effects. We examined the methods and results in the GLP studies that were pivotal in the draft decision of the U.S. FDA declaring BPA safe in relation to findings from studies that were competitive for U.S. National Institutes of Health (NIH) funding, peer-reviewed for publication in leading journals, subject to independent replication, but rejected by the U.S. FDA for regulatory purposes. DISCUSSION: Although the U.S. FDA and EFSA have deemed two industry-funded GLP studies of BPA to be superior to hundreds of studies funded by the U.S. NIH and NIH counterparts in other countries, the GLP studies on which the agencies based their decisions have serious conceptual and methodologic flaws. In addition, the U.S. FDA and EFSA have mistakenly assumed that GLP yields valid and reliable scientific findings (i.e., "good science"). Their rationale for favoring GLP studies over hundreds of publically funded studies ignores the central factor in determining the reliability and validity of scientific findings, namely, independent replication, and use of the most appropriate and sensitive state-of-the-art assays, neither of which is an expectation of industry-funded GLP research. CONCLUSIONS: Public health decisions should be based on studies using appropriate protocols with appropriate controls and the most sensitive assays, not GLP. Relevant NIH-funded research using state-of-the-art techniques should play a prominent role in safety evaluations of chemicals.