Occupational beryllium exposure: Reconciling federal policies, regulations and contractor implementation guides to protect worker health

Beryllium is a widely distributed, highly toxic metal. When beryllium particulates enter the body, the body's defense mechanisms are engaged. When the body's defenses cannot easily remove the particulates, then a damage and repair cycle is initiated. This cycle produces chronic beryllium disease (CBD), a progressive, fibrotic respiratory involvement which eventually suffocates exposed individuals. ^ Beryllium disease is an occupational disease, and as such it can be prevented by limiting exposures. In the 1940s journalists reported beryllium deaths at Atomic Energy Commission (AEC) facilities, the Department of Energy's (DOE) predecessor organization. These reports energized public pressure for exposure limits, and in 1949 AEC implemented a 2 μg/m3 permissible exposure limit (PEL). ^ The limits appeared to stop acute disease. In contrast, CBD has a long latency period between exposure and diagnosable disease, between one and thirty years. The lack of immediate adverse health consequences masked the seriousness of chronic disease and pragmatically removed CBD from AEC/DOE's political concern. ^ Presently the PEL for beryllium at DOE sites remains at 2 μg/m 3. This limit does not prevent CBD. This conclusion has long been known, although denied until recently. In 1999 DOE acknowledged the limit's ineffectiveness in its federal regulation governing beryllium exposure, 10 CFR 850. ^ Despite this admission, the PEL has not been reduced. The beryllium manufacturer and AEC/DOE have a history of exerting efforts to maintain and protect the status quo. Primary amongst these efforts has been creation and promotion of disinformation within peer reviewed health literature which discusses beryllium, exposures, health effects and treatment, and targeting graduate school students so that their perspective is shaped early. ^ Once indoctrinated with incorrect information, professionals tend to overlook aerosol and respiratory mechanics, immunologic and carcinogenic factors. They then apply tools and perspectives derived from the beryllium manufacturer and DOE's propaganda. Conclusions drawn are incorrect. The result is: health research and associated policy is conducted with incorrect premises. Effective disease management practices are not implemented. ^ Public health protection requires recognition of the disinformation and its implications. When disinformation is identified, then effective health policies and practices can be developed and implemented. ^

The movement toward patient safety: State action related to reporting and disclosure of healthcare-associated infections

Increasing attention has been given to the problem of medical errors over the past decade. Included within that focused attention has been a strong interest in reducing the occurrence of healthcare-associated infections (HAIs). Acting concurrently with federal initiatives, the majority of U.S. states have statutorily required reporting and public disclosure of HAI data. Although the occurrence of these state statutory enactments and other state initiatives represent a recognition of the strong concern pertaining to HAIs, vast differences in each state’s HAI reporting and public disclosure requirements creates a varied and unequal response to what has become a national problem.^ The purpose of this research was to explore the variations in state HAI legal requirements and other state mandates. State actions, including statutory enactments, regulations, and other initiatives related to state reporting and public disclosure mechanisms were compared, discussed, and analyzed in an effort to illustrate the impact of the lack of uniformity as a public health concern.^ The HAI statutes, administrative requirements, and other mandates of each state and two U.S. territories were reviewed to answer the following seven research questions: How far has the state progressed in its HAI initiative? If the state has a HAI reporting requirement, is it mandatory or voluntary? What healthcare entities are subject to the reporting requirements? What data collection system is utilized? What measures are required to be reported? What is the public disclosure mechanism? How is the underlying reported information protected from public disclosure or other legal release?^ Secondary publicly available data, including state statutes, administrative rules, and other initiatives, were utilized to examine the current HAI-related legislative and administrative activity of the study subjects. The information was reviewed and analyzed to determine variations in HAI reporting and public disclosure laws. Particular attention was given to the seven key research questions.^ The research revealed that considerable progress has been achieved in state HAI initiatives since 2004. Despite this progress, however, when reviewing the state laws and HAI programs comparatively, considerable variations were found to exist with regards to the type of reporting requirements, healthcare facilities subject to the reporting laws, data collection systems utilized, reportable measures, public disclosure requirements, and confidentiality and privilege provisions. The wide variations in state statutes, administrative rules, and other agency directives create a fragmented and inconsistent approach to addressing the nationwide occurrence of HAIs in the U.S. healthcare system. ^