Study finds widely different bioterrorism preparations

WASHINGTON -- Cities and states vary widely in their preparations to deal with bioterror attacks and want clear guidelines from the federal government on what they should do, according to a government study released Monday.

While most of the seven states studied by the General Accounting Office had emergency response strategies for natural disasters or other large-scale problems, their plans were not tailored to responding to a bioterror attack.

The GAO, the investigative arm of Congress, found that cities and states need to improve communication and coordination and enhance their ability to spot diseases stemming from a biological attack.

Cities with experience in public health emergencies caused by natural disaster and in staging major special events, were better prepared to respond to bioterrorism than cities which had little or no such experience.

The GAO did not publicly identify the cities and states it studied.

The report shows that communities across America have glaring deficiencies in their bioterrorism preparedness, said Sen. Edward Kennedy, D-Mass.

"The nation's health departments and hospitals urgently need new resources to protect America against biological attacks or new health threats like SARS," he said.

All seven cities complained of a lack of federal guidelines to prepare for a bioterror attack.

The GAO recommended that the Health and Human Services Department, with advice from the Department of Homeland Security, help state and local governments better prepare for a bioterror attack by developing specific benchmarks that define adequate preparedness.

Responding to the report, HHS said state and local health departments have improved preparedness since the GAO completed its visits to the cities and states a year ago.

State and local officials disagreed about which level government should manage the spending of federal preparedness aid; each wanted control of the money.

The report also said:

Health care providers need to be trained to recognize symptoms of disease caused by biological agents.

Public health departments need to have the infrastructure, including disease surveillance systems, in place at state and local levels to detect suspicious symptoms or diseases.

Laboratories need to have adequate capacity and staff to test clinical and environmental samples.

Hospitals need to have adequate facilities and staff to treat patients.

Communications must be made easy so that emergency responders can coordinate efforts.

Shortages in personnel existed in state and local public health departments, labs and hospitals.

Regional planning be-tween states was generally lacking.