The One Health Framework for Public Health Emergency Preparedness: A Bipartisan Project?

The views expressed are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of ASPA as an organization.

By Nathan Myers
February 16, 2020

You may have missed it between the holidays and other events in our nation’s capital, but just before Christmas, Senator Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) and Senator Martha McSally (R-AZ) co-sponsored a bill to designate January 2020 as, “One Health Awareness Month.” This caught my attention for two reasons. One, I have been interested in the concept of One Health for some time and, two, in our current political environment any example of bipartisan cooperation is newsworthy.

In the press release for the bill, One Health is described as a term used by the public health sector in an attempt to increase, “Focus on the linkages between human, animal and environmental health and the need to develop comprehensive solutions.” In their quotes in the press release both Senator Feinstein and Senator McSally noted the importance of being more mindful of the linkages between human health, the health of animals and the environment.

It would be easy to look at this bill and dismiss it as simply cosmetic bipartisanship, as it allows politicians to give lip service to an issue without really taking concrete action. Certainly there are large policy gulfs between Republicans and Democrats on issues associated with One Health, most notably climate change.

I am less willing to reject it, for a few reasons. First, Sen. Feinstein, along with Senator Todd Young (R-IN) and Senator Chuck Grassley (R-IA), also co-sponsored another One Health bill (sponsored by Senator Tina Smith (D-MN)) that would create a One Health Framework for collaborative efforts to prepare for and respond to zoonotic disease outbreaks. With the emergency of the novel coronavirus in China and its international circulation, such a framework is badly needed.

Also, the congressional budget deal reached between Republicans and Democrats around the same time as the One Health declaration increased funding for the National Institutes of Health, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and other public health initiatives. This is in spite of the Trump administration’s calls for substantial cuts in these areas. In that same deal, the EPA received a 2% increase in funding, which was much better than the deep cuts that had been advanced by the Trump administration. This bill included funding for clean air and water grants and conservation efforts. The spending deal passed by a margin of 71-23 in the Senate.

How we as humans treat and interact with animals has implications for our collective health and for the larger environment. We must be aware of the diseases afflicting animals because eventually they can cross the barrier and become threats to humans. We must acknowledge our role in changing the climate of the planet and how that can affect human health and animal behavior in negative ways. In short, there are no real divisions between public health and environmental issues, as well as between issues of agriculture and conservation. Each affects the other, and we must acknowledge those effects if we are going to improve the health of our people and the planet.

Dr. Ellen Carlin raised the issue of climate change, which is also viewed very differently by Republicans and Democrats. In ergard to diseases like Zika that are spread by mosquitoes, Carlin said:

“Part of the reason we are seeing species of mosquitoes where we haven’t seen them before is likely the result of climate change. So if we really want to get at the root of the problem, just going after the mosquito is not getting at that root.”

The novel coronavirus represents a focusing event around which Republicans and Democrats can unite to take action on behalf of the American people. Regardless of how severe a threat the new virus ends up posing to Americans, it serves as yet another reminder that the most severe pandemic threats humanity is likely to face in the coming years will be the result of the complex interaction between humanity, animals and climate change. Republicans and Democrats may not be able to come together around a full range of policy options while large divisions remain around the issue of climate change. However, the creation of a framework in which agency experts can collaborate on these issues. and potentially generate additional evidence of the manner in which climate change is not only affecting the planet, but also public health, could help to eventually move public opinion on the issue. In the meantime, it should be effective in regard to developing strategies to meet the challenges we face today.

The novel coronavirus emerging at the dawn of a new decade is a strong indicator that the 2020’s will present new challenges for the United States and the global community. While some strategies may get caught up in the partisan rift, employing a One Health approach to public health emergency preparedness need not be one of them. Legislators have already built a modest foundation of bipartisan effort upon which we can build. What is required is more citizens and elected officials uniting around the message that the health of one organism, human or not, affects many, and to protect the one we need to better protect the planet.

---

Author: Nathan Myers an associate professor of political science and public administration at Indiana State University. Among other research in the area of public health emergency preparedness, Myers recently published the book, Pandemics and Polarization: Implications of Partisan Budgeting for Responding to Public Health Emergencies.

(No Ratings Yet)
Loading...