|
medpundit |
||
 |
 |
|
Tuesday, July 02, 2002The tensions stem from a variety of factors, including fallout from widespread criticism of how federal health officials handled last fall's anthrax attacks, the absence of a CDC director since March, efforts by the new administration to change approaches to controversial issues such as sex education and HIV prevention, and a campaign to exert more control over the CDC from Washington, health experts said. In other words, they resent being told where to direct their priorities and are unable to rise above petty differences to concentrate on important tasks at hand. The world has changed since Sept 11, 2001. We are at war. The government has a right to direct the CDC's priorities under these circumstances. "The whole issue of speaking with one voice has become a major problem, because it means that one voice will be a political voice," said a former CDC official. "Technical agencies remain credible if they are free to act on the basis of the best scientific information available, and not on the basis of what is the most politically favorable option." I agree that technical agencies shouldn't base their decisions on political considerations, but I have to wonder how much of the CDC's obstinancy on the smallpox vaccine issue is colored by their own perception of being strong-armed by Washington. This is especially true when I read statements like this one: Other factors have also contributed to the tension between the CDC and HHS, sources said. D.A. Henderson, who joined the department last November as head of HHS's new Office of Public Health Preparedness and is currently Thompson's principal science adviser for public health preparedness, once worked at the CDC but reportedly feuded with the agency on various occasions later in his career. How many members of the CDC panel on the smallpox have been a part of that feud with D.A. Henderson, and is it affecting their objectivity? Moreover, since the resignation of Jeffrey P. Koplan as CDC director in March, the agency has been run by a four-person interim team, leaving employees uncertain who will be the CDC's next leader. "If they appoint someone as the next head who is clearly a political hack, people will leave in droves," a former federal health official predicted. A "political hack" in this context is all too likely to mean "someone who disagrees with my world view." The heart of their discontent, however, boils down to money and turf : But there is uncertainty at the agency over what impact the emphasis on bioterrorism preparedness -- and the administration's recently announced plan for a new Department of Homeland Security -- will have on the funding of public health programs. Under the proposal, much of the CDC's responsibility for protecting against bioterrorist attacks would be moved to the new agency. Following the Sept. 11 attacks, Congress passed an emergency supplemental appropriation that boosted the CDC's fiscal 2002 budget to $6.8 billion. It included about $1 billion for terrorism preparedness to be distributed by the CDC to state and local public health agencies, as well as more than $1 billion for purchases of smallpox vaccine and drugs. The president's $5.8 billion budget request for the CDC for fiscal 2003 contains about $1.6 billion for the agency's bioterrorism efforts but would cut overall funding to other CDC programs by about 4 percent. 'Tis a pity the CDC staff can't forget their own special interests and act for the greater good of the public. They leave the impression that they are above all resentful of a Republican administration. None of their complaints manages to rise above petty political grumbling. That is a sad state of affairs when you consider that the agency is charged with protecting public health. We expect them to act free of political bias, but they appear to be doing just the opposite. If this is true, then they deserve a shake-up. They certainly don't deserve to be trusted with the job of protecting us against bioterrorist attacks. posted by Sydney on 7/02/2002 05:49:00 AM 0 comments 0 Comments: |
|
