ABSTRACT
Tracking of infectious diseases is a public health core function essential to disease prevention and control. Each state mandates reporting of certain infectious diseases to public health authorities. These laws vary by state, and the variation could affect the ability to collect critical information. The 2009 H1N1 influenza pandemic served as a case study to examine the legal authority in the 50 states; Washington, DC; and New York City for mandatory infectious disease reporting, particularly for influenza and new or emerging infectious diseases. Our study showed reporting laws to be generally present and functioning well; nevertheless, jurisdictions should be mindful of their mandated parameters and review the robustness of their laws before they face a new or emerging disease outbreak.
ABSTRACT
Prior to 2009, influenza pandemic planners had primarily planned for a virus that would originate in a location other than North America, giving public health officials in the United States time to determine its severity before widespread disease occurred here. Thus, response plans for schools focused on closure in the case of a severe pandemic and potential closure in the event of a moderate one. The 2009 H1N1 pandemic, however, presented a different scenario. The severity of 2009 H1N1 was initially unknown and later was determined to be mild to moderate. Thus, as the pandemic unfolded, state and national public health entities found themselves adapting their recommendations for school closure. This article reviews Minnesota's experience with 2009 H1N1, focusing on the pandemic among school-aged children during the spring (April to August 2009) and fall (September 2009 to April 2010), and it chronicles how outbreak surveillance policies and recommendations for K-12 schools changed over the course of the pandemic.
