Infectious Disease: Returning Medical Personnel, Hospital Readiness, and Funding for Research

Every year the U.S. sees hundreds of different diseases and infections affect its population. However, the worst of these tend to be those brought into the country from foreign regions. In order to greatly strengthen our nation’s ability to effectively battle these agents, a public policy should be implemented focusing on three core areas of our front. First, stricter regulations on the handling of medical personnel returning to the U.S. from disease-infected areas should be enforced. Second, our hospitals need to be armed and prepared with the proper equipment and training to deal with any possible outbreak. Lastly, funding needs to be increased for research in the early detection and treatment of these infectious diseases.

When medical personnel return from working in a foreign area that is affected with infectious disease, the monitoring and prevention of any symptoms or signs of contraction must be quick but effective. The main problem with how the U.S. currently carries out this process is that there is no uniform federal policy. Instead, there is what has been called a “messy patchwork” of individual responses on a state-by state level. This was the largest issue at hand when the Ebola crisis occurred in the fall of 2014. While states such as New York and New Jersey instituted very tough measures, many other states did not seem to be working enough. A federal policy was proposed in late October that required returning workers to a one-time in person-checkup and phone call from a local public health authority. This much more lenient than the stricter regulations that other states felt the need to enforce. In states such as New Jersey, depending on the level of risk the worker is categorized into upon arriving at an international airport, the response may be as strict as a mandatory set quarantine in their home. This policy was seen as overactive by most public-health experts but the general public, including those of other states, were very satisfied with these strict measures. Other states such as Maryland decided that they may prohibit returning heath workers from public transit or large gatherings for their first 3 weeks back home while their potential symptoms are being monitored. Based on these various policies, a public policy should be proposed mandating a 21-day at-home quarantine on health workers returning from infectious disease-affected areas. The lack of a current federal quarantine has caused a loss of control over the assessment and release of possibly-affected individuals. Those against a quarantine say that it is medically proven to be unnecessary and is a suffocation of civil liberties. Many health officials have also expressed concern that stricter regulations and a mandatory quarantine would discourage medical workers from leaving the U.S. and travelling to areas in need of their help. However, in some states health workers are already being required to sign agreements that restrict their activities. Those who are found to have broken protective protocol in any way were immediately subject to the quarantine. In addition, the new policy should have the workers sign an agreement to their awareness of what they are exposing themselves to, and the possibility of a mandatory quarantine upon their return.