30 Months

The aims of this study are to assess: (1) whether state reporting laws for novel H1N1 influenza and emerging infections impact the ability of public health to collect data elements on individual cases, (2) whether state reporting laws for novel H1N1 influenza and emerging infections impact the ability of public health to develop recommendations for disease prevention, control, and treatment, and (3) the effect of “home rule” in a state’s infectious disease reporting structure on the state’s ability to develop such recommendations. The research team will conduct mapping and implementation studies by collecting data in three areas: legal authority, epidemiologic data collected on novel H1N1 influenza cases, and CDC and state recommendations. Methods will include an inventory of each state’s reporting laws/structure for emerging infections and interviews with state officials. Findings have the potential to impact law, public health policy, and epidemiology. Infectious disease reporting is the foundation for public health’s core functions in infectious disease prevention and control. Novel H1N1 influenza provides a critical example of the difference in states’ ability to promptly gather relevant data on a disease of national importance. This study has great public health significance because it is extremely important to understand the role law played in the differences among states. Law is a potentially modifiable factor and policymakers may choose to improve state laws if value is demonstrated. By addressing the proposed questions, we hope to assess the public health benefit/detriment of differing state authorities for reporting. Findings may impact policy by showing the effect of reporting laws on public health response and suggesting modifications to disease reporting laws that states may want to adopt.

Regulatory agencies established to protect the public all face a fundamental challenge: there are many more firms to inspect than there are government personnel to inspect them.  For example, more than 50,000 Americans die each year from health and safety hazards at work, but the U.S. Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) can only visit about 1 percent of the nation's potentially dangerous workplaces each year. Improving OSHA's and other agencies' techniques for selecting workplaces for inspection could help prevent numerous unnecessary injuries and fatalities.  A multidisciplinary team of experts in science, law, and statistics from the University of Pennsylvania will use cutting edge analytical techniques to develop and test alternative strategies for deploying regulatory inspection resources based on risk levels and on financial and other characteristics of individual companies.

This project will develop and implement a streamlined alternatives assessment tool appropriate for use in a regulatory context. The alternatives assessment compares alternatives to lead and to one another across a variety of attributes, Research questions include: What existing uses of lead in the United States and the nature of their associated human exposures? Second, for selected uses of lead, are safer alternatives available or emerging? Third, for those alternatives, what are the barriers to diffusion, if any, and how can public health law be used to overcome those barriers. Deliverables for this project include: 1) Phase I Project Report and a shorter “policy brief” publication relating to lead use and exposure 2) Final Project Report and policy brief 3) Peer-reviewed formal papers for peer-reviewed academic journals and law reviews 4) A project white paper for federal and state policy makers, trade associations, and nongovernmental organizations focusing on the policy recommendations 5) Fact sheets for businesses, distributors, workers, trade associations and unions, and the general public summarizing the uses, exposures and hazards for relevant processes or products.